Nice portraits Philip. I think more than a decade ago I remember one guy (he's a fashion pro photographer in NYC) in the Canon DSLR forum told me that sometimes fill-in light is overrated.
Pale faces from the 'best' of lenses. These images put visual distance between subject and viewer. You can't easily see the contours of the faces. Often, not at all. The antithesis of dimensionality.
philip_pj wrote:
Pale faces from the 'best' of lenses. These images put visual distance between subject and viewer. You can't easily see the contours of the faces. Often, not at all. The antithesis of dimensionality.
So, the two portraits (not the photo of a photo) are your examples of the remarkable pop of the "best" lenses?
How faces in full and/or even light can be handled, that is, if the person's appearance in the image matters more than the blanket of white seen above. It's a fashion I hope we see the end of - soon.
That third photo. How can you use that as an exemplar of "pop," much less of that vaunted lens? It isn't even in focus? Same with the second one, though less OOF. And the first one? Again I ask, is that your example of the remarkable "pop" of this lens? How so?
Is anyone else seeing these as examples of this thing called "pop" from the lens?
I'm sorry, but if seems like someone should give this emperor some clothes...
