7.16.2017

Follow up to previous post... One made with electronic flash instead...


This looks totally different to me than the image I posted on the previous blog. I like both of them but this seems like a more substantial portrait. I'm not sure if I am mostly responding to the pose and the expression or if I like seeing all the detail in Sara's hair and wardrobe.

Curious which one you prefer.

This was done with the same A7ii camera but with the Sony 70-200mm f4.0. It's really a delightful combination for portraits. I wonder why I ever stray to other set ups....

17 comments:

CadenceMichael said...

I also prefer this one for both the expression and the slightly greater depth of field.

eric Wojtkun said...

I prefer this one...not an expert but I appreciate the greater depth of field and slight shadow giving a better sense of depth. I think it conveys more about the person.

Gato said...

I prefer this one, for the expression and the lighting. It's not whether you used flash or window, it's the flat frontal lighting style in the first that did not work for me.

Frank Grygier said...

I think the first portrait lacks the vibrance of the second. The lighting in the first image seems flat to me. The second portrait shows the signature Tuck portrait lighting style.

Michael Matthews said...

This one. Clarity, definition.

mikepeters said...

It's the lighting. With this one it's more directional giving the face some volume and dimension. The other is just flat light, sort of like a direct flash. If you had turned her a bit with the natural light and a reflector, maybe they'd look similar. BTW, your long and fast lenses will be nice on MFT too. I have a Canon Fdn 100 f2 and 135 f2 that work wonderfully on MFT.

Tom Judd said...

I like the pose of this one, but the softer lighting of the other one. This one is a bit "clinical" in it's sharpness.

Victor Bloomfield said...

I like this much more than the earlier one. The light sculpts the face and neck in a more interesting way (the earlier one is too flat by comparison), and the pose/expression is more engaged.

Ron White said...

I prefer the "shot wide open" photograph, softer light, less depth of field.

Bob Travaglione said...

I like the skin tone in this one. The other one looked too ghostly and not rich like this one. PS... I would stay with the Sony for the Flipping LCD Screen. I find the fully articulating LCD of the Panasonics awkward for still photos.

Russ Goddard said...

Minority opinion, I guess: I prefer the warmer light of the first one. Also - this one seems, because of the light angle, that it should have greater detail/definition - yet there's virtually no skin texture. So it feels "processed" to me. The first one has very little skin texture, also, but because of the large amount of "full frontal" light it seems natural rather than processed.

mike rosenlof said...

I prefer the photo in the latter post. Two reasons, the overall sharpness, and more important to me, I think the light in the wide open version is too flat.

Del Bomberger said...

The current one is better to me in every way. The expression, pose are a big part of it.

David Zivic said...

Definately the newest one.
"je ne sais quoi"

Carlo Santin said...

I prefer the pose and greater depth of field of this one. I prefer the skin tone and warmth of the first one. If I had to pick just one, I'd pick the first attempt.

Anonymous said...

Much prefer this one to the floaty wide open one.
The comparisons reminded me of a similar thing you did with MF film and a Sony A77 back in December 2012...(i googled)
For shallow depth of field the fall-off of MF is unmatched. The digital one you've posted today just doesn't look quite right to my eyes.
Mark

Anthony Bridges said...

The second one. I like the like sculpturing on the face better and the pose is better for my tastes.