Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/11/28 Wed AM 05:20:13 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
> 
> Mike,
> 
> But by decreasing DOF you can effectively concentrate only on that part 
> of the face that you want to show. For example if the model for some 
> reason has really ugly ears, by throwing them out of sharply rendered 
> space you can at least partially solve this problem.

OK.  It read a little like you were saying the lenses properties altered as you 
opened up - which they do but not to a huge degree in a good quality lens.

> 
> Another point that occurred to me is that given the fact that on digital 
> you use only part of the image circle of the lens (77 Ltd) you can take 
> a step or may be even two back away from the model.
> 
> What I am really driving at, is that (having had Tamron 90/2.5) 77 Ltd 
> is very sharp, but it is still not a macro lens. The photographer has 
> some means to use in order to get softer loon on their picture. But then 
> again, sometimes one still has no choice but to apply a certain degree 
> of post processing to the image.
> 
> Boris
> 
> 
> mike wilson wrote:
> > Boris Liberman wrote:
> > 
> >> First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens 
> >> is fast enough) you can decrease sharpness... 
> > 
> > Hmmm.  You can decrease the depth of the plane of focus but you can't 
> > (afaik) decrease the sharpness of it.  Thereby giving a softer look to 
> > more of the picture.  Is that what you mean?
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
> 


-
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Boris Liberman]

Mike,

But by decreasing DOF you can effectively concentrate only on that part 
of the face that you want to show. For example if the model for some 
reason has really ugly ears, by throwing them out of sharply rendered 
space you can at least partially solve this problem.

Another point that occurred to me is that given the fact that on digital 
you use only part of the image circle of the lens (77 Ltd) you can take 
a step or may be even two back away from the model.

What I am really driving at, is that (having had Tamron 90/2.5) 77 Ltd 
is very sharp, but it is still not a macro lens. The photographer has 
some means to use in order to get softer loon on their picture. But then 
again, sometimes one still has no choice but to apply a certain degree 
of post processing to the image.

Boris


mike wilson wrote:
> Boris Liberman wrote:
> 
>> First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens 
>> is fast enough) you can decrease sharpness... 
> 
> Hmmm.  You can decrease the depth of the plane of focus but you can't 
> (afaik) decrease the sharpness of it.  Thereby giving a softer look to 
> more of the picture.  Is that what you mean?
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

mike wilson wrote:
> John Graves wrote:
> 
>> But isn't true that the sharpest focus for a lens is less than wide 
>> open, so by opening it up you are decreasing overall focus by some amount?
>>
>> John Graves
>> WA1JG
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> As Bill pointed out, most lenses are less sharp at maximum aperture but 
> I am not sure that is what Boris is getting at.

Yes, that's what I mean. The wide the aperture (really towards fully 
open) the less sharp is the lens. And by playing with the light a bit 
(those who know and those who can, usually not me ;-) ) it can be made 
even softer.

Boris

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David Savage]

At 06:23 AM 28/11/2007, John Graves wrote:
>But isn't true that the sharpest focus for a lens is less than wide
>open

Generally yes.

>, so by opening it up you are decreasing overall focus by some amount?

You don't loose much sharpness opening up the 77, but DOF really becomes 
shallow.

In the situation that generated my original message, opening up the lens 
wasn't an option in any case. I was shooting with a poor mans "studio" (off 
camera flash fired through an umbrella) To kill the light spill on the 
background (ie, make the background black) I had to shoot around f11-f16.

Cheers,

Dave "I lurv my 77mm f1.8 Ltd" Savage


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[mike wilson]

John Graves wrote:

> But isn't true that the sharpest focus for a lens is less than wide 
> open, so by opening it up you are decreasing overall focus by some amount?
> 
> John Graves
> WA1JG
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

As Bill pointed out, most lenses are less sharp at maximum aperture but 
I am not sure that is what Boris is getting at.

