This is my first try at this in this forum, but go at it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Let me know what you think!! I guess I could have opened up a couple of stops in hindsight! D700, Nikon 85mm F1.8, 1/100, F11? ISO 2200[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
When you are directing someone in a pose where contact is made with fingers to skin, tell the subject to barely touch the skin. Otherwise, you end up with the fingers "digging" into the skin, causing a distortion.
the lighting is nice here.
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1307716606' post='9120']
This is my first try at this in this forum, but go at it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Let me know what you think!! I guess I could have opened up a couple of stops in hindsight! D700, Nikon 85mm F1.8, 1/100, F11? ISO 2200[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
[/quote]
Hi Wolf... DoF could be a tad shallower I guess. Blurred highlights look ok but the bushes could be better.
Other than that, it is very sharp (but not too much contrasty) and the smile is well captured.... Oh and I also agree with Bryan...
Serkan
I also agree with Bryan, but this was just a portrait shot at random, with no pose other than acting naturally in a conversation. The light was nice and the opportunity could not be waisted. I agree with your comments. The boukeh probably would have been nicer at f5.6!
For a snapshot of a friend in conversation, it is not bad at all <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Try f2.8 instead of f5.6, it might surprise you what that will do for the portrait...
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1307899988' post='9152']
For a snapshot of a friend in conversation, it is not bad at all <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Try f2.8 instead of f5.6, it might surprise you what that will do for the portrait...
[/quote]
I guess, but I am always scared of a too shallow DOF, but the boukeh would be nicer for sure, although 4 or 5.6 are really optimal on that lens for sharpness. At 11 it is already past the best performance, very much like the figures at 2.8. This is probably nitpicking though, because I think Bryan mentioned the most important point, about the hand digging too deeply into the pretty face.
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1307983375' post='9177']
I guess, but I am always scared of a too shallow DOF, but the boukeh would be nicer for sure, although 4 or 5.6 are really optimal on that lens for sharpness. At 11 it is already past the best performance, very much like the figures at 2.8. This is probably nitpicking though, because I think Bryan mentioned the most important point, about the hand digging too deeply into the pretty face.
[/quote]
The working of DOF is more important than the sharpest setting for the lens... the sharpness, one does not really notice, DOF choice always is apparent.
My opinion concerning portraiture and shallow DOF/sharpness is this: sure, with any given lens wide open, the subject is not going to be as sharp as possible, but the "relative sharpness" will appear to be sharper than in reality due to the blurred background. I think that the most common problem with shooting wide open with a shallow DOF is the chosen point of focus. In a portrait, that usually should be the eye closest to the camera. If it is relatively sharp in comparison to the rest of the image, then it will appear sharp at a normal viewing distance...or at least, it will not look like a mistake.