The thing I like most about the annual Blackpool Pride event is that there are hundreds of interesting people who attend, and they all enjoy being photographed. These two were no exception.
On a side-note: I've been thinking about getting hold of an 85mm f/1.2 for portraiture. Well, to be more accurate, I've been trying to convince myself that a) I need one, and b) I can afford it. But if I'm honest I would have to say that my 70-200 is more useful, at least for event photography. The main benefit of using the zoom is that it allows you to be just a bit further away from people, and as a result I think that you're perceived as less intimidating. For the Blackpool Pride event this wasn't much of a problem - generally they're not a shy and retiring bunch - but on those occasions where people are less used to being photographed it does seem to make a difference.
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped?
1.06pm on 17/5/08
Canon 1Ds Mark II EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM 115mm
f/3.5
1/250
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
580EX II (-2/3 FEC)
RAW
C1 Pro
minor
comment byJennifer at 08:17 PM (GMT) on 19 May, 2008
Are you hoping for a flood of folks telling you how much you need one ;-) Interesting pair - would love to see how they normally look - though perhaps this is normal! The one in shades reminds me of Hugo Weaving.
comment byLeicca at 08:19 PM (GMT) on 19 May, 2008
I like these portraits. You make me think how their lifes are or what they might be thinking. It also happens with those sad(?) eyes in the first . (No matter if you think it´s not the best shot, I like it.)
There are many feelings I wish I could describe.
I´m a lot better in Spanish, I guess... :)
comment byKjetil at 08:21 PM (GMT) on 19 May, 2008
The 85mm f/1.2 is a fantastic lens. I've tried it a couple of times on a 1D Mark 2, and it is unlike any other lens I have tried. I can understand your arguments about the benefints of having the zoom on 70-200, and therefore the lenses can't really be compared.
But the 85mm is spectacular, and many photographers have switched over to Canon, just to get that lens :)
On street shots, you propably don't need it alongside 70-200, but if you start doing more standalone portraits, studio and that sort of thing, it would be really cool to see Chromasia shots with the 85mm :)
Good luck with the choice!
comment byLeicca at 08:23 PM (GMT) on 19 May, 2008
More a comment on the models rather than the picture itself - but is it just me that thinks they both look more like mannequins than people? although the one on the right does resemble posh spice...)
comment by moonhead at 10:14 PM (GMT) on 19 May, 2008
You definitely need that lens - for exactly the same reason that I've justified buying the new Nikon 14-24mm despite already having the 12-24mm...
Although it's not my brand, I have heard very good reports of the Canon 85mm, not least because of it's amazingly shallow depth of field and pin-sharpness at full aperture.
comment byJide Alakija at 11:32 PM (GMT) on 19 May, 2008
It might be an idea to rent the 85mm first before you splash out. I rented it out and found that it didn't make too much of a difference for me as far as portraiture is concerned. I am actually finding that I much prefer to do portraits with a 24 - 70mm these days. I used to do them with a 100mm but now I much prefer the less flattened image you get with a wider focal length.
The one place I did find the 85mm very useful was for a concert I was called to cover, it's an amazing lens to use in low light conditions. Other than that I don't see why you would want to use it for portraitute, I wouldn't shoot a portrait at an apeture wider than f/2.8.
That's just a personal opinion on this issue.
I like the way you've played with the colours here btw.
I love the 70-200 for exactly the reason you mentioned. It's my weapon of choice at weddings and events. But the 85 f/1.2 definitely has it's place! I see it as more of an artistic lens. Buy it for the aperture, keep it for the amazingly sharp optics. But use it on shoots where you can move yourself in and out, not when you're trying to be discreet.
comment by jkm at 09:38 AM (GMT) on 20 May, 2008
Yep, they definitely look like mannequins. Did they need a lot of airbrushing? I bet they would LOVE this shot! Looks like the chap on the left is a 'natural blonde' underneath it all ;-). As for the lens, a Swedish friend of mine justified buying it because it was half the price in the States and she loves it.
Awesome portrait! The tones are perfect and the red highlights work so well.
comment by James Arendell at 02:19 PM (GMT) on 20 May, 2008
This quote is by Scott kelby, so get yourself this lense.
We were barely out of his building when he pointed out my first mistake. We were going out to shoot the people of New York, and Jay had this very small, inconspicuous lens. I, on the otherhand, had a large fast lens with an even larger lens hood. Jay asked me, “Which is going to be more intimidating to people on the street? Your camera or mine?”
He then added a colorful analogy that clearly explained the correlation between the time it takes a New Yorker to grab your camera and (ahem) shove it in an area where things were designed to exit, and the size of the lens you’re pointing at them. I immediately got the point, but all I could do was take off the lens hood and turn it around, so it didn’t extend nearly as far. We hadn’t even left the building, and I already knew I wouldn’t make that mistake again.
comment by dan at 06:45 PM (GMT) on 30 May, 2008
Hi Just thought i would leave a message i am the one in the left of the pic i do like this picture. as for looking plastic i dont agree.
