Originally Posted by divamum What is this f8 of which people speak? I'm with you - to me, "f4" is stopped WAY down (I seem to shoot at 2.2-3.5 a lot, according to my exifs)

Another thing to consider, is that in general a lens doesn't exactly "shine" at the ends of its aperture range. That is to say...it will provide much better image quality a few stops from its minimum or maximum aperture. It's safe to say that you should be getting the really good "stuff" out of your hard earned glass at F3.5 to F4.0.

My Canon 17-55 though is an exception IMO. It is as sharp wide open as it is at any other aperture(or at least seems to be). It is money in the bank when I cant afford to miss.

Once again, I spend time reading Jeff's stuff and come away a much better prepared photographer. Thank you, sir!

Great read, Jeff! That's one of my favorite types of portraits as well. I rarely shoot teens though. Most of my subjects are little kids and like Mitch said - they usually photograph better from not quite so high. But I did have one that worked out, but she was older than a toddler. And I find that younger kids are less camera conscious and more willing to let you get all up in their grill. I shoot most of mine with the 50 1.8.


We were both standing and our height difference provided just the little bit I needed to shoot down on her.




With smaller children, I usually tend to crouch and go a little more straight on.

Molly, those are wonderful.

Jeff, thanks for the pointers and behind-the-scenes info.... Really enjoying the thread of images here...

Oddly, I just did that same angle with my daughter for her 12-YO shot; pretty much the first time in a long time...



back to packing....

Originally Posted by jeffreaux2 The longer focal lengths really compress the subject. And as you can imagine, at 200mm and F4.0 and at the distance that is near enough to fill the frame, anything more than a few feet distant in the background will be obliterated. Heavenly bokeh!

Have you ever tried using an extension tube to up the bokeh? I use that for shooting flowers, and never thought about shooting an actual person with it, but while on a recent outing I was showing Travis the extension tube and snapped this one quickly.

I don't hold it up against any of yours, just saying I was surprised. Of course, I'm limited to f4 on that lens, so maybe it's just making up the difference to 1.4 or 2.8.

5DMII, 70-200 f4L at 109mm & f4, 12mm extension tube.

Thanks for the post Jeff.
It will take me closer to I think better pictures.
Maybe this Sunday?

Molly and Andrew....your examples are great. Very nicely done!

Thanks for sharing them.


...Andrew...

a bit of c&c on yours...

Is that a clasp for her necklace I see?
You should make it routine to look for those kinds of things before you pull the trigger. Lint, stray hairs, clothing tags, bra straps, etc...all fall into the same catagory and should become part of your pre shot check over.

Originally Posted by DavidTO Have you ever tried using an extension tube to up the bokeh? I use that for shooting flowers, and never thought about shooting an actual person with it, but while on a recent outing I was showing Travis the extension tube and snapped this one quickly. I don't hold it up against any of yours, just saying I was surprised. Of course, I'm limited to f4 on that lens, so maybe it's just making up the difference to 1.4 or 2.8. 5DMII, 70-200 f4L at 109mm & f4, 12mm extension tube.

David,

I saw that shot in the post where you guys all shared pics of the trip. I thought it was a fun shot and then read the note where you stated you had used a tube.

Im not well versed on macro gear but my understanding is that an extension tube will allow a lens to focus closer than it is designed to focus. Your 70-200 F4 normally has a close focus distance of ~ 4 feet, but the use of the tube allows it to focus much closer. I am pretty sure though...that what is sacrificed to achieve this is the ability to focus at long distances. I may be wrong there...maybe a macro guru can correct me. In any event....what matters is that at 109mm you were able to get a frame filling shot. If he was fairly close to you (~4 feet?) then I can see where all the bokeh comes from. After all....the nearer you can get to a subject the shallower the DOF at a given aperture...right.

Its a cool shot!....a keeper for sure!

...and no...I don't own any macro gear, so Ive never tried a shot like yours but...

In my rush to get into TLR photography last year I also purchased accessory lenses. I was able to win an auction on a genuine Yashica wide angle and telephoto sets. Both of them pristine and in their original boxes. The telephoto set had never even been used and was still sealed in plastic with silica gel packs. I was sure that the telephoto set would be the ticket for great looking medium format portraits with that camera but I was mistaken. In fact...mounting and using the telephoto lens seems to have little or no effect at compressing or adding bokeh. Im not even sure it does anything.... at ALL.

What I really need though...as I later found out...is a close up adapter.....they come in differing strengths....+1, +2, +3, and+4. These will allow the ability to focus the camera at closer range than it was designed. Right now...the closest I can focus will frame up about a waist up shot on a grown man. The adapters will allow moving closer...even to head and shoulders. Im sure the bokeh would show itself then.

TLRs are tough for macro work though...due to parallax inherent in their twin lens design. There are ways around that too though.

