# My Favorite Focal Length for Studio Fashion



## benjikan (Aug 9, 2010)

Everyone I know in the business have their preferences regarding focal lengths for different applications.  I tend to work quite a bit shorter than most when it comes to working in closed quarters in a studio environment.  I specify this for a reason. Studio work is a fixed space that you set up lights in and know what those dimensions are for the whole day of the shoot.  Unlike interior location shoots where you often have to change settings and adapt your focal lengths to the circumstances.

It is for this reason, that I often find myself using a wide angle zoom in non studio environments.  My focal length of choice in 75% of my studio shoots is around 60-75mm i.e. 40-50mm in the 1.5 ratio APS-C sensor cameras.  But I tend to shoot closer to the former.  I have read on several forums that the majority of shooters tend to shoot quite a bit longer i.e. 90-120mm i.e. 60-80mm 1.5 ration APS-C sensor cameras.  I find that getting in closer to the model, allows you to communicate on a different level which in my opinion is more immediate.  I am also not that fond of (at least at this juncture in time) that compressed  long focal length look.  All of the major brands have focal lengths that fill this criteria.

I have on occasion shot shorter than the above at around 30mm (45mm) APS-C, with very pleasing results, but for this focal length I need to work in studio's with very high ceilings, as I more often than not am sitting or lying on the floor when shooting.  I also need the much larger seamless when using this wider focal length or just work off of a bare studio cyclo wall.

Shooting at these shorter focal lengths most certainly have a distinctively modern edgy look about them (at least for now)...So don't be afraid to experiment with shorter than the recommended norm for fashion work.  It may give you a bit of the edge to stand out from the rest of the very highly populated crowd.

Would love to get your feedback...

Benjamin Kanarek Blog | Benjamin Kanarek Blog


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 9, 2010)

An area I am wanting to get into to. I love my 60/2 (about a 93mm on my Canon 50D) Tamron macro. Plan on adding the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 very soon and these 3 will probably be what I use most of the time for the wide side the 17-50/2.8 Tamron I think does more than a well enough job, though I have thought about picking up the 28/1.8 Canon (Yeah I just love primes) After those I think I'll grab another 70-200 but been debating on what one. I really loved the Tamron one I had when I shot with Nikon but hated the slow AF sigma had the AF but not the image quality. Of course Canon had them both but cringed on that price tag. So who knows. I might just skip it as I favor primes anyways and would only use zooms now and again anyways.


----------



## benjikan (Aug 9, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> An area I am wanting to get into to. I love my 60/2 (about a 93mm on my Canon 50D) Tamron macro. Plan on adding the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 very soon and these 3 will probably be what I use most of the time for the wide side the 17-50/2.8 Tamron I think does more than a well enough job, though I have thought about picking up the 28/1.8 Canon (Yeah I just love primes) After those I think I'll grab another 70-200 but been debating on what one. I really loved the Tamron one I had when I shot with Nikon but hated the slow AF sigma had the AF but not the image quality. Of course Canon had them both but cringed on that price tag. So who knows. I might just skip it as I favor primes anyways and would only use zooms now and again anyways.



I really love Tamron lenses and especially their 28-75 Gem.  The 17-50 you are using has had some very strong reviews in their favor and I would have no reservations using it professionally.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 9, 2010)

No. You want a long lens: It makes the face look better. Many pros use lenses in the 90mm-180mm range, sometimes even longer.

Taken with 180mm:











Taken with 350mm:






Taken with 350mm:






Taken with 350mm:







Taken with 350mm:


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2010)

"many pros" eh???

Do you even know who Benjamin Kanarek actually is?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 9, 2010)

Derrel said:


> "many pros" eh???
> 
> Do you even know who Benjamin Kanarek actually is?



No, nor do I care. Long lenses (longer than 50mm on a 24x36mm frame) are more flattering to the face. This is well known and incontrovertible. The classic 'portrait' length is the 80-105mm range. I prefer even longer sometimes.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > "many pros" eh???
> ...



There's that hubris thing going on again. Kanarek's fashion and beauty credits include the top magazines in Europe. The USA. The UK. He knows more about flattering faces than I think, anybody on this board. You offering your opinion to Benjamin Kanarek is amusing,to say the very least. Perhaps you have some space walking tips to offer the US and Russian Space Station crews? Maybe?

