Thinking about doing portraits. (Off topic rambling)

"Anon" (tjsielsistneb) 01/03/2015 at 00:12 • Filed to: None

2

31

I know jackshit about taking portaits (so any advice or resources are entirely welcome). However considering some of the work I've seen on some local "professional" photography pages, I think I can compete. So I'm thinking of taking the plunge and buying this 50mm (75 field of view) 1.8 for my sony for $200. I figure I can get some friends to model for me so I can get a portfolio together to convince people to give me their money. I'm mainly doing this for two reasons. One: I'm broke and some anime money wouldn't hurt. Two: I'm a street photographer living in the middle of nowhere. I like taking pictures of people and around here there's not too much of a place to do that. So I figure this would be a good solution for both problems. So what do yall think?

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Anon 01/03/2015 at 00:16

0

Its not the hardware its the man behind the hardware. If you can take a good portrait with an iPhone, you can do anything. Granted the hardware adds to the quality of the image, but It will still be a great image if the photgrapher knows what hes doing

Xyl0c41n3 > Anon 01/03/2015 at 00:19

0

Any samples of your current work?

Anon > Xyl0c41n3 01/03/2015 at 00:26

3

Here are some of my favorites.

Stephen the Canuck > Anon 01/03/2015 at 00:29

0

Get on the Photography on the Net forum. They have a ton of information. Check out the people photography talk section. That should be what you're looking at. There are some books too.

That lens is pretty appropriate for a portrait lens. it would work. Practice a lot. You can find a cheap single flashing lighting set up that would help out too.

Don't under price yourself either to get work. It messes up the market. Just try to be worth what you charge.

Jonathan Harper > Anon 01/03/2015 at 00:29

0

Do it. I'm buying the full frame version of that for my A7 once I get the dough. Not cheap though at around $700

Tinfoil Hat in a thunderstorm, now with added diecast > Anon 01/03/2015 at 00:31

0

Nice work

Anon > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s 01/03/2015 at 00:32

1

I can agree with this to a certain extent. For casual photos, yes. For professional photos, a good setup is required. You need to be able to have a low aperture and a longer focal length blurs the background more. Also if I was out shooting with my 35 1.8 to get the same effect I would have to practically be kissing the person I'm taking a picture of and messing with the frontal light.

Nibby > Anon 01/03/2015 at 00:34

0

just don't turn into one of those korean hipsters with their 70s minolta film camera

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Anon 01/03/2015 at 00:35

0

Didnt your DSLR come with a kit lens that you can set to 50mm? Thats what I do. Once I become more serious I'd probably get a 35mm and a 50mm. But for right now, as Im still hooning my skill, I dont wanna spend money. Ive been taught to make do with what I have for as long as possible. Why spend the money until you actually need it?

Anon > Jonathan Harper 01/03/2015 at 00:41

0

As I've told you before, Kickass lens!! I would get one if they didn't cost so much as I'd like an A7 in the future (the first model is already down to $1000 used in excellent condition). However, have you looked at samyang/bower/rokinon/whateverthey'recallingthemselves lenses? They're full frame and are very high quality for around the $300-500 territory. The only catch is that they're manual focus only. Unfortunately that dosen't work for me because as a street photographer I have to be able to take pictures as fast as possible. However if you're not in a massive rush they're great lenses to use with sony's focus peaking mode.

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Nibby 01/03/2015 at 00:42

0

Eeeeew. If youre gonna use a vintage film camera, use a Leica

Anon > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s 01/03/2015 at 00:47

1

Because a kit lens has tons of chromatic aboration. Don't get me wrong, kit lenses are fine if you're doing black and white and not printing out the results. Hell all of those example pictures I posted elsewhere in the comments were taken with my kit lens. Unfortunately my perfectly in focus picture I have hanging on my walls isn't that sharp. I'm not saying kit lenses are bad, they just don't suit my needs.

