Lots of fashion photographers shoot with 300mm for full size portrait,
it can give a very nice looking background. Although I have seen some
use super wide but you need a nice matching background, like some old
classic buildings. But long tele gives most pleasing result with less
background consideration.
C.H.Ling
Lex Jenkins wrote:
>
> 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 >
< 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 >
|