HB 150mm f4.0 T* used for portraits & crappy results

[ducks]

Hi ya'll,

 

I have done a portrait session with a very nice model with the nicest

skin and skull bone features, yet when I came back from the lab and

checked out the results they looked awful.

 

The features were not there, she looked like 20kg overweight and not

anything like her.

 

What did I do wrong?

 

My set: 500c/m with the 150mm lens and natural light (frontal).

 

I was very close to her though (as in minimum distance possible ->

1,4 meter) and had to use the full opening of the lens, meaning f4.0

and still get a shutterspeed of 1/40th-ish.

 

Here's an example

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/sloeber/hassie/14133ec0.jpg

 

what do you think I did wrong??

[nikos peri]

FWIW (not much) nothing wrong with the lens. Your lighting is aweful, with no modelling whatsoever. Skin tones probably depend more on development, but a little extra exposure wouldn't have hurt. And I think you should have shot this from a little higher up: would have slightly thinned her jaw/cheeks and avoided the up-the-nostrils perspective.

[brunom]

Dax

 

I am somewhat confused by what you've said, "shutterspeed of 1/40th-ish" ?? The speeds are 1/30 and 1/60 so which did you use and was the camera on a tripod?

 

I'd agree with Nikos's thoughts.

 

Bruno

[daniel_janssen]

Well a camera adds 10 pounds ;-)

First thing that is wrong with the picture is the fact that is is unsharp, due to maybe bad focussing (which happens easily at f4 at close range) or camera movement (which is almost inevitable at 1/30 of 1/60 in medium format).

Secondly, in order to bring out her features in a picture she will have to use makeup. Even the most natural looking photomodels use tons of that stuff. In natural (front) light you will need even more to get contrast in the face.

A higher standpoint could help as someone already pointed out. Or your could he looked up a bit more.

So there is a lot of room for improvement. Blaming the lens won't help. Daniel

[fred_leif3]

Seems to me that you might have taken a reflected reading off her face and didn't compensate. Remember, the meter gives you exposure values to make the metered area medium grey. You need to either compensate or perhaps try an incident reading. Even then, some extra exposure might have helped. Do some testing and take notes.

[ducks]

Hi, thanks for the replies and I know the picture isn't all that much (direct from the scanner, no editting), this was just a preliminary shoot, just to ease the tension between model and the camera. The modelling and lighting do affect the overall picture, I know, but it doesn't explain the distorted image i.e. the face is all puffed up.

 

I have taken pictures of her in the same setting with a digital compact camera set on 105mm with all the same conditions and even there she looks better.

 

I asked about this in the camerashop and I got the answer that I was too close to the model...about 1.4 meter away, using a tripod yes.

 

Don't worry about the metering, the lens, the focus or the modelling, this will all be taken care of and I am sure it is not the equipment that is to blame, but I just wanted to know whether there is a minimal distance I should be taking, in order to get the nice compressed picture of using the 150mm and still get the full frame portrait. I print the film namely with the border and do not want to cut into that, the picture has to be able to stand on it's own without cropping, so given that demand, can somebody please help me to explain this result?

[daniel_janssen]

the 150 mm Blad = 80 mm in your digital format. To get the same kind of results in medium format you'll need a 180 mm at least. Another option is combining the 150 mm with a 30mm extension tube. This way you will be able to come closer. Or you can use a 2 x tele mutar.

[tarashnat]

It looks like you may have been closer than the minimum focusing distance. The nose

looks to be in slightly better focus than the rest of the model. Many people like to focus

on the eyes, and here they look undefined. Daniel's suggestion of an extension tube is

probably a good idea. I would think the 16mm or 8mm (10mm for old style) would be the

ones to try. You may want to take your camera to a local shop (if available) and try then to

focus on a close subject (the salesperson?) to determine which tube is best for you. The

file http://www.hasselbladusa.com/Archive/documents/Downloads_files/Information/

Closeup.pdf could also help (no spaces in link). Also, as mentioned, if you were not using

a tripod, then camera shake could be a contributing factor to the lack of definition in the

photo.

 

Taras

[ducks]

The unsharpness is due to shutter and curtain vibration, I am quite sure now, because I chekced the lens and it was on 1/8th and f/4.0, therefore way to slow and the tripod wasn't to stable either, but I thought what the hey let's try it.

 

about the extension tube, it so happens I have a 50mm one in my bag and I have two proxar filters, the 0,5 and 1.0, so perhaps those things can help me out.

 

I just had the 150mm lens so therefore I want to experiment more, since I know that the 80mm gives some very good results already as in this picture.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/sloeber/cea1b1ba.jpg

 

 

But still I want to have at least this quality, technically speaking, the model is no problem, she's a natural beauty, but get good results with the 150mm.

 

Anyways, probably next week I'll have the new pictures up and running, so I will make use of all the tips so far I think, my faults were:

 

too close and too slow a shutterspeed, so I am going to solve that the next time

[steve_phillipps]

You shouldn't get shutter vibration from a leaf shutter, and there is no "curtain" either. Wobbly tripod or subject movement, and possibly focus.

Best of luck,

Steve