> 
> 
> 
> mike wilson wrote:
> 
>>Boris Liberman wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens 
>>>is fast enough) you can decrease sharpness... 
>>>
>>
>>Hmmm.  You can decrease the depth of the plane of focus but you can't 
>>(afaik) decrease the sharpness of it.  Thereby giving a softer look to 
>>more of the picture.  Is that what you mean?
>>
>>  
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[John Graves]

But isn't true that the sharpest focus for a lens is less than wide 
open, so by opening it up you are decreasing overall focus by some amount?

John Graves
WA1JG
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



mike wilson wrote:
> Boris Liberman wrote:
>
>   
>> First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens 
>> is fast enough) you can decrease sharpness... 
>> 
>
> Hmmm.  You can decrease the depth of the plane of focus but you can't 
> (afaik) decrease the sharpness of it.  Thereby giving a softer look to 
> more of the picture.  Is that what you mean?
>
>   

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation


> Boris Liberman wrote:
>
>> First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens
>> is fast enough) you can decrease sharpness...
>
> Hmmm.  You can decrease the depth of the plane of focus but you can't
> (afaik) decrease the sharpness of it.  Thereby giving a softer look to
> more of the picture.  Is that what you mean?

Technically, most lenses are not as good wide open as they are stopped down 
a bit (the old adage f8 and be there hints at this).
As you point out though, as you open up the lens, you are also decreasing 
depth of field, which may not be what you want to do, and the lens probably 
won't go soft enough just by opening the aperture, especially the 77mm, 
which is very good wide open.

William Robb
 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[mike wilson]

Boris Liberman wrote:

> First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens 
> is fast enough) you can decrease sharpness... 

Hmmm.  You can decrease the depth of the plane of focus but you can't 
(afaik) decrease the sharpness of it.  Thereby giving a softer look to 
more of the picture.  Is that what you mean?

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Boris Liberman]

Dave, yours may be a true observation though I never found it to be an 
obstacle. First of, I still think that by opening aperture (and the lens 
is fast enough) you can decrease sharpness... And of course there are 
various soft filters too.

I think it would be far worse if the lens lacked sharpness and 
resolution, because if you have something you can let it go, but the 
other way around is rather impossible to achieve ;-)...

Just my cents.



David Savage wrote:
> I did some portraits of my parents this evening & I have to say that
> the 77 Ltd., for all it's good points, is a very unflattering lens for
> shooting people with a less than perfect complexion.
> 
> Every wrinkle, pore, blemish etc. is rendered in razor sharp detail.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave
> 
> /observation
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Bob Blakely]

The Stones sing, "Hey! You! Get of a my cloud!" 
Willie yells, "Hey! McCloud! Get of a my ewe!" 

Regards,
Bob...
-
Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, 
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> From: "Cotty" 
> 
>>>I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
>> 
>> Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
>> 
>> 
> 
> I didn't realize you were Scottish


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 11/23/2007 2:54:38 P.M.  Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The infamous Becky  Carter:



Although the shot in the  link that Cotty posted looks more life  like.

Cheers,

Dave


Egad! 

I must  have been off list when this was discussed. Very unsettling -- like 
the attack  of the Stepford Barbie Dolls.

What does she do to their eyes? Make them  larger? (I can tell she adds fake 
eye highlights and airbrushes the heck out of  their skin).

Marnie aka Doe  

-
Warning:  I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored.  




**Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000301)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Francis" 
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation



>> >I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
>> 
>> Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
>> 
>> <http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3064/shawn.jpg>
> 
> Boy, do *you* have sex issues.
> 
> Shawn is, of course, male.

I take back the comment about the Scottish...

William Robb


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[John Francis]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 10:24:49AM +, Cotty wrote:
> On 23/11/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
> 
> Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
> 
> 

Boy, do *you* have sex issues.

