Dan said:
> 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.
> Dan Scott
>
> Fred said:
> >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.
> >
> > >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.
Lets not get carried away. One would think I had implied
that because I think the 77 is too sharp for a portrait lens,
that by definition I want a coke bottle in a PK helicoid mount
for portraiture. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I quite often use the 4x5 for portraits. The Nikkor 210 is a
pretty darned sharp lens, and the 4x5 format holds lots of
detail.
However, there is also a smoothness of tonal transition from
large format that the 35mm camera user doesn't have available.
35mm images are very harsh to begin with. The medium format
shooter know of what I speak, to a certain extent.
For me, a portrait _should_ please the subject. That is why
I shoot portraits. If my subject is going to hate the picture, I
am not going to waste film on producing it.
Having said that, I quite often do shoot the sharpest I can
for people pictures. I think the 77 is going to be swell for
some of that. For portraits, I still prefer the M85mm f2, which
is certainly not a dog of a lens. It is not as sharp as the 77
by a fair sight, though. The K 105 f2.8 is very nice too, and it
is an excellent lens.
I don't like diffusing under the enlarger, I find that the
mushy shadows that you get from that to be ugly and unnatural. I
prefer diffused highlights to diffused shadows. Bobs method of
moving the focus for part of the exposure works well, but is
fiddly.
If I am going to toss a diffuser onto the lens anyway, then
I may as well use a lens more suited to my end goal.
I like short telephoto lenses for general photography, and
that is what drew me to the 77. I suspect I could weld it to one
of my LX's and be quite happy to use it that way forever. It
just wouldn't go into the studio very often.
William Robb
-
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.