For girl-watching candids at festivals, I can understand why you're using long lenses; Benjamin's post is about focal lengths for studio fashion photography, not about snapping shots of girls in tight tank tops at open air festivals...350mm is a bit long for most studio fashion work, dontcha' think P-P?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 9, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



If he says he thinks that longer-than-normal lenses are not flattering, he's wrong. End of discussion. That's not just _my _opinion, it's well known and incontrovertible. The ''classic' portrait length is 80-105 mm or so. I won't even consider discussing this inane statement. It's bunk.

Being farther away makes the relative distance between the front of the face and the back of the face less disparate. This means that the nose is less prominent. It's the 'being farther away' part that is the key, not the focal length. The focal length is simply the one that fits the frame from that distance.

When Cecil B. Demille did those close-ups, they used a long lens....


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...




Incontrovertable,eh?


----------



## gsgary (Aug 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> No. You want a long lens: It makes the face look better. Many pros use lenses in the 90mm-180mm range, sometimes even longer.
> 
> Taken with 180mm:
> 
> ...



Are these the best examples you have to offer, very disappointing


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 9, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > No. You want a long lens: It makes the face look better. Many pros use lenses in the 90mm-180mm range, sometimes even longer.
> ...



They are examples of faces taken with long lenses, to illustrate the point. They are candids taken at a festival. No-one was posing.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 9, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...




Yes, incontrovertable.

http://inyourface.ocregister.com/files/2008/08/greta_garbo-230p.jpg

You can easily tell this was taken with a long lens.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



While benjikan's posts usually bore me, (Sorry benjikan, the fashion world bores me these days, it's not you) Benjamin Kanarek has forgotten more about photography than you have learned either behind the camera, or in those philosophy classes you hold so dear.  

Let me see here, whom should I listen to for advice on this particular subject?  A well known and well respected photographer in his field who makes his living from photography, or a guy who writes books discussing the philosophy of whether a tree makes a sound if it falls in the wood when no one is around.  

That answer is *incontrovertible!*   :mrgreen:

So benjikan, tell us more.








p.s.  Petraio, if your going to write books, even philosophy books, spelling is a useful skill to have.  it is *i*ncontrovertible not incontrovertable.


----------



## Polyphony (Aug 9, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



It's "you*'re*" not "your"


P.S. Not attacking you. I'm just a grammar nazi.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 10, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



I wouldn't dream of calling myself a 'professional' photographer. Even I have standards.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 10, 2010)

I need help lol


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:
			
		

> I wouldn't dream of calling myself a 'professional' photographer. Even I have standards.



Apparently terrorists and Al Queda members are also tired of being called "photographers". They feel it's demeaning to be  lumped into the category of "photographer"> I was surprised by some of the points of view they expressed.

Terrorists 'sick of being treated like photographers' | newsarse.comAs onwe of them said, "&#8220;*Photographers are a blight on society, and* obviously I damn them all to Hell, but I find* the assumption that carrying a camera makes me some sort of &#8216;photographer&#8217; insulting in the extreme*.&#8221;


----------



## IlSan (Aug 10, 2010)

Thank you Benjamin for that insight :thumbup:

Will have to give it a shot at the next shoot


----------



## benjikan (Aug 10, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> No. You want a long lens: It makes the face look better. Many pros use lenses in the 90mm-180mm range, sometimes even longer.
> 
> Taken with 180mm:
> 
> ...



Yes I agree that many Pro's use very long lenses.  Gilles Benssimon loved to shoot 400mm f2.8 outdoors for fashion.  I am just sharing what I use for Fashion, not Beauty in a confined space i.e. the studio for what I do only.  There are NO hard fast RULES in this game.


----------



## benjikan (Aug 10, 2010)

Derrel said:


> "many pros" eh???
> 
> Do you even know who Benjamin Kanarek actually is?



That's OK, I sometimes wonder about who I am and what I am doing in this BIZ!!!

By the way you might enjoy this little Harper's BAZAAR China 14 page story that is in the August 2010 Issue...A little making of Video as well.

All shot with my APS-C cropped lens 40mm LTD, i.e. 60mm in FF.

Benjamin Kanarek Blog | Benjamin Kanarek Blog


----------



## benjikan (Aug 10, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



OOOPPPSSS...Didn't expect this post to get so heated.  

