Congratulations to DanielScott for winning Feature Thread of the Week with 2 votes - View Previous Winners
A shot from a model portfolio shoot I did this week. I'll likely post some that show her eyes when I have a handful of shots finished, but I felt that this one stood out on it's own. I wish her hands were posed more elegantly, but I really like the whole feeling of this shot so I had to overlook that detail.
Photographed using a Canon 5D MKIII with a Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens (with softfocus disabled), lit using natural light.
Very nice Daniel! It has a cinematic quality in look and expression. While I see your point about the hands, they don't bother me. I looked at the image before reading your comments and probably wouldn't have noticed if you didn't point it out.
This is wonderful Daniel. Certainly it stands on its own. I agree with you about the hands, and might even extend that thought to the arms and shoulders, but that is only a nit that we as photographers use to torture ourselves. Beautiful image.
dmacmillan wrote:
Very nice Daniel! It has a cinematic quality in look and expression. While I see your point about the hands, they don't bother me. I looked at the image before reading your comments and probably wouldn't have noticed if you didn't point it out.
I agree with "dmac" Daniel.I also might add that portrait photography/photographer sometimes ends up paying more attention to his lighting devices and composition than to the subject..Not saying you did at all! This leaves the photographer's primary purpose to reveal the individual and transfer that to a print/photo.
Your composition, IMHO, presents this woman in a truthful picture and/or a genuine likeness of her. Clarity here is not an issue IMHO. Clarity not in just "seeing" clearly with no physical obstructions but with the intended outcome. The soft focus adds to this.
I say you got it here. The hands...not a bother.
Nice!
Dan
dmacmillan wrote:
Very nice Daniel! It has a cinematic quality in look and expression. While I see your point about the hands, they don't bother me. I looked at the image before reading your comments and probably wouldn't have noticed if you didn't point it out.
Thank you. I'm glad the hands aren't such the large distraction that I thought they would be.
Dneufarth wrote:
This is wonderful Daniel. Certainly it stands on its own. I agree with you about the hands, and might even extend that thought to the arms and shoulders, but that is only a nit that we as photographers use to torture ourselves. Beautiful image.
Danpbphoto wrote:
I agree with "dmac" Daniel.I also might add that portrait photography/photographer sometimes ends up paying more attention to his lighting devices and composition than to the subject..Not saying you did at all! This leaves the photographer's primary purpose to reveal the individual and transfer that to a print/photo.
Your composition, IMHO, presents this woman in a truthful picture and/or a genuine likeness of her. Clarity here is not an issue IMHO. Clarity not in just "seeing" clearly with no physical obstructions but with the intended outcome. The soft focus adds to this.
I say you got it here. The hands...not a bother.
Nice!
Dan
Thank you so much for the kind words Dan.
I had the soft focus disabled (I actually haven't even had a chance to experiment with it yet), but I've noticed that this lens has a nice soft quality about it when back-lit, while still retaining sharpness where it counts. It handles flares in a really unique way as well from what I've noticed, and I've done several shoots with it that I haven't shared here because of it. I like a lot of the results I've gotten in those instances, but the result is generally off track from what many portrait photographers expect in a quality portrait so I honestly haven't bothered sharing the shots for other photographers. Perhaps I will share them eventually though.
There aint any for Nikon. Well, you can use DC lenses and oversteer them, then they turn soft.
Thank you. Yes they do! I've avoided buying it for several years despite my interest in it, and couldn't turn down a listing for it that I found for less than $200. I haven't used the soft focus feature yet, but most 135mm lenses already seem to have a soft quality about them anyways in my experience (which has only been with this one and the 135 f/2L). They're very sharp where the focus is but have a very soft and dreamy quality when rendering everything else with a wide or close to wide aperture.
DanielScott wrote:
Thank you so much for the kind words Dan.
I had the soft focus disabled (I actually haven't even had a chance to experiment with it yet), but I've noticed that this lens has a nice soft quality about it when back-lit, while still retaining sharpness where it counts. It handles flares in a really unique way as well from what I've noticed, and I've done several shoots with it that I haven't shared here because of it. I like a lot of the results I've gotten in those instances, but the result is generally off track from what many portrait photographers expect in a quality portrait so I honestly haven't bothered sharing the shots for other photographers. Perhaps I will share them eventually though.
DanielScott wrote:
A shot from a model portfolio shoot I did this week. I'll likely post some that show her eyes when I have a handful of shots finished, but I felt that this one stood out on it's own. I wish her hands were posed more elegantly, but I really like the whole feeling of this shot so I had to overlook that detail.
Photographed using a Canon 5D MKIII with a Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens (with softfocus disabled), lit using natural light. https://i.imgur.com/05gRsIb.jpg
Don't get too caught up in the 'filter' crap going on now. Without the over-retouched digital-enhanced world we live in now this would have been an outstanding shot film days anytime.
For the hands, meh, they're hands. So many shots with 'hands' now adays are composites anyways and overly retouched as well. I believe you have a great photo here.
Danpbphoto wrote:
Congrats Daniel on "FT" win!
Well deserved. She's a classy, beautiful young woman! OH to be 18 or 21 again!!! Sorry Suzanne(my wife).
Dan
