full lenght portrait lens

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by vic_canberra, Sep 5, 2011.

    i'm searching for a good lens for full lenght portrait
    for example
    i have a dx body
    what is the ideal lens for my work?
    hope someone can give a good advice
    I'd like to know whic one offers better proportion of the body
  2. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    You keep asking about lenses. First of all, it isn't the lenses that make the photo. It's everything else, the hard stuff that can't be solved through "which thing should I buy" questions. Second, get a used 18-200 and use it until you know which focal lengths you are finding useful. Given that you are asking these questions, I don't think the slightly inferior image quality of a zoom like that will matter much. Find out what works and buy then.
  3. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  4. Hi Purple. You can, of course, use any lens for a full-length portrait, simply by standing farther back. I'd be hesitant of using too extreme a wide-angle to get this effect simply because the start of the image will look distorted if viewed from a conventional distance. If you're using the old "15 feet" guideline to keep the subject from looking too distorted, that's roughly an 85mm lens on (35mm) full-frame, or about 60mm on DX.

    However, the image you linked to looks wider than that to me (it appears, from the angle of the feet, that the photographer was closer to the subject). Perhaps something in the 35-50mm range on FX, or 24-35 on DX? In fact, it appears to have been cropped asymmetrically - which would be a good way to stop the head being too distorted, but stretching out the legs. This was probably a moderate wide-angle lens (assuming it was a pro shoot, the first guess would be a 24-70 f/2.8, but that's just because they're common professional kit). I don't have a good enough eye to work out exactly how wide it was. You could achieve this without cropping by using a tilt/shift lens, but that's probably overkill in this day and age of large pixel counts and easy digital manipulation.

    The image you linked has a lot of depth of field (although it's a little hard to see at web size). Good news: you don't need Nikon's latest and greatest 35mm f/1.4 to do this. Do you have a kit zoom for your DX body? I'd expect it to perform admirably, stopped down to f/11ish. And, as a zoom, you can play with it and get the focal length you want. There may be some distortion with the zoom, which can be fixed up reasonably well using either Photoshop's distortion filter or something like DxO tools. If you don't have buildings in the background, this may be irrelevant.

    This assumes you're really shooting fashion (as in your other thread), and want a deep depth of field, as in this photo. If you want a portrait that isolates the subject from the background, and you don't care about some of the subject being slightly out of focus (which is often, arguably, fine if the eyes are sharp), then you need to go faster. If 35mm is about right, the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 has got stellar reviews and is a bargain - if you can live with manual focus. Sigma make decent autofocus lenses in that range too. If you're happy just to stand farther back, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is worth a look. I hope that helps.
  5. Shun - this particular image seems to have been taken with a wider lens than the 50-85mm lenses previously discussed, and wider than is conventional for portraiture. I don't think the question was redundant, although simply describing it as "full length portrait" might be missing some critical information. If the thread title was "I'm trying to replicate this look, what lens do I need?" then I hope it would be clear that there's something new here. Although Purple may not have realised that the lenses previously discussed wouldn't give this effect.

    Jeff - I agree, Purple would benefit from playing with a zoom lens and experimenting to find the effects of various focal lengths. That said, for portrait lengths, an 18-200 may be overkill for her (I doubt the long end will be useful), although an 18-105 might include some useful lengths that the 18-55 kit lens doesn't.

    Purple: The important thing to realise here is that the perspective of your subject depends on your distance from the subject, not the length of the lens. The focal length only changes how your field of view is cropped. I'd suggest you try a zoom lens and try shooting from different distances to see how the subject (and the background) appears. You might also like to look at the "Dolly zoom" page on Wikipedia. I also want to make the point that a "portrait lens" and a "fashion lens" are potentially different things - there's a difference between making an ugly person look pretty, and making a pretty person's clothes look good. Being clear might stop some confused answers.

    Guys: I'm a little wary that we're not being very welcoming. Purple admits to being a beginner and that English isn't her first language. Asking questions when you don't know what you don't know isn't much of a crime, especially if (from other threads) she's under time pressure in making a lens purchase decision; I don't want her to be driven off. Purple: if you're still confused after you've tried out a zoom lens, I'd suggest the beginner forum - mostly because any answers you receive might be useful to other beginners. The Nikon forum tends to be quite technical and equipment-specific, and I think you're still at the stage of asking fairly general questions which would benefit non-Nikon owners. Not that I'm a forum admin, or that it's my business to tell you where to post. I hope playing with a zoom lens will help you come up with more specific questions (there is, sadly, no substitute for trying things out), and that the Nikon forum can help when you're trying to decide between specific Nikon lenses. We're all here to learn. Good luck.
  6. You keep asking about lenses. First of all, it isn't the lenses that make the photo. It's everything else, the hard stuff that can't be solved through "which thing should I buy" questions. Second, get a used 18-200 and use it until you know which focal lengths you are finding useful. Given that you are asking these questions, I don't think the slightly inferior image quality of a zoom like that will matter much. Find out what works and buy then.​
    Follow this advice! It's good stuff.
  7. My impression is that you are not ready for fashion photography. Your questions are those of someone without even a basic understanding of photography. My advice would be to volunteer to assist an established fashion photographer in your area until you have some confidence that you know what you are doing. You really shouldn't have to ask us what lens to use.
  8. In case I've accidentally started a "which lens should I buy in order to decide which lens to buy?" debate: The 18-200 is a very good option and will tell you everything you're likely to want to know in the short term about the effects of different focal lengths. It's a little expensive, though; my suggestion of the 18-105 was only offered as a budget alternative, since I doubt, for portraits, you'll have much need of lengths longer than 105mm on a DX body (although the 200mm is certainly useful for sports and wildlife, for example). I do think it's useful to see what everything from 18mm to at least 85mm looks like while learning.

    Purple: pick whichever of these (or similar lenses with the same range) most appeals to you, and at least try it out in a store for a while - or, preferably, hire it. If you end up buying one and getting a prime lens of the length you most want for portraits later, you'll still have a versatile zoom to work with. For what it's worth, I've just picked up a zoom lens to add to my selection of primes, solely for a bit more flexibility - it won't be wasted.

