Color portraits and or photographs of people

jack bergman.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I get the feeling these two weren't talking about the ice cream flavor of the month. Or maybe they were. I've known some folks I wouldn't want to get between them and a pint of Rum Raisin.
 
tudor dixon in tc4.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I've always found people photography to be the hardest. However, over the last couple of years I've shot a few 'portraits', candid and otherwise, with a long lens. This was taken the other day with my Sigma 150-600. I have to say that the distance a long lens provides makes me more comfortable doing people pics. I never would have tried this with a 24-70, for example.
 
View attachment 345742

I've always found people photography to be the hardest. However, over the last couple of years I've shot a few 'portraits', candid and otherwise, with a long lens. This was taken the other day with my Sigma 150-600. I have to say that the distance a long lens provides makes me more comfortable doing people pics. I never would have tried this with a 24-70, for example.
Totally agree, Will. I've got exactly the same issues.
 
2.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

She was very accomodating for a couple of snap pictures. Trying out the Tokina ATX-M 85mm f 1.8 FE, I have no experience with the DoF and trying to get the focus in the right place. I do have to say I enjoy the look of a full body shot and the background is not so melted away that it feels like an abstract portrait. I guess this is nothing new for a seasoned portrait and wedding photographer but I'm still new to the 35mm FF look.

1.JPG
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I did PP out some persistent people in the background (which is a lot easier when the background is so out of focus) in both shots and some "dirt and mess" on the ground.
 
View attachment 346055
She was very accomodating for a couple of snap pictures. Trying out the Tokina ATX-M 85mm f 1.8 FE, I have no experience with the DoF and trying to get the focus in the right place. I do have to say I enjoy the look of a full body shot and the background is not so melted away that it feels like an abstract portrait. I guess this is nothing new for a seasoned portrait and wedding photographer but I'm still new to the 35mm FF look.

View attachment 346057
I did PP out some persistent people in the background (which is a lot easier when the background is so out of focus) in both shots and some "dirt and mess" on the ground.
I like the dof. I like the composition. I like the lighting. I like the focus. I like the PP. I just don't understand her choice of footwear. It distracts from everything good going on in the image. Now, if I were a FILA stockholder I may have a different take on it.😉
 
It
I like the dof. I like the composition. I like the lighting. I like the focus. I like the PP. I just don't understand her choice of footwear. It distracts from everything good going on in the image. Now, if I were a FILA stockholder I may have a different take on it.😉
Wasn't a shoot per say, she was one of the family friend of my friend that I shot her wedding. But I do like her shoes, quite the contradictory of the dress and her look .... Very bold?
 
This is from last year's end of year shoot with these two - I'll be meeting them tomorrow in a park in the afternoon.
There should be dappled gentle lighting under the trees and sunshine in open areas.

Last year I took two bodies, one with the 90mm and the other with the 55-200 zoom (FUJI)
For variety I'm thinking of taking the 35mm f/1.4 and the 70-300 zoom tomorrow.
Any thoughts or other recommendations or suggestions?

Poli Joshua and Harmony A4397.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
This is from last year's end of year shoot with these two - I'll be meeting them tomorrow in a park in the afternoon.
There should be dappled gentle lighting under the trees and sunshine in open areas.

Last year I took two bodies, one with the 90mm and the other with the 55-200 zoom (FUJI)
For variety I'm thinking of taking the 35mm f/1.4 and the 70-300 zoom tomorrow.
Any thoughts or other recommendations or suggestions?

View attachment 350698
My vote is for the 35 1.4 and 90 f2.
 
And no zoom?
If there isn't much running and playing around two primes should be fine. If you or they want a bit of moment and interaction the Fuji 55-200mm would be quite useful. If its going to be portraits under foliage you can get quite a bit of fun to play with bokeh highlights, lots of boekh bubbles and even swirls depending on the lens rendition.
If it was my choice I would go with primes and take advantage of the bokeh.
 
While I have used zooms on portrait shoots when that was all I had. I have never needed a zoom on any portrait shoot.

I don't remember which lenses you have. But a second recommendation would be 23mm/50mm. Or 56mm if that's what you have. That's my goto prime two lens portrait kit.
While I have the 23, I find that a bit wide (and thus unflattering) for people pics. Anyway - mute point, shoot is cancelled because the kid's not feeling well.

This won't be a static studio style portrait shoot; it's a sub 2-year old active little kid and for the last shoot the 55-200 worked out quite well in that scenario.
I don't have a 56, however I do have the 90. For an outdoor walkabout shoot I find that rather heavy and a bit slow to focus (while it is a stunning lens, make
no mistake). Anyway - they'll only be returning to this city at the end of the month so it's been postponed till then. Giving me more time to plan and think :)
 
Interesting about the 90 focusing. The 90s I’ve had have been some of the fastest focusing lenses in the Fuji lineup for me.

I use the 23mm for environmental portraits and tight spaces. But this is where we get into shooting styles and personal preferences. There is no wrong way here.
 
Back
Top