Sarah & Kenneth
 

I took these with the help of a northlight window.

Which one would make a better painting?

(I have both photos in color and in black and white; I've included one of each for comparison purposes)

Jesse,
My vote is for the second picture. It captures the mood nicely. Nice photos!

I like the second one.
The only point I see here is that the face of the gentleman lacks lighting, but you can edit it in photoshop.

Jesse,

What angle did you shoot these from? You seem a bit high as the man's thighs are telescoping down. Also did you use a portrait lens? You seem rather close and there is some distortion.

Do not fret, your eye for a figurative compostion is sound and these are well lit and posed.

I know they a little distorted. ;) it was a small room and my back was against the wall. Where they are standing in the photo was the best light.

This was a chance ecounter-
I used their digital camera. A low end one ;)

She had her baby two days after I took these pictures.

Thanks for the help guys!


I know that in a photograph, closed eyes work, but what about in a painting?

Jesse,

Is this a commission or are you doing this for yourself?

Squinting is best for both photos AND painting.

At this point in your career, you want to give yourself the BEST reference possible. The photo works because it is a photo. Some photos do not translate well into paintings, This is only adequate, the distortions which will become more apparent in a painting. Only paint from reference that is photographed from where you would be standing to paint the picture. Unless you want a less traditional and edgier piece, which this particular subject does not lend itself to, you can photograph it from any angle and use any distortion.

It will not make a great portfolio piece, but if you need the money, who am I to say.

Jesse, Nice photos. I think ether would make a wonderful painting. I have learned the hard way how valuable a good reference photo is if I

Mischa,

If you noticed in the past, the fine portrait artist did two things;

A: Placed their figures on a raised dais generally 15 inches- 18 inches.

B: Stood at least 8-20 feet away from them.

Photos should be chest high to mimic the height of a dais. If you are too high, the figure loses it's elegance and looks squat.

If you work or shoot too closely, anything that protrudes, ie. a nose, a knee is much too exaggerated. That is why you need a portrait lens to minimize bulbous noses.

If you notice in this picture the man's shoulders are way too wide for the rest of him and his figure narrows way too much. The woman's arm looks rather stubby. The noses on each look too large as well. If these were taken at a better angle with a proper focal length they would have worked.

The poses of the two figures work well together and are well integrated, but that does not make up for the distortion.

Sharon, thank you for taking the time. Is a 18-70mm lens a good portrait lens and what is a good distance for a head shot? I hope to purchase a Nikon d70s on Monday and hope to learn a few things before doing a commission shot.

Mischa,

I work mainly from life. I do not have a digital. When I use a camera I use is a Nikon FE2 which is mostly manual and I use fixed focal lenses. The lenses I use are a 55/f2.8 and a 85/f1.2.
Both are extremely fast lenses. The 55 is great for copy work because in photo parlance it is almost a one to one ratio which means no distortion and is invaluable in photographing paintings. It does (nor does the 80) barrel which means distort or round straight vertical edges.You have to check out the speed of your lens, that is THE most important. The faster the lens, the easier it is to take people in available light.

I use the 55 for full length and the 85 for head shots and full length. Before you shoot pick out the place you would be painting from and see what length gives you the most accurate picture of what you see with your eyes.

Mike McCarty is the go to guy here for digital. But I would make sure that the zoom lens you get is able to accomplish the above goals.

No camera is going to be as accurate as the human eye. For example, seated figures, especially straight on are best accomplished by proper life drawing first.

There is a Nikon D12 I am waiting to get, you get bigger and more accurate blowups without graininess, and is why I do not like the digitals as yet.

Mischa,

When you go from an SLR film camera to a digital, such as the Nikon D70, you must do a conversion regarding focal length. For example: if Sharon were to take her 55mm or 85mm lenses and use them on the D70 she would then have to do a conversion using a 1.5 multiplier.

These multipliers will be slightly different between manufacturers. I think the Canon is 1.6 times the old focal length.

So, the 55 becomes 82.5 and the 85 becomes 127.5. I try not to get to deep into the reasons for the conversion, maybe I knew at one time but have gladly forgotten.

It's also important to know that after you make the conversion, the old benchmarks will remain the same. For example: if 80mm was the optimum focal length (many fixed length portrait lenses are somewhere close to 80mm for all the reasons Sharon mentioned) then it will still be 80mm after the conversion. This is my understanding, if someone can correct me here please do.

Most distortion comes when you descend below 50mm.

Mike,

I think that happens when you go to a larger format, like a Hasselblad.

I just talked to a wedding photographer and, actually the numbers are lower in a digital zoom. The focal lengths in the camera Mischa is interested in might be fine, but he should check with his camera proffessional.

Mike, Sharon, thank you for your help.

I am to purchase my camera from a photo shop here in Bad Homburg. The owner has been around for some thirty years and he commented that the 18-70mm lens is excellent for portraiture. My thought on the matter, being that this is all new to me, is to ask you all for advice.

So, please share your experience with me.

Thanks again.

mischa

My understanding of the focal length multiplier is that it is present on most of the digital SLR's that we discuss here. For a more complete discussion you can read up at this link:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=...gth+multiplier

I've tried to condense the information down as much as possible for our own narrow purposes. When I shot 35mm film with my lens at 50mm, that same 50mm lens setting transported to my D70 would take on the attributes of a 75mm focal length.