    Robert: I agree that Purple seems to be a beginner, as she admits. I'm assuming that the talk of "fashion photography" is a miscommunication and that she's not really talking about trying to do a shoot for Vogue at this point. That said, taking some publicity photos of a friend's student clothing line is still "fashion photography". And there's no harm in doing some learning on your own time before you go to a pro and become an assistant, if that's what Purple wants to do. (Not that I know anything about fashion photography beyond what I've read on this site and the technical side of what equipment can do - the chances of my being in a state to take a decent photo when presented with a supermodel in skimpy clothing are even lower than usual.)
  9. Does a chef have to ask what pots to use?
  10. Ditto the advice to start with a zoom. Any decent midrange zoom will do for now - there are some good third party zooms with relatively fast f/2.8 maximum apertures if you need something faster than the affordable Nikkor variable aperture zooms.
    Take lots of shots of models or friends helping you gain experience. Then study the EXIF data to see which focal lengths you use most often with a zoom. That will give you a good idea of which prime lens to get if you feel the need for a faster lens. Wega2 is a good free EXIF data utility for examining your tendencies when using zooms.
  11. "Does a chef have to ask what pots to use?"​
    A chef, maybe not. A student learning to become a chef, sure.
  12. I don't know about cooking apprentice . We are dealing with the dishwasher. Purple has been asking essentially the same questions over 16 posts.
  13. bms


    400 mm f2.8. Stand back.
  14. I'm thinking we could cut Purple some slack here. Purple does show plenty of enthusiasm! My suggestion is to do some reading, go to some actual fashion shows and watch, and during the slow times the photographer might have some good info. For fashion I would think a fast f2.8 zoom and a good flash such as SB-700 or even SB-900 would be where to start, at least as far as equipment. Purple would be best served by learning the basics right now that would lead towards the goal.
    Kent in SD
  15. Robert - I realise it may be frustrating when someone doesn't seem to be receiving information, but what happened to giving the benefit of the doubt?

    As I see it, Purple has effectively asked three questions in different threads:

    1) "Dear Nikon forum. I'm trying to decide between a couple of specific Nikon lenses for the purposes of shooting fashion-style photographs. Please advise."

    Shortly afterwards, she asked:

    2) "Dear fashion photographers, what focal length is most typically used for fashion shooting?"

    These are certainly related questions, but I'd call them different. The latter got answers from Canon shooters talking about the 85mm f/1.2; the former got answers about the quality of the bokeh on the Nikkor f/1.8 AF-D. (We should possibly also allow for the fact that it's hard for a newcomer to photo.net to know how long it takes for people to respond. What seems to be a duplicate post might simply be the belief that she's been ignored.)

    3) "I've had portrait lenses recommended to me and am probably leaning towards an 85mm lens, which is a longish telephoto on DX and has probably been recommended for head-and-shoulders shots. I'm concerned that this will leave me unable to take full-length images. Here is a full-length portrait which has clearly not been taken with an 85mm lens. If I want to take portraits like this, can you suggest a supplementary lens for me?"

    She may not have expressed the entire train of thought very clearly, but I think she asked three different and - for a beginner - reasonable questions. She's doing research on-line, and has had a way to expand her knowledge suggested to her. She's admitted that she's a novice and trying to learn. Let's not bite her head off - if she seems to be asking the same question repeatedly, perhaps either we're not giving her a satisfactory answer, or we're not understanding the questions.

    I get the impression that the "fashion photography" thing may have got people riled up for some reason. I'm assuming this is like the people who say "I'm starting a wedding business, what beginner DSLR should I buy?" without appreciating that wedding photography is a highly skilled and complex business - they tend to get short shrift from those who have put in the time and effort to become competent, and whose business might be impacted by being under-cut by an incompetent amateur (you can't go back and re-shoot a wedding once you realise your photographer is no good, so the business is lost). I imagine that someone offering to do a fashion shoot for an aspiring model might similarly cut into the business of a pro. All this is an assumption on my part - I'm an amateur, and all I can do is try to deduce why Purple seems to be being accused of being incompetent when she's already said she's a beginner. In fact, I'm sure (especially after the reception she got) it's all a miscommunication, and that Purple is not planning on diving straight into setting up a fashion photography business claiming to be an experienced pro. For all I know, she's seen some magazine images, thought "I wish I could do that", and then made what appears to be the heinous mistake of asking for help.

    Kent - you pre-empted my rant. :) For what it's worth, I agree that a flash (especially used off-camera) might be a better investment than an expensive prime. It'd probably be a good idea to add some kind of diffuser to the wish list, though, and no doubt some experts will be concerned about whether speedlights can fully overpower the sun (although in England this is not, admittedly, such a problem). For a budget starting point, picking up a cheap collapsible reflector might be a good thing, especially if there's an assistant available.
  16. no one force you to answer
    that is dedicate to people criticize my question
    and when someone starts a new experience it is quite normal asking or when you started you were all amazing photographers i dont think so and
    yes i'm a person who likes know different opinions but i have my idea already
    now i'm asking something different
  17. forum are made for asking
    and since i have not receive informations that i need i will asking here or anywhere
    if someone asks me
    something that i know i always give informations
    and to person who linked a book yes i have read a lot about that
    i am a novice
    in my opinion it not so bad learning from people who had more experience
  18. andrew garrard thank you
    you have understand everything
    i am not sayin i am a pro
    i'm only trying to learn watching photos made by people who make photos for work not only for hobby
    humility is a virtue
  19. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    since i have not receive informations that i need​
    You have received plenty of information on three almost identical posts. If you choose not to listen, you can remain a beginner. And I will repeat my information. Buy an inexpensive zoom and find out what works for you. Anything else is not particularly useful given the request that was made.
  20. The suggestion for the 18-200mm VR is a great one. Very underrated lens.
  21. yes i am a beginner
    it not a shame
    the questions that i have made give me a lot of informations but one i receive informations about bokeh and it is not the answer i was searching for
  22. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    If the OP wants to get into fashion/portrait photography, I would get a 17-50mm/f2.8 type zoom and perhaps add a 85mm/f1.8. The 50mm/f1.8 she already has is also a plus.
    Like several people have already pointed out in this thread as well as threads the OP started a day or two ago, beginners should focus on technique rather than lenses. All you need is 2, 3 lenses, including a good mid-range zoom, and that will go a long way. I would avoid the 18-200mm DX zoom; the fact it is soft on the long end aside, it is too slow. Fashion photography requires a lot of indoor shooting and an f5.6 lens will not get the job done. When you get more serious, you'll need a 70-200mm/f2.8 VR lens.
  23. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Actually, Renoir learned to paint in a ceramics factory long before any influence from Delacroix. And the influence from Delacroix was in subject matter and portrayal, now "which brush" type of questions. Perhaps you should ask about photography rather than simply what you should buy, then you could make the analogy.
  24. i am reading a lot of books, i'm using web to improve my abilities
    and i asking to professionists
    i have been interested by art since i was a child
    now i am a young newcomer in this field
    i have got the humility to ask
    if someone ask me please teach me greek russian or french i will help
    or if someone ask me about picasso, van gogh or kandiskij i will give all my knowledge
    i have shooted with an analogic camera and it quite different digital photography
    i have some indecisions about lenses because it is quite strange the different between 35mm dx or fx
    and for example 50mm was recommended to me but in my everyday experience i found it not so suitable wide open
    so i 'd like to listen heterougenous suggestions
  25. ok jeff you was a photographer since your first photo
    you were a genius
    renoir went to a academy of art
    and in a academy yes someone explains you everything also what kind of brush you should use
  26. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    ok jeff you was a photographer since your first photo
    you were a genius​
    Maybe instead of pointless sarcasm, you could ask how I got to where I am. Even though you didn't ask, I will tell you, since you seem to think you know what you don't know.
    I started with a 50mm lens. For ten years, that was all I used, and all my teacher at the time had me use. I had to process everything in the darkroom myself, print and explain what my photos meant. There was never any question of "which lens," it was only about "why this photograph?" Later, I had a mentor who was a very successful commercial and "fine art" photographer. He kept me on a one lens track and on explaining my photos. Why they worked, why they didn't. One day he suggested a try an ultra-wide lens, which changed quite a bit of my work at the time because I had to get much closer. It was the proximity to the subject rather than the lens itself that changed what I was doing.
    And now, even for the commercial work, I almost always use a single lens, a short range zoom. I have to use a zoom because some of what I do is sports, but I don't change it out. Instead, I learned how to use it to say what I was always trying to say.