Xyl0c41n3 > Anon 01/03/2015 at 00:48

0

How long have you been shooting?

Why are you choosing to edit in B&W?

What's your post-production like? (IOW, what are you using to edit these photos on?)

Do you always shoot at eye level or do you experiment with shooting from different vantage points? If you have, show me some of your favorite examples of that.

What do these three photos mean to you? Why are they your favorites? What's the story behind them? Did you talk to these people or did you do a photog version of a drive-by and just shoot them?

You call yourself a street photographer, so do you have any favorite street photogs who inspire you, or whose work you admire? If you don't know them already, I'd suggest reading up on two of my faves (and really, pretty much everyone's faves): American Gary Winogrand, who was one of this country's most prolific street photographers ever. IIRC, at the time of his death, he had somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 negatives he hadn't even looked at. The second guy is the father of "the decisive moment." His shooting is quintessential street photography. Frenchman Henri Cartier-Bresson. His work is simply fantastic.

Making money is good and all, but do you have a real curiosity for portraiture? Portraits are deceptively simple. And they're also deceptively limiting, in that they're not quite as limiting as they appear at first blush. There's a lot of room for creativity and innovation with portraiture. Again, as with street photographers, what kind of portraiture do you find yourself drawn to and wanting to explore?

Anon > Tinfoil Hat in a thunderstorm, now with added diecast 01/03/2015 at 00:48

0

Thank you! I appreciate it!

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Anon 01/03/2015 at 00:48

0

Really well framed shots. You definitely have an eye and a talent. But the lighting is a little flat, what editing software do you use?

Anon > Nibby 01/03/2015 at 00:49

2

God no! I would never do that! I would on use an old film canon!

Xyl0c41n3 > Denver Is Stuck In The 90s 01/03/2015 at 01:02

2

The "lighting" isn't flat, the images are slightly underexposed and then edited dark with some pretty shallow contrast. That has nothing at all to do with the ambient light available when these were shot. And while yes, editing software is snazzy and can make these frames pop, a photog's first question shouldn't be about what kind of nifty post processing software is available to manipulate the images, but how to control, manipulate, and make the image as optimum as possible in camera , before it's ever even uploaded to a computer. Relying too much on software to do the work for you, especially in street photography, which borrows heavily from photojournalistic ethics, is just lazy and bad photography.

Devlin Munion > Anon 01/03/2015 at 01:05

0

May I ask where you found this for 200? I have been thinking of picking this up along with the 35mm f1.8.

Xyl0c41n3 > Anon 01/03/2015 at 01:06

0

Getting in closer isn't a bad thing. The biggest issue is getting over the fear that you're too close. Trust me, you're not. I used to regularly shoot with a 17-55mm f /2.8, and I can tell you for a fact that that barrel stayed on the 17mm end of the range more often than not.

Get in closer. Fill your frame.

Anon > Xyl0c41n3 01/03/2015 at 01:17

0

I've been shooting About 5 months, though I have very little experience with street photography. I like black and white because it's what I see most street photographers using. I also like it because I can easily edit color channels to improve contrast and create sharper looking pictures. Also, I think it looks cool, there's also that.

I use PS CS6. I mainly edit by first finding the black and white points, then move to black and white tool to adjust color channels. I will sometimes use magnetic lasso to adjust some areas.

I was fairly limited with my other camera (which took these pictures) because of the fixed back screen. I couldn't take a candid shot by getting on the ground. However now with my a5100 I can take diffrent angle pictures much easier! So the answer is, yes only at eye lever for steet photography I've done so far.

I love them because they seem to convey the spirit of new orleans. It shows it's full of weird people doing weird things. I've been going to New Orleans for years and I've always loved it and called it my second home. It's dirty, shady, and uncensored. However it's a place so full of energy you can feel it. Unfortuantly I didn't really talk to any of them (except the pigtails guy who asked me to send it to his email.).