Shawn is, of course, male.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" 
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation



>>I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
> 
> Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
> 
> <http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3064/shawn.jpg>
> 

I didn't realize you were Scottish

William Robb

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David J Brooks]

Were men are men, and sheep are nervous.:-0

Dave

On 11/24/07, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2007 7:24 PM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 23/11/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> > >I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
> >
> > Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
> >
> > 
>
> Let me guess...
>
> 
>
> ..I knew it
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>


-- 
Equine Photography
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
Ontario Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David Savage]

On Nov 24, 2007 7:24 PM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/11/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >I don't think he was talking about your mistress.
>
> Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:
>
> 

Let me guess...



..I knew it

Cheers,

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Cotty]

On 23/11/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I don't think he was talking about your mistress.

Oh that wasn't my mistress, but this is:



-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David Savage]

On Nov 24, 2007 2:03 PM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that should be your, not you're, damn spell checker...

I knew what you meant :-)

Cheers,

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[P. J. Alling]

that should be your, not you're, damn spell checker...


P. J. Alling wrote:
> Think of it as the perfect tool to facilitate a break up with you're 
> wife/girlfriend/etc...
>
> David Savage wrote:
>   
>> I did some portraits of my parents this evening & I have to say that
>> the 77 Ltd., for all it's good points, is a very unflattering lens for
>> shooting people with a less than perfect complexion.
>>
>> Every wrinkle, pore, blemish etc. is rendered in razor sharp detail.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> /observation
>>
>>   
>> 
>
>
>   


-- 
The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the 
difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.

-- P. J. O'Roark


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[P. J. Alling]

EEEKKK!

Cotty wrote:
> On 23/11/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>   
>> I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in 
>> portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with 
>> big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the list 
>> some time ago. Anyone got the link?
>> 
>
> Here ya go.
>
> 
>
>
>
>   


-- 
The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the 
difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.

-- P. J. O'Roark


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[P. J. Alling]

Think of it as the perfect tool to facilitate a break up with you're 
wife/girlfriend/etc...

David Savage wrote:
> I did some portraits of my parents this evening & I have to say that
> the 77 Ltd., for all it's good points, is a very unflattering lens for
> shooting people with a less than perfect complexion.
>
> Every wrinkle, pore, blemish etc. is rendered in razor sharp detail.
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> /observation
>
>   


-- 
The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is the 
difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.

-- P. J. O'Roark


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Robinson" 
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation


> 
>> <http://beckycarter.com/>
>>
> 
> Oh god, that's depressing to look at.  Does ANYbody think that looks  
> good?
> 

Ken Rockwell might..

William Robb

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Stan Halpin"
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation


>
>
> All of which is to say that, while I agree with Mark that we do
> recognize and observe others at a grosser level of detail, it is also
> true that we recognize and are uncomfortable at some unconscious
> level when there is less detail than we are able to discern in real
> life. We can cope with a softened portrait and may even find it
> pleasing, but we recognize that it is an artificial representation.

The most well recieved portraits we do seem to be a compromise between 
leaving all the warts in place, and removing them to a certain extent. One 
of my mentors had a very good way of teaching this: He said that if you use 
candle light (and quite bright at that) to illuminate a person, you would 
see about the right amount of detail for portraiture.
After that, the idea was to throw enough good quality softening onto the 
lens to emulate that look.
One thing to remember is that a softening filter for portraiture is not the 
same as a diffusing filter. Good quality Softar filters can be as or more 
expensive as the lens they are mounted to.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" 

Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation


> On 23/11/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
>>I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in 
>>portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with 
>>big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the list 
>>some time ago. Anyone got the link?
> 
> Here ya go.
> 
> <http://tinyurl.com/2bvzth>

I don't think he was talking about your mistress.

William Robb

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Mark Roberts]

David Savage wrote:

>Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in
>> portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with
>> big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the list
>> some time ago. Anyone got the link?
>
>The infamous Becky Carter:
>
>

Aaiee! My eyes!
Yep, that's the one.

>Although the shot in the link that Cotty posted looks more life like.

Probably has more personality, too.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David Savage]

On Nov 24, 2007 8:03 AM, Charles Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 23, 2007, at 16:52, David Savage wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 2007 2:50 AM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with
> >> big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the
> >> list
> >> some time ago. Anyone got the link?
> >
> > The infamous Becky Carter:
> >
> > 
> >
>
> Oh god, that's depressing to look at.  Does ANYbody think that looks
> good?

Ken Doll.

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Charles Robinson]

On Nov 23, 2007, at 16:52, David Savage wrote:

> On Nov 24, 2007 2:50 AM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Stan Halpin wrote:
>>
>>> All of which is to say that, while I agree with Mark that we do
>>> recognize and observe others at a grosser level of detail, it is  
>>> also
>>> true that we recognize and are uncomfortable at some unconscious
>>> level when there is less detail than we are able to discern in real
>>> life. We can cope with a softened portrait and may even find it
>>> pleasing, but we recognize that it is an artificial representation.
>>
>> I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in
>> portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with
>> big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the  
>> list
>> some time ago. Anyone got the link?
>
> The infamous Becky Carter:
>
> 
>

Oh god, that's depressing to look at.  Does ANYbody think that looks  
good?

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David Savage]

On Nov 24, 2007 2:50 AM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stan Halpin wrote:
>
> >All of which is to say that, while I agree with Mark that we do
> >recognize and observe others at a grosser level of detail, it is also
> >true that we recognize and are uncomfortable at some unconscious
> >level when there is less detail than we are able to discern in real
> >life. We can cope with a softened portrait and may even find it
> >pleasing, but we recognize that it is an artificial representation.
>
> I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in
> portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with
> big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the list
> some time ago. Anyone got the link?

The infamous Becky Carter:



Although the shot in the link that Cotty posted looks more life like.

Cheers,

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Cotty]

On 23/11/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in 
>portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with 
>big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the list 
>some time ago. Anyone got the link?

Here ya go.





-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Bob W]

Queen Victoria asked her miniaturist, Alfred Chalon, whether
photography was a threat to the painter. "No, Ma'am", he replied. "The
photograph cannot flatter".

--
 Bob
 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Mark Roberts
> Sent: 23 November 2007 15:08
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation
> 
> William Robb wrote:
> 
> >> On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took
this
> >>> spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, 
> it is about
> >>> the face, the look. Any imperfections should be there in 
> the photo.
> >>> Thats who they are.
> >>
> >> I agree, but my "models" bitch & moan about looking old (to which
I
> >> reply "You are old" :-)
> >
> >If you are doing pictures for yourself, then do what you 
> want, but if 
> you 
> >are doing pictures for other people, then do what they want. If
your 
> models 
> >are whining that your pictures aren't flattering, you should 
> probably 
> do 
> >what you can to improve their look for them. If all it takes is a 
> softening 
> >filter, then that's what you need to do.
> >Dave, as a long time portrait shooter, I am going to go out 
> on a limb 
> here 
> >and say that your instructor was full of manure.
> 
> The instructor was full of manure. And not only for aesthetic and 
> commercial reasons, but for scientific ones as well: Human 
> beings don't 
> recognize faces by fine details and sharp, detailed portraits don't 
> look like the way we remember the faces of people we know.
> That's why the "portrait lens" has long been quite a different
animal 
> form lenses intended for other purposes.
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly 
> above and follow the directions.
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Nov 23, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:

> "Human beings don't recognize faces by fine details and sharp,  
> detailed
> portraits don't look like the way we remember the faces of people we
> know.That's why the "portrait lens" has long been quite a different
> animal form lenses intended for other purposes."
>
> -
>
> I've never owned a lens designed primarily for portraiture, but from
> what I understand, they are not supposed to be overly sharp. I am
> puzzled, then, about the reports of the FA* 85 F1.4. It is reputed  
> to be
> very sharp close in, but a little worse for landscape shots than  
> the FA 77.
>
> Can anyone clarify?
>
> The forthcoming DA 55 F1.4 is presumably a successor to the 85.