    Although I suggested a zoom for learning, I would suggest more than that trying to make the lens you have do what you want.
  27. Hi all, I'm wondering if any fashion photographers here are using a 60mm lens as stated in one post. I use a 50, 85 and sometimes
    100 when using 35mm equipment but normally an 80 or longer with medium format. I'm wondering who makes a 60mm lens old or new.


  28. yes jeff
    i appreciate your answer
    after my question i have been criticized no one know me or my studies or my background
    but some of you hit out
    i will borrow some lenses
    that is a good choice
    someone linked me a book without asking that i have read some books and yes i have read photography books and art books because i were an art student
    it sounds weird for mature person
  29. (in art school teachers explain almost everything but art is your)
    and looking a photo can help in doing composition or learn light but
    it's not the same of a real photographer that helps you
  30. (my english maybe it's not so good when i write @pc)
    i have got a mixed language and isn't easy
  31. I didn't realize when I wrote that the 60mm was the macro! My apologies.
  32. Purple--
    Your English is good enough, I think.
    Kent in SD
  33. This is just my humble opinion....
    Let's be friendly and patient with new comers to the forum.... especially with beginners...
    Every time I can i log into the Nikon forum and I read almost every thread. There are hundreds of similar threads.... "What lens should I buy?" "Should I upgrade to a better or newer camera?", etc. I have myself asked so many boring questions but at the same time I have learned so much over here.
    I read almost all of the threads and If I have something to say I would say it. If I think it is a boring or repeat question I just ignore it and it doesn't bother me.
    In a situation like this I think the admins are the one to decide if they should let the thread to go on or not. And for the rest of us the job is to help if we can or just ignore it if we don't wanna help or can't help.
    @ PURPLE...
    I think you got 2 good advices here.
    1 is to buy a zoom and find out what focal length would help you most and then get a prime that will do the job for you.
    2 is to use what you have and try to get the results you want. This means you will do the work instead of having the lens work for you. This will help you to find your own style and teach you how to work with what you have. One day you might become a pro and might have the best toys Nikon can offer but you could get stock in the field and your best lens breaks. You will have to improvise with what you have and get the job done.
    Last, your English is good enough and that is not a problem here.
  34. (I think I emphatize with Purple... I have to recognize that the first camera I bought, at the age of 16?, was a Canon with a 135mm prime... which I used for almost one year in all situations. I was sure I wanted a tele lens. All other considerations were unimportant... )
    Purple, almost all my photos are portraits; from full body to head and shoulders, and a few tight head shots.
    I have a closet full of lenses, in every focal lenght and almost every type from the shortest wide angle up to 800mm, old and modern. I started my collection in 1980, aprox.
    If it helps, my most used lenses in FX for that task are a 50mm prime, a 105mm prime and a 24-70/24-120 zoom.
    Translated to DX the equivalent could be a 35mm prime, a 60/85 mm prime and a 17-55/16-85 zoom. Given that you already have a 50mm prime, IMHO it makes sense to have for fun a 85mm prime, keeping the 50. You`ll probably miss in a short time a wider lens. Obviously an standard zoom will provide all this focals, but sooner or later, and specially if you are really involved, they could not be fast enough for your creative purposes.
    Pros around here use mostly two zooms; 24-70 and 70-200. Yesterday I met one shooting for an add in a fashion magazine with a 5D + 24-105 zoom. In Nikon DX it means a 15-65mm zoom, aprox. (17-55/16-85).
    But keep in mind that Jeff`s advice is the best you can have. He wants you to be a photographer, not a mere machine operator.
  35. that you eddie, villela and jose angel
    i have to agree with villela
    i read a lot of similar questions in every forum but if i answer i try to be patient and i answer politely expecially with people who is starting something, in photography when you start there are a lot of doubts maybe they could be silly for experienced photographer
    but not for newcomer.
  36. my parents will give me a present for my birthday
    but 24 70 maybe it's a professional lens and i will not use correctly at this moment
    and i prefer prime lens because i shoot expecially outdoor walking around cities taking my equipement
    i have used 35mm f2 but i don't like it for portrait face or full body
    for the face give me a strange effect and also for the body
    85mm watching around photos seems to be perfect for portrait
    but i m checking myself because i' d like to know which is the distance that i have to stay having a dx camera from the person to take a full lenght image, someone tell me 22 ft 7 meters is it correct?
  37. i am trying to ask if 85 it is perfect for face portrait but have got limited usage in other circumstances
  38. the only zoom that i have it a zoom used with an old camera 35mm and
    @35 this zoom
    it's fine for landscape
    and 100 it's fine for portrait but it s not a fast lens and the photos sometimes are not good
  39. purple purple:
    Full-length fashion photos are some of my favorite visuals for models. The sensible recommendation is to suggest a variety of short- to short-telephoto lenses to add to your kit. A 35mm f/1.8, and an 85mm f/1.8 should complement your 50mm f/1.8 quite well on a DX body. But, I think you seek the shallow depth-of-field type of full-length fashion shots, like the kind often seen in fashion magazine editorial spreads. Many of these are shot with slightly longer-than-normal lenses (i.e., your 35mm on a DX body being "normal"), and at times, much longer than "normal."
    In the January 2011 edition of Spanish Elle, there's two editorial spreads titled, "Deporte de Ciudad," and "Duo con Suerte." All photos in these spreads are full-length shots, and is the reason I bought this particular issue (I'm sorry, but I searched the Elle Spain site, but cannot find the editorials online to provide a link).
    The first series employs slightly long lenses, employing shallow depth-of-field (note that it's more difficult to achieve this effect with a high-numerical aperture zoom lens, like say an f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, unless your background elements are very far away). Shots are of single models in various daylight exterior street settings. If shot on a Nikon FX body, these shots could be approximated with anything from a 105mm f/2.0 DC-Nikkor, 135mm f/2.0 DC-Nikkor, a 200mm f/2.0 tele, or a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. The perspective is rather compressed, and the background, out of focus. Again, these are some of my favorite types of shots for fashion.
    The second series is more "verite" style. Apparently (as far as I can tell), shot with shorter primes (or a short, fast zoom), if I had to guess, the first image may have been shot with a 50mm. The latter photos appear longer, perhaps a 105mm or 135mm.
    In any case, the addition of relatively fast 35mm and 85mm lenses will allow you to experiment with these types of shots, and should enable you to emulate these styles quite faithfully. Good luck!
  40. purple purple said:
    my parents will give me a present for my birthday
    but 24 70 maybe it's a professional lens and i will not use correctly at this moment
    and i prefer prime lens because i shoot expecially outdoor walking around cities taking my equipement . . .

