f/1.8 always necessary for 'pro look'?

[Benji]

I shoot and sell lots of 16 x 20's and they MUST be sharp when enlarged to that magnification. Sharpness isn't a problem when showing 4 x 5s or wallets on the 'net. One cannot tell how really OOF an image is until it is enlarged. I would love to see how these would look enlarged to a 16 x 20.

Benji

[SusanH1970]

Actually, I have a 20x24 and it's quite lovely, if you must know.

[Jim Bryant]

Benji - If you've noticed my sports photos that's the effect I been achieving when using the using the very low f-stops. Hell, I've been using bokeh to my advantage for over 30 years and getting rid of the background distractions. When viewing my photos your eye travel to the point of impact/action/subject and no farther. I also use the bokeh effect in my environmental portraits and portraits. I guess it's just boils down to difference of photographic styles here.

I know there's a photoshop plug in one can purchase to make the desire effects, but using that your lowest f-stop and background play hand in hand with creating bokeh, not a friggin photoshop plugin when shooting at f8 and above.

[RichardTaylor]

It's an artistic decision.
What ever lens or aperture you use to get the results you, or your "client" wants, doesn't really matter.

[SusanH1970]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

It's an artistic decision.
What ever lens or aperture you use to get the results you, or your "client" wants, doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by SusanH1970

This thread has me laughing. I've had so many clients actually say to me that they love the look of portraits "where the people are in focus and the background is all blurry" and ask me if I can do that for them. They don't know the word "bokeh", but they know what they like, and I give them what they ask for. I don't necessarily shoot completely wide open, but I shoot at an appropriate aperture that gives them the look they want. I happen to love a nice, creamy bokeh, as well.

And in the end, it's all about pleasing the client while utilizing your personal style as a photographer, isn't it?

Looks like we agree on this for the most part, Richard. I and my most of my clients like "bokeh" and they're happy that I can do that for them (and without the use of a photoshop plug-in that looks fake).

If I have a client that prefers a more traditional studio look, I can provide that, too. It's all about pleasing the client. I still manage to put my spin on a traditional studio look, too...and that's why they keep calling and referring me.

I don't sell the same image over and over and over again....clients like variety and uniqueness, even if traditional.

[Camdixon]

So, I don't make money from this, and I am not a pro. I have been told by a photog that I know locally he tends to shoot around 2.8 to 4.0 and uses a few lights to add reflections in the eye, and brighten the lips. He also instructed me I should save my money to buy a 100mm lens to use for portraits due to compression. I guess my question is does this sound adequate to you all for shooting this type of thing? By the way Benji I liked your photo of the girl in the green the most. SusanH, you also had a very good photo (preferred the one in color rather than b+w). Do you all shoot with 1.8 or 2.8 or do you go higher for those shots?

To the OP (original poster):

I did like your photo, especially black and white. For criticism, the part I didn't like was that your lips were cut off. The blur to me was fine, because it helps to focus on your eyes but I think the left side of your face in the photo is way too dark (or maybe it's your hand that is distracting in that position). Again, I'm certainly not pro, but I wonder what would happen if you bumped up the ISO? Just thoughts for experimentation, and let me know what YOU think you might try next time.

[Loose_Canon]

Portrait should tell the viewer something about the subject. This one doesn't tell much. Move back and use a smaller aperture for more DOF. Tell us about the person photographically...

[DawnBrandon]

Originally Posted by Benji

I've been a professional photographer for over 28 years and I have a degree in photography and I have used f/1.8 maybe ten times during that entire time. It seems to me the only people concerned with "bokeh" are amateurs, and internet "pros" who don't know the difference between a hole in the ground and an aperture. I had never even heard the term bokeh before about 2005 or so and in fact I had to look it up to see what it meant.

It seems for some strange reason my clients are more concerned about how they look in their portrait, not how the background looks or whether the bokeh is good. Maybe that is because the main thing in a portrait is the subject. Everything else is secondary (or less) in importance.

Benji

tottaly agree most people i have shot pics of or have heard them criticize others work dont look at the bad ground very much they look at the subject!

[BigFuzzy]

Ok, I'm putting and end to this arrogant BS right now Benji.

Stop saying you have a "degree" in photography. What you DO have (allegedly) is, according to your website:
A CERTIFICATE from NY Inst. of Photography, they do NOT have a degree program. http://www.nyip.com/ see for yourself. Quite a good program, but not even close to a "degree".

"continued his photographic studies at the world renowned Winona International School of Professional Photography"
First, that's not even it's real name, the word "international" never appears in their own description on their website! And it's not an accredited university and you can get this "World Renowned" "degree" for 550$ over a whole four days.. wow!
Check out this "world renowned" "school" at Home | The Winona Experience.

So, unless you've not updated your website, you don't have any 'degrees'. If you still claim to, then from where? If you prove it, I'll publicly apologize and retract my comments.

"He is also the head photographic instructor at a local community college." which school is this Benji? Name names so I can check to see if you're..um.. uninformed..about this as well. How does one claim to be a instructor and NOT mention the school?? I'm calling you out right here right now to tell us where you're teaching as "head" photographic instructor. And if you're no longer there, still tell us, I'm sure all of us are interested in knowing what "prestigious" "world renowned" institution you were/are teaching at.

So let me help you rephrase that part of your website more accurately so that you don't get into any legal troubles Benji:
I've been a "photographer*" for over 28 years and have a certificate from a four-day course and another from an online program.
* style and techniques also 28 years old

I wouldn't take issue with you (or others like you) if I simply thought your photography sucked (I do). Where I take serious issue with is when people (like you) falsely representing themselves while purporting to 'help' others especially while calling others "amateurs" and "internet 'pros'".

I seriously hope people don't listen to you. Maybe it's because I'm new here and everyone else already figured out what your "degrees" really mean and pay attention to your website so they can weigh your 'advice' properly. Then, I'll back off. But if you continue to claim being something you're not, I'll continue to chip away at your credibility/integrity. It's up to you. And stop being so arrogant and thinking your opinion is the only one, you come across as badly as a photo taken in front of a mottled 1980's background.. ooops.

I'm done. And sorry for hijacking this thread original poster.

Originally Posted by Benji

I've been a professional photographer for over 28 years and I have a degree in photography and I have used f/1.8 maybe ten times during that entire time. It seems to me the only people concerned with "bokeh" are amateurs, and internet "pros" who don't know the difference between a hole in the ground and an aperture. I had never even heard the term bokeh before about 2005 or so and in fact I had to look it up to see what it meant.
Benji

[Chip]

I definitely need to subscribe to this thread.