Portraits need to be sharp ... particularly the eyes ... but fine  
details are less important than flattering the subject (if that's the  
point of the photograph).

A lens designed for portraiture is generally designed to perform best  
near wide open for shallow DoF and in the 5-10 foot focus range. And  
to have good out-of-focus rendering qualities, again to support the  
shallow DoF approach to portraiture.

Really good lenses perform well throughout the focusing range, of  
course. I don't know anything about the FA*85 specifically. The M85/2  
was a fine portrait lens, but a little long for my tastes on the DSLR  
bodies.

The DA70 Limited and FA43 Limited make excellent lenses for  
portraiture at large apertures while also being excellent for  
landscape work stopped down.

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Joseph Tainter]

Mark wrote:

"Human beings don't recognize faces by fine details and sharp, detailed 
portraits don't look like the way we remember the faces of people we 
know.That's why the "portrait lens" has long been quite a different 
animal form lenses intended for other purposes."

-

I've never owned a lens designed primarily for portraiture, but from 
what I understand, they are not supposed to be overly sharp. I am 
puzzled, then, about the reports of the FA* 85 F1.4. It is reputed to be 
very sharp close in, but a little worse for landscape shots than the FA 77.

Can anyone clarify?

The forthcoming DA 55 F1.4 is presumably a successor to the 85.

Thanks,

Joe

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David J Brooks]

On 11/23/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

> Dave, as a long time portrait shooter, I am going to go out on a limb here
> and say that your instructor was full of manure.

Only manure Bill. You must be in a good mood today.

LOL

The regular instructor was unavailable for the class, and they hired
the lady that does pet work.

Maybe that's why, although i got some good pet trick out of it.

Dave
>
> William Robb
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>


-- 
Equine Photography
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
Ontario Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Mark Roberts]

Stan Halpin wrote:

>All of which is to say that, while I agree with Mark that we do  
>recognize and observe others at a grosser level of detail, it is also  
>true that we recognize and are uncomfortable at some unconscious  
>level when there is less detail than we are able to discern in real  
>life. We can cope with a softened portrait and may even find it  
>pleasing, but we recognize that it is an artificial representation.

I can think of a good example of overdoing the lack of detail in 
portraits: Remember those scary-looking Photoshop jobs of girls with 
big eyes, unnaturally plastic-looking skin, etc? Discussed on the list 
some time ago. Anyone got the link?


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Stan Halpin]

I am loosely involved with some research being done at the Institute  
for Creative Technology - in one line of work (not my project) they  
are trying to develop the technique for ultra-realistic computer- 
generated avatars for use in training films, etc. If you use anything  
more than a talking head with constant lighting, then the  
representation becomes a huge challenge. Think of the variation in  
lighting on a face as a person (avatar) moves from beneath a portico  
in heavy shade, across a courtyard in full sun, through the shade of  
a large tree, back into the sun, and then into shade from the portico  
on the other side (now partially lit by reflected light from the  
courtyard flagstones). To do this you need a model of the light color  
and intensity (relatively easy) and a model of the reflectance  
characteristics of the skin surface. A 2mm level-of-detail model of  
the face is not sufficient, they are finding they need to go to 1mm  
detail (individual pores). Otherwise large areas of the face look  
very artificial, like someone with a combination of excessive Botax  
plus excessive makeup.