    . . . 85mm watching around photos seems to be perfect for portrait​
    While a 24-70mm f/2.8 is a fine lens, it's not my cup of tea (I prefer primes as well). If your parents are willing to spend $1,700 USD on a pricey zoom lens for you, you may want to opt instead for the similarly pricey, but gorgeous, AF-S 85mm f/1.4G. But, the 85 f/1.8 will certainly do as well. Maybe get the 85mm f/1.8, and a 105mm f/2.0 with the "extra" money.
    i have used 35mm f2 but i don't like it for portrait face or full body
    for the face give me a strange effect and also for the body​
    The 35mm on a DX body approximates a "normal" perspective, but I agree, there's too much forshortening (distortion) for my tastes to use it for head-and-shoulders shots. I'm much happier with either a 50mm or 85mm on a DX body for shooting people.
  41. Everyone (including Purple): can we please assume that everyone else was having a bad day, and chill a little? Let's stay on topic.
    For what it's worth, I'm not quite sure I understand the question (I don't think that's Purple's English, which seems perfectly servicable and much better than my French). But I'll try to answer anyway. Stick with me, Purple, because this is going to start as though it's irrelevant...

    A photograph will appear distorted if you view it from a position relative to the image that is different from the position of the nodal point of the lens relative to the sensor. A DX camera has a 24mm x 16mm sensor. If you take a photograph with a 50mm lens and make a 24 inch by 16 inch print, the image will be undistorted if you look at it from 50 inches away (in line with the centre of the print). You could make a 12 inch by 8 inch print and view it from 25 inches away, and get the same perspective - so long as you scale all the dimensions by the same amount, the angle of view stays the same. If you use a 10mm lens, to get the same perspective as the camera, you would have to view a 24 inch by 16 inch print from just 10 inches away. A "normal" lens on DX is roughly 28-35mm; this roughly corresponds to looking at full page of a glossy magazine at a comfortable holding distance.

    If you view an image from a different perspective, you may or may not notice the distortion. If you look closely at an image taken with an extreme telephoto lens, you may find that subjects look "compressed" - with a human-sized subject, several people in a crowd may look almost the same size even if they're some distance apart. A single person may appear less "three-dimensional" - with a normal lens, you're used to seeing bits of the subject nearer to you and farther from you appear larger or smaller; with a long lens, the amount by which they're nearer or farther than the centre of the subject is less compared with your distance to the subject, so there's not so much of a cue to the eye that you're looking at something 3D.

    If you look, from a normal distance, at a portrait taken with a wide-angle lens, the edges of the image appear stretched out (remember - if you're viewing the image from the same perspective as the lens, the edges of the print will be at a shallow angle to you, which compresses them). Because such an image is typically taken from very close up (otherwise you get a tiny person in the middle of the frame), you're much closer to the nearer parts of the subject than to the farther parts of the subject, compared with your distance. I'm not sure I'm explaining that very clearly, so here's some numbers: if you're focussed on the subject's eyes, the tip of the subject's nose may be about an inch and a half closer to you than the eyes, and the ears may be three inches behind the eyes. If you're shooting with a wide angle from 36 inches (three feet) away, the nose is about 1.5/36 of the subject distance closer to you than the eyes, and the ears are about 3/36 farther away. If you shoot with a telephoto lens from 360 inches (30 feet) away, the nose is only 1.5/360 of the subject distance closer to you than the eyes, and the ears only 3/360 farther away; this is visible in perspective. With a wide-angle lens, parts of the subject nearer to you look much closer, and parts farther away look much farther away.

    The eye can accommodate a certain amount of distortion from a different field of view - particularly, looking at an image taken with a very long telephoto doesn't look too wrong - but extreme wide angles tend to look visibly distorted. Of course, you can do this deliberately, for artistic effect.

    What does this mean for an image? For the average portrait, a mild telephoto lens is the usual choice. There's no stretching of the edges of the image, there's still a bit of a 3D effect, the field of view is about how most people tend to think that people look (the "15 feet" claim matches the distance at which you'd perhaps start talking to a friend), and being a longer lens than normal means that the subject's nose doesn't look so large compared with their face, which is usually flattering. Telephoto lenses are also better at losing the background.

    On the other hand, a wide lens will stretch out the edges of the image (at a given distance from you, the edges of the subject are proportionately farther away than the middle compared with how they appear with a longer lens). Position the head near the middle of the frame so that it doesn't seem distorted, and you can use this effect to stretch out the legs to make them look longer (which, on ladies, is perhaps flattering). This seems to be what was done in the linked image, although the top of the image is cropped off (look at where the perspective lines are converging).

