Larry, I think one has to tell apart resolution vs sharp focus. It is
hard to explain in words, for I lack terms, but consider a soft focus
lens, such as 85/2.8 by Pentax. I used to have one, so I speak from a
bit of experience. At f/2.8 the outcome was soft but looking at 100%
image, the details were there. It is as if the image was blurred but not
smeared, glowing, lit by very soft light.
The focus still has to be there, on the eyes or elsewhere as per
photographer's idea. However the light or the rendering may be soft not
resolving every single littlest wrinkle or skin defect.
Also there is a difference between child, female and male portraits. I
think there is a technique where you do something with the blue channel
in photoshop that makes male portraits emphasize all the skin elements
of the model, so as to make them look more masculine or older...
Personally, I find playing with DOF and shooting wide open with my
lenses to be useful for portraits. Though all my portraits are casual
and not staged in any way. If you come for a visit, I'll show you a book
of portraits of Galia that I made for her 9th birthday earlier this year...
Boris
On 12/27/2010 6:36 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
I posted a link in facebook to some photos of Zab that I took during the photo
shoot of Matthew:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157625554834337/
which I think are a big improvement over photos I took of her on Boxing day
four years previously:
http://www.red4est.com/lrc/pix/efllrc061226/
This has led to a discussion on sharpness in portraits, or as someone said:
Sharp focus for nature, soft focus for portraits.
I'd love to hear people's views on this subject. If you're able to weigh in
there, the link is:
http://www.facebook.com/ellarsee/posts/128415210554550
--
Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
