--- "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Robert Meier wrote: > Who says that for a good portrait the whole head has > to be in focus? If the > nose is out of focus it usually looks a bit funny > but having the ears, neck, > etc out of focus can make a great portrait if done > correctly. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Richard Avedon, Yousuf Karsh, Edward Weston, Alfred > Eisenstaedt, Dorothea > Lange, Irving Penn, Diane Arbus, Annie Liebovoitz, > Halsman, and many many > portrait photographers who have done so over the > years. Please take a look > at any of the famous portraits and I doubt that you > will see any where the > nose and/or ears are not in focus. If so it is a > snapshot and not > necessarily a "planned" portrait.
I don't think anyone ever said the a portrait *shouldn't* have the nose or ears in focus. And certainly many portrait shooters, famous and otherwise, work this way. The argument is whether it's the ONLY way to make a good portrait. Clearly, many people, including some who shoot portraits for a living, disagree. Personally, I think the nose should be in focus unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. But a very shallow dof that isolates the face, and leaves items further back (like the ears and some of the hair) is very effective. On the issue that started all of this, the value of an f2.8 aperture: It's easy to get the ears and nose in focus shooting at f 2.8. DOF all depends on magnification, which is related to focal length and shootingn distance. Move back from your subject more, and a 200 2.8 can get the nose and ears in focus while effectivly throwing the background out of focus. This can be an important trait in environmental portrature, and a 200 5.6 isn't going to be as effective in that situation. And don't foget that shooting the 70-200 at f 8 and you've closed down to probably the optimum aperture for sharpness (3 stops from wide open). The 100-400 at that aperture is only one stop down from open, and probably not as sharp. The following is my conclusion, and then I'm done with this thread, which has drifted pretty far off-topic: Lenses are tools, not objects to be diefied. Both the 100-400 have many strengths, and to pretend one is always better than the other is absurd. There's room for both, and which one any individual prefers will depend on a number of factors. Similary, to claim there's only one legitimate style of portraiture is unreasonably limiting. Portraits are made for all kinds of reasons, in all kinds of styles, to satisfy all kinds of tastes. To say there's only one "right" way to do it turns portraiture into a cook-book business, and implies that any hack at a Sears photo studio (no offense intended) can do what Richard Avedon did. ===== Bob Meyer I wish I knew what I know now, when I was younger... http://www.meyerweb.net/epson __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
