# a couple of recent portraits



## chuasam (Feb 14, 2017)

Damn I am in LOVE with my Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E
If I could buy it a Valentine's Card, I totally would.

Here's a few images from shoots this week.


----------



## Destin (Feb 15, 2017)

I want one. 

Still working on justifying the price to myself though.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 15, 2017)

Destin said:


> I want one.
> 
> Still working on justifying the price to myself though.


I wept the day it was announced.
I saved for 6 months, I sold my old AF-S 85mm f/1.8G
It was totally worth it!
I have never seen a lens that good.
If you don't want to spend that much, the Sigma ART 85mm f/1.4 is supposedly amazeballs. (and USD 1,000 less)


----------



## Destin (Feb 15, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > I want one.
> ...



I'll probably buy one if I start booking more portrait sessions, but strictly because it's so damn sexy. That bokeh is amazing.


----------



## Krell0 (Feb 15, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > I want one.
> ...


Ywah i am going with the sigma at least until i have all my focal lengths covered. Maybe next year ir year and a half I will be able to justify it. Might wait until I have 2 cameras. 

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 15, 2017)

Great stuff. I really want a prime lens around that range. 135mm is a bit long, and I sometimes want a bit more compression than what I get from my 85mm. 

The light in the first shot is a bit flat and I find myself wishing it was sculpting his features a bit more. Love the second shot, although there are a couple of spots that I think could use a very subtle bit of dodging and burning on her skin (burn the bright spot coming from the corner of her mouth on the right side of the image, and dodge some dark spots along the hairline and above the eyebrow on the right side).


----------



## mmaria (Feb 16, 2017)

love the second one and agree with what Dan said


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 16, 2017)

Chopped heads are a pet peeve of mine, so take that critique as just a personal preference. 
Not sure on the horizontal crop,  but again, that also might just fall under personal taste. Otherwise, I really love #2.

#1 looks fantastic.  It's just the type of portrait lighting i like,  and the pose is great. 
I guess you just like horizontal crops. 


Sent via Synchronized Cardioversion


----------



## bumkicho (Feb 16, 2017)

Very nice!! I would so love to have this lens, but that's out of my price range. Having said that, these are great photos regardless of the lens. I like the horizontal frame!


----------



## chuasam (Feb 16, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> Great stuff. I really want a prime lens around that range. 135mm is a bit long, and I sometimes want a bit more compression than what I get from my 85mm.
> 
> The light in the first shot is a bit flat and I find myself wishing it was sculpting his features a bit more. Love the second shot, although there are a couple of spots that I think could use a very subtle bit of dodging and burning on her skin (burn the bright spot coming from the corner of her mouth on the right side of the image, and dodge some dark spots along the hairline and above the eyebrow on the right side).



Thanks Dan, both were ambient light. The hot spot on her lip is actual pigment discolouration. I could colour that in. 
Image one : shot in a gazebo in a snow covered park on a cloudy day hahha softest possible light. 

I'll post more from the shoot later. 

If you use Nikon, go out there and get the lens. It is the most utterly amazing lens I've ever used.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 16, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> Chopped heads are a pet peeve of mine, so take that critique as just a personal preference.
> Not sure on the horizontal crop,  but again, that also might just fall under personal taste. Otherwise, I really love #2.
> 
> #1 looks fantastic.  It's just the type of portrait lighting i like,  and the pose is great.
> ...



Horizontal crop echoes movie and tv screens that these actors use these photos for. I like horizontal because it fits my website better. 
Overfilling the frame by cropping the top of the head brings in a closeness and intimacy and draws you to the eyes. 

It's a trend right now too. 

When people start viewing casting images more on iPads and other mobile devices we might trend back to verticals.


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 16, 2017)

chuasam said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Great stuff. I really want a prime lens around that range. 135mm is a bit long, and I sometimes want a bit more compression than what I get from my 85mm.
> ...


