Portrait Clarity Question
Greensquared
Registered Users Posts: 2,115 Major grins
Okay, I know you guys can help me answer this one.
I've noticed that some portrait photographers' work just really stand out with the clarity of their images. Obviously shooting low ISO, using the best f-stop for your lens and post processing can help, but is that what's doing it? Or, is it the lens? Does paying the money for high end glass really make THE difference?
I've noticed that some portrait photographers' work just really stand out with the clarity of their images. Obviously shooting low ISO, using the best f-stop for your lens and post processing can help, but is that what's doing it? Or, is it the lens? Does paying the money for high end glass really make THE difference?
Emily
Psalm 62:5-6
0
Comments
Good glass can make a world of difference if the technique behind it is solid. Post processing is extremely important as well.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Sometimes yes, I think it can. I will say that my 135L - arguably one of Canon's finest fast primes - makes EVERY image taken with it look "better". It's hard to define what it is - it's not only sharpness, but a sort of "sparkle" to the image. Even bad pictures look better with it - there's a quality to the way it renders light that is consistently pleasing. Maybe somebody else can explain what the "it factor" is. Don't get me wrong, I've taken pictures with my other lenses that I was really happy with, but there is something about certain pieces of glass that definitely seems to have a kind of magic to it.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
I don't mean to be a smart-ass, but there ain't no such thing as "THE difference." It all adds up, but yes, starting with good glass gives you a leg up. I've taken some pretty crappy images with some damn fine glass though
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I agree. Most of my images with my 85mm, f1.4 lens go in the dumpster. Every once in a while, the lens produces an image that is quite spectacular. Frustrating!
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Maybe in clarifying my question - if my focusing and pp techniques are perfect, will spending $800+ for a lens be a wise choice and make a noticeable difference (assuming I am shooting for profit).
I was looking for the same thing and found it in Canon's less than $400 85mm f1.8. I was taking good pics with my kit lens (17-85 f4-5.6) but when I got the 85, the image just "popped". Image quality is NOTICEABLY better at 100% crop. Granted, I'm fairly limited in what I can do with just the 85 prime, but for my purposes (portraits), it really has helped to produce some really crisp shots. (with my fair share of clunkers, too!!)
absolutely. color rendition, sharpness, overall contrast, local contrast will all be improved with nicer lens. Other then sharpness most of the other aspects of can be tweaked in post processing to an extent..it's just that SOOC the nicer lens will give you more keepers with less editing.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Guess I know what I'll be saving my pennies for now...:D
www.CottageInk.smugmug.com
NIKON D700
Kelly
My Photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/freezethemomentphotography/
http://www.kfsphotography.smugmug.com
Post some examples and maybe the shooters responsible will chime in.
VayCayMom's photos have what I'm referring to. Yes, the light is awesome (are you using reflectors, btw?) and the shots are in focus where they need to be, but there is extra crispness and sparkle. I could shoot right next to her with my D200 and 50mm f1.8 (the $120 version) and my images would be close, but not have that "thing". So, it would be the lens, or the pp, or both. My pp skills are not hideous, but I wonder if upgrading my lens will push my images that much farther.
Well now that I am back up in my chair, lol, I'd like to comment on the shots at the end of the link Greensquared posted. I went back and numbered the images, and I'd be happy to explain how they got to the finished product.
I have a Nikon d700, still learning what the buttons do and trying to master autofocus.
My favorite lenses are my 50 1.4 and my new 24 - 70. This shoot was early in the AM.
1. that light was all added pp. I love Nik Efex pro, it has a function to lighten the insides and darken the outside edges.
2 same for this image, I really disliked the color tones in this image but as hard as I tried to change in PP I had to accept that everything really was rosey/peach in that spot, background and kids!
3. Backlit and a lot of PP to lighten the faces. I used some fun new stuff from Florabella, called Lux.
4. Ahh I take some great pictures in this tree and it is on location! The trick is he is facing the sun but in the shade close to the edge. I hit the exposure pretty well and the boy has amazing skin color. I toned down the reds and used some sharpening action to make it crisp and it helps pop the eyes. I used Kubota Actions for the most part, but just sharpening and clarity stuff. I love The Edge from this group for sharpening. It also seems to deepen the color and contrast a bit.
5 all done in PP, once again Nik darken/lighten feature, color popping etc.
6 , 7 , 8... my husband is holding a light reflector, silver and gold striped. He is holding it just right in 6, decent in 7 and not so good in 7! Look at the rock the little boy is sitting on , it is bright in 6, but not in 8, I had to add a lot of PP to make the 2 images somewhat match.
9 backlit again and PP, the sky is totally blown out.
10 she is in the same tree as the boy is in #4. The light there is awesome, her face is so open and bouncing the indirect light back. I only did some sharpening here, her eyes are so big and so light if I would have tried to pop them they would have looked fake. I most likely used that action The Edge from Kubota, and maybe a clarifying action.
My other secret is the same one I use to have the most beautiful house plants ever..... I throw away the bad ones and no one ever sees them!
www.CottageInk.smugmug.com
NIKON D700
Wow, thanks for all of the great info! So...you do have a higher quality lens, but also do some different pp than I have used. I can't wait to play around with some of that! I think I'll do a free trial on the Nik software and try it on a recent shoot, and see what I can get. I hope it's ok if I post on People for critiques!
I
Look at what the masters of 30 and 40 years ago did with their today outdated, antiquated, worthless equipment. WOW, many of the images still kick our butts.
www.cameraone.biz
From a still perspective, I see marked differences between images shot with my Nikon 70-300 vs my 24-70. The sharpness is amazing with the 24-70.
Yes, I am really believing now that there is a very good reason for the higher $$ beyond the lens just being faster (although that's definitely a factor). Light, technique and post are all critical factors, but equipment can be an advantage. And yes, I agree that amazing shots can happen with the most basic of equiment too, but the more tools in your toolbox, the greater the possibilities.
I am going to disagree that it's all lenses. I have a bunch of L glass but also have some consumer glass.
It is all about light. It's about distance to the subject. Good glass is helpful, but, I can tell you that it's not all about the equipment. It helps.'
I won't trade my Canon 50 1.2 or 135 2.0.
When I was shooting film and bought my first digital camera, I went on a trip to Nova Scotia. Left the battery back in the room and went to Peggy's Cove. Bought a disposable camera. Yes, it was film, but, those images are on my wall today. Cardboard camera with crappy lens. No post processing. 100 ASA film by Kodak. It;s all the factors that make a photograph. Light, distance, iso, process. It's how you hold the camera and position it to the light. How still you are.
Don't take any one component and make it worth more. I have a photograph taken with my Palm Centrino. It's of a piece of bread at a deli. Sharp as a tack. Used the canned light above the table. Sharp sharp sharp. I get a bunch of comments about the bread being real.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Check this out. http://fstoppers.com/iphone/
www.cameraone.biz
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
No, that's not really what I was asking. I totally get the knowledge base limitations. You can have all the best equipment in the world and still shoot junk if you don't have the knowledge, experience and creativity to use it well. And you can have the most basic of cameras, very little knowledge and experience, yet shoot awesome images because of your creativity alone.
It was more a precise question of, all other factors aside, do a prime lenses add that much more recognizable quality to an image that cannot be achieved with post processing alone.
Hmmm...ok, I'm trying to grasp this one. Is it like the equivalent of shooting 35mm vs. medium format? Or is there more to it than that? How is the DOF affected?
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.