The thing I like most about the annual Blackpool Pride event is that there are hundreds of interesting people who attend, and they all enjoy being photographed. These two were no exception.
On a side-note: I've been thinking about getting hold of an 85mm f/1.2 for portraiture. Well, to be more accurate, I've been trying to convince myself that a) I need one, and b) I can afford it. But if I'm honest I would have to say that my 70-200 is more useful, at least for event photography. The main benefit of using the zoom is that it allows you to be just a bit further away from people, and as a result I think that you're perceived as less intimidating. For the Blackpool Pride event this wasn't much of a problem - generally they're not a shy and retiring bunch - but on those occasions where people are less used to being photographed it does seem to make a difference.
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
Canon 1Ds Mark II
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
115mm
f/3.5
1/250
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
580EX II (-2/3 FEC)
RAW
C1 Pro
minor
Are you hoping for a flood of folks telling you how much you need one ;-) Interesting pair - would love to see how they normally look - though perhaps this is normal! The one in shades reminds me of Hugo Weaving.
I like these portraits. You make me think how their lifes are or what they might be thinking. It also happens with those sad(?) eyes in the first . (No matter if you think it´s not the best shot, I like it.)
There are many feelings I wish I could describe.
I´m a lot better in Spanish, I guess... :)
The 85mm f/1.2 is a fantastic lens. I've tried it a couple of times on a 1D Mark 2, and it is unlike any other lens I have tried. I can understand your arguments about the benefints of having the zoom on 70-200, and therefore the lenses can't really be compared.
But the 85mm is spectacular, and many photographers have switched over to Canon, just to get that lens :)
On street shots, you propably don't need it alongside 70-200, but if you start doing more standalone portraits, studio and that sort of thing, it would be really cool to see Chromasia shots with the 85mm :)
Good luck with the choice!
("...in the first" - I mean "first one". Sorry.)
Jennifer: I just need a portrait commission - then I'll feel ok about buying it :-)
Leicca: don't worry about your English, it's infinitely better than my Spanish.
Kjetil: I agree, it's a superb lens. I also agree that it can't be compared to the 70-200 - they're very different lenses, for very different tasks.
More a comment on the models rather than the picture itself - but is it just me that thinks they both look more like mannequins than people? although the one on the right does resemble posh spice...)
They both look very plastic.
You definitely need that lens - for exactly the same reason that I've justified buying the new Nikon 14-24mm despite already having the 12-24mm...
Although it's not my brand, I have heard very good reports of the Canon 85mm, not least because of it's amazingly shallow depth of field and pin-sharpness at full aperture.
It might be an idea to rent the 85mm first before you splash out. I rented it out and found that it didn't make too much of a difference for me as far as portraiture is concerned. I am actually finding that I much prefer to do portraits with a 24 - 70mm these days. I used to do them with a 100mm but now I much prefer the less flattened image you get with a wider focal length.
The one place I did find the 85mm very useful was for a concert I was called to cover, it's an amazing lens to use in low light conditions. Other than that I don't see why you would want to use it for portraitute, I wouldn't shoot a portrait at an apeture wider than f/2.8.
That's just a personal opinion on this issue.
I like the way you've played with the colours here btw.
I actually wasn't sure if I was looking at real people or mannequins.
I love the 70-200 for exactly the reason you mentioned. It's my weapon of choice at weddings and events. But the 85 f/1.2 definitely has it's place! I see it as more of an artistic lens. Buy it for the aperture, keep it for the amazingly sharp optics. But use it on shoots where you can move yourself in and out, not when you're trying to be discreet.
Yep, they definitely look like mannequins. Did they need a lot of airbrushing? I bet they would LOVE this shot! Looks like the chap on the left is a 'natural blonde' underneath it all ;-). As for the lens, a Swedish friend of mine justified buying it because it was half the price in the States and she loves it.
Awesome portrait! The tones are perfect and the red highlights work so well.
This quote is by Scott kelby, so get yourself this lense.
We were barely out of his building when he pointed out my first mistake. We were going out to shoot the people of New York, and Jay had this very small, inconspicuous lens. I, on the otherhand, had a large fast lens with an even larger lens hood. Jay asked me, “Which is going to be more intimidating to people on the street? Your camera or mine?”
He then added a colorful analogy that clearly explained the correlation between the time it takes a New Yorker to grab your camera and (ahem) shove it in an area where things were designed to exit, and the size of the lens you’re pointing at them. I immediately got the point, but all I could do was take off the lens hood and turn it around, so it didn’t extend nearly as far. We hadn’t even left the building, and I already knew I wouldn’t make that mistake again.
Hi Just thought i would leave a message i am the one in the left of the pic i do like this picture. as for looking plastic i dont agree.