Not sure if we're talking about the same spot lol. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I shoot with Canon and it's unlikely I'll be switching sides any time soon. I have my eyes on a couple of 100mm lenses, just have to save up a little bit. I loved my 135mm lens, but honestly I have a bit of an aversion to expensive lenses when there is usually a much less expensive lens that will do the job just fine.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 16, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...


ahhh was talking about other side of her face.
Here's a few others from the same shoots


 



The 105mm f/1.4E cost about the same as my 70-200 f/2.8G VRII but does a much better job of portraiture.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2017)

There is no other, less-expensive lens that has this type of lens drawing style or resolving ability or contrast or perfection of bokeh without harshness. This is one of the finest lenses made in the last decade. Period. The images this lens creates look a LOT like those from the 200mm f/2 VR Nikkor in most ways, but this lens is smaller, lighter, and several thousand dollars less costly. The degree of _visual impression_ this new 105mm lens stamps on images made at portrait distances is staggeringly high.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 17, 2017)

I hear that the new sigma art 85 is very good too


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 17, 2017)

I haven't shot with the 105mm, so I can't truly make a real comparison, but judging by the images I've seen thus far, I do think the 135mm f/2L is comparable in terms of how it renders what's in focus and what's not in focus, perhaps with even smoother out of focus transitions. It's also much less expensive than the 105mm lens, although I'm referring to the Canon 135mmL, so not exactly an option for Nikon shooters.

Chuasam, what aperture were you shooting at for these photos? I feel like more should be in focus, especially on the shot that shows more of the girl's outfit. The lighting is beautiful and the editing and colors are wonderful, but I feel that the lack of focus particularly in that shot takes away some of the impact of the image. For clarification I don't think it's unsuccessful because of the lack of focus because I still like the photo, I just think that with such a long focal length you could still achieve a dreamy out of focus effect while still getting more of the details in focus that help formulate a story for the viewer.


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 17, 2017)

One other thing that caught my eye (I hope I don't apear like I am nitpicking, I love your work honestly) are the saturation levels in the ears and on the inner lip of the model in the 4th photo. On my own photos I use a hue/saturation adjustment layer with a mask in order to selectively reduce the saturation of the reds in certains spots of the lips, ears, and sometimes the bridge of the nose and the eye lids when I end up having those neon toned reds on the skin.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 17, 2017)

chuasam said:


> I hear that the new sigma art 85 is very good too



I looked at some photos from the new Sigma 85 ART lens...bokeh looks a bit harsher than I would like, but the resolving power of the lens is high.

Speaking of bokeh and 105mm lenses...this one is interesting, and right around $700.

Laowa 105mm f/2 STF Review


----------



## chuasam (Feb 18, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> One other thing that caught my eye (I hope I don't apear like I am nitpicking, I love your work honestly) are the saturation levels in the ears and on the inner lip of the model in the 4th photo. On my own photos I use a hue/saturation adjustment layer with a mask in order to selectively reduce the saturation of the reds in certains spots of the lips, ears, and sometimes the bridge of the nose and the eye lids when I end up having those neon toned reds on the skin.


drat! you caught me....Yes I had reduced the saturation on his face but forgot to notice the ears...who notices ears? Thanks I should go fix that.
much thanks Dan.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 18, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> I haven't shot with the 105mm, so I can't truly make a real comparison, but judging by the images I've seen thus far, I do think the 135mm f/2L is comparable in terms of how it renders what's in focus and what's not in focus, perhaps with even smoother out of focus transitions. It's also much less expensive than the 105mm lens, although I'm referring to the Canon 135mmL, so not exactly an option for Nikon shooters.
> 
> Chuasam, what aperture were you shooting at for these photos? I feel like more should be in focus, especially on the shot that shows more of the girl's outfit. The lighting is beautiful and the editing and colors are wonderful, but I feel that the lack of focus particularly in that shot takes away some of the impact of the image. For clarification I don't think it's unsuccessful because of the lack of focus because I still like the photo, I just think that with such a long focal length you could still achieve a dreamy out of focus effect while still getting more of the details in focus that help formulate a story for the viewer.


