Dear Miguel: The Mystics say that the greatest obstacle to learning something is that belief that you already know it. Your video is so eminently cogent that it has shattered the conventional wisdom for me and, actually, solved a HUGE problem for me. In my desire to eliminate distracting backgrounds, I've shot too often at low f-stops resulting in too many just out of focus shots. I will now do what I've always wanted to do and consider f 5.6 or above with my 70-210 lens and then just worry about the light levels. I'm shamed that I've read scores of Photography books and been shooting for 40 years, and I didn't learn this on my own.

@unbroken1010

5 жыл бұрын

With all due respect that you wrote a very nice comment.. I have to ask what trash photography books have you been reading that have told you this. I don't know one reputable Photography book it's never explained that you find The Sweet Spot of a lens and that trumps any fad going on. You find The Sweet Spot and then get creative from there.

@dennisjanwolterding384

5 жыл бұрын

@@unbroken1010 Dear Unbroken: I do not know if you've directed this comment to me, but if you have I can tell you that almost every photography book (you can see, for example, Scott Kelby's tomes, generally stresses keeping a fast portrait lens (say 85 mm) wide open when shooting portraits. The idea, which seems reasonable, is to keep the background blurred with beautiful bokeh while stressing the eyes of the subject. I bought into this and often found that my portraits weren't fully in focus on the face. Quite apart from the sweet spot of our lenses (which for fast lenses are never wide open, even though those lenses cost a fortune), I was simply hypnotized into rejecting higher f-stops like f 4.0 or f 5.. Mr. Quiles's work with an actual model was eye-opening to me. I suspect it will be for others. If you already knew this, you were luckier than I.

@unbroken1010

5 жыл бұрын

@@dennisjanwolterding384 yeah man it was definitely directed at you and I'm really pissed that those books are teaching you that stuff.. they're taking your time and your money.. always keep in mind that not just because a book has been published means it contains relevant information.. and yes I was blessed with going to Rochester Institute of Technology when I was young and every teacher I had we said you do your homework and find The Sweet Spot of the lens and you will get nice bokeh. But as my one teacher taught always keep in mind how a Portrait is not just always about a person .You want to show some history ,where they are.. it's not always a good idea that people are floating in color field "space" . It cracks me up when photographers for to exotic locations doing portraits and yet their is not enough background detail to make it out. remember even the greatest of abstract painters are based on real things. By not going full-blown Bokeh... with a little more background detail you can achieve some very nice framing effects making your portraits stronger.

@unbroken1010

5 жыл бұрын

@@mylillambs thanks😛

@longliveclassicmusic

5 жыл бұрын

It's not an issue of the sweet spot of a lens. The sweet spot of a lens is only about 1-2 stops smaller than wide open, way wider than f/5.6 on an f/1.4 and especially MUCH wider than f/11. It's an issue of the fact that every single thing we're photographing in practice is 3-dimensional. When the sweet spot of a lens is determined, it's done with 2D charts. But when you're shooting portraits, for example, even the irises of the subject itself are 3D, NOT 2D. If your depth of field is razor thin, where is dead center of the DOF? The front of the iris closest to camera? The edges of the iris furthest from camera? The middle of the eye lashes? Somewhere between the two? Whatever your answer, more and more of the other options of focal points just in the eye itself will be further and further off-center. With a wider depth of field, you get the entire eye relatively closer to the center of your depth of field. And furthermore, whether you're at the widest depth of field possible or the smallest, only the exact point of focus is still perfectly in focus. So even if multiple parts of an image are fit squarely inside a 1/2" DOF, those parts of the image closest to the edges of that DOF are still noticeably more out of focus than that

A deeper DOF is essential for beauty work. The texture needed to show the makeup and hair along with needed detail for retouch necessitates more being in focus. Great video demonstrating this. The variation in the longer focal length is surprising and something I wouldn't have guessed.

@Sr7Sr7Sr7

5 жыл бұрын

Jefferson Donald And the lenses are even both exceptionally sharp GMaster lenses and yet there’s a huge difference just due to focal distance. Not like we can attribute it to one of the lenses being bad lol.

@mediamannaman

5 жыл бұрын

Jefferson Donald - Ahh. Now your talking. Some of the differences when one changes focal lengths are noticeable, but subtle. For a real estate photographer like me who doesn't shoot portraits and almost always shoots for a wide (infinite) DOF, this video was begging the question of why it matters. Your comment starts to answer that.

@barrycohen311

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you Jefferson. I am so tired of the *three eyelashes being in focus* type shots. Why even do location shots in Paris, NYC, London, etc, if your backgrounds look like potato soup in every shot? The main advantage of fast lenses is low light conditions, and when you are doing a full body shot, and still want the background blown out. Or the subject is close to the background, and you still want separation.

@thethirdman225

4 жыл бұрын

@@barrycohen311 Yeah, that isn't even portraiture.

Having been a full frame pro shooter for over 20 years when I recently moved to Olympus with the m/43 format. This is exactly why its so popular. Shooting portraits at F5.6 and 6.3 give your results at F11 or F16 with much smaller lenses and increased overhaul sharpness because of the smaller sensor and not everyone wants the BOOOOOOOKAH effect. Also I personally feel that careful positioning of the subject within the environment makes for better photos than just a load of blur. Excellent vid for those who don't or can't get the right idea on DOF etc.

@nicedward7544

2 жыл бұрын

I'm really close to ditching my ff Sony's to go to Oly 4/3

My style of wedding photography was to always use f5.6 to f11 for sharpness for individual portraits and groups, while keeping an eye out for distracting elements. Most wedding pictures should have the place of the wedding to be recognized. The backgrounds will tend to be slightly out of focus while the subjects will stand out and look sharp by comparison. Action shots, such as bouquet toss could benefit from f16 to keep everyone and the flying bouquet in focus. Use the background elements to frame and enhance the bride and groom. Using faster f-stops helps with low light distance shots of the ceremony in the church.

Miguel thank you for talking so much sense with real clarity. So many people are obsessed with shooting at the widest aperture possible and lens companies fuel this by pushing lenses that go lower and lower because they can and they can charge massive money for them. Your focus on the quality of the image as a whole and the detail and texture that can be achieved with a smaller aperture is informative and massively refreshing

I am so glad you made this video. I often find myself having this same discussion with people regarding portraits. Especially headshots. Everyone thinks that just because you have fast glass you have to always shoot wide open. Great work my friend!!!👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾

It's so easy to listen to you. You've got this gentle and friendly aura. I'm on of those who likes to shoot wide open all the time but I think for studio portraits I'd start stopping down to at least f8. Great video.

