Re: Minimum F-Stop for portrait work

> the focal length previously considered
>in 35 mm circles to be a "portrait lens" is too long for digital with a
>1.6 crop factor. This is 75mm to 90mm, depending on the maker.

Agreed. Many folk refer to 135mm as portrait length also, but lets not
quibble.

>I have also used the body oil from scraping where your nose
>joins your face and smearing it on a filter.

Gross. Buy a soft filter (and keep any oils and greases away from your
camera equipment - this sort of practice should have died with
magnesium flash..). They are easy to find. Check secondhand camera
stores. You can also do post-processing (look for soft-focus actions
on the net, plenty to play with - and before anyone asks, no, they are
*not* the same as blurring!), but the real filters are best. Actually,
a real Softar lens is best, but let's not go there...

>Some of the most highly regarded portraits from well know
>photographers are softly focused.

What, like your famous, but now-withdrawn (as usual) 'tells a story in
a face' portrait? No, wait, that didn't get any 'high regard' from
anyone..

>The digital brigade would probably call them out of focus
>due to their lack of detail.

The 'digital brigade'? If that is meant as an insult, I would observe
that there are just as many talentless people in either camp - right,
Douglas? Digital folk tend to know how to process their images
properly for web display, though. I guess that's where we differ.

>Some techno geek from the frozen wastes of Canada told me
>perspective is not tied to focal length.

It isn't. The techno geek was right and still is, as were ALL the
other folk on that thread who tried to get it through to you. If you
hold all other things equal (and if you don't, the question is
meaningless) - perspective is strictly a function of distance from
subject. Proof - take an image on a zoom at, say, 28mm. Now, *without
moving*, take a second image at 80mm. Examine the *same area* of both
images, and you will notice that the perspective is the same. The
field of view changed, that's all.

OF COURSE you will have to move closer to the subject if you want the
same image from a 28mm lens as that from an 80mm. And by MOVING, you
changed the perspective. Evereyone else seems to be able to grasp this
concept...

>For a portrait it is. He is yet to show me his "traditional portrait"
>taken with a 14mm lens.

If *anyone else* has a problem with this concept, I will happily post
an image taken at 14mm that shows this concept, along with several
other images that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it is DISTANCE
FROM SUBJECT that changes perspective.. But no-one else seems to have
the problem, Douglas, and I'm certainly not bothering for you.

>(Douglas sniggers quietly)

Douglas childishly embarrasses himself again - rather like his
signature, which is indicative of his maturity..

>For the purpose of discussing the artist merits of images taken
>with a camera, I will offer you the suggestion that you get a better
>perspective to your portraits when you use a telephoto lens.
>You will need to move farther away than with a normal lens.

Bravo - by adding that last line, you hint that even *you* understand
that perspective changes with distance, not focal length. I guess it
is at least in your subconcious.

>The 85mm .. is a really nice lens but if you have 1.6 crop factor,
>you'll get too much depth of field

The only additional d-o-f he will get is from the additional distance
he is from the subject, and it is a f1.2 lens for heaven's sake...

>and it will be too much length, for studio portraits.

Depends on his shooting style and studio layout. I often use 135mm,
even 200mm (35-equivalent) zoom lengths. Having a 135mm-ish f1.2 would
be rather nice..

.