    What's a "better proportion"? It varies depending on what you're trying to do. If you don't want the subject to appear distorted and you still want a bit of 3D, something around 50-60mm is probably about right on DX. If you want to flatten out the subject farther to make noses look smaller and put less perspective in the subject, use a longer lens from farther away (the 400mm suggestion is not entirely facetious) - this also lets you lose the background more while keeping a reasonable depth of field. If you want distortion to use it to flatter the subject creatively - and you can also emphasise or de-emphasise parts of the body by shooting from different angles (e.g. upwards, from someone's feet, or down on their head from above) - then maybe a wide angle is what you need. But it won't look like a conventional portrait. I suspect you have to be a bit careful with unusual perspectives if, on a fashion shoot, you want to show off the clothing more than your creativity.

    I hope that helps, or at least gives you suggestions of things to try with a zoom lens before settling on primes. Note: I'm no fashion photographer; all I can say is that I've experimented with zooms, looked at enough photos to work out how they were done, and I like working out the geometry of scenes like this. I'd strongly suggest getting a feel for what you want before spending a lot of money on a big prime (or pro zoom) - that's why there's often frustration when people ask what lens they should buy. Everyone's vision is different.
  42. yes oshiro really appreciate your explanation
    as you have suggested to me i'll try an 85mm
    35mm have a lot of distortion for my tastes when i shot a face portrait and i have to stay too close
    i'm watching your photos and they are really extraordinary
    i have to learn so much
    :( to became a real photographer.
    You have undestand correctly what i love shooting, obviously i'm not able to do the work as a professionist but a tip about the correct equipment will aid me :)
    thank you
  43. thank you andrew garrard you are very clear
  44. you have solved my doubts
    today i'm going to try lenses on a photography shop
    before i decide
  45. purple purple said:
    i'm watching your photos and they are really extraordinary
    i have to learn so much
    :( to became a real photographer.​
    If you're referring to my work, thank you! Don't be so hard on yourself. You went to art school, right? Then you already understand form, line, texture, and composition. You're way ahead of the game if you already have those subjects under your belt. Photography merely requires the technical translation of those concepts to an opto-mechanical, light-focusing device. You simply need to learn how those tools must be manipulated to execute your concepts.
    The important parts: ideas and composition, you already know something about. The technical can be learned, and there are many resources available for that, both online, and in real life (community colleges, seminars, workshops, etc.). Also, both photo equipment manufacturers' websites (e.g., Photoflex), and retailers' sites (e.g., Adorama) have some excellent, free, online tutorials. And, don't forget, there's a ton of excellent photography books available at Amazon, whose internal search engine will bring up other relevant titles.
    Bonne chance!
  46. For Ralph Oshiro.
    . . . . "The 35mm on a DX body approximates a "normal" perspective,"
    The 35mm lens on a DX body, still a 35mm lens perspective, and not, repeat, NOT a 50mm "normal lens perspective". It given you a crop of a 50mm angle ONLY, but the 35mm perspective distortion, still a 35 mm distortion, not a 50mm distortion.
  47. purple purple said:
    as you have suggested to me i'll try an 85mm​
    Now remember, it's all about subject-to-camera distance. The sample shot in your original post was actually shot with a 35mm or 50mm lens--something a bit wider than normal. Now, the 85mm is a lovely lens for head-and-shoulders portraits, but you'll have to back up about 10 meters to frame a full-length subject for a horizontal frame, and about 8 meters for a vertical (I actually just tried this with an 85mm f/1.8 on a D90). Since the 85mm actually has a 127.5mm-equivalent, angle-of-view on an FX body, the 85mm on a DX body is actually quite a long lens. Again, an array of short- to short-telephotos should have you covered: 35mm, 50mm, 85mm.
  48. Bela:
    The cropped 35mm image circle on a DX sensor results in approximately the same amount of foreshortening as a 50mm lens on an FX body. I'm not splitting hairs here, just conveying general concepts.
  49. Perspective is only distance dependant (in this case, camera to subject distance).
    Focal lenght doesn`t have anything to do with it. It doesn`t matter if 35, 50 or whatever.
    Just to extend on what Ralph says, at a given distance, for a viewing angle similar to a 50mm lens on FX, a 35mm lens is needed on DX.
  50. Purple: Glad to help. And, for the record, I'm missing any training in artistic concepts which, as Ralph says, is the important bit. Knowing how to take the photo is the easy bit once you've done some reading; knowing what photo to take is the difficult bit, and I claim no expertise there - you're probably way more qualified than I am. Have confidence, experiment, have fun, and don't let the frustrations get you down. Oh, and don't be worried that you're still learning - we all are.
  51. PP, I will give you my take on this, and I too will ask you to do an experiment b/c this is the best way to see for yourself how lenses with different focal lengths affect the final images, even though they can all be used to do full-length portrait.
    Use the 18mm on your kit lens, the 35/1.8, and 85/1.8, frame the same person (or object), and then take pictures at the same aperture. In doing so, you can see that all three lenses can frame the same object, but the "working distance" is very different — the longer the lens, the farther away you need to be from the object. Thus, this difference in working distance can determine which lens to use if your are working indoors with limited space. Another thing you may notice is that the background is not blur to the same degree — the longer the lens the more blurry the background, even though these shots were taken at the same aperture. Here again, if it is important to blur the background, all things be equal, the longer lens has the advantage. Finally, you may or may not notice this that the shorter the lens, the more likely that the object becomes distorted. This is caused in part by having to shoot too close to the object.
    Because of these various reasons, I believe the "convention wisdom" suggests that for a FF camera, it is best to use a 50mm lens for full length portrait and for the DX camera, you need a 35mm lens. Unless you really need to work in low light, I would suggest that you get the new 40/2.8 micro. As a micro lens, it can allow you to shoot very close to your object without creating perspective distortion. Thus you can also use the same lens for head/shoulder shots. If you were doing the same with the 35/1.8, it is very easy to get distorted images.
  52. Because of these various reasons, I believe the "convention wisdom" suggests that for a FF camera, it is best to use a 50mm lens for full length portrait and for the DX camera, you need a 35mm lens. Unless you really need to work in low light,​
    Using the "people look about right from 15 feet away" guideline, a full-frame camera would cover a 6-foot tall subject in the longer direction (holding the camera sideways to give you a portrait-format image) using a 90mm lens (36mm x 15' / 6' = 90mm). On DX, a 60mm lens would have the same field of view. If you want to get the same subject on the shorter side of the frame (either for composition or because you're shooting a group), 60mm now fits the shorter side of the full-frame camera (24mm x 15' / 6' = 60mm), and the focal length with the same field of view on DX is 40mm. That's more or less the conventional wisdom I've heard, but I may not go to the same conventions as everyone else. :)