I think ...

Mischa,

How fast is that lens? I does not seem like the correct lens to me. I think it is too slow.

Why do you need a zoom? Can't you get by on an excellent and fast 55mm, and use the superb Nikon 85mm f1/4 as well.. If the lens is slower than f 2/8 I would NOT get it.

The 55 mm f 2/8 micro and the 85 mm f 1/4 was recommended to me by a good friend who worked for the Magnum photo group. The 55 is great for figuratives, closeups, and copying art. The 85 is one of the best portrait lenses around.

The lens is not a cheapie it goes for about $350 and comes as part of the kit. It is a Nikkor 18-70 mm fast f/3.5-4.5 G; the cheapies are all f/3.5- 5.6. The 18 - 55 is a cheapie, but good.
This 18 - 70 is similar to a 27 - 105 mm on a 35 mm film camera.

Mischa,

I read that that is a decent lens. That said, another good friend of mine, a wedding photographer prefers faster lenses, around an f2/8mm for a zoom. It all depends on whether or not you are shooting in available light or using a strobe.

He had a slower lens and had to ditch it because it was not fast enough for available light photography that is necessary for wedding photoraphy. He is using the Nikon 28-70mm f2/8, but it is expensive at about $1500. He loves it.

Personally, I would use a faster lens, but I know cost must be an issue.

Mischa,

Another thing you have to consider is the light you are photographing in. If it is indoors, I know with available light, in my south facing studio, my speed and aperture is something like 5.6-11 @ 60 with an f 2.8. This is on a clear day. A slower lens would not give you much wiggle room or depth of field.

If I were to get a digital today I would go for the new 12 megapixel, yours is fine for now, but I would invest in two really great lenses.

The equivalent of my old 55mm f2.8 micro is the 60mm f/2.8 AF-D@ $389.
This is superb for figure shots and copying art.

The best telephoto ( best for portraiture)Nikon AF today is the fast 85mm f/1.4. It is about $900-1000. Shop around, maybe you can get a used one.

In my opinion, the lens you are getting with this camera is way too slow. I have been photographing subjects for over 30 years and I would NOT use that lens.

But if you feel this is the lens for you, by all means get it. I have had my lenses for 25 years. You can always upgrade the camera.

Sharon, Mike,

Thank you for taking the time and for your consideration.

I do apologize for bringing this up and I hope Jesse will forgive me.

I purchased my D70s today. Even though the investment set me back a chunk of change i believe it is a good investment. The 18-70mm lens is part of the kit and is included in the price. I was not able to exchange it for another. So, it was not for the lack of trying. To be honest I did stretch my self with this purchase. I do plan to get additional lenses but until then, I need to make some sales.

Thank you again,

mischa

Misha,

Since you have the camera, keep the other lenses in mind. You can always add and this is a good beginners package. In the future DO consider the lenses I mentioned, you will have them for years and will never need anything other.

I know from years of experience in all kinds of light what works and doesn't work, but those other lenses, I know, are expensive.

I am sure a talented person like you will be able to make it work.

I also want to apologize to Jesse, another very talented young man, who we buried somehere here, but I hope he learned from this as well.

One mitigating factor with the new digital SLRs is that you have more of an acceptable range in the ISO (what was once film speed) setting.

Sharon, I'll bet you were shooting either the Kodak "portra" or Fuji 160 speed film. This is as good a film as you can buy, but it is very slow. This is a difficult proposition for shooting indoors with available light. The new digital SLRs, in my opinion, can match this quality in the 400 ISO setting. This gives you a lot more wiggle room in lower light conditions. If your end product is an 8x10 print, as it is for me, you can even push the ISO higher.

Also, in my opinion, the current 6mp SLRs will surpass the quality of any 35mm film. When you factor in the cost savings of film and processing, the ability to edit on the fly, manipulate settings per image instead of per roll, and on and on, it is truly a wonderful life.

Mike,

I found when doing my commercial portraiture my prints were life-sized or close to it. The reason for this is so I could place the photo side by side with my canvas a get further back. This method helps immeasurably with form and enables a looser more fluid brush stroke. With a print as small as 8x10 you practically have to be on top of your canvas. Most professional portraiture now and in the past, especially in the high end is life-sized.

Right now I am working on a canvas from life. It is life-sized. my model had to return to college so I took some reference shots. The head print, of just her neck and shoulders is 12x18 alone. I need a slow speed film, exactly the ones you mentioned to be able to get a decently saturated print. A faster film or its equivalent in a digital file just would not do. I have researched this and have been holding off getting a digital for just this reason. I am interested in the Nikon with a 12 megapixel capacity, because the labs who do my printing told me to get the kind of quality I need, I would need at least an 11 megapixel quality. I don't expect Mischa to run out and get this $5000 baby, but he could do with faster lenses.

Any reasonably priced digital camera should be able to give you an 8x10 print, but for professional portrait painting, in my opinion, you need larger reference and a slow lens such as the one on his new Nikon is not going to cut it. It is alright only as a beginning lens but for really upper end portraiture it is, I would dare to say, it is barely adequate.