Thank you for this thread! I'm very new to portrait photography and these "how to" posts are really helpful!

I talked my husband into posing for me. Feedback is appreciated!

I have a 105mm macro that I never use any more. I think I'll have to break it out and give this style a try. I'll post one when I do.

Thanks for the detailed instructions!

Originally Posted by DavidTO Have you ever tried using an extension tube to up the bokeh? I use that for shooting flowers, and never thought about shooting an actual person with it, but while on a recent outing I was showing Travis the extension tube and snapped this one quickly.

Hey, that's pretty sweet. I have some very basic extension tubes that I've used for macro shots, but I never thought to use it with a long tele lens for a portrait like that. I might have to give it a shot with my Nikon 80-200 and see what I can get...

Originally Posted by christinamae Thank you for this thread! I'm very new to portrait photography and these "how to" posts are really helpful! I talked my husband into posing for me. Feedback is appreciated!

I think you did a great job!

But....

Be careful of all that black! The levels histogram in photoshop shows that a good portion of the blacks are out of range....or "plugged". This can be corrected by setting a black point during editing.



Also....your hubby is like several folks I have photographed in that one eye appears much smaller than the other. Watch out for that natural tendency of his and be sure he is opening his eyes up for the shot!

Originally Posted by jeffreaux2 I think you did a great job! But.... Be careful of all that black! The levels histogram in photoshop shows that a good portion of the blacks are out of range....or "plugged". This can be corrected by setting a black point during editing. Also....your hubby is like several folks I have photographed in that one eye appears much smaller than the other. Watch out for that natural tendency of his and be sure he is opening his eyes up for the shot!

Thank you for this! It's really helpful and I'll go look at the original file.

Hopefully not too late... A couple of frame fillers (model: Lury):

#1: IMG_7313.jpg



#2: IMG_7335.jpg



This post was made with the assistance of Star*Explorer

Originally Posted by Nikolai Hopefully not too late... A couple of frame fillers (model: Lury): #1: IMG_7313.jpg #2: IMG_7335.jpg This post was made with the assistance of Star*Explorer

Its never too late to share a good looking photograph Nik!

I like the low key approack. Thanks for sharing.

I set out to somewhat mimic your style but had a couple of curves thrown my way and had to improvise a bit.

It was a rather windy spring day and we had some rain on and off. I had picked out a spot for my daughter to sit and being as I'm rather tall didn't think I would need anything to stand on. As luck would have it the area that I had in mind was quite wet and I just couldn't get a 12-year-old girl to sit in a puddle. We had to get her off to dance class so rather than waste a trip, this is what I came up with.

I think I need to pay more attention to the eyes next time and get them open farther. So, at least I learned something for the next outing in hopefully better conditions.

Shot f2.8/3000 105mm macro lens. Natural light. Soft light filter applied in Photoshop.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/60399337@N06/5620291086/" title="Meraya by Bryce Wilson, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5069/5620291086_e18562b6c1_b.jpg" width="800" height="640" alt="Meraya"></a>

Cool thread Jeff!!

Originally Posted by Bryce Wilson I set out to somewhat mimic your style but had a couple of curves thrown my way and had to improvise a bit. It was a rather windy spring day and we had some rain on and off. I had picked out a spot for my daughter to sit and being as I'm rather tall didn't think I would need anything to stand on. As luck would have it the area that I had in mind was quite wet and I just couldn't get a 12-year-old girl to sit in a puddle. We had to get her off to dance class so rather than waste a trip, this is what I came up with. I think I need to pay more attention to the eyes next time and get them open farther. So, at least I learned something for the next outing in hopefully better conditions. Shot f2.8/3000 105mm macro lens. Natural light. Soft light filter applied in Photoshop.

Bryce....

This is an entirely different shot that what I have tried to describe. Her face is sidelit...rather than having the sky light her full on as she looks up at the camera. What you have wound up with is side lighting and "racoon" eyes. Also...take a few steps closer to the subject. Fill the frame!


Keep trying though...and thanks for sharing!


As a side note....

I love to use the texture of brick for backgrounds...but....be very careful about the way her head is turned and the direction of the light. The daylight here is bouncing an orange glow off tha wall and creating some strange skin casts. There are several ways to handle this. Can you guess how?

Originally Posted by jeffreaux2 Bryce.... I love to use the texture of brick for backgrounds...but....be very careful about the way her head is turned and the direction of the light. The daylight here is bouncing an orange glow off tha wall and creating some strange skin casts. There are several ways to handle this. Can you guess how?

Well, now that the shot is in the can, turning the image into black and white does get rid of the orange cast. I think I might like the image better in black and white now that I look at it. I would imagine shooting a white card and setting WB prior to shooting might help remove the cast at the camera.

The deck in the back of the house was dry and in shade. I took another stab at it. Not thrilled with it, but am getting closer.

Thanks for all the time your putting in to this thread.