As for people I admire? No one in particular, though I love the pictures Kai Wong takes. He's the host of DRTV and is the reason I even heard of street photography. I'm not near as cultured in street photography as I'd like to be. If you have any more suggestion I would love to look at their work.

Like I said, I know jackshit about taking portraits. It would mostly just be for fun, I really don't care too much about making money (though I don't mind it). So I don't know what kind.

Anon > Devlin Munion 01/03/2015 at 01:18

0

used on keh, on my cell so can't give you the link. Just search for it on their website and you'll find it.

Baskingshark > Anon 01/03/2015 at 01:19

1

Get a reflector (and a volunteer to hold it) too. It is really helpful when shooting portraits by keeping the shadows, more so on the face, from being too harsh.

Anon > Xyl0c41n3 01/03/2015 at 01:23

0

Bingo. So how would you go about improving the picture if you were taking them? Also the under exposef bit was mostly due to being limited to an aperture of 3.5 and an iso that only went up to 1600.

ToyDeathbot > Anon 01/03/2015 at 01:28

0

I hate to say it, but Kai is nothing compared to Mr. Leuthard. That said, he shoots primarily with m3/4 and a small range of lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasl…

Xyl0c41n3 > Anon 01/03/2015 at 01:33

4

Oh honey no! It was daytime... you should never shoot at that high an ISO during the daytime. That aperture with a slower shutter speed should have been more than sufficient. And I saw elsewhere in a comment where you said you need autofocus to shoot street photography. Not true. If your lens/es has/have a manual focus on it/them, practice shooting in manual focus. It will make you think more carefully. It will make you slow down and become more deliberate in your shooting, and become better at anticipating good shots. Fear not the manual focus! Save the manuals! (J/k... but I couldn't resist an oppo-related joke).

Jonathan Harper > Anon 01/03/2015 at 09:42

0

ya I need the autofocus too

Devlin Munion > Anon 01/03/2015 at 12:38

0

Gotcha thanks.

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Anon 01/05/2015 at 12:10

2

I don't want to be harsh, so please don't take anything I say in this reply personally; I don't know you on a personal level, so there's no reason for me to attack you or what you do. I am, however, going to be honest, even if it means being brutally honest.

Before I dig myself into a hole, let me first say that no matter what amount of training, no matter how many books, videos, or articles you've read, no matter how many hours of lecture you've sat through, no matter how many photos you've looked at or analyzed in order to hone your style, the simple fact about art is that it is completely, entirely, wholly subjective. In order to become a successful professional photographer, you must understand this and know that the key to your success is the positive reaction to your work by your target demographic.

I know what you mean when you say that you can compete with the "professional" portrait photographers. Chances are, you can! I actually had a moment thinking about this over the holidays, when I was looking at all the Christmas cards that were sent to my mom. The best one on the bulletin board of postcards was one that I took the picture for. (Of course it was, I took it, I liked it enough to make it my end product, so it's going to be the best in my mind, unless there's something absolutely breathtaking. I'm not trying to sound cocky, just part of being a successful photographer is having confidence in your work)

After I finally snapped out of the awe-inducing trance that my own work had put me in (seriously, I'm not this cocky in real life, I'm just making a joke to try and make this interesting), I looked around at the other pictures on the other cards. They ranged from obvious cellphone pictures of the kids on Summer vacation at the beach to posed pictures from professional photographers that probably cost more than my sitting fee and the 3 huge prints that the client bought from me, combined.

As I looked through all of them, I found that the pictures that were taken with obviously "professional" photographers weren't any better than the cellphone snapshots that some of the other cards had. Why? I could tell by looking at each picture what quality camera was used. I could tell which pictures had higher printing resolutions. I could even tell which ones were edited.

That's when it hit me. I figured out that I didn't enjoy the professional, posed pictures because they weren't real . Not to say that the family didn't really get together, line up for a photo, and smile at the same time for some person with $3k worth of camera attached to them like an extra appendage, no, that actually happened. What I mean is, the photo didn't relay to the viewer who, or how , the people in the photo were. It was just another day in the life of this photographer, who I'm willing to bet has countless pictures that are just like the one I saw on the Christmas card.

