# Recording Artist Portrait



## DanOstergren (Jan 27, 2020)

A recording artist portrait I was hired to shoot this week.

Shot using the original Canon 5D with a Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens attached, set to f/11, 1/160th sec, ISO 100. Lit with a single Neewer C300 flash and softbox.


----------



## rslt (Jan 28, 2020)

Veeery nice.


----------



## Valls (Jan 28, 2020)

Simple but effective lighting! The catchlight is so pleasing to look at and once again this photo is so crispy sharp I can't stop looking at it! Love the details!
Did you bounce any light back in to fill in the shadows?

Sent from my ASUS_Z01RD using Tapatalk


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 28, 2020)

Excellent image.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 28, 2020)

Love this.  Very spiritual looking.  Did you model this pose and lighting on a painting like some of your others?


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 28, 2020)

beautiful light AND textures!


----------



## Jeff15 (Jan 28, 2020)

Very good, great light...........


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 28, 2020)

rslt said:


> Veeery nice.


Thank you.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 28, 2020)

Valls said:


> Simple but effective lighting! The catchlight is so pleasing to look at and once again this photo is so crispy sharp I can't stop looking at it! Love the details!
> Did you bounce any light back in to fill in the shadows?
> 
> Sent from my ASUS_Z01RD using Tapatalk


Thanks! I use a macro lens for a lot of my portraits which really picks up a lot of great detail, and then add some subtle sharpening in post as the last step. The result is a portrait with details that look so crisp you feel like they are almost popping out of the display. 

I did use fill; a white foam board from the Dollar Tree with tin foil glued to it.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 28, 2020)

zombiesniper said:


> Excellent image.


Thank you so much.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 28, 2020)

SquarePeg said:


> Love this.  Very spiritual looking.  Did you model this pose and lighting on a painting like some of your others?


Thank you. 
I didn't necessarily model it specifically after a painting, but I do feel as if it's a style that has become second nature to the way I create portraits.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 28, 2020)

Trever1t said:


> beautiful light AND textures!


Thank you so much!


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 28, 2020)

Jeff15 said:


> Very good, great light...........


Thank you!


----------



## Derrel (Jan 28, 2020)

Nice one!


----------



## CherylL (Jan 28, 2020)

Another winner!  You are the light sculptor.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 28, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Nice one!


Thanks!


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 28, 2020)

CherylL said:


> Another winner!  You are the light sculptor.


Haha, thank you!


----------



## Valls (Jan 29, 2020)

DanOstergren said:


> Valls said:
> 
> 
> > Simple but effective lighting! The catchlight is so pleasing to look at and once again this photo is so crispy sharp I can't stop looking at it! Love the details!
> ...


Thats nice! Thanks for the info! I've been looking for a good macro lens for a while, actually! the Canon MP-E 65mm has all my attention for now, just gathering some money for it! But I wanted to have it for the macro shots, now I want it for the portraits aswell! hahah


----------



## Valls (Jan 29, 2020)

Valls said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Valls said:
> ...



Aaaaand I just found out I wouldn't be able to use it for portrait because the furthest it can focus is about 101mm away so.. I gotta chose between extreme 5x macro and no portraits or 1x macro and lovely portraits aswell! Probably will go with the latter


----------



## Warhorse (Jan 29, 2020)

Great portrait!


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 29, 2020)

Valls said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Valls said:
> ...


Personally for my work, if I were to be getting my first macro "portrait" lens, I'd go with a longer focal length that isn't going to distort facial features when you go in for closer shots that utilize the lens' macro capabilities. I like the 100mm focal length because it doesn't distort anything, and I can use my 50mm lens for shots that are waist up or full body, etc.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 29, 2020)

Valls said:


> Valls said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...


If you're doing portraits, I'd recommend the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (non L version). If you want a lens for extreme macro though and don't intend to use if for portraits, get the other one.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 29, 2020)

Warhorse said:


> Great portrait!


Thank you!


----------



## Derrel (Jan 29, 2020)

I used the Canon 100mm F/2.8 EF for a number of portraits back in the early 2000s. It is a solid Imager and doubles as a field telephoto and also as a macro lens as well as a portrait lens.

Here is a shot from the Canon 20D with in-camera sepia toning and the yellow filter preset applied. This shot was made Sept 21, 2005, at f/2.8, 1/80 second, Iso 800.

The 100 is a pretty decent lens. The MP-E is for 1x to 5x " ultra macro".


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 30, 2020)

Derrel said:


> View attachment 186024 I used the Canon 100mm F/2.8 EF for a number of portraits back in the early 2000s. It is a solid Imager and doubles as a field telephoto and also as a macro lens as well as a portrait lens.
> 
> Here is a shot from the Canon 20D with in-camera sepia toning and the yellow filter preset applied. This shot was made Sept 21, 2005, at f/2.8, 1/80 second, Iso 800.
> 
> The 100 is a pretty decent lens. The MP-E is for 1x to 5x " ultra macro".


I definitely wasn't expecting to like this lens or use it as much as I do. I owned it for about 5 months before I gave it much of a chance, but I'm glad I'm using it now. I was lucky enough to find it for $200 in a pawn shop in Portland; I don't think they realized what they had.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 30, 2020)

spam reported


----------



## Valls (Jan 30, 2020)

@DanOstergren @Derrel 

Thanks guys!! I'll keep an eye for the 100mm macro! I already have a 100mm focal lenght, but its a Yongnuo non-macro and non-stabilized lens, so I might sell it and get the canon 100mm macro! Btw, @DanOstergren, why the non L version? Is the L version not worthed the extra bucks?


