I feel like there is a small textbook on how to light to suit the model tucked into these two pictures.
Holy mackerel, that woman has excellent genes or she needs to share her skin care techniques.
Digital or film you are the "Maestro" in portraits, Kirk!robert
You do REALLY nice work. And,you have a great eye for models.
"Holy mackerel, that woman has excellent genes or she needs to share her skin care techniques."Hahah! I suspect that she doesn't smoke, she eats properly and both exercises and rests well! A combination of factors rarely seen unfortunately.
Using medium format lenses on small sensors, whether FF or even m4/3, seems so wrong, but surprisingly, the teles work very well indeed. Just yesterday shot some "tests" with a 200mm for Pentax67 on a Canon Rebel and results were nearly equal to a Canon 200mm L lens. The wides are too bulky, but the teles aren't. So, your use of the 150 here was interesting, and showed the potential.
If I remember correctly, that more recent photo of Lou Lofton was taken with a Nikon 3XXX camera -- one you descibed as so cheap it could be considered a toss-it-in-the-car-always-available-backup. As always, the result in this case speaks to the skill of the photographer and that hauntingly beautiful face. But it does prompt the heretical question -- who needs anything more sophisticated and more expensive to produce spectacular stll photography?
Call me weird, but I prefer the older film image.The highlights in the skin - particularly the forehead - are much more pleasant to me in the first image.But of course I don't know what lighting was used, so that is very likely the reason.
Post a Comment