At 19:33 4.2.2001 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 2/4/01 5:12:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><<
> I have even tight framed head shots of people made with 42 mm lens - one
>that often get's "too wide for portraits" rating, which we like. >>
>
>
>Boy, what a 50 or wider lens can do to facial features, especially noses and
>ears!
Of course it does! But this is what _sometimes_ is nice. And with some
people / faces, I still think it adds an intimacy into the portrait. Of
course, if I was doing a formal / business portrait (portrait studio like
you have), the customers wouldn't propably like it - after all, most
customers are pretty conservative ;-(
The point I was trying to make (how bad to having to explain one's point
afterwards :) was simply that while I prefer the ~80mm Flength for
portraits, I have seen and even shot pictures that IMO qualify as portraits
even if shot with other focal lengths. A portrait dosn't even have to have
the person's face in it!
Anybody seen the Annie Leibowitz's portrait of Pele the fooballer? On the
picture were only the Pele's feet!
Frantisek
-
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 .