I shot at f/1.4 and you're right. Got a f/1.4...shooting at f/1.4
(new lens syndrome) You know how it is? Paid for a 1.4, damn straight I'm gonna use the f/1.4 *LOL*

Background story on the image: She's an actress wanting to get more action roles so this was one of her headshots. The background was just a birch tree in the middle of the condo courtyard.
Appreciate the feedback, will try stopping down a little next time.


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 18, 2017)

chuasam said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > One other thing that caught my eye (I hope I don't apear like I am nitpicking, I love your work honestly) are the saturation levels in the ears and on the inner lip of the model in the 4th photo. On my own photos I use a hue/saturation adjustment layer with a mask in order to selectively reduce the saturation of the reds in certains spots of the lips, ears, and sometimes the bridge of the nose and the eye lids when I end up having those neon toned reds on the skin.
> ...


I used to not pay attention to the neon colored areas like that until a retoucher who had been mentoring me pointed it out to me. It's a small change, but it makes a big difference!


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 18, 2017)

chuasam said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't shot with the 105mm, so I can't truly make a real comparison, but judging by the images I've seen thus far, I do think the 135mm f/2L is comparable in terms of how it renders what's in focus and what's not in focus, perhaps with even smoother out of focus transitions. It's also much less expensive than the 105mm lens, although I'm referring to the Canon 135mmL, so not exactly an option for Nikon shooters.
> ...


Haha, I know how that goes. It took a couple of years to stop shooting wide open, but sometimes I manage to still find excuses. If I can manage to get the focus right I still like shooting wide open for full body shots.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 18, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> Haha, I know how that goes. It took a couple of years to stop shooting wide open, but sometimes I manage to still find excuses. If I can manage to get the focus right I still like shooting wide open for full body shots.


With lesser lenses, I tend to stop down. Ok this isn't a lens review but that 105mm f/1.4 is crackingly sharp even at f/1.4; it's a sick addiction.
The DOF is so narrow that it can even be thrown off by the subject breathing.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 18, 2017)

I found on the 200/2 that wide open the image quality was good, but that closing down slightly, like 2/3 of a stop to f/2.5 was good, and that f/3.2 and f/3.5 gave a nice depth of field rendering on a headshot, but ALSO had just enough DOF to keep the body in acceptable focus.

After a while, uber-shallow DOF starts to reveal itself for the gimmick/infatuation that it is. The superb background rendering the 105/1.4 offers is payoff enough for most portrait or lifestyle type shots. For example, on the mdoel, her fur adornment on her dress probably would have looked better, and less jarring, at f/2.8 than at f/1.4, and at that close of a distance, that little extra bit of DOF would have shown her dress's unique styling cues a little bit more flatteringly.


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 18, 2017)

chuasam said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Haha, I know how that goes. It took a couple of years to stop shooting wide open, but sometimes I manage to still find excuses. If I can manage to get the focus right I still like shooting wide open for full body shots.
> ...


I had similar experiences shooting wide open with the Canon 135mm. When you get the focus right, the focus was razor sharp even wide open with an equally razor thin depth of field. It was impressive, but I found that the lens really started to shine when set to apertures of f/3.5- f/5.6. Then again, the majority of what I do is headshots. I opted for an 85mm f/1.8 instead though because it did the same thing for a lot less money, and the trade off in IQ is insubstantial when using good technique.


----------



## chuasam (Feb 20, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...


Dude! It's "official"
Sigma is releasing a 135mm f/1.8 ART
O M G!!!!!!


----------



## birdbonkers84 (Feb 20, 2017)

Love No.2 she has gorgeous eyes!


----------



## chuasam (Mar 2, 2017)

Experimenting with less conventional lighting and colour grading


----------



## Krell0 (Mar 2, 2017)

Drooling over this lens still  

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (Mar 2, 2017)

The lens is worth every penny.


----------



## chuasam (Mar 21, 2017)




----------