I agree totally. When I started out, I was trying to get the creamy out of focus backgrounds, so I bought the F/2.8 or F/1.8 lenses and if you get the focus right it can be wonderful. However, I got a little tired of out of focus noses and second eyes when they were not exactly on the same focal plane. Not to mention only a small portion of the hair was in focus. What I have gone to is shooting at about 100mm to 150mm with a F stop of 8 or 11. With this you get all of the face and a lot of the hair in focus and if you get your subject away from the background about 4 to 5 ft., the background is blurry as well. You also get a lot more keepers if the subject is moving around and giving you different looks.

@jhuang2282

4 жыл бұрын

Donald Stark thank you for you comment. I didn’t understand this video until I read you comment, I shoot 50mm and 85mm 1.2 wide open but I can hardly find an image with the problems you mentioned. I guess that’s why I don’t understand this video.

Very good video and showing good results of the effects of the f-stops. I agree in a lot of what you say, but... Shooting close up portraits I totally agree that using 1.4 will not do you so much good, but when doing full body shots standing further away, your DoF will also increase. For instance when you shoot the 85mm at 3meters you get a DoF of around 10cm in total. That is not much to work with. But if you do a full body shot and step back to 6m, you will have a DoF of around 40cm. That is when you can work and play with larger aperture and getting more in Fuchs of the main subject and better bokeh. But most of these lenses has their sweet spot of sharpness around f4 - f5, so if your looking for most detail this is the area to be. So f1.4 or f2.8 won’t get you the best quality, but will give you some more artistic play regarding of looks. So my advice is to learn the full range and know when to use what. Great vid 👍🏻

@gr8wings

4 жыл бұрын

You're absolutely right! Wide open (f1.4-f2) is "the key" for beautiful full body and plan américain (medium long shot) outdoor photography! In the studio you'll use very often f8-f11, except for some peculiar effect at wider aperture.

Finally! Someone who gets it. I have way too many arguments with other shooters who insist on shooting under f/4. It drives me crazy. They most often say 'I don't want to get the background in focus'. I explain how they have not gotten over half the model in focus either. Especially when doing a head shot your focal depth isa even more compromized, than when getting a full body shot. It is easy enough to blur part of your image in post, but not so easy to fix a blurry image. We should also consider how the human eye does not perceive this depth of focus limitation, since we correct our focus to what ever we are looking at faster than we realize there is a limitation as such.

@DarrianAshoka

5 жыл бұрын

@Joe Trent I totally agree that finding a more interresting background is better than just a blurry backdrop. Some think it is too distracting, but I disagree. It gives the eye more to feat on, where a subject only image will not hold the veiwer's interrest nearly as long.

@stillstymied

5 жыл бұрын

I purposefully shoot under f/4 for portraits because I want creamy, blurred skin. It’s an aesthetic that is flattering for women. Same with backlighting. Men will insist on fill flash and that “ligh tmust be controlled you can’t blow highlights” while their fill casts shadows on faces, under eyes and in smile lines. There seems to be a gender split here with how women shoot and how men shoot. Most women don’t WANT all of that detail on their faces and they’re the client that is mostly likely buying the portrait (unless you are doing commercial work).

The key when shooting with f11 instead wide open is to place the subject far away from the background

@tecnolover2642

5 жыл бұрын

You still will not get the background isolation and bokeh you get at 1.4. Not going to happen. No the KEY is to just use a studio environment with bokeh type textural backgrounds like he uses here.

@cjvpjackson9350

5 жыл бұрын

That's the secret I've been learning lately to blurring anything you don't want in the picture... and there's no substitute for practice, practice,practice! :)

@jeffreyrifkin7420

5 жыл бұрын

@@tecnolover2642 I typically like to bring in textures through PS to create the color/texture I'm looking for, thereby not needing to buy various baclkrops

@longliveclassicmusic

5 жыл бұрын

tecnolover2642 If you're shooting a face at 200mm f/2.8 against a background that is far away, you WILL get WAY more background blur than you would shooting the same face against the same background at 85mm f/1.4. This can be even further exaggerated if you use something like a 600mm f/4 prime (something you likely can't afford). Shorter focal length faster aperture bokeh only trumps longer focal length bokeh in tighter spaces where the background is super close, such as in this video's studio shoot where the background is right behind her or in the room of a house. If you were shooting on the street in front of a city skyline, for example, you will NOT get a blurrier background with an 85mm f/1.4. And not only that, super blurred or not, with shorter focal lengths you get WAY more “junk” in the background that may be blurred but is still clearly there. Longer focal lengths simplify the background. Choose your lenses based on the perspective effects (subject features compression, background feature compression, etc) you want out of focal length and use the fastest lens you can afford with the widest range of aperture possibilities for that focal length. If you're just using the “fastest” lens in general for absolutely every situation, crop, etc thinking you're always getting the blurriest background and most isolated subject possible, you're fundamentally ignorant about even how background compression actually works.

@alanalain4884

5 жыл бұрын

The key when shooting f11 is to place the subject fr away from the background... But not only, at the same time I believe you want to be as close to your subject that you can to get more background bokeh effect.

In a studio I'd go for f8 to f14, but outdoors f 1.4 to f4 to blur out the background (depending on the lens I use, the distance to the subject etc)

@MasteringHow-To

5 жыл бұрын

Have the model stand further away from the background. If you wanna go into the F4. It’ll blur it.

@simonhooper2458

5 жыл бұрын

If I have to choose between digital sharpening or digital blurring in post processing, I will always stop down & post blur. The RAW sharpness of the subject is more important to me

@pedasn

5 жыл бұрын

exactly

@myhandlewastaken

5 жыл бұрын

Don't discount the appeal of an environment in the story of your image.

@wanneske1969

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, but sometimes the environment doesn't matter or isn't beautiful

This video blew me away. It exactly answered a question I've been asking myself for a few months now but couldn't answer becaue I just don't have the money, gear, or technical understanding to research myself.

@JuanLopez-oz9kh

5 жыл бұрын

Don't forget a wide angle 12-24 or 14-30 or a prime 14mm 2.8

@sjsphotog

5 жыл бұрын

@@JuanLopez-oz9kh you would not use such a lens for shooting a portrait model. 50mm to 200mm is the typical portait lens range with 85-200 being the most popular to get that "look"

@stevenburrell9459

5 жыл бұрын

@@sjsphotog , I have both 50mm and a 70-200mm do you think the 4 to 5 ft distance rule can be applied here using the info in the video? also using a shoot through umbrella to soften the light.

@kardez506

5 жыл бұрын

while the video is informative on the length which stays in focus....it doesn't talk about the flash settings he's using. You gotta remember that they smaller aperture(larger number) you go, more light is needed.

@angryoaf

5 жыл бұрын

@@kardez506 not sure I understand what that has to do with DOF though. Naturally you'd have to adjust your flash settings or the exposure triangle accordingly. That's photography 101. Having the equipment and studio space to test the sharpness of portraits shot at higher apertures in a controlled environment while still exposing properly is not something I can do right now. Which is what I was referring to. I had a hunch that it's was something that I should work towards but it's hard to prioritize things in my budget without some positive confirmation.

Thanks Miguel for finally putting this up and pointing out the basic facts of portraiture. When I was doing portraits 35 years ago I used two lenses: an 85mm f/2 and a 135mm f/2.8. I never shot that close with the 85. In fact, I maintained the same working distance - about 2.5 - 3 metres - and used a similar f-stop, the two lenses giving me different angles of view. Most of the time I was using the 85mm at f/5.6 and the 135 at F/5.6 or f/8, both of which gave me adequate DOF. I didn't even know what "bokeh" was. Nobody talked about that stuff then. If we wanted to mute a background we did it with lighting. Conversely, if we wanted something high key, we did that with lighting too. I'm not that old but I just don't understand the modern view that backgrounds _must_ be crushed out of focus and that you have to have "bokeh". I don't think of that as portraiture. I think of it as gear heading. If you don't have a background - like in studio - then make it neutral. I didn't use smoke effect style backgrounds. I just used plain black, white or grey. The point of portraiture is the subject and not the (often distracting) out of focus effects of the lens.

Thank you for opening my eyes. Many, many years ago (50), when I started shooting portraits in my studio, I used f8 for more sharpness. I didn’t understand depth-of-field. In time, I got faster lenses and started shooting wide open for that beautiful shallow background. Today, my wife and I teach photography at Rowan college in NJ. Understanding depth-of -field, using the 70-200mm lens, the closer the camera is to the subject and the further the subject is to the background, the softer the background will become. I’m going to do some tests at f8 and f11. Assuming it works, we’ll start teaching that way. Thanks again. Jack & Sharon

I am so glad I found this video. I thought something was wrong with my lens or camera because I just couldn't understand why some parts of my portraits were not completely in focus when shooting at 1.4. I will definitely be trying this!

@DanslaviedeHouda

Жыл бұрын

I had the same issue … thought I needed new gear 😅

Brilliant - I've struggled with wide apertures, especially when there is more than one subject. Have so many ruined shots. Recently decided to stop down and your video has confirmed this.

For a beginner like me I think this was a good video to show the difference of the f-stop. Got me thinking that I don't always need to shoot at f1.4. I miss my focus of my portraits a lot with f1. 4 and with a higher f stop it would eliminate That. Thanks for the. Id

@madtonesbr

4 жыл бұрын

You should ALWAYS consider what aperture your photo needs. Cameras have had adjustable apertures for over a century for a reason. Only shooting at f/1.4 is like only seasoning your food with one sauce all the time. You should not be composing all your shots the same.

Completely blown away by the clarity of your explanation. Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge. Apart from being a master photographer, you are a natural teacher.

@thethirdman225

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. Simple explanations well illustrated. What else do you need?

Really good comparison ... totally agree!!! Thank you for sharing

I’ve got the 85GM and shoot wide open F1.4 for portraits outside. Yes, the furtherest eye is out of focus, but I like it. I like how the background also blurs to highlight the face. To me it looks more natural or dreamy. But yes, for studio, I would shoot higher f-stop.

@madtonesbr

4 жыл бұрын

Oh for sure, sometimes you do want that bokeh and razor-thin DoF. But his point is everyone does now, it's a recent trend, and it's boring when every single portrait taken by new photographers follows the same rote formula. Think outside the box. Look at works by iconic photographers. You'll never see Annie Leibovitz shooting at 1.4 lol. But you WILL see every small local photographer and modern gear hound doing it for no reason other than it's what they learned from internet photoraphers like them. The path you choose is yours

Bro. She is Perfect. She doesn't even need any skin softening. Maybe just slight blemish removal but even that is minimal to none. The girl is visually stunning.

@jamespeck2638

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. What is wrong with natural beauty...does everything have to be fake/softened? Even natural beauty. I would think you would want to preserve it.

@retroman7331

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamespeck2638 She's not natrual beauty. She had surgery done on her nose and chin lol

This just answered my question, I have been shooting with f5 until I was convinced, shot just one job with f1.8, the customer kept on complaining about sharpness, this incident just happened last week, thanks, I really appreciate, and the model looks stunning by the way.

I shoot at an effective DoF of f/0.5 for portraits. I use an f/3.5 380mm lens on an 8x10 camera, hence the effectively shallower DoF. I have to use lens swing and tilt to get both eyes and lips in focus. I also use a posing stand behind the head to keep my subject perfectly still, so I can nail focus. Using a posing stand and camera movements, like lens swing and tilt, really helps you nail focus on both eyes when their head is at an angle to the camera when shooting wide open. Both tilt lenses and tilt/shift adapters are available for digital cameras if you want to try this. It adds a whole new level of control and creativity. Great video, well explained and demonstrated. Brilliant.

I've recently started shooting at higher f-stops (in studio), and it does make for some good results. However, I think it's worth mentioning that using higher f-stops requires more light. I don't generally like raising my ISO, so I ultimately end up having to blind my subject with repeated high power flashes. It also drains the batteries of my speed lights much more quickly when using those. Just something to think about when figuring out what f-stop to use.

@brandon9638

7 ай бұрын

I've recently arrived at the conclusion that there is no reason to shoot wide open in a studio environment when there is nothing to blowout in the background.

Nobody commented on the model, she is stunning. I could look at her face all day long.

@SeanofAllTrades

5 жыл бұрын

Probably because there's no need to. We're looking to improve our art, not be creeps on the internet.

@jimwolff9479

5 жыл бұрын

She is beautiful, but the presentation was so captivating, that the focus was on learning.

@EMAZINGERIK

5 жыл бұрын

I fell in love

@Jail-Left-Wing-Traitors

5 жыл бұрын

@@SeanofAllTrades lol.. true..

@foljs5858

5 жыл бұрын

@@SeanofAllTrades A model is there to be photographed and looked at. That's their main craft. It's not creepy to look at one, or to comment on one's looks, that's kind of the point. Of course US being a country established by persecuted puritan nuts from Europe, there will always be someone to think anything concerning the human body necessarily bad (or some modern variant of it), no matter whether they're Bible Belt republicans or P.C. democrats...

Bro, It’s been a week browsing all KZread videos, nobody I mean nobody explains this like you did. You are The Main Man. Well done 👏🏾. I learnt a lifetime

@MiguelQuilesJr

Жыл бұрын

I appreciate the feedback! More to come 😎🙏

This, is actually what I, as a photographer using m43 camera, enjoying. I can use f2, f 2.8 and still getting enough DOF. Yes, using m43 I get less blurry background, but I get more sharper area from the objects I shoot

@rohultima

5 жыл бұрын

because the aperture works differently on a m43. your f2.8 works like a f5.6 on a full frame. basically you're already confirming what he's said above. and at f5.6. you get less blurry backgrounds.

This was truly mind blowing! Awesome video! I can’t wait to try this out tomorrow!

@nealphore

5 жыл бұрын

Ditto

Good video, thanks for making. I think it really depends on the subject, locations and goals. A 22 year old model with perfect skin can more easily stand up to the scrutiny of 40+ Megapixels razer sharp focus on their nose and face, but a lot of other people might be better flattered by subtly throwing the nose out of focus.

@trayt5158

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly. Or else we'd be looking at perfection of the model vs the clarity, and quality of the shot.

For studio photography, yes, absolutely stop down a bit for portraits. I usually stop down to around 5.6 or thereabouts, depending on how close I frame the image. But outdoors, the background might be much more of an issue, and because of it, I use a wider apperture to be able to blur it out for a better overall image. Also to note is that many fast lenses aren't that sharp wide open. For example, my Nikon 85 f/1.8 isn't very sharp at 1.8, while it's okay around 2.2 and up. My Sigma 135mm f/1.8 on the other hand is much charper wide open than the 85 ever gets at even 5.6 (where it peaks).

Exactly why I love my olympus camera and the pro lenses. Ultra sharp wide open due to the biggest DOF and the quality of the optics. The biggest dof works great on studio strobes too. I can stay @ f/4 or even f/2.8, have the face completely sharp, and use less energy.

An F1.4 lens will almost always be sharper than even an f2.8 when stopped down to f2.8 or higher. However once you get to apertures at or above f11 you will start to experience diffraction and lose sharpness so I highly recommend staying below f11. Also most lenses reach maximum sharpness stopped down two to three stops, so for instance an f1.4 is usually sharpest at f4 to f5.6 and sometimes even f8 for higher max aperture lenses. Zoom lenses will also have a sweet spot in it's range that is the sharpest focal length within the range. So keep both in mind when you need maximum sharpness and do some research and know each of lenses sweet spots.

@MiaogisTeas

5 жыл бұрын

Yep. I have a lovely 50mm f1.8 prime that - when I'm in the studio - I nearly always use at f5.6 for headshots. When doing creative portraiture however, where I'm looking for softness and shallow DoF, I'll typically be playing around at f2.8~4. It's all about the effect we're looking to create.

@patricksmith2553

5 жыл бұрын

@@MiaogisTeas Agree, I have a few Nikon 1.4G lenses and mostly use them at f2-f2.8, but will stop down to 5.6 when I need maximum sharpness. I mostly use the holy trinity zooms, but I love my primes when I'm not in a hurry. I used to use only the zooms, but then I bought a 35mm 1.4g and fell in love with primes. Now I own three 1.4G lenses to cover every focal length from 24mm to 85mm!

@The_Idea_of_Dream_Vision

5 жыл бұрын

F7.1-9 are good spots

Hey, very nice video! Two things: 1) DOF doesn't change with different focal lengths on a 'normal-to-telephoto focal length range' when using the same composition (sure because of physics, on the telephoto end you have a more balanced DOF between foreground DOF and background DOF [50/50] than on the wider end, but not noticeable - while maintaining the same amount of the sum of both DOF). I say 'normal-to-telephoto' lens because this doesn't apply to wide and superwide focal lengths, on which the foreground DOF gets a lot longer than the background DOF length, due to physics, as you get wider and closer to your subject to maintain the composition. On a normal portrait composition, focal length doesn't affect DOF (noticeably), so you should have said that DOF is affected by subject composition instead. 2) When you compare both lenses at f11 (85mm and 70-200) please have in mind that normally a lens is at its best on the middle of the aperture range (very narrow apertures will lead to diffraction), so, generally speaking, a lens that goes from f1.4 to f16 has more detail around f5.6 to f8, while a lens that goes from f2.8 to f22 has more detail around f8 to f11. Having that said, I was still surprise with the big difference between the two. Keep up the good content :)

Easily one of the most helpful photography videos I've seen in the last couple of years. Bokeh is beautiful, but not if one eye is out of focus. Thank you for throwing out this bold (almost sacreligous) suggestion that F8 and even F13 should be considered when shooting portraits. I've always wondered about the math behind this, and this video was exactly what I needed to provide those answers. Thank you!

The difference in behaviour of sharpness between the focal lengths (85 vs 150 as an example) is eye opening. Thank you for enlightening me.

Great video. this is the first video I've seen of yours. Your delivery is awesome and very inviting. production value is awesome as well... for the life of me I can't see why on earth there were 83 thumbs down... what the crap? I really wish down thumbs would require a user name (for shaming purposes). You obviously like what you do and it shows. I for one appreciate this video!!!

@Gee-Wizz

5 жыл бұрын

It's callled gear envy. Miguel has a bigger camera, bigger lens, a beautiful model, bigger modifiers and tallent. Hey he is better than me, I might thumb's down LOL.

@cedialirajah

4 жыл бұрын

@@Gee-Wizz Ha! You're probably right (and for most of them it's just they wish they knew the model).

Great video Miguel and I'm one of those photographers that always use f/8- f/11 for portraits been doing this from my days as a magazine/PR photographer for the music industry. I been wanting to do the wide open technique but for me the shallow DoF is a bit of an issue and the using a f/1.4 means quite a shallow DoF. However, I saw something from a mentor that made me think twice and that is at the shallower DoF the retouching is lessen due to the softness you get on the face and behind the eyes, so I guess you have to ask which look you like a natural soft look or the retouched soft look.

