Or, more likely, it disagrees with your opinion. Opinions do not require a defense. The level of intolerance in the world today is completely intolerable. We should stamp that out.[QUOTE="E. von Hoegh, post: As for "proving or disproving" an opinion, an opinion that is indefensible is worthless.
A trained eye will always see the extremely annoying distortion a 50mm does to a face.
But I'm not here to teach anyone. The theory behind focal lengths and distance is clear.
My only problem with the conversation is its "focus" on lens focal lengths.
IMHO, the focal length question is one you address only after addressing the question of your choice of working distance (and the perspective that results from that).
If you are stuck with no lens choices, then the question becomes how best to make use of what you have.
Or If you say simply"opinions don't need defense" and leave it at that, it just sounds childish.
One person likes red, the other prefers blue, each has an opinion and neither is right nor wrong, and their need be no defense for either. That's what I mean.
Some like the looks of a portrait done with a 50mm lens, some don't, and neither is right nor wrong, neither needs to be persuaded, both can exist in complete harmony. The conflict exists only when someone tries to say that one of the opinions is wrong.
This is not a childish view, but a mature view--the sort of thing that develops in humans around the age of 30 in most adult males, a little earlier in females.
I strongly disagree.
A well trained eye sees the distortion induced on anyone's face by a 50mm lens. And it's quite deranging.
It's not a matter of taste nor a matter of being mature enough (wtf does maturity have to do in this?).
It's a matter of seeing, a thing that not many people master.
Seeing is a talent. Not everyone can see. Just look at what's posted and praised on the internet and you realize that 99% of the photographers and the audience are actually blind.
I strongly disagree.
A well trained eye sees the distortion induced on anyone's face by a 50mm lens. And it's quite deranging.
...
You can shoot a beautiful portrait with a pinhole if you have the talent.
I think and suspect that most would agree that AA mastered the art of seeing
Indeed. When people use the word portraiture they generally mean one of two things. One is a photograph that flatters and can be used for the subject's public image, the other is to bring out the character of the sitter. The first requires a lens to flatten facial perspective, and is accompanied by a controlled lighting environment, softening filters, a suitable backdrop, etc., the other requires none of these. The difference between, say, a corporate image and a rock magazine portrait. Both do the job for their intended market.That's where I come down on the issue as well. I've made casual portraits of loved ones with several lenses, and they're all working for me, at least form time to time. It's all good.
I strongly disagree.
A well trained eye sees the distortion induced on anyone's face by a 50mm lens. And it's quite deranging.
It's not a matter of taste nor a matter of being mature enough (wtf does maturity have to do in this?).
It's a matter of seeing, a thing that not many people master.
Seeing is a talent. Not everyone can see.
One person likes red, the other prefers blue, each has an opinion and neither is right nor wrong, and their need be no defense for either. That's what I mean.
Some like the looks of a portrait done with a 50mm lens, some don't, and neither is right nor wrong, neither needs to be persuaded, both can exist in complete harmony. The conflict exists only when someone tries to say that one of the opinions is wrong.
This is not a childish view, but a mature view--the sort of thing that develops in humans around the age of 30 in most adult males, a little earlier in females.
A photograph is, or should be, judged solely upon it's own merits, regardless of anything else. It requires certain equipment used in specific ways to attain certain results. My 85mm lens focuses to 1.15 meters. I bet that working distance would result in a rather peculiar looking portrait...Seriously folks? A photograph is judged by the equipment used rather than the subject? Need we bust out the 'I've seen many sharp pictures with blurry subjects' line?
You can shoot a beautiful portrait with a pinhole if you have the talent.
That's true. Almost no one apart from historians cares about the brand of paint an artist uses. Photography principal claim is to describe, but photographers are under no obligation to describe authentically. Berndt and Hilla Becher took description to its conclusion, but they're an acquired taste.One thing I've noticed about photography compared to most other mediums of art is that photography is populated by a much larger proportion of crafts people than artists. To a craftsman/woman the quality of the image is determined by it's adherence to a set standard, or social norms. The goal is to create a product that aligns most accurately with the patron's expectations.
How pompous!
A photograph is, or should be, judged solely upon it's own merits, regardless of anything else. It requires certain equipment used in specific ways to attain certain results. My 85mm lens focuses to 1.15 meters. I bet that working distance would result in a rather peculiar looking portrait...
That's because the photographer was working to a formula that suited him and not the sitter, or your sister hadn't done her homework. A good studio portraitist should understand whether the subject is looking for flattery or character. My wife has to regularly have her portrait taken for professional purposes, and has to come across as smart and in control. The kind of deranged fairyland approach many studio photographers apply to mature ladies would kill her image stone dead, so although she may not love the shots, she respects the results as being honest and fit for purpose. It sounds like your sister's 2-dimensional caricature didn't match the 3-dimensional person her friends and family knew her to be.I understood her thoughts. In that sense, the professional portrait, though very nicely executed, was not a good portrait of my sister--it didn't look very much like her.
True.A trained eye will always see the extremely annoying distortion a 50mm does to a face.
But I'm not here to teach anyone. The theory behind focal lengths and distance is clear.
The seeing part comes with extensive practice and a sensitivity to see things as they are.
There is a tremendously high percentage of bad photography on the net, all shared by people who think it's good. So how can you show them they are wrong without soundig like a a'hole because their little feelings are hurt?
I simply gave up. Who cares.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?