people hate my portraits.

my wife and parents have both begun to flinch when I get the

projector out; they wince and wave me away. Its my new 35 ASPH (and

their age!) and I have to admit it is merciless. Maybe I need

something softer, with less bite. Maybe I need an old lens. I looked

at an old summarit 50 1.5 but my test pictures were hurried and just

looked low contrast and poor. What about old screw 90s. what is the

crack with those? I have never gone telephoto, but then its

portraits that are the problem. Got to be cheap. I've seen one at

about £100, a big, chrome Elmar screw mount, 3.5 or even slower.

Comments please friends?

Portraits made w/ a 35 all show some distortion. So if you're looking for compliments, go 75mm or larger. Even a 50 will make noses poke out a bit & make cheeks bulge. The classic Leica portrait lens are 90s & 135s. The old 90 LTMs are softer than any of the current lens.

 

With family, merciless = disparaging (as in, "You spend all that money & this is the best you can do--?")

Chris

 

This is a common problem - the point really is whether you are taking a picture to make them happy, or to make you happy - often these aims are incompatible. If you are a studio shooter then unless you are a legend you usually have to make the sitter happy to get your money - so flattering is usually required. Still it is true that some films and lens combinations do bring out sides of people that are not in any way typical or indicative of their usually-perceived features. Sometimes this may work artistically, but will not make you friends.

my goodness!! please do not think it is inevitable that people will hate seeing their portraits. to be sure, portrait photography is a difficult art. however, there are lot and lots of tricks for helping the portrait photographer mask defects in his subjects. if you are interested in improving your skills, i strongly recommend finding a local worshop or acquiring some of the thousands of books on the subject. peter gowland has a very basic book on portraiture which is quite accesible and avialble at amazon.com. please do not think your situation is hopeless. with some practice and study, you will begin making portraits that people -- pretty much regardless of their appearance or self-image -- will want to display.

Stretch a black nylon over the lens and then shoot away... it will soften the len and cover up all those wrinkles...

I recently bought a spotless 40 year old 135/4.0 online for $199.00 plus shipping. It is a bit softer than my 50/1.4 summilux but it is perfect for portraits. Look around a bit and you will be able to find one that is within your budget.

I once read a post on this forum that advised that when using a Leica lens for a portrait, the lens should not be younger than the subject!

The 90mm Elmars were all f/4. The last incarnation of the Elmar (not the Elmar-C for the Leica CL) was 3 elements, the older ones had 4 elements. The lens designers had it right with that last model, tweaking more sharpness and contrast out of 3 elements than earlier designers got out of 4. Considering that the 3 element lens was not in production very long, it appeals to those with fat wallets and mahogany display cases. Get a coated post war 4 element one.

 

Both Canon (f/1.9 & f/1.8) and Nikon (f/2) made 85mm lenses which are just a tad soft wide open. The original 90mm Summicron also makes a good portrait lens wide open.

 

Another great lens I wished I'd bought for $100 when I had the chance many, many years back was a 90mm f/1.8 Angenieux. I shot a beautiful test roll with it. Sit down before you check the prices for these on eBay!

A local shop had an M mount 90/4 Elmar for a mere 99UKP last month. It looked to be the 3 element version too. The reason it was so cheap? They thought it was an LTM lens. Of course, an LTM lens was what I really wanted...

Well, what do you expect? You're not exactly Karsh, you know.

Be sure to take the lens to subject distance into account along with the focal length. For example, a 35mm portrait isn't necessarily a bad idea IF you want an environmental portrait, and don't mind the subject taking up a relatively small part of the frame. The distortion problems come in when one gets near the minimum focusing distance. If you want a tighter shot without distortion go to a longer lens. Since you didn't post some examples of your portraiture we can only guess as to what qualities might best improve them, but another point worth considering is: what does the ratio of lighted side to shadow side look like. I believe I've been able to improve the quality of my portraits, over what I did in the past, by reducing this ratio. I now often use a large white card to reflect light back into the shadow side of the face. This helps to ensure that I'll get shadows that glow with some detail, rather than opaque ones. There are three examples of this portrait technique (all of were done with the 50mm Summilux) at <a href=http://photos.oliversteiner.com>my web site,</a>

A nice lens well within your budget is the Jupiter-9, 85mm f2. It's soft at f2, especially in the corners, but kind to skin blemishes. It gives a really nice look wide open with Fuji Reala. Something about the combination of a somewhat soft lens and punchy film. (It's even 'dreamier' with NPH.) By f4, it's a pretty good lens by any standard and you can find one in great shape for under 100 USD, let alone 100 pounds. Mine is even engraved 'Made in the USSR!" That's gotta be worth something ;-)!