I can't slight the photographer's composition, it was spot on. I can't even say that they posed the family badly; I actually enjoyed how they were arranged. I can, however, say that the combination of editing, location, and mood relayed by the photo was enough to irk me. I felt like the family was having flashbacks to school picture day, where the photographer rushes you in and out as fast as possible, barely giving you a chance to represent yourself.

If you started skimming at some point that's OK, but actually read from here on out:

If you're wondering if you can compete with "professional" photographers in the area, you can. I don't remember much of your work off the top of my head, but I didn't instantly start seeing red when I read your name, so if you've got the willpower, you can do it.

I'll address gear in a moment.

If you have friends do modelling for you, know that you're going to probably have to get them comfortable in front of the camera. If you pointed a camera at me right now, even if you were my best friend (or TheGirlfriend, she actually does this and this actually happens), I would probably freeze up like a deer in headlights, or just make a stupid face to brush off the anxiety of being on camera. Since you've done street photography before, think of portraiture similarly to street photography. For me, I try to capture the intricate, intimate moments of a person's self-expression. That's not to say I go blasting off 8.5 FPS in a hail of shutter clicks in attempt to capture the subject's eyebrow wrinkle * just * in that place that says "I'm happy, but there are things in the long run that concern me, like this deep dark secret". Doing so would only yield a half-assed "what the hell is wrong with you" expression. I just try to capture the subject being who they are.

I guess my point for that whole little rant is: You can do portraiture if you put your mind to it, but don't think about it too much and don't control it too much. You are capturing a person, not painting the person however you want (Imagine having Marilyn Manson say he'll model for you. You wouldn't go to a bright, open field with a puppy, trying to portray him as a gleeful child, would you? [yes, that'd be awesome, but that's beside the point] )

As far as gear:

You're on the right track with a 75mm equiv FoV. My favorite lenses for portraits are my 85/1.2L and 300/4L. If you've got the space to use a telephoto, do it, especially if the background is particularly busy. The shallow DoF and narrow FoV will ensure the background melts into smooth, buttery bokehliciousness. With a telephoto, it's not necessary to run out and throw down a down-payment on a house for a wide, f/2 or f/2.8 lens when you're just getting started. Same for medium-telephoto lenses. I'd say the 75mm equiv FoV is spot on, provided the lens is at least as wide as f/1.8. With a crop body, remember it'll be more difficult to separate subject from background while keeping the subject from spilling out of the frame, so a fast lens is a must .

Since it's a Sony, I'll go ahead and make an ass out of myself by assuming it's a mirrorless body, which means it'll have a short flange distance (distance from the film/sensor plane to the lens mount. Use this to your advantage. You can get a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 for VERY cheap if you get an older manual focus lens, and that would save you some change for a reflector or flash/triggers/softbox or even a longer lens. Remember that you're set up to shoot the photos, so a manual focus lens isn't going to miss the game winning touchdown catch. If you're not shooting headshots in a studio, you're probably not going to *need* a tripod, though one would be nice, or at least a monopod just in case you do need some stabilization.

Anyways my boss walked in when I was just finishing this up so I lost my train of thought.

Anon > iforgotmyburnerkeyonce 01/05/2015 at 16:01

1

Thanks dude! This is all really good info. Especially about finding out about the personalities of the people you're shooting. Though I hope I didn't screw up with my lens choice.

I ended up picking up a used leica elmar 90mm f4 for $300. I'm somewhat concerned about using it for portrature because once you add in the crop factor for my camera, I'm working with an f stop of 6. However it is also the equivilant of a 120mm on my sony a5100 (which, you guessed correctly, is mirrorless). If it dosen't work I'll just buy an old canon 50mm 1.4 to slap on the sucker and use the leica for street photography.