Ummmmm, well...Let me see.  I like usin stuff to tek "piTchers" and sometymes I use different stuff to get different looks. I lyke taken photos..ummmmm....a long lens looks impressive to dah chicks and they get reel exciterd wen I use dem. Short lenses make me feeel self consicouch so I dunt like usen em around dah chicks cuz they make me feel like a small lens.  Yah get my meenin? Duz diz elp undestandn why sum people like long lenzez?


----------



## benjikan (Aug 10, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> I need help lol



I see you have the 12-24...What an amazing lens...I am addicted to it.  Here is a sample from that baby.






"Chucky's in Love" photo - Benjamin Kanarek photos at pbase.com


----------



## benjikan (Aug 10, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



*You're* not being nice! Now pick up *your* books and stand in the corner of the class...


----------



## Dao (Aug 10, 2010)

Ben ... by reading most of the your posts in the past (especially when people had -ve comments).  I think your E.Q. is pretty high.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 10, 2010)

benjikan said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> > I need help lol
> ...



You need a assistant lol. Very cool shot.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 10, 2010)

Those guys use long lens so you dont get as much of the background so the subject is very isolated. If you are shooting with white fashion background in a studio, all you see is white background. I guess I dont understand why on earth you want to use long lenses.  Maybe I am just making another "newbie" comment LOL.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 10, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> Those guys use long lens so you dont get as much of the background so the subject is very isolated. If you are shooting with white fashion background in a studio, all you see is white background. I guess I dont understand why on earth you want to use long lenses.  Maybe I am just making another "newbie" comment LOL.



The _perspective _you get is different.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 10, 2010)

I guess you are right.. Only if the depth of the subject is pretty deep though (i.e. legs stretch toward you)



Petraio Prime said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Those guys use long lens so you dont get as much of the background so the subject is very isolated. If you are shooting with white fashion background in a studio, all you see is white background. I guess I dont understand why on earth you want to use long lenses. Maybe I am just making another "newbie" comment LOL.
> ...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 10, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> I guess you are right.. Only if the depth of the subject is pretty deep though (i.e. legs stretch toward you)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not just that. The nose becomes more prominent the shorter the lens.

See:

http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/focallengtharticle.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1373/1196701508_5d3976b744.jpg

Uncategorized  Grade 11 Communications Technology


----------



## benjikan (Aug 10, 2010)

Dao said:


> Ben ... by reading most of the your posts in the past (especially when people had -ve comments).  I think your E.Q. is pretty high.



I Have a 13.5 E.Q. and a 0.0043 I.Q. :lmao:


----------



## benjikan (Aug 10, 2010)

To simplify this POST and to end the Brouhaha, *Petrio is RIGHT!!!* He is* CORRECT!!!* I AM *WRONG!!!! PLEASE FORGIVE ME*, for I have *WAVERED* from the all Mighty *RULE of THIRDS (or what ever)*...All I know is I apologize and I will never ever use anything less than a* 90mm* lens when shooting _gorgeously voluptuous models...:hug::_


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 10, 2010)

benjikan said:


> To simplify this POST and to end the Brouhaha, *Petrio is RIGHT!!!* He is* CORRECT!!!* I AM *WRONG!!!! PLEASE FORGIVE ME*, for I have *WAVERED* from the all Mighty *RULE of THIRDS (or what ever)*...All I know is I apologize and I will never ever use anything less than a* 90mm* lens when shooting _gorgeously voluptuous models...:hug::_



Well you don't want their *noses *to swell up, now, do you?


----------



## gsgary (Aug 10, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> benjikan said:
> 
> 
> > To simplify this POST and to end the Brouhaha, *Petrio is RIGHT!!!* He is* CORRECT!!!* I AM *WRONG!!!! PLEASE FORGIVE ME*, for I have *WAVERED* from the all Mighty *RULE of THIRDS (or what ever)*...All I know is I apologize and I will never ever use anything less than a* 90mm* lens when shooting _gorgeously voluptuous models...:hug::_
> ...




I would rather use shorter lenses then you can get closer to the pretty models, not keen on perving from a distance


----------



## Dao (Aug 10, 2010)

gsgary said:


> I would rather use shorter lenses then you can get closer to the pretty models, not keen on perving from a distance



Like ......  50mm macro lens?