"Well, what do you expect? You're not exactly Karsh, you know."

 

Bill, you crack me up every time!

 

 

www.stevehoffman.tv

That's one of the best things I ever heard Wilhelm say. Forgot what it was last time.

With family, merciless = disparaging (as in, "You spend all that money & this is the best you can do--?")

 

 

So true.

if you thought less about the camera,

and more about your family,

you just might be able to feel an ounce

of emotion and get something real...

 

try it...you might be surprised

Bill may not have said it real gracefully, but he's right. It's not about what lens you get, it's about, as Grant also pointed out, the relationship between the photographer and the photographed. Every good portrait comes from a good working style. It also needs a good understanding of light and composition, but those won't make up for a lack of good interaction.

Shoot family like a client, and hide all the other pictures you may like and

want to keep.

 

Wide angles can be used on certain fuller faces...get high to put emphisis

on their eyes (a womans' eyes can never appear to be to big)...and 3/4 if

their nose is looking to big...it slims their face down.

 

A longer lens is a real help for regular faces,. However, remember that

you can make a sharp lens soft, but not the other way around. For ladies

I use a Zeiss Softar filter which retains the sharpness but diffuses the

highlights to create a nice glow. It comes in a couple or 3 strengths. For

men, especially in B&W, I don't use a filter.

 

The example I've included here was using a R-80/1.4 with a Softar II. In

normal circumstances this kind of dramatic directional light would bring

out every wrinkle this 45+ year old woman had, but the Softar tamed it

down.<div></div>

Maybe you need too work on your lighting and exposure? Ever

wonder how they make Cher look so creamy smooth at her age?

It's not done with crappy old lenses or stockings, it's done wth

lighting and exposure.

Marc: are you really telling us she's over 45, and has got wrinkles? Did she get them worrying about her great grandchildren?

The image I've attached was taken with a 'Blad and 120 macro

planar, which would give a similar perspective to a 90 on a

Leica. A merciless lens in terms of sharpness. I have a softar

for this lens,but the haloing of the highlghts isn't to my taste, so I

rarely use it. Instead, I use a very sheer black nylon stocking

material that I stretch across the lens shade. As you can see, it

reduces harshness and smoothes a bit without creating

highlight glow. The nice part is that you can play with different

thicknesses and materials without dumping money on factory

filters, which are available and give the same kind of result.<div></div>

I love it! My wife hates it when I point the camera in her direction. She immediately puts on a prune face and the resulting photos look like crap. She is NOT an ugly person with a miserable disposition. But she HATES for me to take pictures of her.

 

I remember reading something Imogen Cunningham wrote about a century ago concerning portraiture. I can't quote it but the essence was that a homely person has no illusions and is happy if the photograph makes them look normal, whereas a more handsome subject has too many expectations to ever be truly satisfied with the final photograph.

Hi, Chris:

 

Though THE portrait lens is usually said to be either 90mm or 105mm, I have found that you can handle this difficult job even with a 50mm Cron. Usually with less reluctance on the part of the subject than with longer lenses.

 

And the old 50mm Cron doesn't stress skin details to the point newer lenses do, I think

 

Regards !

 

-Iván<div></div>

I second the person who recommended the old 135mm F4 Elmar. This lens is reasonably priced, and I have found it excellent for portraits. It gives creamy tones and isn't cruelly sharp.

 

BTW, when they complain about their pictures, tell them to keep the shots for just ten years and they will LOVE them.

Dan,

 

They make Cher "creamy" using very different techniques, totally unrelated to photography.. :)