All of which is to say that, while I agree with Mark that we do  
recognize and observe others at a grosser level of detail, it is also  
true that we recognize and are uncomfortable at some unconscious  
level when there is less detail than we are able to discern in real  
life. We can cope with a softened portrait and may even find it  
pleasing, but we recognize that it is an artificial representation.

stan

On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:

> William Robb wrote:
>
>>> On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
>>> wrote:

 The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this
 spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, it is about
 the face, the look. Any imperfections should be there in the photo.
 Thats who they are.
>>>
>>> I agree, but my "models" bitch & moan about looking old (to which I
>>> reply "You are old" :-)
>>
>> If you are doing pictures for yourself, then do what you want, but if
> you
>> are doing pictures for other people, then do what they want. If your
> models
>> are whining that your pictures aren't flattering, you should probably
> do
>> what you can to improve their look for them. If all it takes is a
> softening
>> filter, then that's what you need to do.
>> Dave, as a long time portrait shooter, I am going to go out on a limb
> here
>> and say that your instructor was full of manure.
>
> The instructor was full of manure. And not only for aesthetic and
> commercial reasons, but for scientific ones as well: Human beings  
> don't
> recognize faces by fine details and sharp, detailed portraits don't
> look like the way we remember the faces of people we know.
> That's why the "portrait lens" has long been quite a different animal
> form lenses intended for other purposes.
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above  
> and follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Mark Roberts]

Bob Sullivan wrote:

>You can always fuzz them up a bit.
>Try some gausian blurr.
>You can't ever make them sharper...

Two possible Photoshop techniques:

One:
Make a duplicate layer 
Brighten it up a lot
Apply gaussian blur - a lot (20-30 pixel radius)
Change blend mode to overlay
Adjust opacity to taste

Two:
Use CleanSkinFX software 
(http://www.mediachance.com/digicam/cleanskin.htm)
I find it a bit too extreme on its own, but if done to a duplicate 
image and applied as a layer to the original, it can be useful - 
experiment with changing opacity and erasing areas where you want 
detail to show.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Mark Roberts]

William Robb wrote:

>> On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this
>>> spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, it is about
>>> the face, the look. Any imperfections should be there in the photo.
>>> Thats who they are.
>>
>> I agree, but my "models" bitch & moan about looking old (to which I
>> reply "You are old" :-)
>
>If you are doing pictures for yourself, then do what you want, but if 
you 
>are doing pictures for other people, then do what they want. If your 
models 
>are whining that your pictures aren't flattering, you should probably 
do 
>what you can to improve their look for them. If all it takes is a 
softening 
>filter, then that's what you need to do.
>Dave, as a long time portrait shooter, I am going to go out on a limb 
here 
>and say that your instructor was full of manure.

The instructor was full of manure. And not only for aesthetic and 
commercial reasons, but for scientific ones as well: Human beings don't 
recognize faces by fine details and sharp, detailed portraits don't 
look like the way we remember the faces of people we know.
That's why the "portrait lens" has long been quite a different animal 
form lenses intended for other purposes.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David Savage]

On Nov 23, 2007 11:38 PM, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find it's best to treat blemishes or wrinkles individually. A very
> soft brush set at 30% opacity with a 30% fill rate can soften nicely.
> The color, of course, is picked up from a directly adjacent part of
> the face. That technique seems to work better than the healing brush.
> Paul

For individual blemishes I use the clone tool with the mode set to
lighten (or shadows & dark blemishes) or darken (for hotspots & light
blemishes). Dial the opacity down to around 15-10% and slowly build up
the necessary amount of "correction".

It works much better than the healing brush when dealing with skin.

Cheers,

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Paul Stenquist]

I find it's best to treat blemishes or wrinkles individually. A very  
soft brush set at 30% opacity with a 30% fill rate can soften nicely.  
The color, of course, is picked up from a directly adjacent part of  
the face. That technique seems to work better than the healing brush.
Paul
On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:05 AM, David Savage wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2007 10:30 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Every wrinkle, pore, blemish etc. is rendered in razor sharp detail.
>>>
>>
>> Yup. I noticed that when I bought my first 77mm LTD. I still use  
>> softening
>> filters to knock the lenses doen a bit since there is no Photoshop  
>> effect
>> that matches the look of a Softar.
>
> If I do much more of this in the future that may be worth considering.
>
> I've been sitting here for the last hour or so trying various
> softening techniques in PS and none of them are what I'd call
> pleasing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above  
> and follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David Savage]

On Nov 23, 2007 10:49 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree, but my "models" bitch & moan about looking old (to which I
> > reply "You are old" :-)
> >
>
> If you are doing pictures for yourself, then do what you want

These are purely lighting technique test photos. The resultant
portraits of Mum & Dad are a bonus.