    Now, that relies entirely on the "15 feet" guideline; if you're closer, a 50mm lens might be right for full-frame. Generally, on full frame, I would expect most landscape-format images of full-body subjects to be in the 35-50mm range (much wider than 35mm and people start to look very distorted), depending on how intimate they are and how many people are included, and most portrait-format shots of a single person to be nearer 85mm (or above, for candids). But I'm no expert, I can just do maths based on guidelines I've heard.
    I would suggest that you get the new 40/2.8 micro. As a micro lens, it can allow you to shoot very close to your object without creating perspective distortion. Thus you can also use the same lens for head/shoulder shots. If you were doing the same with the 35/1.8, it is very easy to get distorted images.​
    I wondered about suggesting a macro lens. Most aren't very fast, but if you really want plenty of depth of field so the clothing is all sharp, and if you can pick a pretty background, that's probably not an issue. A macro would let you get very close to details of fashion, although the working distance of a 40mm macro might make it difficult to handle lighting. I would perhaps suggest the 60mm f/2 Tamron macro lens, which is sharp, is roughly the conventional length for a shortish (full-body) portrait lens on DX, and which can lose the background if you need to rather better than the f/2.8 lenses. I own its 90mm big brother (also bought partly for use for portraits) and I'm very happy with it. Perhaps the biggest issue is that it's quite similar to the 50mm f/1.8 that Purple already owns, albeit sharper wide open.

    That said, I think it's best for PP to experiment with a zoom and make up her own mind about the focal lengths she wants.
  53. hallo, today i went to my photo shop
    and i found a 85mm 1,8 F NOT AFD AT AN INTERESTING PRICE
    is there anyone who can explain me the differences?
    For someone starting out with limited budget, the 85/1.8 is perfect. It is new in the US for about $450. Personally, I think a 85mm lens is a bit too long for the DX format for full body shots, unless you will use it mostly outdoors (due to the long working distance).
    If you really want to know about the 85s, there are two Nikon AFD 85mm lenses. Besides the one you looked at, there is the very expensive 85/1.4, which is best known for its creamy bokeh. Do a little reading and you will know the advantage of f1.4 vs f1.8. This one is now being replaced by the AFS version, which is even more expensive. There is also a AFS macro VR 85/3.5 for the DX format. You can do a search to learn about "AFS" "VR" and "macro."
  55. Purple: here is the non-D version, here is the D version.

    "D" means that the lens tells the camera the distance at which it's focussing, which may make a slight difference to metering (especially flash) under some circumstances. With this lens, it appears that the optics are identical between versions, except that the older lens is heavier and may not have such good coatings.

    If you want an 85mm lens:

    The Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF and AF-D lenses are generally considered pretty sharp at fast apertures. I've generally heard (and seen) bad things about their bokeh, although this is relative and there seem to be some happy customers.

    The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D is soft away from the centre wide open, but has very smooth bokeh. It costs much more than the f/1.8 lenses.

    The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-S is much sharper away from the centre than the AF-D, but much more expensive again.

    The Nikkor 85mm f/3.5 DX micro has, I believe, less than flattering reviews as a macro lens. It's also a bit slow for portraits.

    The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is reasonably well-considered, and priced competitively to the f/1.4 Nikkors. It's not as sharp as the AF-S.

    The Samyang 85mm f/1.4 is about the same price as the Nikkor f/1.8, sharper than the f/1.4 AF-D wide open, and appears to have better bokeh than the f/1.8. However, it's manual focus. For what it's worth, this is what I own.

    If you can live with a smaller aperture, I'd also consider the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, which is easily as sharp as the f/1.8 lenses, a similar price, and a macro lens as well. I own this too; I got the Samyang to complement it (so I don't miss much by not having autofocus on the Samyang, as I can use the Tamron except at the widest apertures).

