Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,614

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by rhino123 View Post
    I know I wouldn't have done it better... but forgive me for stating it... I seemed to detect a bit of softness in the photo and was it a bit of motion blur? Of course that still take skills that I lacked.
    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.
    5D/5D3/Zeiss/28-85/100 F2/200 F4/50 F1.4/70-200/24-85/85 F1.4
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeisser/

  2. #22
    Member voice123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    526

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    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 ?

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voice123 View Post

    the bg so blur...this consider good ?
    Are u trolling or what? Research on bokeh and narrow depth of field.
    D7100,SB910,17-50/2.8OS,105/2.8VR,85/1.8D,2xE-M1,O60/2.8,12-40/2.8,35-100/2.8,14-42,LX100

  4. #24
    Moderator rhino123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    5,247

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by voice123 View Post
    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.
    I am not a photographer, just someone who happened to have a couple of cameras.
    My lousy shots

  5. #25
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    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.
    Last edited by sammy888; 4th July 2014 at 07:17 AM.

  6. #26
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by sammy888 View Post
    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.

    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?
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sammy888 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    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.
    Sony A7/ Sigma 19-2.8 E/ CV 35-1.7 ASPH/ FE 55-1.8/ MC Rokkor 58-1.2/ Pentax SMC K 135-2.5

  8. #28
    Moderator rhino123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    5,247

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    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.
    Last edited by rhino123; 4th July 2014 at 09:38 AM.
    I am not a photographer, just someone who happened to have a couple of cameras.
    My lousy shots

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    sengkang
    Posts
    40

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by sammy888 View Post
    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.
    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

  10. #30
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    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?
    heheh you can't idiot proof "creativity and a good eye for taking the shot"

  11. #31
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by sammy888 View Post
    heheh you can't idiot proof "creativity and a good eye for taking the shot"
    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??
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  12. #32
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by RhythmCL View Post
    Hi guys, I am a newbie just started out photography as a hobby.

    I am currently using a canon650D for a year and a half now. I want to upgrade my kit lens to a better lens which allows me to take better portraits at larger aperture.
    As kit lens are always coupled with Image-stabilisation, I tend to take this feature for granted.

    I am currently looking into
    1. sigma 24-70 f2.8
    2. tamron 28-75mm f2.8

    Both of them does not comes with IS feature, will it affect me greatly? Is it a worthy upgrade from my kit lens?

    another question:
    Is the kit lens focal length(18-55, 18-135) an accurate representation of the focal length I shoot at?
    I understand 650D has a cropped sensor, so I should multiply that value by 4/3.

    I have the assumption that EF-S lens' focal length already accounted for the cropped factor, while I have to take into account the cropped factor for non-EFS lens, can someone correct me on this?


    Thanks for the answers!
    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.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    sengkang
    Posts
    40

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    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

  14. #34
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    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??

    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 by sammy888; 5th July 2014 at 01:00 AM.

  15. #35
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by RhythmCL View Post
    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
    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 by daredevil123; 5th July 2014 at 09:09 PM.

  16. #36

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    If you want serious subject isolation, go see the Bokeh Monster thread under "Others". Serious thin DOF poisoning. Health warning
    宁愿遇见丢失幼崽的母熊,也不愿碰上做蠢事的愚人

  17. #37

    Default Re: Is image-stabilisation important in taking portraits? and focal length question

    Quote Originally Posted by RhythmCL View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post
    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.
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •