Grant's Headshots C&C

[DGMPhotography]

Oh... you're worried about the DOF. I like having ears a bit fuzzy. Thanks for your input, though.

the longer the focal length the narrower the DOF...

I took this a f/6.3 with that same 70-300mm at 135mm. My ears are OOF: Selfie 4

I wasn't worried about the DOf, I was worried about the opticalness. As you can see on my old $200 D5100 and that $150 lens, it was still pretty damn sharp.

at 165mm and f/8, again, fuzzy ears: Self Portrait


if we are being perfectly honest, the only thing that actually looks sharp in those shots is his beard, it could be the way you've process, your f-stop, or just the small size you always present images at. My 32" 4K monitor hates you.

By "opticalness" are you referring to distortion?

The images are sharp, I normally shoot at around f/5 for headshots and single point focus on the eyes. It's probably the upload size that's an issue.

 

[DanOstergren26 1]

Great lighting and editing. Is the lens focal length causing his shoulders to look less broad though?

On a related note, I don't think being square to the camera is a bad thing for men's portraits and headshots. Being square to the camera broadens the shoulders, which is flattering for men and exudes strength, which I think is especially good for men's professional headshots. Granted you can certainly pose a man so he isn't square to the camera and it will still look good, I just don't think a man being square to the camera ruins the shot or calls for a re-shoot.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Great lighting and editing. Is the lens focal length causing his shoulders to look less broad though?

On a related note, I don't think being square to the camera is a bad thing for men's portraits and headshots. Being square to the camera broadens the shoulders, which is flattering for men and exudes strength, which I think is especially good for men's professional headshots. Granted you can certainly pose a man so he isn't square to the camera and it will still look good, I just don't think a man being square to the camera ruins the shot or calls for a re-shoot.

That was my thinking too.

 

[smoke665]

I like the set except as the others commented, just not a fan of the landscape crop on these. Echoing Derrel's comment #4 is the winner, as it seems to be such a natural reflection of the individual within.

 

[Braineack]

By "opticalness" are you referring to distortion?

you yourself said "The only longer lens I have is my 70-300, and the optics are simply not as good as my 50mm."

and I'm suggesting at f/8, they won't be.

Actually, comparing the MTF of the 50mm to the 70-300, they suggest the optics of the 70-300 are actually better in general. At f/8 & 300mm it's much sharper throughout.

the top is the 70-300 at 70mm, and bottom the 50mm. at f/8 the 70-300 is really sharp almost all the way to the edge of the frame. the 50mm is pretty sharp to the edge of a crop sensor frame.

I wouldn't ignore the most basic "rules" of portrait photography over incorrect notions. I could tell right away they were shot with a short lens, and then the square on shoulders -- you're 0 for 2

 

[DGMPhotography]

By "opticalness" are you referring to distortion?

you yourself said "The only longer lens I have is my 70-300, and the optics are simply not as good as my 50mm."

and I'm suggesting at f/8, they won't be. Actually, comparing the MTF of the 50mm to the 70-300, and they suggest the optics are actually better in general. At f/8 and 300mm it's much sharper throughout.

Oh, you're saying the 70-300 is actually better than the 50mm at f/8 and 300mm? I didn't know that. I'll have to try it. Albeit, outdoors, since I don't have enough space indoors for that.

 

[DanOstergren26 1]

By "opticalness" are you referring to distortion?

you yourself said "The only longer lens I have is my 70-300, and the optics are simply not as good as my 50mm."

and I'm suggesting at f/8, they won't be. Actually, comparing the MTF of the 50mm to the 70-300, and they suggest the optics are actually better in general. At f/8 and 300mm it's much sharper throughout.

Oh, you're saying the 70-300 is actually better than the 50mm at f/8 and 300mm? I didn't know that. I'll have to try it. Albeit, outdoors, since I don't have enough space indoors for that.

For headshots? 70mm indoors should be no problem for headshots, especially if you're using a full frame camera. I use my 85mm indoors for portraits all the time even in really small spaces. When I owned a 135mm lens I would use that inspide for headshots as well.

 

[DGMPhotography]

By "opticalness" are you referring to distortion?

you yourself said "The only longer lens I have is my 70-300, and the optics are simply not as good as my 50mm."


and I'm suggesting at f/8, they won't be. Actually, comparing the MTF of the 50mm to the 70-300, and they suggest the optics are actually better in general. At f/8 and 300mm it's much sharper throughout.

Oh, you're saying the 70-300 is actually better than the 50mm at f/8 and 300mm? I didn't know that. I'll have to try it. Albeit, outdoors, since I don't have enough space indoors for that.

For headshots? 70mm indoors should be no problem for headshots, especially if you're using a full frame camera. I use my 85mm indoors for portraits all the time even in really small spaces. When I owned a 135mm lens I would use that inspide for headshots as well.

Before Braineack edited his post, he talked about shooting at 300mm which wouldn't work indoors. I was always under the impression my 50mm was better glass, but it seems that is not the case?

Can you explain a little more what that graph means?

I'm also going to do some comparison shots.