    I hope that helps.
  56. I have a non-D version, bought as a refurb when Nikon was blowing out all of their non-D stock. It looks identical to the D version. According to the Nikon rep, the lenses are identical, except for the distance information that a D lens is capable of communicating, which is of little use anyway. If it's not super-old, I'd say get it!
  57. Quote:
    forum are made for asking
    and since i have not receive informations that i need i will asking here or anywhere
    if someone asks me
    something that i know i always give informations
    and to person who linked a book yes i have read a lot about that
    i am a novice
    in my opinion it not so bad learning from people who had more experience
    Dear purple, I think the basic mistake you are making is that you are asking your fashion photography related questions on either the Beginners forum or the Nikon forum, where the chances of anybody reacting who is really specialized/experienced in fashion photography are obviously quite low.
    As you can see in the sling of reactions on your last question, a lot of gear heads and knowitalls are however well intended, which makes it inevitable that a lot of fingers are raised but little real answers are given.
    I quickly ran through the three threads that followed your three questions and as far as I can see only in one thread has one poster accompanied his reaction with something really resembling a fashion picture, and one person pointed to a book to leave to someone more expert to answer your questions.
    For starters I would start reading yourself into fashion photography, be it by 'expert' written books (although I'm not a fan of that, you know ' he who knows does, he who doesn't teaches') or looking into fashion magazines and trying to find out how the pictures you like were taken (so basically finding out the technique of that specific photographer)
    Second I would not worry too much about equipment initially. In my (personal) experience in the beginnng stages you tend to buy stuff you read about or are told about works, but after finding your personal tast and style much of it will tun out a waste of money. I myself bought and eventually sold a field camera because I loved Paolo Roversi, and have a full Hasselblad set collecting dust because I admired do love the medium format work of the 1950/1960 work of Avedon and Penn. Still love those pictures, but found out I have a different shooting and photography style (although I stress I wouldn't dare to compare myself with the photographers mentioned).
    You have a Nikon DX body (didn't see what type but apart from the AF and the IMHO neccesary advanced possiblities to dial in your settings manually basically any type will do) and as mentioned a zoom will nicely do initially (though I would not recommend a superzoom like a 18-200 or a slow lens with a maximum aperture of eg 4.5/5.6 because of likely IQ and DOF issues).
    Don't buy anything really expensive and rather spend your money on magazines, books and shooting pictures (hooray for digital, I still have heart aches remembering the piles of money I spent on film, developing, polaroids, contacts and prints when I started to shoot fashion).
    If you really want to spend money, get a 1.4/50mm (great for availible light, also nice on DX for portraiture) and a 1.8/85mm (good for portraiture, although maybe a little long on DX unless you do close ups like eg make up shots, and nice wide open for outside medium/three quarters shots).
    If you then still have money left and are eager to spend it, get a 2.8/80-200 (they go for amazingly low prizes secondhand these days, and although heavy are great wide open or nearly wide open for all kind of things like portraits, three quarters and even full outs). Sure the 70-210 is better but will cost a lot more. These are typical work lenses and can still be used even when you're not shooting fashion, but eg weddings, PJ style stuff etc. A wide angle also qualifies a 'work' lens but is not really fit for fashion (unless you like the JeanLoup Sieff kind of pictures)
    I'm not going to post pictures as I would need to post several to illustrate my (photographic) remarks but due to forum policies can't directly post a link to my website. But yoy can probably find that in my profile and hopefully see I have some (yes, I know, a very little) knowledge on the suject this long (sorry!) post is about.
    BTW, sorry for any typos or language mistakes, like you I'm also not a native English speaker
  58. 85/1.8D will not focus automatically on entry-level bodies like D5000, D3000, etc.... It has screw-type focus.
  59. purple purple:
    Yes, what Rusian points out is correct. Nikon D40/D50/D60, D3000/3100, D5000/5100 bodies will only auto-focus when using newer, AF-S lenses ("AF-S" is a feature on newer lenses, those with internal, electro-magnetic focus motors). Older, "screw-drive" lenses, such as the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D, need a motorized, mechanical spindle on the camera body to turn the lens' focus ring to enable auto-focus. The old Nikon D70 has a screw-drive, as does the not-as-old, but still kind-of-old, D90. Higher-end DX bodies such as the Nikon D7000, and D300, also have screw-drive mechanisms, and support both newer AF-S/VR lenses, and older AF lenses, such as the 85mm f/1.8D. Which Nikon body do you own?
  60. Guys - we know that Purple already has a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D, which is a screw-focus lens. I'm assuming that she has a camera body which can autofocus it, or at least is happy to manual focus - in which case any recommendation of a similar screw-focus lens (like the 50 f/1.4 AF-D or either Nikkor 85mm AF-D) will work no worse than her existing lens. If that's not the case then yes, paying for an AF-S lens (or equivalent lens with integrated motor from a third party) may make life easier for her. Just keeping us on-topic.

    Paul - good advice, and I don't claim to be more than a gear head (which is why several of us suggested that Purple make up her own mind, and I've only described the technical differences between lenses). Just to pick up on a couple of points:

    1) I think when you say "70-210" you mean "70-200"; the latter is the replacement f/2.8 lens for the 80-200 variants, and the 70-210 is an f/4 lens that I believe is discontinued; just wanting to avoid confusion. Details here - for what it's worth, I recently picked up a mk1 80-200 AF, knowing that it's appreciably inferior to the newer versions in handling, but not willing to pay twice the price for a newer lens.

    2) Neither superzoom that was suggested - the 18-200 or 18-105 - will produce especially high-quality results away from the centre wide open on a high pixel density body (comparing photozone's reviews used on a D7000 and a D200 is quite informative at showing how much better these lenses appear if you don't pixel-peep too much). I don't recommend either of these zooms as a perfect fashion lens - however, since we were talking about Purple learning about the effects of different focal lengths in the context of fashion shooting outdoors with (presumably) plenty of light and where a deep depth of field is actively desirable, I think one of them would be a good stepping-stone to learning what lens she really wants to buy, and would not be entirely useless to complement primes (on my D700, my 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 gets quite a lot of use in spite of my owning a number of faster primes). The 18-200 is the standard go-to suggestion for a "does everything" lens; it's a little pricey if it's only to be used as a learning experience. The 18-105 is appreciably cheaper and probably optically better within its range - although you're obviously missing the 105-200mm range if you decide you want to start shooting wildlife or sports. That said, Purple may have learnt everything she needs by playing in a camera store, and be happy with the additional optical performance and larger apertures offered by using primes (or more expensive zooms with a shorter range).

    As ever, buying a "better lens" won't make for better photographs. All you can do is buy a lens that lets you take different photographs. Unusually for people asking this kind of question, it seems that Purple is actually asking what lens she needs to take a particular style of image, rather than just better images in general - I hope we've provided some useful support, although Paul's comments have kind of shaken my confidence about that. (I'm aware that I tend to go on at great length on a range of topics; I try to stick to information that's technical enough that I'm probably getting it right, but I feel that I should have an "I probably don't know what I'm talking about" disclaimer everwhere...) I've ended up with a moderately large lens collection because there are specific shots that I've wanted that my existing lenses have not allowed me to take, but I'm under no delusion that any of them make me a better photographer. If I had the time, I'd be spending it trying to get better with the lenses I've got.

    Purple: On the topic of magazines, when you're in the UK, Professional Photographer magazine (professionalphotographer.co.uk) has a series where they try to deconstruct fashion images and work out what equipment was used. It's not usually very technical, but it might be worth browsing. (ProPhoto is sometimes bundled with more amateur-friendly magazines, like Photography Monthly.)
  61. Purple, thanks for your kind comments upon my shot... If you have a high class body, that can meter with manual lens and good eyes or just happy with MF, and big budget too, consider this: Carl Zeiss 100mm f 2 Makro-Planar ZF.2.
    This is an exceptional top-class instrument e.i. second to none. Comparable to Leica 100 mm lens... It delivers highest resolution from border to border and rendering. It will ovecome every 70-200/2.8 in terms of quality. It is made of metal with engraved figures on its body. You will change bodies like gloves but this will stay with you like Stradivari voilin. I saw full resolution shots and they shocked me! You should shoot RAW and even use a tripod and focus very accurately! And keep on improving to realize the greatness of it!
    Consider Voigtlander Lanthar 90/3.5

    If you need a cheaper one - 105/2.5 AI or 105/1.8 AI should be considered, and 105/2 DC too...
    If you need even cheaper - Samyang 85/1.4 ...
    I took mine with 100 mm (very old and not Zeiss) on 4/3 sensor which is equivalent to 200mm. I save for the Zeiss with Nikon mount awaiting for the crisis ending.
  62. Purple Purple,
    I cannot tell you what is ideal for you but I can tell you what works for me.
    When I shoot fashion with a DX camera, I use the following Nikon lenses on two bodies:
    20-35mm f/2.8 auto focus
    35-70mm f/2.8 auto focus