----------



## Overread (Aug 10, 2010)

forget that you want a 35mm macro for that real close up encounter 

I've often liked some of Juza's 300mm portraits (of people)
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/various-tanzania_masai_and_people.htm

scroll down for examples.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 10, 2010)

There is a new 8-16 from Sigma is it? I will grab one of those that should do the trick. Be right back got to get on Amazon.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 10, 2010)

Back just to be safe I found this to [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-650-2600mm-Telephoto-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000MXRZEO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1281460148&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Phoenix 650-2600mm Telephoto Lens with Mount for Canon&#133;[/ame] So you can be a pro also now Ben. Damn, I knew that the industry was always changing but didn't see it change so much as you needed long lens to be pro and how good the pics were was irrelevant. Thanks Petraio for telling this. Pics can suck, just shoot it big! Now SI should be calling me about that cover. Damn Im going to miss EQ2 raid time. Thanks a lot!


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 10, 2010)

I should add that _true _professional models are trained (or _should _be trained) to work with photographers who may not be close to them, for precisely this reason (i.e., that the photographer often needs to back up and use a long lens).


----------



## benjikan (Aug 10, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> Back just to be safe I found this to Amazon.com: Phoenix 650-2600mm Telephoto Lens with Mount for Canon&#8230; So you can be a pro also now Ben. Damn, I knew that the industry was always changing but didn't see it change so much as you needed long lens to be pro and how good the pics were was irrelevant. Thanks Petraio for telling this. Pics can suck, just shoot it big! Now SI should be calling me about that cover. Damn Im going to miss EQ2 raid time. Thanks a lot!



Just ordered it...I have informed all of the clients that I have worked for over the last 25+ years that I am now OFFICIALLY a Professional Photographer...Whew...I'm glad that that is settled.


----------



## benjikan (Aug 10, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I should add that _true _professional models are trained (or _should _be trained) to work with photographers who may not be close to them, for precisely this reason (i.e., that the photographer often needs to back up and use a long lens).



Actually and this true, most of the Photog's I know who shoot ultra long, have  Walkie-Talkie's set up between the photog and the assistant, where the assistant is next to the model listening to the directions of the photog.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 10, 2010)

benjikan said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> > Back just to be safe I found this to Amazon.com: Phoenix 650-2600mm Telephoto Lens with Mount for Canon So you can be a pro also now Ben. Damn, I knew that the industry was always changing but didn't see it change so much as you needed long lens to be pro and how good the pics were was irrelevant. Thanks Petraio for telling this. Pics can suck, just shoot it big! Now SI should be calling me about that cover. Damn Im going to miss EQ2 raid time. Thanks a lot!
> ...



I'm _not _a professional photographer, nor would I want to be. I'm a 'gentleman' photographer.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 10, 2010)

benjikan said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > I should add that _true _professional models are trained (or _should _be trained) to work with photographers who may not be close to them, for precisely this reason (i.e., that the photographer often needs to back up and use a long lens).
> ...



I should think that 400mm is a bit much, that lenses in the range of 90-250mm would be the most useful, but in any case the models should be able to work in such situations. I am extremely pleased with my newly acquired 350mm Telyt-R, and got quite a few nice candids at the Comfest here in Columbus in June. I also used the 180 Elmarit-R.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2010)

Here's what you need Benjamin...Petraio's beloved 560mm f/6.8 Leitz Telyt-R...

Leitz 560mm f/6.8 Telyt-R photo - Piotr Sobolewski photos at pbase.com

Ought to be a great indoor fashion lens. I hear they're renting out the New Orleans Superdome football stadium to visiting fashion photographers, so there will be plenty of distance to back up and get full-body shots of even two models.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 10, 2010)

LOL


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 10, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Here's what you need Benjamin...Petraio's beloved 560mm f/6.8 Leitz Telyt-R...
> 
> Leitz 560mm f/6.8 Telyt-R photo - Piotr Sobolewski photos at pbase.com
> 
> Ought to be a great indoor fashion lens. I hear they're renting out the New Orleans Superdome football stadium to visiting fashion photographers, so there will be plenty of distance to back up and get full-body shots of even two models.



But I really want one of these:

800mm f/6.3 Telyt-S - Leica Wiki (English)

Leitz Wetzlar Telyt-S 6,3/800 mm für Leicaflex/Leica R - eBay.ch (endet 20.08.10 15:27:23 MESZ)

Be nice for candid portraits. I think this lens was developed to get good shots of those pretty East German models.....from the other side of the wall.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 10, 2010)

Its a good start. Can you use a X2 tele with that and get the girls to stand still for a hour for the exposure?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 10, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> Its a good start. Can you use a X2 tele with that and get the girls to stand still for a hour for the exposure?



