Congratulations to Adam_A for winning Feature Thread of the Week with 2 votes - View Previous Winners
Here are select images from a senior portrait session I did for my coworker's daughter. I took many more than these...too many to post. So these are just some of my personal favorites. They were all taken with a Canon 5dmkIII and 135/2 lens. It was 104-degrees that day! Thankfully, I'm back to taking underwater portraits for the summer. CC always welcome because we can all improve in one way or another.
These are all great photos! Like most others, I am partial to #3, but they are all very well done. Great light, exposure and poses. Even the flare in #4 looks purposful with the B&W treatment, so to me it lends itself to artistic license leaning to the old days and only you need to know whether or not it was intentional.
pswann wrote:
All are good, but when I saw #3 I let out an instinctive "Oh, wow!" Hard to describe what "it" is, but that shot has it.
I agree. I see it was taken with the 135 f2. That one lens is why I still have Canon FF. In my 60 years of photography, I've owned a handful of "magical" lenses and the 135L is one of them.
I think this photograph wouldn't be as good if taken with the 200 f2. Blown out backgrounds has become a tedious cliché. It doesn't take much thought just to throw on a long fast lens and blow out the background. It takes more skill (and a knowledge of the DOF preview button) to strike a balance between subject separation and subject context. I think #3 is successful because it strikes that balance.
I miss shooting with medium format film cameras because there were a host that had magical lenses.
gregfountain wrote:
These are all great photos! Like most others, I am partial to #3, but they are all very well done. Great light, exposure and poses. Even the flare in #4 looks purposful with the B&W treatment, so to me it lends itself to artistic license leaning to the old days and only you need to know whether or not it was intentional.
I'm glad you like the flare. I knew it might be controversial but I personally liked it because it helped distinguish the image from any other routine B+W shot.
BugLightGeek wrote:
I'm really liking #1.
Natural light only or strobes?
I don't suppose you'd care to share the SOOC shot since I'd love to know how you lit this...
I won't show the image due to logistical reasons but will explain that all I did in PS was add a subtle orange glow to the top center, added a vignette, and gave it a light soft focus upon reducing the image for the web. Really not much went into it.
dmacmillan wrote:
I agree. I see it was taken with the 135 f2. That one lens is why I still have Canon FF. In my 60 years of photography, I've owned a handful of "magical" lenses and the 135L is one of them.
I think this photograph wouldn't be as good if taken with the 200 f2. Blown out backgrounds has become a tedious cliché. It doesn't take much thought just to throw on a long fast lens and blow out the background. It takes more skill (and a knowledge of the DOF preview button) to strike a balance between subject separation and subject context. I think #3 is successful because it strikes that balance.
I miss shooting with medium format film cameras because there were a host that had magical lenses.
That's an interesting perspective. I do enjoy the 200/2, but it's a beast and not as pleasant to handhold for several hours compared to the 135/2, which couldn't be much lighter or easier to manage. The 135 mm was perfect for this particular session.