    These are older lenses that are only available on the used market. If I had to replace these lenses, I would buy the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8.
    When I shoot full-lengths outdoors with a DX camera, I may use the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 G AF VR. This low-cost lens is capable of producing high-quality images.
    When I shoot portraits of adults with a DX body, I prefer the coverage, perspective, and working distance provided by the following focal lengths:
    23mm for group shots (3-meter wide group shot in landscape orientation)
    27mm for full length (2-meter tall subject shot in portrait orientation)
    55mm for half-length (1-meter subject area shot in portrait orientation)
    60mm for head & shoulder
    70mm for headshots
  63. "the distance information that a D lens is capable of communicating, which is of little use anyway" - if you do not program or set the "D" information, you think is of little use.
    Actually many modes use this information, that is not at photographer's control, and therefore gives impression that D information is not used.
    To mention few, the flash balanced mode uses D, and the 3-D focus tracking uses D information, as well as used in metering, and Nikon software will use it if available, showing an extra menu for it.
  64. Frank said:
    To mention few, the flash balanced mode uses D, and the 3-D focus tracking uses D information, as well as used in metering, and Nikon software will use it if available, showing an extra menu for it.​
    Copy that. Perhaps I should have said I don't find it very useful. I rarely use 3D focus-tracking, and most of the time, I'm (now) shooting almost exclusively manual (although previously, I did use the in-camera meter, shooting aperture-priority, almost exclusively), and firing my Speedlights mostly in manual mode as well. I always thought the D information would be useful for i-TTL Speedlight shooting, but I never really noticed any significant difference.
  65. Andrew said:
    Guys - we know that Purple already has a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D​
    I didn't catch that. I just assumed she had the newer, AF-S Nikkor 50mm f1/8.
  66. To mention few, the flash balanced mode uses D, and the 3-D focus tracking uses D information, as well as used in metering, and Nikon software will use it if available, showing an extra menu for it.
    I have read somewhere (in Nikon literature) that is also used for White Balance calculations (just this, they don`t specified if refered to flash, too).
  67. Just to weigh in on the D-vs-not-D debate: pretty much all the feedback I've seen in these fora (and I've not performed my own experiments) suggests that, while D ought to make a difference under unusual circumstances, it's rare for it to make a significant difference. The most commonly-stated benefit is that it makes the difference between 3D matrix metering and plain matrix metering - and even Nikon's plain matrix meter is pretty good, unless you're using an on-camera flash under unusual conditions. I would not be surprised to know that it also influences the autofocus module - for example, I don't know how much of the difference in performance between my 80-200 f/2.8 AF (one ring mk 1) and the replacement 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D (one ring mk 2) is simply ballistics tables, and how much is the lens telling the camera where it's currently focussed and this helping the algorithm.

    I can't see how the lens focus distance could affect white balance, but I'm always prepared to learn. :)

    In general, I'm sure that - unless the lens design has been modified in some other way - we can agree that D is beneficial, but probably not worth losing sleep over most of the time. So Purple - if you have a bargain offer on the 85 f/1.8 AF non-D, by all means go for it (although how much you'll save over a new one for a cheapish lens I don't know - for what it's worth, Nicholas in the UK has them listed for 195-295ukp),

    To quote from leofoo's (amazing) site:
    For those who may be new to the Nikon system and keep worrying you might be buying an older 85mm f/1.8, don't be. Although whether the AF 85mm is an AF-D or non-D version or not - optically both should behave and deliver the same quality (EXCEPT for a fact, where we assume all newer versions should be treated with Nikon's SIC (super Integrated lens Coating Process) where majority of the older ones could be just being treated with NIC (Nikon Integrated Coating).​
    Incidentally, I'm not sure how I came to think the older lens was heavier. They're both 414g, allegedly. Sorry about the misinformation.
  68. Okay, who the heck is "Vic?" And what have you done with purple purple?
  69. Okay, who the heck is "Vic?" And what have you done with purple purple?​
    It is apparent that Purple Purple has exercised the right to a Photo.net name change. This may be a good sign, in that Vic has chosen a new name with the intention of staying around.
    From Name Change guidelines, found in members' My Workspace: " .... in order to minimize spam and "multiple personality" problems, photo.net only allows one name change per account. Please choose wisely and double check your name request."
  70. Yes, I gathered that, Christopher. It's just at first glance, "Vic" didn't sound like a girl's name.
  71. I'm assuming it's short for Victoria, which is a name that's hard to abbreviate. One of my other half's friends is called Victoria, and I'm never quite sure what to call her. "Vics" is fine in person, but written down it's dangerously close to a cold cure and looks a bit odd; "Victoria" seems too formal and I don't think she uses "Vicky" (which sounds less professional anyway; she's a veterinary neurosurgeon and might be projecting an image - no offence to anyone using this abbreviation). Yes, I've tended to see "Vic" as an abbreviated "Victor", but I'm way past making assumptions these days. I know too many people going by Chris (one of whom is now Sarah, apparently superfluously), Andy/Andi, Terry, Joe/Jo, Max, Robin, etc. (Dare I say "Bob"?) It's not like we'd formed a consensus on how to abbreviate "Purple Purple".

    By any name, welcome, Vic.
  72. Andrew said:
    One of my other half's friends is called Victoria, and I'm never quite sure what to call her.​
    Hmm . . . "Victoria" is such a pretty name. How about, just 'V'? You know, like in the movie Ultraviolet? I always thought single-letter names were cool. I have a co-worker that everyone calls "Vi" (pronounced as in "buy"). I actually don't know what her full first name is. Anywho, welcome to the forum, "Vic!"
  73. "V" does get used. Perhaps I should stick to it. :) As for "Vi", I'd assumed it was "Violet" (except in a war about use of emacs) - but I'd probably regret assuming!
  74. Off-topic: Gorgeous shots by Rusian, Christopher, and Bela in the bottom random photo thingie!
  75. random photo thingie!​
    Thanks Ralph, and I think I'm the only Christopher in this thread. Regarding the random photos: It is my understanding that in order for a member's photo to appear as a random photo, the photo must be submitted for critique in the Photo Critique Forum. This creates another way to draw a little traffic to your gallery.
  76. You're welcome! I was wondering why my gallery photos never seemed to appear there! Thanks!

Share This Page