Perhaps I should clarify by saying I think the normal lens is preferable for
other than head-and-shoulders portraiture. I can't think of a category for
demi-length or full-length portraiture because terms like "glamour"
photography seem to imply nudity or semi-nudity.
I'm thinking more along the lines of fashion photography, in which one is
capturing more than just the subject's head and shoulders or face. For that
I prefer a normal lens, and would really prefer an f/1.2 if I could afford
it.
I generally prefer this type of portraiture for the context. A person is
more than just a face.
Lex
===
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:24:40 +0100
From: Chris Barker <imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I always thought that the longer lens (the short tele) was used for
portraiture because it offered less close-up distortion of, say, the
nose in relation to the remainder of the face (than a shorter focal
length like the 50, any 50).
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
< 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 >
|