They can moan all they want.

Cheers,

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David Savage]

On Nov 23, 2007 10:30 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Every wrinkle, pore, blemish etc. is rendered in razor sharp detail.
> >
>
> Yup. I noticed that when I bought my first 77mm LTD. I still use softening
> filters to knock the lenses doen a bit since there is no Photoshop effect
> that matches the look of a Softar.

If I do much more of this in the future that may be worth considering.

I've been sitting here for the last hour or so trying various
softening techniques in PS and none of them are what I'd call
pleasing.

Cheers,

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Savage"
Subject: Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation


> On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dave.
>>
>> The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this
>> spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, it is about
>> the face, the look. Any imperfections should be there in the photo.
>> Thats who they are.
>
> I agree, but my "models" bitch & moan about looking old (to which I
> reply "You are old" :-)
>

If you are doing pictures for yourself, then do what you want, but if you 
are doing pictures for other people, then do what they want. If your models 
are whining that your pictures aren't flattering, you should probably do 
what you can to improve their look for them. If all it takes is a softening 
filter, then that's what you need to do.
Dave, as a long time portrait shooter, I am going to go out on a limb here 
and say that your instructor was full of manure.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Savage"
Subject: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation


>I did some portraits of my parents this evening & I have to say that
> the 77 Ltd., for all it's good points, is a very unflattering lens for
> shooting people with a less than perfect complexion.

>
> Every wrinkle, pore, blemish etc. is rendered in razor sharp detail.
>

Yup. I noticed that when I bought my first 77mm LTD. I still use softening 
filters to knock the lenses doen a bit since there is no Photoshop effect 
that matches the look of a Softar.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David Savage]

On Nov 23, 2007 10:02 PM, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave.
>
> The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this
> spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, it is about
> the face, the look. Any imperfections should be there in the photo.
> Thats who they are.

I agree, but my "models" bitch & moan about looking old (to which I
reply "You are old" :-)

> Made sense to me.
>
> However its is a sharp lens is'nt it.:-)

Very. Here's a 100% crop from one shot:



Cheers,

Dave

> On 11/23/07, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I did some portraits of my parents this evening & I have to say that
> > the 77 Ltd., for all it's good points, is a very unflattering lens for
> > shooting people with a less than perfect complexion.
> >
> > Every wrinkle, pore, blemish etc. is rendered in razor sharp detail.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > /observation

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[David J Brooks]

Dave.

The one thing the teacher of the basic portriat class i took this
spring kept saying, was that when taking ones portrait, it is about
the face, the look. Any iomperfections should be there in the photo.
Thats who they are.

Made sence to me.

However its is a sharp lens is'nt it.:-)

Dave

On 11/23/07, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did some portraits of my parents this evening & I have to say that
> the 77 Ltd., for all it's good points, is a very unflattering lens for
> shooting people with a less than perfect complexion.
>
> Every wrinkle, pore, blemish etc. is rendered in razor sharp detail.
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> /observation
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>


-- 
Equine Photography
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
Ontario Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: FA 77mm Ltd. - An observation

[Bob Sullivan]

Dave,
You can always fuzz them up a bit.
Try some gausian blurr.
You can't ever make them sharper...
Regards, Bob S.

On Nov 23, 2007 6:38 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did some portraits of my parents this evening & I have to say that
> the 77 Ltd., for all it's good points, is a very unflattering lens for
> shooting people with a less than perfect complexion.
>
> Every wrinkle, pore, blemish etc. is rendered in razor sharp detail.
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> /observation
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.