It's f/6.3, a doubler would lose two stops, making it about f/13? That's not a problem.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 10, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...




By Jove, I do believe that you are correct. Good thing I don't write books for a living Ain't it??:lmao:


----------



## table1349 (Aug 10, 2010)

Benjamin

What you really need is this lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





With this lens and a couple of cell phones you could stay in bed and shoot just as long as you had line of sight to the models location within 18 to 32 miles.  Besides 5200mm would slim Rosie O'Donnell so much she would end up looking like Twiggy.  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

You might want to invest in pocket wizards though.  I'm not sure them cactus triggers have that much range.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 10, 2010)

^^^  Do you attach the lens to the camera?  Or is it the other way?


----------



## table1349 (Aug 10, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> ^^^  Do you attach the lens to the camera?  Or is it the other way?



_(Read in your best Arnold Schwarzenegger voice_)

*It all depends whether you are a girlie man or not.
*


----------



## benjikan (Aug 10, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Benjamin
> 
> What you really need is this lens.
> 
> ...



I was looking for an ultra compact for those times when you don't want to lug around the big guns..This is the perfect solution...Comes with a U-Haul.:lmao:


----------



## table1349 (Aug 10, 2010)

benjikan said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Benjamin
> ...



Mount it on the back of a flat bed truck on a swivel mount and you could be "The French Terrorist of the Fashion World."


----------



## table1349 (Aug 10, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> benjikan said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


Your Motto could be:  Have lens....and a Hernia.:lmao:


----------



## benjikan (Aug 11, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > benjikan said:
> ...



Now that IS FUNNY!!! :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## benjikan (Aug 11, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> benjikan said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...



Would love to, but I'm not French...I am Anglo Canadian...


----------



## inTempus (Aug 11, 2010)

Benjamin, I implore you to stop butchering the art of fashion with your use of short lenses.  Obviously you don't know what you're doing (shooting Pentax?!?!) and your clients are tasteless.



/sarcasm

Love the work on your pbase site man, simply amazing.  If I send you a couple of lenses, will you bless them so perhaps a little of your mojo might rub off on them?


----------



## benjikan (Aug 11, 2010)

inTempus said:


> Benjamin, I implore you to stop butchering the art of fashion with your use of short lenses.  Obviously you don't know what you're doing (shooting Pentax?!?!) and your clients are tasteless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just blessed them in abstention


----------



## table1349 (Aug 11, 2010)

benjikan said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > benjikan said:
> ...



My apologies for the Faux pas

Ohhhh that's even better though.  I can see the headlines in gay paree now.  _(Please read using your best Maurice Chevalier or if you prefer Inspector Clouseau voice.)_

*Crazed Transplanted Canadian Fashion Photographer Benjamin Kanarek Terrorizes The Paris Fashion World.

*Paris 2010

The Fashion World was rocked today by Fashion Photographer Benjamin Kanarek when he showed up at the the Carrousel du Louvre for the 2010 Paris Fashion week driving a cut down Renault Trafic Generation sporting what looked to be a large cannon mounted on the back of the vehicle.  

Kanarek, backed at a high rate of speed into the Carrousel du Louvre straight up to the runway, jumped to the back behind the cannon looking object and began taking photographs as the models were traversing the runway in Christian Lacroix's fall collection.  Models fled in terror fearing that the enormous lens Kanarek was using would magnify every pimple and blemish 1000 times or more.  

Fashion Writer Marylou Luther was last seen running across the Pont du Carrousel bridge in bare feet.  She quickly ducked into a small thrift shop emerging a few minutes later in a beige pants suit and big floppy hat racing back to the office of the Chambre Syndicale in tears. (continued on page 3B.)

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## benjikan (Aug 18, 2010)

Very witty to say the least:lmao:


----------



## benjikan (Mar 20, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> Those guys use long lens so you dont get as much of the background so the subject is very isolated. If you are shooting with white fashion background in a studio, all you see is white background. I guess I dont understand why on earth you want to use long lenses.  Maybe I am just making another "newbie" comment LOL.



Hans Feurer is a highly accomplished professional photographer who uses very long lenses to accomplish his look and stye somewhat like Gilles Bensimon used to do.  I have in the past used a 300 mm f/2.8 outdoors to do fashion, but eventually stopped, opting for a closer more intimate direction, i.e. shorter focal lengths.

Benjamin Kanarek Blog | Benjamin Kanarek Blog


----------

