I can understand your attachment to environmental portraiture. However, these go too far the other way. The feature image has the team as the dominant part of the portrait whereas even in EP, I should think it should still be the human. It is a human engaging in the world around him/her. Otherwise it is a peopled landscape ... Is there a difference between environmental portraiture and peopled landscape?
I guess it depends what you are trying to show, an EP shows the person in a setting that says something about them, a peopled landscape shows the landscape with perhaps someone in it for interest or balance but the important thing is the landscape. But in the book I'm reading at the moment there is a shot described as an EP that has a small figure (albeit really well lit) standing at the top of a canyon which fills the breadth of the photo. Seems to me if you say its a portrait, its a portrait. This is a shot where I missed the zoom lens. I was really constrained with what I could do. I still like the top shot, except for the heavy shadow under the hat.
Ah ... you took this with the fixed F1.8. Now I am understanding your pickle. There is a woman here at work who has a Canon EOS 40D and one of her lens is an F1.8 with 18-85 zoom. She is about to invest in a Nikon. She likes to shoot rock bands. I like to shoot rock bands, too!
PS. The fast (F1.4 or 1.8 zoom lenses cost a fortune). The 35mm (equivalent to 50mm full frame) F1.8 cost at least twice what I've got. I'd love a fast zoom - when I win Lotto.
The wide aperture lenses (1.4, 1.8, 2.8) that let in a lot of light and allow fast shutter speeds and hand holding in poor light are referred to as fast. All those mm terms come from film I think. 35mm was standard film and I think with the conversion factor of our cameras it gives a result of 50mm (which is apparently what the eye sees). The 50mm lens on our small sensor cameras gives a result of approx 80mm so it acts as a small telephoto lens.
I found a course through St George CC that is 2 full Saturdays hands on in town. Spoke to the teacher and he said its geared very much towards travel. Starts this Saturday. Hopefully I'll learn how to cope with exposing for difficult light which is where I'm really having trouble. I'm reasonably happy with composition. He also holds evening classes at Kogarah High (why I've never been able to find this before I don't know) which would suit me for later on.
I think Marco expected that people had a basic understanding of film photography which not everyone did.
Well as last time, I'm a bit pressed for time and internet access, but have uploaded heaps to www.bitingmidge.com (a month anyway!), thus far no more portraits, but they'll happen!
9 comments:
I can understand your attachment to environmental portraiture. However, these go too far the other way. The feature image has the team as the dominant part of the portrait whereas even in EP, I should think it should still be the human. It is a human engaging in the world around him/her. Otherwise it is a peopled landscape ... Is there a difference between environmental portraiture and peopled landscape?
Your thoughts ... ?
I guess it depends what you are trying to show, an EP shows the person in a setting that says something about them, a peopled landscape shows the landscape with perhaps someone in it for interest or balance but the important thing is the landscape. But in the book I'm reading at the moment there is a shot described as an EP that has a small figure (albeit really well lit) standing at the top of a canyon which fills the breadth of the photo. Seems to me if you say its a portrait, its a portrait. This is a shot where I missed the zoom lens. I was really constrained with what I could do. I still like the top shot, except for the heavy shadow under the hat.
Ah ... you took this with the fixed F1.8. Now I am understanding your pickle. There is a woman here at work who has a Canon EOS 40D and one of her lens is an F1.8 with 18-85 zoom. She is about to invest in a Nikon. She likes to shoot rock bands. I like to shoot rock bands, too!
Everything that day was with the 50mm, all the ones over the next 2 weeks on Meanderings as well. It was the only lens I took that day.
PS. The fast (F1.4 or 1.8 zoom lenses cost a fortune). The 35mm (equivalent to 50mm full frame) F1.8 cost at least twice what I've got. I'd love a fast zoom - when I win Lotto.
What does that mean that you put the word "fast" in there?
35mm is a film term, yes?
I heard Marco talking about full-frame but did not understand it. I might do another course. I think I will try a one dayer ...
The wide aperture lenses (1.4, 1.8, 2.8) that let in a lot of light and allow fast shutter speeds and hand holding in poor light are referred to as fast. All those mm terms come from film I think. 35mm was standard film and I think with the conversion factor of our cameras it gives a result of 50mm (which is apparently what the eye sees). The 50mm lens on our small sensor cameras gives a result of approx 80mm so it acts as a small telephoto lens.
I found a course through St George CC that is 2 full Saturdays hands on in town. Spoke to the teacher and he said its geared very much towards travel. Starts this Saturday. Hopefully I'll learn how to cope with exposing for difficult light which is where I'm really having trouble. I'm reasonably happy with composition. He also holds evening classes at Kogarah High (why I've never been able to find this before I don't know) which would suit me for later on.
I think Marco expected that people had a basic understanding of film photography which not everyone did.
There's plenty of books around that explain it. If you like you can borrow some of mine while I'm o/s.
Well as last time, I'm a bit pressed for time and internet access, but have uploaded heaps to www.bitingmidge.com (a month anyway!), thus far no more portraits, but they'll happen!
I'm enjoying your conversations via email!
Post a Comment