Also would you say flashes are a must for outdoors or would a a well placed reflector suffice?

Stephen the Canuck > Anon 01/05/2015 at 17:21

0

The aperture for that lens maybe a little small to get the background well blended into bokeh, but if you can have decent lighting and a nicer looking background it shouldn't be a big deal.

Flashes may not be a must for a outdoors, nor possibly a reflector. If the light outside is really nice and perfect (not very likely) and doesn't need any modification then you would be fine.

But since the light is very rarely perfect, and people have more than one side, you will need something to modify the light to make it suit your vision. One of those 5 in 1 reflector kits (like that in another comment) would be a great start. It gives you different options in reflectors so you can try them out to see which suits the location/light and your vision. Also then learning curve is probably not as steep as flash.

Westcott 301 Photo Basics 40-Inch 5-in-1 Reflector (the B&H one in another comment is cheaper) and Light Stand ($15) will set you back around $55.

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Anon 01/08/2015 at 20:32

0

I'm jealous. Seriously. I have wanted to get a Leica lens for a long time! 90mm f/4 shouldn't be too bad, at a 120mm equivalent FoV, that's getting into the telephoto range, which will complement your subjects nicely. The key to getting a thin DoF from a lens like that is to really nail the composition; that is, get as close as possible for the shot you envision without getting too close. F/4 isn't bad for portraits. On one hand, a wide aperture lens is great for subject isolation, but on the other, it gets tiring having photos of someone where you thought you got the focus, but actually missed and got their nose, and since it's so wide open, their eyes are not in focus. It's a balancing act.

If you do end up getting an old 50/1.4, don't be afraid to stop it down. Lenses typically become more saturated and more sharp (I'm talking about resolving power of the in-focus area) as they are stopped down, up until diffraction starts degrading the image. I don't think you can go wrong with a Leica lens. They have a unique feel about the images they produce. Scratch that. They have a unique feel to how they reproduce images ; it's up to the photographer to produce the image. Now I'm rambling again. Flashes outdoors are... I can't say that you need a flash for outdoors. I can't say you need a reflector. I can say that flashes and reflectors open up creative options, but they're not mandatory. Most of the photos I take are without either, but then again, that's how I prefer to shoot. That isn't to say that I won't take my flash and softbox with me to a shoot, just in-case, though.

Now the part of what you said that has been nagging at me. Technically... (you can go ahead and stop reading here, if you'd like)

A 90mm f/4 lens on a crop body does not equal a 120mm f/6 lens. There's two ways to look at it. If you took two identical pictures from the same exact spot, with the same exact lens, one with a 35mm sensor and one with a crop body, then took the 35mm picture and cropped it down to match the composition of the crop body's picture, it'd be the same exact picture.

If you were to take a picture with a FF sensor, then positioned yourself further away from the place that you took that picture in order to match the composition with the crop body, you'd have two different pictures. Yes, the DoF on the crop body would be larger, but (this is a HUGE but!), it wouldn't be because you were using a crop body, it would be because you were standing further away. The lens would be focused further away, and you'd not only have two different levels of DoF, but you'd also have different perspectives on the subject, simply because of the distance between yourself and the subject. That's to say, the background would be more compressed than the FF's picture. If you were to take a picture with the crop body, then take the same picture with a FF, but with a 1.5x longer lens (and appropriate aperture change), then you'd be comparing apples and oranges, and that's just not fair.

Basically, that's why a crop body is a "crop" body, not a 1.5x focal length body, and why I'm usually very careful to state "Equivalent FoV" or just "FoV", instead of saying "it's a X mm lens when it's on a crop body" when speaking about crop factors.

In conclusion, the 90mm f/4 that you have, when put on your crop body, is a 90mm f/4 with a 120mm equivalent field of view, and I'm a jerk who's a stickler for technicality, and ironically enough, probably made myself a hypocrite all in one long post :p