The fast apertures are not used for DoF as such for portraiture, but more for blurring out the background. In a studio environment, where you can control everything you have the luxury to use greater DoF and stopping down for maximal sharpness while keeping a clean background. This is not the case with outdoor portraiture, here f/5.6 is widely used, to blure background. Very fast apertures (2.8 or faster) are sometimes used, but to soften the skin so this is intentional as an artistic choice.

Great video, very interesting. I know a lot of photographers feel very strongly about shooting at f/1,4 but I never was a big fan of f/1,4... most of my favorites portraits were taken between f/4 to f/8. Anyway, I think the takeaway lesson is to not blindly follow any general consensus but to continually educate yourself about your craft and experiment. Again great video, thanks for taking the time to share this with us!

Thanks a lot for this comparison - great work (and btw beautiful model with a real beauty face and perfect skin ...). I think it depends for which purpose you are shooting - for Beauty/Fashion/Hair you definitely need to go with the longer lens and the high aperture (like your 150 mm and f 11) - if you want to show the personality or intense portrait of the model you should focus on the eyes with less DoF (i.e. 85 mm and f1,8) and blow away the background (preferred method also for models with less perfect skin ...) ... Therefore, no 'one fits all' solution - but 'select the right method for your needs' ... Krgds from Germany

Great video. In the old days working in my studio with Hassablades the standard portrait lenses was a 150mm and closed down aperature. Trying to tell people today with digital is almost impossible. One other advantage of shooting with a 150 is that it has a tendency to flatten the image. Thanks alot.

@MrMuldry

4 жыл бұрын

True excepted that a flat image is the enemy, the world should never be 2D. Using some multilight setup you would shape it back.

Dear Miguel, I can't thank you enough for this video. I have been shooting for a long time and never have had the results of choosing a 150mm over 70mm with the comparison of depth of field explained so well and in such detail. Wow! Thanks and I know that my photography will improve from it.

Great lesson! Recognized my own mistake of being obsessed with wide open lens. On the side note - huge motivation to became a pro photographer is to work with stunning ladies like his model. Good choice, Miguel ;-)

I'm not sure what is surprising in this. This has been known for as long as I have been shooting (40+ years). The idea of a wide aperture is the reduce the DoF so that in a more compact space the same background bokeh can be achieved. If you use the 70-200 and increase the distance between the subject and the background you will get a similar look to the background as a 1.4 when the background is closer. Also you are comparing the difference of lenses at f11Each lens will have an optimum range, and most rarely is that optimum range at either end of the range. In most cases optimum clarity will max out between 35%-70% of the range of the lens. Based on that formula a 70-200 F2.8 to F22 (usually listed as a 2.8/5.6) lens will have its best focal range at a setting of roughly 95mm - 160mm range and an aperture setting of between f8-f11. In short this means that you either have to test and review lenses, or read a lot of reviews about the lenses you are considering, and know what application you are considering them for when doing so. All that considered, your comparison is a good education, I just don't see the "surprise."

@wallytuescher2175

4 жыл бұрын

The surprise is for those of us who don't have 40+ years of experience. Many videos on portrait photography seem to focus on bokeh. This video opened my eyes (pun intended) to consider another aspect of portraits. Great video

Just found your channel. Instant fan of your presentation style. Looking forward to exploring and learning here.

The F11 example at 150mm on the 70-200 makes a good point. It appears the focal length plays a greater role in the DOF than most of us expected. Good break down of the process.

What you’re saying makes perfect sense. I sometimes do stop down on my 85mm 1.4L lens but usually between 2.8 to 4. And it also depends on whats in my background. If there are many distractions in my background like cars, I would usually shoot wide open to f2.0 so it really depends on the photographer and what he/she is trying to recreate because background separation is really the main point of shooting at shallow depth of field and since I shoot mostly on location compared to studios like what you have with the backdrop, I usually encounter distractions and the creamy background difference of 1.4 vs f/11 are like day and night comparison. Another thing I keep in mind is the depth of field is also affected by two other things. The focal length and the distance from camera to subjects. The only exception is if you have a prime lens. In my case it’s 85mm. So if I’m shooting close to my subject like for example 5 feet or less, I’d prob stop down to 2.8 or even up to 8.0 if it’s more than one person. Here’s my portrait portfolio where most of my shots are wide open using a Canon 85mm f/1.4 Had I shot some of my portrait photos at f/11 it provably would not be too pleasing but that’s just my opinion. Either way good advice especially for those who’s stuck at wide open aperture all their life.

HI julianna......ohh thats right we were learning about ..........iso settings! Thats right! Great video on iso settings Miguel!

i sometimes use the open apeture when i have a client with rough skin.

Miguel, what a great and informative video I never knew the would be a difference in detail at the same aperture at different focal lengths. Thank you for sharing with us.

YOU CAN SEE YOU SHOOTING IN THE REFLECTIONS OF HER EYES.. I'M NEW TO DIGITAL SHOOTING AND SEE THE ADVANTAGES OF SHOOTING AT THOSE SETTINGS. I DO A LOT OF PRACTICING NOW JUST TO IMPROVE ME SKILLS. IN MEDICAL REHAB NOW BUT SOON TO BE ON THE STREETS. LEARNING CAMERA SKILLS HAS HELPED ME KEEP MY SANITY WHILE I RECUPERATE.. THANKS FOR THE KNOWLEDGE..

Michael...those catch lights are cool! Great work! I need to practice!

I think it depends a lot on the background that will determine the fstop you use.

@dwitede

5 жыл бұрын

Absolutely. The fstop is a balance between how much depth of field you get on the subject vs how much you get of the background. In a studio where the background is already not an interference with the subject, use whatever gives the best results for the subject. But in any other situation, it's a compromise, and often you must sacrifice some of the subject detail to produce subject separation. I can't imagine most people WANT one eye to be out of focus, but if the background is distracting, it's better to bring intensity to the subject rather than have clashing distractions in front or in back.

Amazing never thought that portraits can be taken at higher stop. You have opened my eyes wide with the options you have presented. Thanks so much. I have started looking at this with a total different angle. :)

Good shout. Awesome results. Earlier years I used to shoot wide open. One day I tried f1.2 with my wife turning her face such that one eye was on axis, the other was off. The result. Not good. One eye was so soft and out of focus. So I stopped to f4 as my default for portraits. Still not satisfied I stopped to f8. Gave me a bit of satisfaction. You’ve now convinced me to stop down even further to 11 as a benchmark, and even down to f13 if need be. Kudos and well done matey.

About the 85 vs 150 mm comparison. Given that you backed away from the subject and used the same aperture, you're getting pretty much the same depth of field. Any difference in perceived sharpness is more about the lens quality, or one shot simply not being in focus.

@Anadrol88

5 жыл бұрын

Correct, or diffraction.

@thethirdman225

4 жыл бұрын

snelhest Not about lens quality at all. Both are G Master lenses. Most big aperture lenses are pretty soft wide open anyway. It’s about depth of focus and stopping down. Diffraction isn’t going to be an issue at f/11. That’s why it’s there.

Fastlensitis is a terrible disease, transmitted by camera salesmen in the old days trying to up-sell their marks to more expensive lenses, now it's spread among amateurs themselves. It's always hilarious to see a photo of a model with their butt in sharp focus, but their face blurred out. The EXIF data always reads f1.4...

@FeedScrn

5 жыл бұрын

Bokeh / No Bokeh... That's on one level. - The one thing that fast lenses is good for - is low light shots.

@stanw205

5 жыл бұрын

@@FeedScrn because of digital, wide lenses aren't as critical ....

@AllenFreemanMediaGuru

4 жыл бұрын

What if their butt was the area they wanted in focus? (😊)

For someone like myself thats getting started with portraits or in photography in general. This was such an informative video! Thanks for explaining DOF and aperture!

When I shoot with 85mm f/1.4, I always try to capture the subject at wide open, f/4 and f/8. Sometimes f/1.4 is the winner, like if you're getting a cool artistic effect from blurring some facial features. Wide open also helps when shooting moving subjects handheld in poorly lit areas. I'd rather capture someone mid-stride at 1/250s and razor sharp, than have blur and a shallower DOF. Thanks for the video, very informative!

Thank you for an enjoyable video, BTW you have a really disarming voice. Well done. I really do like shooting portraits at longer focal lengths, 135-185 as I like the compression.

Number 2... (in dr. Evil’s voice) Awesome tutorial! Thank you 😊

@MiguelQuilesJr

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching!!

So much of this really depends on situation. Time and circumstance are really so precious and fleeting. I found that if I vary the f-stop, bracket them, then later the photo that seems best can be picked out and nothing is lost. But if I run around wide open then I lose shots. This f-bracketing came out of flower close-ups that I was doing. A 1.x, 4, and an 8. A trio, as well as exposure and positioning "bracketing" - it's all good stuff. Shoot the heck out of your subject and get some real variety in the results. Shooting outdoors, I try for an impressionistic painterly look for the background so if it's 50mm or less than I'm in the f/1.x area, if above that then probably I'm in the middle range. But still I mix it up, bracket everything, and see how it is later.

This hits on my current thoughts regarding considerations of how much of the subjects facial features do I want in sharp focus? It is like you say, you buy an expensive fast lens and cringe at the thought of f/5.6 -f/11 etc.This gives me an answer that wasn't on my radar.Thank you.

Most lenses sweet spot is from f4 to f8. So maybe the 85 loses quality after f8. And maybe the 70/200 doesn't start to get worse until after f11. You seemed to go from 5.6 to f11 in this video skipping f8. Anyway i think there is a place for f1.4 and also f8 or f11. Neither is right or wrong. But i do think that people get caught up in the f1.4 game to much. And use f1.4 to much or at the wrong time. Like using f1.4 when the model is up against a white wall where it doesn't benefit the photo in any way to have a shallow dof. Or they have exotic scenery behind the model and they blur the background so much that you can't even see the beauty that was there. And they could of taken a similar shot in there back yard instead of flying to some beautiful island.

@noskillzdad5504

5 жыл бұрын

Sweet spot is around 2 stops from the widest opening (General rule of thumb). So for fast lenses that number is rather "low" while for slow lenses it ends up being between f8 to f11.

@C4d009

5 жыл бұрын

This is so true±!!

@clydecrashcup9962

5 жыл бұрын

Yes indeed. He did make a leap when comparing two different lenses. Just because they were both f/11 does not mean they should perform the same. He should try comparing the two throughout their overlapping aperture range. He might even find they perform equally at differing f-stops.

@KarimHosein

5 жыл бұрын

@@noskillzdad5504 that “general rule of thumb” is in error. If one has an f/1.4, an f/2.8, and an f/5.6 85mm lens, that “general rule of thumb” would suggest that the first has a sweet spot of f/2.8, the second at f/5.6, and the third at f/11. The truth is probably closer to them all having their sweet spot somewhere between f/4 to f/11, and about the same for all of them. This is because the sweet spot is a compromise between too much SA & CA at the wide end, and too much diffraction at the narrow end. The best way of knowing the sweet spot of any given lens is trial and error. Test each one. The sweet spot is rarely wider than f/4, and rarely more narrow than f/11, regardless of the maximum aperture size. A good rule of thumb is if you pick f/5.6, you are probably close enough.

@noskillzdad5504

5 жыл бұрын

@@KarimHosein This rule of thumb is based on analysis of hundreds of MTFs curves, not on "trial and error". You can decide to follow it or not. I know I do and I get excellent results.

This is about optics also, not just about the focal length. I`m guessing that the 70-200 G 2.8 has better optics (inside lenses) than the 85 G 1.4. What I`m saying is that not only the focal length counts... but the quality of the inside glass has something to say. Try doing that with a 18-300 f4-f5.6 which is an entry level lens. :) You will not get the same sharpness...

@wolfgangzelezny9170

5 жыл бұрын

Yes! I had the same thought. Would be interesting to see a comparison of images taken at 85mm and 150mm from the 70-200G 2.8 to exclude differences between the lenses. Otherwise, great video and an eye opener ;-)

@dustinwongphotos

5 жыл бұрын

In addition, with zoom lenses the sharpness is not consistent throughout the range of the zoom--it's a curve. Generally zoom lenses converge better (are sharper) at the lower end of the zoom range - although the difference can be quite small and not noticeable unless one is pixel peeping. I would suspect that his shot with the 85mm @ f/11 was blurry due to hand shake, since that 85mm prime (a high end lens) should be as good if not better than the 70-200mm zoom lens (another high end lens) also at f/11. The shutter speed is the same for both at 1/160th of a second, but for hand held, image quality would be affected differently. A more telephoto shot would be more susceptible to blur due to hand shake. The test results are largely inconsistent with general lens theory. The process should be checked for errors and re-done in my opinion as it creates confusion, basically suggesting that the 70-200mm is sharper than the 85mm. I would like to see this done off a tripod to eliminate the hand shake effect.

@WakizashiSabre

5 жыл бұрын

@@dustinwongphotos Hard to say, as IBIS in Sony body, sho hand shake should not be a problem. Maybe the result seems to be due bit darker exposure on 85mm lens.

@turftiger2008

5 жыл бұрын

actually you are wrong on some level; i shoot air show photography with a 70-300 and people think im using a 5000 dollar lens and some of my photos are being used by the places i shoot on their websites; so once again you seem like one of those stuck on high end lens and well glad you like to spend the money while i spend less and probably do better

@lbz3241

5 жыл бұрын

@@turftiger2008 Jason, what lenses do you shoot with at the shows?

@12.50 so in focus that the studio is visible in the iris! Amazing explanation @miguel, much appreciated.

Dear Mr Quiles, Spot on observation. I observe, stopping-downe and getting closer the subject a good technique as well. Wide-Open and being close the model does have its merits, particularly for the head turned slightly with one eye just a bit soft effect, which of course may be obtained as well with the lens stopped-downe and adjusting one's proximaty the model for a perhaps more consistently predictable approach. Your presentation were clear and concise, and enjoyable watch. Top notch production and truly professional.

Awesome video man; I just got a 105 1.4; excited to go shoot with it but this gives me some more ideas i try. You are awesome man!!

@MiguelQuilesJr

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Definitely try out shooting a little stopped down on that lens and you'll be pleasantly surprised :)

@alanmichael4225

5 жыл бұрын

Miguel Quiles also I’m a shaky person; used to IS lenses any tips for a non IS lens? I know you have Sony and IBIS but any technical tips in general? Thanks brother!

@MiguelQuilesJr

5 жыл бұрын

@@alanmichael4225 Just make sure IBIS is on, keep your shutter speeds high (1/500 and up if possible) and you should be ready to rock!

@alanmichael4225

5 жыл бұрын

Miguel Quiles except on a Nikon d850 and no IBIS....any other tips? If I could only afford to switch to Sony....

If you have face like your model and control background with light you are right. If you have face with lots of points and hole. It is better use 1.4

@cyberla

5 жыл бұрын

LOL, yeah, very true, but why shoot a bunch of ugly people lol

@BrianBrayMedia

5 жыл бұрын

@@cyberla Would you turn away a paying client because they don't have great skin?

As a relative newcomer I’ve been indoctrinated in the “why shoot at higher f stops with lens that’re capable of 1.8” school of thought. Thank you for showing me there’s a different way. Awesome video, Miguel.

For years I have wondered why portraits are so often shot wide open. I've never liked the in focus eyes and everything out of focus look. I ALWAYS shoot portraits stopped down to at least 5.6. I'm glad I'm not the only one and this is a great demonstration of why to stop down.

Great video but I can never understand this Bokeh question! I would have thought that you use the lens to its full capacity . 1.4 to f22 if need be for eg to achieve the look that you want. Just shooting at one focal length seem to be silly. I know some people on You Tube say why buy a 1.4 if your are not going to shoot at 1.4. I think that is just to get people to buy certain lenses that they recommend for the own benefit. You buy a lens to do as much as that lens can possibly do as the Lens /Glass will be there for ever, which is on of the reason Nikon/Canon shooter have a problem switching to mirror less. The investment they have made in their glass is immense . I have a rule or base line for myself to start any portrait session I arrange , 1.4 Outdoor / Indoor start at F8. I adjust from there as you say hair,clothing background are the factors that come next. As you say getting the best image is all that matters... keep up the great Sensible Videos.

Good video but in the thumbnail the question is 'is bokeh overrated' did I miss the bit where you talked about bokeh?

@michaeltucker7920

5 жыл бұрын

I think the point was, don't sacrifice the subjects image quality for the sake of bokeh... its NOT worth it

@BlueprintsForHeadaches

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaeltucker7920 if the background is trash it’s worth it. A lot of low light shots look and work amazing in with shallow depth of field

Thanks Miguel. I also have 85GM, but have never tried Higher F stop. Will try!

Brilliant breakdown. Had a portrait shoot yesterday using 50mm between f4 - f6.3 (mostly at 5.6) and was suprised the difference given I mostly used to shoot f2.8. Will try f6.3 - f11 for my shoot tomorrow.

Photography: Getting highly-attractive women together with average-looking dudes since the 1800s.

@tayminkane3678

4 жыл бұрын

Sabatheus ignorant comment made by an ugly piece of shit

@mahym6874

4 жыл бұрын

@@tayminkane3678 Taymin you sound like such a wonderful kind human. If only there were more of you and less people like Sabatheus who harmless little jokes. The world would be so much better.

@Writer2400

4 жыл бұрын

I feel this deeply

@RexySmith

4 жыл бұрын

This girl is just Soooo beautiful 🤯🤯🤯

I agree with everything you said, however, one area I still have questions on is, is it worth the extra expense of purchasing faster lenses if you are going to use the f8 to f11 range? Does the quality of the faster lenses go beyond the light gathering capability? Great video, enjoyed it and learned, cant ask for anything more.

@stanchung69

5 жыл бұрын

Light gathering- it affects your camera's auto-focusing ability. Too little and the AF system will start hunting and worse case scenario fail to acquire the target. If the AF is failing, chances are you are not going to be able to manual focus as what you see through the viewfinder is also dark. it's nice to be able to see what you're shooting clearly. it doesn't have to be strictly f1.4. Lenses that are f2.8 do perform well and are usually smaller, lighter and cheaper than their f1.4 counterparts.

@jasonbodden8816

3 жыл бұрын

Of course it's worth the expense. Why buy a lens to only shoot at that aperture, though? You're essentially paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars to shoot one single aperture. You get more out of your lens if you don't only use its widest aperture, and for me that's much more value for my money.

Miguel, I followed your suggestions and shoot higher f stops. F8-F11. This little piece of advice has really step up my game. Thank you for sharing that bit of knowledge.

Yes it did changed my portrait photography forever... Thanks...

very interesting and informative video. one question though is the higher quality and sharper focus taken with the 70-200 lens due to the fact its taken with a higher quality canon L 2.8 lens. ie the 2.8 has better glass.

@kayteslascene

5 жыл бұрын

gary owens exactly. It would have been a cleaner comparison if he shot the 85mm and 150 mm comparison on the same lens. But that doesn’t negate the argument that a higher f stop is indeed necessary to have a close up portrait in focus from the tip of the nose to the ear. I also don’t understand how anyone gets a large group photo focused side to side at f 2.8. None of my Canon L lenses can do that at any normal distance.

still didn't answer the question of why spending $1900 on a lens when you could still get something cheaper and shoot at f/11

@orlyyarlynowai

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah. I do like Miguel and his videos, but this one was 20 minutes to say "Faces are not infinitely thin. Get the whole thing in focus" (albeit with some good examples) while completely ignoring the question he raised at the beginning.

@edbproductions

5 жыл бұрын

So the reason to play crazy money for a lens like that is being able to shoot f1.4 if you want also aperture is the only thing that makes the price go up alot of times more expensive lens are way sharper and have less aberration.

@AmrMohamed-xb9pz

5 жыл бұрын

Donny Christian Yep, I’m with Donny. I’ve learned that when thinking about primes vs zoom lenses. The primes (and more so primes that allow wider apertures) simply take better pictures. The color contrast is better, they let in more light, and the picture is often sharper, regardless of the aperture you choose. What was really cool to see is the comparison of same aperture, different focal lengths. I always thought using telephoto zoom lenses as portrait lenses was kind of funny. But after watching this, I’m not so sure it’s a laughing matter. Of course artistic style comes into play as well, sometimes the point is to have less detail in the skin and focus the most detail on the eyes.

@byabushahba

5 жыл бұрын

i guess that is because of the glass quality of the more expensive lens

@AmrMohamed-xb9pz

5 жыл бұрын

Edit: just read photographerjonathan’s post about sweet spot instead of my comment below, he explains it perfectly. So that’s the interesting thing, the zoom telephoto lens he’s using is $2600 while the 85mm is $1900. So you’re right, it is more expensive, but in this world of crazy priced lenses, not that much more. And the 85mm is a prime and so it should be better in every way (at 85mm) than the telephoto. The telephoto’s max aperture is also 2.8 vs 1.4 of the prime. I think it comes down to what each lens was designed for. The 85 1.4 was designed for portraits where most photographers prefer wide open or close to it. While 70-200 2.8 was designed for a wider range of applications. Wildlife being one of them, in those cases we often stop down a little to get the entire subject in focus. I encourage everyone to read in depth reviews as many lenses have a preferred aperture where they are sharpest, regardless of what their max aperture is.

So what’s interesting is this is one of the reasons I like cropped sensors for lit portraits, You can get 1.5x (apsc) or 2x (m43) the DoF, but have your lights set 1.5-2 stops lower in power for faster recycle times.

this is something i had not been aware of, although I'm just starting out, i am glad i won't be fooled by the common misconceptions of f1.4 and f1.8 and that background blur isn't worth sacrificing the subjects image quality for. Blur has its place for sure, but the subjects image quality is usually the priority.

as always good video< where did u get that shirt miguel? saludos

@MiguelQuilesJr

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you! I believe it's from here amzn.to/2Ig0CQK

@sjsphotog

5 жыл бұрын

yeah i want one too. cool thanks for the link @Miguel

Please also use the metric system for THE REST OF THE WORLD! 😉

WOW!! I'm blown away by how much I just learned. THANK YOU! I often wind up with slightly blurred images, even when I'm perfectly in focus, and I've been so frustrated! My camera is great, so why am I not get these sharp, highly textured shots the pros get! So. THANK YOU. THANK. YOU.

Very educational! Thank you so much for giving from your busy time to educate us!!! Blessings to you always!

Eh...you're not exactly looking for maximum skin detail (especially with women) in portrait work. It creates more work in post, where it has to be smoothed out again. You're looking for the most flattering image. No woman wants you to be able to count her skin pores and lip/nose hairs. f4-f5.6 is pretty reasonable in most situations. Good lighting and good expressions are more important, anyway.

@9:40 you can see the model is wearing contact lenses. The picture resolution is scary!

This video was amazing thank you for doing it. The 70-200mm lens is so clear you can see she’s wearing contacts! Wow!

@dgalletta

5 жыл бұрын

Great observation! It is a little subtle but definitely there! It took me a few moments to see it.

Thanks Miguel. Very easy on the eyes and easy for my brain. Brent.

How dare you make a useful video about PHOTOGRAPHY? 🤔 Didn't you know that the purpose of KZread videos is to make us dissatisfied with our equipment so that we go out and buy new stuff!! 😉

@PatrickBaird321

4 жыл бұрын

Lmbo

@louvega8414

Жыл бұрын

Wait, what? What IS this video about? Not about a gorgeous lady with mesmerisingly beautiful eyes? Just kidding...

Joe McNally shoots some portraits at f/20 to get good depth of field. It's the right thing to do, nothing to be ashamed of. LOL!

This was awesome! I've always thought about this concept but it is fantastic to see a controlled test of it! Great job!

The bokeh king of the 40's was the Voigtlander Heliar 150mm or 135mm F4.5 that was usually found with the Voigtlander Berghell 9x12 folder camera. It was mounted in a Compur shutter with about 12 aperture blades. The Japanese Emperor of the time insisted that his portraits always be taken with a Heliar lens. You can still find these occasionally on Ebay. The aperture opening is round at every setting and the negative is almost 4x5 size.

Ok, I admit I stopped listening when Juliana came into the video. My god she's beautiful!!!

Tony Northrup reply: it's pronounced "eye-soh.", not "eye-ess-oh."

@zardosspinosa6944

5 жыл бұрын

Northrop is a wanker, he fell from grace with his Steve McCurry slander

@rickymcc9072

5 жыл бұрын

Does it really matter as long as one understands?

@zardosspinosa6944

5 жыл бұрын

@@rickymcc9072 I dont think so, Northrop is now a proven wanker, cannot live that down, he is history for me.

Wow - beautifully done! Thank you. I so appreciate watching and learning from a passional professional who is skilled, meticulous and playful in their craft. There are rules, and then there are breaking the "rules" (which rules!) Dogmatic approaches to creating are rigid, and cease being creative. But it's all in the shot you create. I'm so disheartened when I hear people say, "I'll fix it in post"... It's like in the "old days" when I shot on film - you needed to experiment with the tools to find your style and use them to suit your mission - know what you're after before you shoot. And pay attention to people (like Miguel) who are walking the talk. Own your process! Forget trends.

Without any doubt the best vidéo treating this topic… Miguel I think you make us save a lot of money here… no need for high priced 85mm f 1.4 as best portraits are between f5.6 and f11 (except having a beautiful item with a big glass in front of it :)). Very well done. Thx for that.