Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

Portrait Photography
I have a Blad with the 180mm, and the M6 with the 90mm, and the F5 with the 80-200 2.8. What I've discovered
is that all that is not nearly as important as the lighting and the connection with the subject. You should expand
you those areas, as those seem to be where a photog can distinguish him or her self.
-- Bruce Thee, February 12, 2003
Hi, I am a Photo-journalist based in India and occasionally dabble in location fashion shoots...a Nikon 80-
200/2.8ED is great, but, this new 135/2 DC and a simple 50/1.4 can do wonders. Have you ever tried a portrait
with a normal lens ? I am also dying to see Nikon's 70-200/2.8 VR...guys feedback please !
-- Anamitra Chakladar, February 24, 2003
I guess "pro" photographers really have some egotistical need to fill when they talk about all their equipment and
techniques you know the Rollies and the Hassies and the Nikon F's LONG FAST AND MOST OF ALL
Absurdly Expensive, I mean you can buy a car for the price of an outfit.But I hate to bust your bubble folks most
of the above lesson is nonsense. ANYBODY can take a great Portrait with something as cheap as a $269.00
Nikon N65 with a stock short zoom lens,some Kodak Portra asa 160 or 400 NC or VC film set on apiture priority
or (A) and an $79.00 flash attachment. Give the subject some natural light morning or evening is best a nice
background and VIOLA!!!! Unless you want to be able to shoot the bull in psudo-intellictual photog circles its all
a bunch of HOOIE!! I'll put any of my pics up against the best of the best and let the masses be the judge.Not
some bafoon who likes to hear him or herself talk. This page reminds me of a Jackson Pollak review of fine art.
-- ben michalski, September 20, 2003
Reading this article, I wonder if it is meant for amateurs or pro. For amateur, the equipment must be pretty
humble, by your standards. It would be good to encourage amateurs to take pictures with simple and humble
equipment. Otherwise, some beginners might go away with the impression that we need expensive equipment to
take great pix, including portraits. I have taken quite a few rolls of portraits, both in a studio environment and
outdoors, using an F80 and a Tamron 28-200XR and a 50D F1.8. They are sharp enough for me, at 8x12
enlargement. Upon scanning the negatives, viewing them on the screen at full size, I am pretty satisfied with it. I
find that I am naturally shooting at around 100-110 of the zoom. I would like to get a SIMPLE 105 prime lens for
this purpose, but what is available are those with macro or soft-focus. These are not so suitable and expensive.
We should all concentrate more on composition, lighting, colour, contrast, film, rapport with the subject.... and
less on the equipment, as someone has said that most modern equipment are better than most photographers.
Image:00330002.JPG
-- Vic Chui, September 27, 2003
I appreciate that someone wrote this article, but like a lot of people, i find it too much focusing on the 'what' of
equipment rather than the 'how-to' use equipment... if i want to read about 'what' equipment, i will read in the
equipment sections... However, the 2 best peices of advice I have had about photographs came from the lens
section of this learning forum on Photo.net, and a photographer friend who said that pictures taken from above
are thinning to the face... both of these might be said to be obvious, but that is why i'm reading a learning section
right? I do plenty of experimenting with my camera, so finding my own perspective is a task i reserve for myself,
but what about tips on the basics, like placing of external flashes, and camera angles... these are things that are
useful for the sort of people reading a learning section... Some of my best pictures that i am saving were taken
http://www.photo.net/portraits/intro (25 of 37)7/3/2005 2:16:41 AM