RE: Mamiya 120mm Macro for portraits

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



 I agree with you concerning your statement:

	It all a matter of your personal perpective - I happen to find that
	flatten facial features make such portraiture look unsightly - sort of
	like a face pressed against a glass plane.  The "normal" curved image
	plane gives the face a illusion of depth which in turns makes it look
	more 3 dimensionable which translates itself to a more pleasing image.
	Side by side comparison would make this clearer.

I feel a need to make two points.  First, I think that we need to clarify
that Ian Lenord did not make the entire statement quoted in your post; he
only made the last part below the dotted line.  I was the one who made the
statement quoted above the dotted line.  I come away from Ian Lenoard's
satatement with the impression that he thinks all Planar lenses are flat
field macro lenses, which they are not.  Most of the Planar lenses
(including those in the focal lengths he describes) are regular non-macro,
non flat field lenses.  Indeed, the REGULAR Planar lenses in the focal
lengths he describes are regular (non-soft focus) portrait lenses for the
cameras he identifies.

This brings up the second point which is the difference between sharpness in
a lens and softness in a lens versus flat field and macro qualities of a
lens. There seems to be a confounding of these distinctions.  Some regular
lenses which are called portrait lenses are of a given focal length for a
given format and have very sharp qualities while others, which are specialty
lenses, that are called portrait lenses are of the same focal lengths of a
given format but are deliberately soft focus lenses meant to blur the image
and disquise skin blemishes and flaws.  Both are entirely different from
flat field or macro lenses of identical focal lengths, which are also
specialty lenses like the soft focus portrait lens but whose qualities
revolve around a dimension of flattness of field and closeup capabilities as
contrasted to the dimension of sharpness.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com
[mailto:owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com]On Behalf Of ellery
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 9:01 AM
To: epson-inkjet@leben.com
Subject: Re: Mamiya 120mm Macro for portraits


On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:46:42 -0000, you wrote:

>
>
>Since, at shooting distances,
>beyond two feet, it does not do as good a job as a standard non-flat field
>lens would do in terms of sharpness toward the edges of the frame, given
>that the lens is corrected to be a flat field close-up lens whose use would
>be in situations with shallow depth of field such as macro-photography.
>
>------------------------------------------------
>
>Are you suggesting that flat field lens' are not suitable for portraiture??
>I'm sorry, but I find this amazing, What about all those 80mm and 135mm
>planars on Hassleblads and Rolleiflexes around the world, surely zeiss
>couldn't have got it that wrong?
>
>Ian Leonard.
>

Ian,


It all a matter of your personal perpective - I happen to find that
flatten facial features make such portraiture look unsightly - sort of
like a face pressed against a glass plane.  The "normal" curved image
plane gives the face a illusion of depth which in turns makes it look
more 3 dimensionable which translates itself to a more pleasing image.
Side by side comparison would make this clearer.


8-) about all those planars well maybe they are not used for head &
shoulder shots or even only for portraiture work after there is also
fashion and glamour too to consider..


ellery
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.


[Index of Archives]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Scanners]     [Gimp]     [Gimp Users]
  Powered by Linux