Flower Girl

[shots worth sharing]

In the "bust-a-prime" spirit, I liberated the DA*300mm from the tripod and went out shooting. These don't match

Mis's but they *could* have been good--if she hadn't been so shy (perhaps for good reason) about being

photographed and I weren't so shy about street photography.<div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

She was just as pretty as the flowers.<div></div>

[bob-c]

Wow, Dave, the colors in the first shot are great. The flowers really stand out against the background. Nicely done.

[shots worth sharing]

Thanks, Robert! It's a subject I've wanted to shoot for some time now.

[garry_young1]

Great candids Dave.

 

The metering seems to have been thrown by her jacket in the first shot, but then again that brings out the colors in the flowers more, and gives you more shutter speed. Were the flowers jigging about a lot? Seems like they are slightly out of focus or were moving faster than the shutter could freeze, yet her jacket and hair are razor sharp.

 

The second shot is great. Slightly soft, but such a nice smile! ;-)

[shots worth sharing]

Your observations are dead right, Garry. Yes, the flowers were bouncing as she walked away, fleeing the camera. The second was a hasty shot after I had assured her (in incredibly inept Spanish) that I was just after a pretty photograph. There's still a hint of tension in her smile which, while it may detract slightly from her pure prettiness, speaks of wonderful strength.

 

Suffice it to say that street shooting with a 300mm lens has pros & cons: what you gain in terms of reach is pretty much offset by its conspicuousness (and you have to hand-carry: no plopping it in the bag between opportunities.)

[miserere_mei]

Way to go, Dave. Nothing to be ashamed of here. I actually like those blurred flowers, they give a sense of movement. The importance of the flowers is the colour, and that's there whether they're crisp or not. The portrait, well, that *would* have been better crisper. But it's the perfect excuse for you to go over another day and get the shot you want.

 

As a side note, the DA* 300mm is a prime I'd love to bust :-)

[shots worth sharing]

Also, I think that--even with SR--you have to be very careful about camera shake when you hand-hold a 300mm f4.0. I think that's the issue in the second shot and I've seen it in shots of Clara as well. You just can't 'run & gun' like you can with a sub-f/2.0 50mm.

[daniel_tong1]

Dave

 

I agree with your care about camera shake for long lens. But one thing that surprised me is that you were using 300mm for portrait. Should that be better be done with 77mm or 85mm (two generally accepted good portrait FL)? I thought my use of 200mm was overly long?

I still have to find out if the 'flatten' effect would be minimised by shooting side-way instead of frontal . I will be doing some portrait Sunday with my newly acquired 90mm. That will be interesting.

 

Daniel

[shots worth sharing]

It rather surprised me too, Daniel ;~) It was just what I had on the camera on the time and we were on opposite sides of the street. I think getting as close as a 77mm would have required would have really made her feel threatened. In any case, this excursion was partly about exploring the possibilities of the 300mm by taking it out into the world without tripod or TC.

 

As to its suitability for portraits, I was impressed by the ones you shot with the 200mm and think the 300mm has possibilities as well--with the caution about camera shake. Here's an example which illustrates both points (possibilities and susceptibility to shake.)<div></div>

[daniel_tong1]

If you shoot your valued 77mm , you need to be obtrusively close to Clara (?) above .

<br>

With 300mm indoor, I had to have a monopod as support. The question is still out as to how suitable a longer lens

like 200 or 300mm can be used for portrait.

I have some images that I feel entirely ok with my A300mm indoor. One big bonus when shooting 2-300m lens is

that it is very easy to get rid of the distraction in a form of patches of blurry and creamy bokeh

 

 

<br>

For this one it is arguably that a 300mm may flatten her face particularly the nose part. Hey I am oriental and it is ok

for me to say that we are relatively flat-nosed. I have no need to say something so roundabout like "subjects with

fairly compact facial topography"

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/82228222/large.jpg">

 

<br>

<br>

Ok it flattens the subject's face if you can detect it. How about if I can avoid it in another angle like this?

<br>

<br>

 

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/82228216/large.jpg">

 

<br>

 

<br>

 

 

But with this one shot outdoor , I definitely have no problem doing handheld . I think I got away ok .

<br>

<br>

 

 

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/84093294/original.jpg">

<br>

 

<br>

 

 

Daniel, Toronto

[shots worth sharing]

I was pretty proud of "subjects with fairly compact facial topography" ;~) Of course, I can get away with

being fairly obtrusive with Clara--but not with her aunts & uncles (or her mom, for that matter.)

 

These are nice shots! Your first photo really does demonstrate the flattening effect pretty effectively (but I

wouldn't say it's a jarring distortion) and the second, how the effect can be mitigated. And you really nailed

the focus that last one--nice!.

 

There are certainly trade-offs between long & short but you've certainly convinced me that long lenses can be the

tool of choice depending on conditions.

 

In the same spirit of experimentation, I'm going to give my Sigma 105mm a try during an upcoming family

gathering. I've tended to use that lens for macro work exclusively but I can't think of any reason not to use

it for portraits as well--can you? It might be a good compromise.

[daniel_tong1]

So can we conclude that using long lens (135mm-300mm) for portrait is ok if I can avoid frontal shots particularly for " subject with fairly compact facial topography"?

So that is the only thing I have to remind myself when using long lens?

[shots worth sharing]

And, I think, an increased risk of camera shake.