Softness is evident I agree as it was @ full aperture of f4.5 to compensate the lower ISO640 as
it was taken in a room with only available light. Part of my event coverage at that time.
Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question
- Thread starter RhythmCL
- Start date
Softness is evident I agree as it was @ full aperture of f4.5 to compensate the lower ISO640 as
it was taken in a room with only available light. Part of my event coverage at that time.
Depends on lighting conditions, IS could be essential in low light to gain that few stops to shoot at lower shutter speed to prevent pushing up your ISO too much. You can also use external flash or remote flash to compensate if needed. Like what most of the CSers here mentioned, start by learning how to shoot with a sturdy stance.
I usually shoot manual focus, so never had the luxury of IS... Sharing a shot with manual focus lens in good light.
Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 wide open on Sony A7
the bg so blur...this consider good ?
What do you think? If you think it is not good and if you are the client (and the photographer is actually taking this foto as a paid assignment), you can point it out and demand a re-shoot. If you think it is good, then no point asking the question.
I personally find it quite pleasing as it brought up the subject (which is the model, by the way) more and isolate her from the rest of the surrounding, so my eyes would automatically be attracted to the subject rather than feeling the crowded surrounding. But that is just me, you might be different.
Having been readin this thread for a while now and find this topic almost a non-topic worthy thingy but something that seem to show how overly (pampered and) dependent our younger generation shooters are with dependent on features like this when VR or IS did not come on the scene till about 1994ish.
And when we take into totality that photography and people shooting portrait for more than a century even till today where I am still using a 24-70 F2.8 Nikon which till now is still a non-VR lens. People have been shooting epic portraits in National Geographic till what have you in various media... I wonder how many of those people would can and tell you, I did not get the shot right because did not have VR/IS lens or camera. That's why I failed to get that perfect portrait shot.
Time to revisit your fundamentals on photography. VR/IS is almost a non topic or requirement.
And when we take into totality that photography and people shooting portrait for more than a century even till today where I am still using a 24-70 F2.8 Nikon which till now is still a non-VR lens. People have been shooting epic portraits in National Geographic till what have you in various media... I wonder how many of those people would can and tell you, I did not get the shot right because did not have VR/IS lens or camera. That's why I failed to get that perfect portrait shot.
Time to revisit your fundamentals on photography. VR/IS is almost a non topic or requirement.
Last edited:
Nowadays, DSLRs are pack with some many idiot proof features, so most people are usually just spray and pray.
probably they will tell you this, "have you heard there is thing call photoshop? digital is free right? not happy I can delete it any time"
so why bother to learn?
I totally agree. Most totally skipped d process of thinking before shooting. D joy would b to think n frame d shot prior pressing d shutter.
Well... the thing is, technology is moving fast and it is making things more convenient to people all around. And as tech move, we move too, no point staying back and clinging on to old stuff when newer one are better and easier. That said, I never say that skills are not important, it is just that skills should change too.
It is like... can a sword and an arrow kill your enemy, sure it can. But since we have tanks and rifles, why don't we use it? And when there is image stabilizer available in the lens, why don't we utilize it rather than clinging to old stuff unless the older equipment is so much cheaper and easier to get.
I for one, is someone who would embrace new technology readily. Of course, can I utilize a 1940 film camera or an old Canon 350D and get great results? Sure. But I would go for a 5DmkIII or a 1DX if I can afford. And can I use a old manual focus 50mm lens and get the result I wanted, sure. But when I can afford, I will of course get the newer 50mm f1.2L lens that had autofocus... make getting the result I want faster and easier.
Maybe I am lazy... because I am shooting alot in semi-auto mode like the aperture priority and shutter priority and never in full manual mode.
Well... whatever float your boat my friends.
It is like... can a sword and an arrow kill your enemy, sure it can. But since we have tanks and rifles, why don't we use it? And when there is image stabilizer available in the lens, why don't we utilize it rather than clinging to old stuff unless the older equipment is so much cheaper and easier to get.
I for one, is someone who would embrace new technology readily. Of course, can I utilize a 1940 film camera or an old Canon 350D and get great results? Sure. But I would go for a 5DmkIII or a 1DX if I can afford. And can I use a old manual focus 50mm lens and get the result I wanted, sure. But when I can afford, I will of course get the newer 50mm f1.2L lens that had autofocus... make getting the result I want faster and easier.
Maybe I am lazy... because I am shooting alot in semi-auto mode like the aperture priority and shutter priority and never in full manual mode.
Well... whatever float your boat my friends.
Last edited:
sorry for wasting your time on my unworthy questions
i sincerely apologise for starting a topic to ask stupid questions
sorry for being a pampered newbie who doesn't know any better
sorry for knowing less than you
i am a terrible human being
uncle, have you heard about some apps can create all the arty farty photos from the snap shot taken by your smart phone? it is not so hard for camera manufactures to put these apps into their cameras.
so creativity, how much money per Kilo btw??
simple answer is NO,
and portrait is not about sharpness, not about bokeh, not about colors. not about what lens or what camera you use.
portrait is about the person (subject) in front of your camera, you are telling your viewers what do you think about your subjects, telling a story about your subject. and you use whatever things (design / composition / lighting etc) to simplified, to focus, to enhance your message/story.
if a photographer cares so much about any other things than his/her subjects, than there is no different between take a photo of a mannequin and a human subject.
thank you for your input, nothing can be better than from the master himself
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have decided to purchase a tamron 17-50 non-vc, as an upgrade from my kit lens, thanks to everyone for your patience and constructive replies
You talking special effects?? that is not creative as in your interaction with your subject and taking the time to know your subject and then shooting the shoot that best capture that person(s) in a portrait shot. Special effect is a dime a dozen and as a graphic designer I know that all too well but to say just whack a ton of shots and pray for a good one and then use some effect to finish the shot is all it takes to make a great shot... that is being simplistic and naive.
There is only so much that equipment has a hand in producing the shot but the finish product is a combination of so much more then just paying for the best equipment. Or is this what is being promoted here only?
Last edited:
Relax take a chill pill.
The older photographers are just telling you that some of these stuff can be detrimental to your photographic learning, especially when you depend on some technology too much.
Just take note of your shooting parameters and your basics like 1/focal length rule, and understanding how to manage backgrounds, or having meaningful backgrounds for composition/story. In the end it is all about what you are trying to show. FYI, VR/IS is not important for me when shooting posed portraits. It is only useful for me when shooting street portraits very quickly.
Also for a APS-C crop camera F2.8 on standard zooms (17-70mm range) doesn't give you that much background blur anyway, so I hope you do not get disappointed after getting the lenses. If you really want to throw the background off, look for longer focal lengths and wider apertures, something like a 85/1.4 or 85/1.2 or at least 85/1.8 will work well. If you want a zoom, then go for a 70-200/2.8.
As for the Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70 or Tamron 24-70VC, those lenses will work much better on a Fullframe camera, since fullframe camera allow you to throw the background blur more than APS-C, and the focal length ranges makes more sense. Most people buy these lenses actually for the wider aperture to shoot at higher shutter speeds in low light, not really for the BG blur. If you are going to be doing posed portraits, go for wide aperture primes or the tried and tested 70-200/2.8.
Last edited:
With IS/VR/VC (whatever different brand name it) is a bonus to me if have. I dun really have a very steady hands and I may need more time to position myself to have steady shot. Like DD123 mentioned, it useful for shoot which u need to take quickly. eg street shot or sometime during event, or even friends gathering, where there shot need to be taken quickly (eg I need turn body quickly in a weird position), with IS it a plus to me.
Similar threads