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 30, 2020)

snowbear said:


> spam reported


Huh?


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 30, 2020)

Valls said:


> @DanOstergren @Derrel
> 
> Thanks guys!! I'll keep an eye for the 100mm macro! I already have a 100mm focal lenght, but its a Yongnuo non-macro and non-stabilized lens, so I might sell it and get the canon 100mm macro! Btw, @DanOstergren, why the non L version? Is the L version not worthed the extra bucks?


Personally I find a steady hand and the right shutter settings to be enough to stabilize the camera, but if you think you need the IS then maybe go for the L version. I also personally feel that luxury lenses are a bit of a money grab and cannot be a substitute for good camera operating skills.


----------



## Valls (Jan 30, 2020)

Well, I do drink too much coffee throughout the day! hahah steady hands are not my speciallity! though I have to assume I has always been led to believe that the L series had more of a premium glass that would render better quallity image, not only aditional IS and a red line! lol I never had one, though!


----------



## Derrel (Jan 30, 2020)

Experts have mentioned that image stabilization does not work as well in macro shooting as it does in normal- distance work. Still, Canon's IS technology does work well, and it allows slow-speed hand-holding and panning, and is useful in the wind or when shooting from a boat.The price difference between the L (IS) and the non-L is pretty large. I payed $160 used for the non-stabilized internal focus 100 macro in 2003. There was a 100/2.8 which was _not_ internal focusing.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 30, 2020)

A 100-105mm focal length looks quite beautiful on pictures of people...it's subtly different from shorter lens lengths like 50 or 70 or even 85mm.

The longer the lens focal length the more objects behind the point of focus are magnified in actual size, and longer lenses appear  to "flatten" the scene. Longer lenses also force you to step back a ways,which leads to what most people consider a more flattering perspective.

Canon also makes a 100mm f/2 non macro lens which gets very little love, even though it is quite a good Imager.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 30, 2020)

DanOstergren said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > spam reported
> ...


spammy post was deleted; actually nine of them in various threads


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 30, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Canon also makes a 100mm f/2 non macro lens which gets very little love, even though it is quite a good Imager.


I didn't even know about that lens until you mentioned it here.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 30, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Experts have mentioned that image stabilization does not work as well in macro shooting as it does in normal- distance work. Still, Canon's IS technology does work well, and it allows slow-speed hand-holding and panning, and is useful in the wind or when shooting from a boat.The price difference between the L (IS) and the non-L is pretty large. I payed $160 used for the non-stabilized internal focus 100 macro in 2003. There was a 100/2.8 which was _not_ internal focusing.


I can definitely see how IS could be really helpful, but even with the non IS version I seem to have minimal issues (definitely not perfect) with portraits and macro beauty shots. Currently the L version is discounted to $699 and the non L version is $599, so if $100 is of no concern, I certainly wouldn't raise my eyebrows to someone choosing the L version over the non.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 30, 2020)

snowbear said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > snowbear said:
> ...


Ah, well thank you for reporting it.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 30, 2020)

Valls said:


> Well, I do drink too much coffee throughout the day! hahah steady hands are not my speciallity! though I have to assume I has always been led to believe that the L series had more of a premium glass that would render better quallity image, not only aditional IS and a red line! lol I never had one, though!


The price for the L version currently has a pretty good discount on it, making it only $100 more than the non L version if you're buying new off of the Canon website, so I wouldn't blame you for going with the L version if you can justify the $100 difference.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 30, 2020)

Years ago the late Dirk Vermierre (sp?) Did lots of fantastic photos with the 100mm f/2 using the aps-c Fuji S2 Pro. It is an extremely underused lens.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 30, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Years ago the late Dirk Vermierre (sp?) Did lots of fantastic photos with the 100mm f/2 using the aps-c Fuji S2 Pro. It is an extremely underused lens.


If I ever see one at a decent price and can justify buying a second 100mm lens, I'll likely get it to see how I like it for portraits. After using the 135mm for so many years, I think I'm finding that I much prefer the added versatility of the 100mm focal length in comparison. It's just a little more practical.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 31, 2020)

I have never seen a used 100/2... I am mainly a used lens buyer... I like to get a good deal when I buy a lens... there is a huge number of 135 mm f/2L lenses on the market and I used to have one, but like I said I have never seen a single 100 F2 in the real world on the used Market


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 31, 2020)

Derrel said:


> I have never seen a used 100/2... I am mainly a used lens buyer... I like to get a good deal when I buy a lens... there is a huge number of 135 mm f/2L lenses on the market and I used to have one, but like I said I have never seen a single 100 F2 in the real world on the used Market


It looks like you can order a refurbished one with a 1 year limited warranty for a decent price off of the Canon website. Not a bad option if I can't find used.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 31, 2020)

I would wager that at least one or two of the large national retailers of used equipment has a 100 mm f/2 Canon EF in stock. Perhaps even Samy's Camera in Los Angeles has one in its large used inventory.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 31, 2020)

DanOstergren said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...


You're welcome; any time.


----------

