Well guys, personally, I want portraits to be as sharp and as accurate as
possible, too. I think my photos of my friends and family should look like
the people I see and know.
But--and this is a big *but*, while my comment primarily addressed my
wife's *personal* reaction to the sharpness of the FA 100/2.8, I don't
think I've ever had *any* adult over the age of 25-30 tell me they actually
liked a headshot I'd taken of them, generally saying *I* made them look
horsey/old/horrid/wrinkly/puffy/had bad skin/yellow teeth/etc./etc..
Telling them that I thought the photo was great because it looked just like
them, never seems to have the effect I'd intended. <G>
So I'm faced with a problem, do I give someone a photo I like but that
makes them feel bad about themselves, or do I shoot photos I like and give
them prints that make them feel good about themselves and me?
I currently have 3 lenses (4, if you count the tessar in my p&s) an FA
35/2, an A 50/1.7, and an FA 100/2.8, and I wouldn't lose the sharpness of
any of them. However, in the future, when I make a print of a headshot as a
gift, I'll do a digital face-lift on the file before I print it (my version
of Fred's approach). I'd rather make a sharp image selectively soft than
hurt a friend or have friends and family hide when they see me with a
camera.
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fred said:
>
>This discussion of how some lenses are "too sharp" for portrait use shows
>up periodically on the PDML (and often prompts a few of us to jump in with
>a defense of sharp lenses for portraiture). Well, here's my two f-stops
>worth:
>
>Personally, ~I~ like a portrait to be as ~sharp~ as possible. ~I~ want to
>see ~every~ detail in a portrait, and I want my portrait lenses to
>faithfully pass as much detail to the film as possible. If the subject
>wants some softening (and I am not disputing that many subjects do want
>that - I do understand), then I will put a softening filter on the lens.
>
>I would be disappointed with any lens that is soft, and would certainly
>not be pleased with how soft a given lens could make a portrait. I am
>happy that Pentax has produced dedicated soft-focus lenses for rendering
>variably soft images, but I am also happy that most other portrait lenses
>from Pentax are sharp. Remember, one can always soften an image with a
>filter, but one cannot sharpen a soft lens when detail is desired.
>
>Fred
Shel said:
>
>Why spend high end dollars when what you want is a bargain
>basement type of image? There are numerous third party and off
>brand lenses that will offer a nice portrait image, or you can
>pick up a klunker lens somewhere that has poor optical
>performance for just a few bucks, and experiment a little with
>them. Why spend $500.00 or more for an exquisite piece of glass
>and then complain that it's "too sharp" for portraits. If you
>do that, you've bought the wrong tool for the job.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
