charley5
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
AGeoJO wrote:
Charles, while I understand your passion about using vintage lenses but there is a point where, IMHO, the eyes are critical in portraits. With the advancement in focusing aids and sensor technology in modern camera, you can virtually get both. You can stop down a little to get a little more depth-of-field and increase the ISO setting to minimize some camera movements and also at the same time, keep the noise level down. At the same time, you know that the Eye-AF capability in some modern cameras is so good that you can concentrate on your composition, model’s expression, unique poses, etc. rather than making sure that eye or eyes are in focus or not.
This maybe something you don’t want to hear, there are editing softwares that could get you almost the look you are looking for, including noise reduction or even lens rendition. Modern lenses do not necessarily equate to harsh, ugly and digital-looking rendition, BTW. Disregard this if you think it is rubbish, I wouldn’t mind.
BTW, the image you posted is great, Charles! I like his expression and the frown on his forehead tells a story.
Thank you for sharing and please post more,
Joshua...Show more →
Josh, I totally understand what you are saying. There has to be a compromise. To be totally frank, I feel that most modern lenses lack character, and no amount of post-processing will fix that. Some vintage lenses have a certain undefinable quality. But the thing is, I don't want to suffer doing imaging, because this is a hobby, and in the end, I am doing it to have fun. So if I don't find that stopping the lens down works for me, or if no amount of practice improves my ratio of keepers, I will try other lenses for portrait work. Otherwise, as you suggest, the process becomes too onerous, and critical things like attention to composition and other details, suffer as well.
-Charles
|
