Voigtlander Single Coated Portrait (NSFW)

[Tropicalmemories]

I bought a used lens at a market mainly because I thought it looked cool with it's classic design and quick manual focus lever. But when I checked its spec it turned out to be a single coated lens designed for black and white photography.

Here's an example of the 'classic' look it creates. This is sooc jpeg using an LED ringlight, and the only editing was to reduce the file size for posting.

I guess some may think the depth of field was too narrow, but I wanted the focus on her eyes - and why buy an f1.4 prime lens and stop it down.

Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 SC

 

[tirediron]

Very nice; lovely rendition from that lens. A couple of thoughts:

... why buy an f1.4 prime lens and stop it down..]

So that you can stop it down to say, f2.8, be tack sharp and still have a narrow DoF. I understand your intent with the image, but really feel like the DoF is just a bit too narrow. I think if you'd gone just a bit smaller you'd have nailed that. The other little niggle is the left hand, 'though well out of focus, the bent back position seems awkward and unnatural; laying flat on her thigh would have been much stronger IMO.

 

[D7K]

I like the shot, well done.. I’ll agree with the above for the hand DoF however, mainly because I was a sucker for the same thing, I bought 1.4 so I’ll use 1.4, right or not haha but great experimenting and you’ve a willing model right there, nice work..


Sent from my mobile device because I’m either outside or too lazy to get my MacBook..

 

[Tropicalmemories]

Very nice; lovely rendition from that lens. A couple of thoughts:

... why buy an f1.4 prime lens and stop it down..]

So that you can stop it down to say, f2.8, be tack sharp and still have a narrow DoF. I understand your intent with the image, but really feel like the DoF is just a bit too narrow. I think if you'd gone just a bit smaller you'd have nailed that. The other little niggle is the left hand, 'though well out of focus, the bent back position seems awkward and unnatural; laying flat on her thigh would have been much stronger IMO.

Yes, you're right of course, stopping down a bit would have been better, but after aeons of using f3.5 to f5.6 kit zooms, I can't resist whacking the prime lenses wide open!

And I seem to have temporary blindness when it comes to hands, feet and backgrounds - it all looks good to me in the viewfinder, then I look on the screen and think 'how did I miss that hand, tree etc.

 

[JoeW]

Thanks for posting. She's lovely. I think with a lens with an aperture like that, you either do something like focus on JUST the eyelashes or the eyes or you increase your depth of field somewhat. And I hear you about the hands, etc. That's why you keep shooting and posting for C&C--to learn and get better.

 

[mrca]

I have been considering the 58 mm Voightlander but have a zeiss 35 distagon and 85 planar and just can't justify a want to a need in a cost benefit analysis. I would suggest you take a similar shot with a nikon zoom or kit lens and compare the wonderful fine contrast transitions, ie microcontrast of your new lens. I agree with Tirediron, the location of the hand isn't well placed and it would be better placed down the thigh. How about cropping mid that forearm to get rid of it. Lighting wise. I'm guessing you light is fairly hard and you can increase distance to increase hardness if it has the power. But you have some wonderful eyelashes to work with here, I would position the light high and in front of her face to throw hard eyelash shadows on her cheeks. I use a flooded fresnel to get the classic razor sharp eye lash shadows. That would really pull the viewer to the eyes which you are trying to emphasize. I would use the barn doors on the light, but you could place a flag and adjust subj/light distance to get fall off below the face to make the face the brightest area and have it fall of a bit across the chest then much darker below. I tend to do that with barn doors rather than with top hats, ie snoots. You could also do that in post. I think you will see a stunning difference between what this lens renders at 3.5 compared to a kit lens. You went from a Yugo to a Ferrari. I wonder if someone told you it is a great b&w lens because of the micro contrast? In b&w, all you have is tonal contrast, no color, so more tonal contrast can really add to your image. You could add more gradient of light in your image and it will really transform your image.

 

[Tropicalmemories]

Thank you MRCA - good tips.

I was using an LED ring light, so modifiers may not be an option?

 

[mrca]

I understand, but you can hang a piece of black cardboard/foamcore/cinefoil off a stand and use it as a flag. Based on the relative size to the stud, small modifier that will become pretty hard if moved several feet from subject. Glad to help, have been incapacitated for over 2 months unable to shoot so being able to contribute keeps my hand in.

 

[Tropicalmemories]

I understand, but you can hang a piece of black cardboard/foamcore/cinefoil off a stand and use it as a flag. Based on the relative size to the stud, small modifier that will become pretty hard if moved several feet from subject. Glad to help, have been incapacitated for over 2 months unable to shoot so being able to contribute keeps my hand in.

Thanks. I'll give that a try.

 

[bulldurham]

" In b&w, all you have is tonal contrast, no color, so more tonal contrast can really add to your image."

I agree with everything else you've pointed out with this exception. B&W does have color in the sense that some colors shoot quite differently than others. For instance red will shoot almost black while a pale yellow nearer to white than gray. I am always amazed at portraits shot with no mind as to makeup colors, especially around the eyes of when red is worn and shot on a dark background. One has to be cognizant of "color" in B&W.