Giles, I tend to agree with you. Yet, I read somewhere that center spreads
for Playboy were often shot using a wide angle lens. Although the term
portrait suggests a cropped view as compared to a center spread, how would
the apparent distortion be compensated for? I'm not suggesting changing
the viewing distance either.
Gregg
Giles wrote:
Using a wide angle might be more 'fun' but I do not think it leads to
flattering or very pleasing results, at least so far as my own personal
taste goes.
Give my 180mm for doing a portrait over a 18mm any day.
The other issue might be whether you are doing portraits for yourself or
the subject. If the latter, I do not think a wide angle would be the best
tool unless an unusual weird look is the aim.
By portrait, I am assuming a shot where the head or face takes up a
significant potion of thr frame, not a whole body shot.
These are just my opinions with regard to my own taste.
Giles
miaim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> a 135/3.5. For the vast bulk of the PhotoJ "people work" I simply used
> either a 28/2.8 or 35/2.8. Believe it or not, I also found a Vivitar 19mm
> useful for up tight and personal people shots. Perhaps these type shots
> are
>
> because you like to get close. So why not get close to people with a wide
> angle for portraits? Sure you're intruding into their space, and sure it
> may somewhat change the interaction, but it's somewhat more fun than
> simply standing way back and clicking away. ;-)
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|