That would be true for the kit lens or something cheaper but not for an L, and certainly not for one of the Holy Trinity.
Trust me, when i first got it, it can hit it at 1.4.
Technically, pharters is right. The 35mm
is perfectly usable at f/1.4 but sharpens up considerably from around f/2. And I think he has a valid point about an 'unfussy background' being useful.
It's a £1,000 lens, if I need to shoot it a few stop narrower I would save myself £800 and get the 2.0. That's the point of the L, the ability to shoot wide open and sharp.
But if you got the f/2 you wouldn't have a lens that was sharp at f/2, where the f/1.4 would be.
He does have a point - it's just not coming across that well.
There's nothing in shot 2 couldn't reproduced with gaussian blur in photoshop.
Doubtful.
You could achieve a
similar effect but nothing like what can be achieved in-camera. And why would you want to shoot at a narrower aperture and higher ISO just to add the blur in post?
Unless you're commenting on the composition itself?
Most people would just think it's OOF.
Now this I'll agree with. Most non-photographic people probably would - but I'd wager that Raymond's clients know it's not and want this particular style.
Photographers might reasonably argue that those are not good examples of what that lens can achieve.
And, equally, they might argue the reverse.
Are you, as a photographer, arguing that they are bad examples?
With a lens that good its madness to bung a filter on it though - a hood or nothing surely.
That debate will never be concluded to the satisfaction of both 'sides' but it's personal choice and I can see the pros and cons of doing so.
I've never seen a real-world example of IQ being affected with a good filter, despite all the various examples we see on the interweb.
Selecting the right lens for the job, making sure that the background isn't too busy so that it detracts from the subject, cropping the shot so that it's more flattering to the subjects ... The subject on the right would immediately focus on her neck, for example.
I agree with selecting the right lens for the job, I agree with selecting the right background and I agree about cropping (or composing) the shot to flatter the subject.
But, that's not one of Raymond's photos you've edited, so the point is somewhat moot if aimed at him.
The subject is perfectly in focus you muppet, the focus of it is drawing your eyes to it, the bokeh around it is lovely.
Gawd, some people.
And some people don't seem to be able to make a point without resorting to cheap insults.
I'm sure you can elaborate on your comments more eloquently, so why not give it a whirl?
Knock yerself out, kidda ..
1 needs to lose the brown blob bottom left and the yellow orb centre
I think he's got a valid point there.
I love Raymond's photography but I do find the occasional OOF object in the foreground/background to be immensely distracting.
However, let's remember that these are shot on the spur of the moment and not planned out in advance. The client is most likely perfectly happy with the images they have been provided and will treasure them for years to come.
But if that was a posed photo from someone else, we'd most likely be mentioning the composition and OOF elements as issues.
What an odd post :/
you come from nowhere, hardly having posted in this forum before, on some kind of mission to sling as much mud as you can and **** off one of our regulars.
I don't see any evidence of him 'slagging off' Raymond; just a very big difference in opinion and some ideas about photography that most of us would think of as odd.
And then to claim "i'm a photographer" when you've been on these forums 2 years and barely touched them.
There could be plenty of people on the forum that have a massive wealth of photographic knowledge and haven't bothered to post in this particular area.
Post count isn't a measure of experience.
