Page 1 of 1
Portrait shots of friends daughter
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:05 pm
by rokkstar
Went to a cottage in the Blue Mountains at the weekend and my friends kids were there. So armed with the 50mm 1.4 I started snapping. The lens has given me a new lease of life taking portraits.
I'm going to sift through the shots I have and get some printed for him.
Would appreciate your comments on these though. SHe is such a beautiful charismatic little girl.
Cheers
Matt
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:09 pm
by xerubus
wonderful!!!
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:15 pm
by KerryPierce
The first one is good, but the second is incredible. Excellent exposure on her face, considering the very bright sidelighting.
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:28 pm
by ozczecho
Love the gumboots against the carpet...great shots...
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:31 pm
by sirhc55
Matt - #2 is classic and well exposed and caught. The gum boots are on my wants list - wonderful
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:39 pm
by Neeper
#2 is my fav. Very nice, timeless shot. She's going to love that picture when she gets older. Perfect picture to use for her wedding presentation
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:09 pm
by rokkstar
Thanks a lot for the comments guys. I'm really happy with #2 as well. But I love the gumboot shot. She refused to put them on the right feet because they didnt feel as nice as when they were odd.
I dont have kids myself yet, but when I do, I dont think my camera is going to get a days rest. They are such wonderful subjects and their innocence is simply magical.
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:19 pm
by marcus
Yes #2 gets the money....although I love the fact that the gumboots are on the wrong feet!
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:24 pm
by dooda
These are surprisingly sharp, and the color is bang on not to mention the exposure. Hard to critique. I might be stretching it, but I think I'd rather have had those boots larger in the frame. Fabulous shots.
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:35 pm
by stubbsy
Matt
Like the others I think #2 is the best. Not sure I should thank you for posting the shots though. I now
NEED this lens.
BTW What happened to the DH avatar?
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:54 pm
by rokkstar
stubbsy wrote:Matt
Like the others I think #2 is the best. Not sure I should thank you for posting the shots though. I now
NEED this lens.
BTW What happened to the DH avatar?
Sorry Peter, didnt realise you were having withdrawl sysptoms from not seeing Hasselhoff
I get exactly the same.
I tell you, this lens in an absolute must. I am so in love with it. I think I want the 85mm too now though.
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:29 pm
by stubbsy
rokkstar wrote:stubbsy wrote:Matt
Like the others I think #2 is the best. Not sure I should thank you for posting the shots though. I now
NEED this lens.
BTW What happened to the DH avatar?
Sorry Peter, didnt realise you were having withdrawl sysptoms from not seeing Hasselhoff
I get exactly the same.
I tell you, this lens in an absolute must. I am so in love with it. I think I want the 85mm too now though.
Matt
He's back!. Whatever possessed me to comment on the avatar. I'd forgotten just how trully distrubing that image is as you scroll down and hit one of your posts. I think I need therapy.
I have the 50/1.4 behind an SB800 purchase wise - may have to swap them around.
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:43 pm
by agriffiths
Hi rokkstar,
No. 2 is definately my favourate! I looks like there is something reflecting light from the ground to highlight her chin and cheeks... can you tell us what the light source is?
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:57 pm
by rokkstar
agriffiths wrote:Hi rokkstar,
No. 2 is definately my favourate! I looks like there is something reflecting light from the ground to highlight her chin and cheeks... can you tell us what the light source is?
The light source was just natural light. I didnt use any reflectors at all. However she was standing on a grey gravel path which must have reflected up the light.
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:08 pm
by Eunosdriver
Love those shots (and you're right, camera is out almost every day when you have kids!!)
Can someone riddle me this though; back when I was a nipper and learning about photography, I was taught that a 50mm lens was a horrible choice for potraiture as, at full-face range it tends to exaggerate the nose in an unflattering way.
Is this effect counteracted by the 1.5 lens factor ? I've been using my 85mm 1.8 as the portrait lens of choice, I confess the 50mm 1.4 hasn't been out of the bag for ages (shame on me)
Posted:
Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:02 pm
by christiand
Hi Pete,
yes, the crop (lens) factor of 1.5 changes some characteristics of the 50mm lens when put on a D70.
It sort of becomes more like a 75mm lens. (crop factor wise ...)
Cheers
CD