Cheers, all.
Greg, cheers. I love shooting that lens wide open. It's quite sharp and the shallow depth-of-field is wonderful. However, I never mentioned anything about skin tones, here...
Troy, as mentioned on iMessage, the two outdoors images of her were natural light with reflector fill, with the sun behind her left shoulder (when looking into the image). The final image was a bare flash aimed at them, and exposed for a bit below ambient for separation.
David, thanks. I never said that these images were pushing the envelope, nor was the camera. If we were discussing high ISO sensor/noise performance, then, yes, my 5D Mark II apes the 5D. What I did mention, though, was the quality that the camera delivers when coupled with that particular lens. I have shot enough weddings and portraits with both systems, and, I can tell you, that I am simply unable to achieve the same look to portraits that the original 5D delivers. The 5D Mark II gives a busload more resolution, but, there is an intangible quality to the original 5D when it comes to portraiture; something that I can't quite put my finger on, but, I can see it, and, so can many other people -- particularly those who own that camera and put an effort into making pictures.
Perhaps, I should have mentioned that it was in my opinion (although, it's not just me; there's plenty of testimonials online) that considers it the finest camera that Canon made. Perhaps, I should have qualified my comment even further my adding "finest portraiture camera".
Cheers, Jeanette and Frank!
Guy, thanks for your comment. I saw a couple of your black and whites you posted in the IISAC thread and I loved what I saw! Were they shot with a 'blad? I've also gone back to 120 film, and thoroughly enjoying it! It really makes you think about what you're doing; it forces you to practise photography. However, again, I never said anything about skin tones.
I've just got a bunch of Astia 120 back today and I have been admiring the slides all afternoon. I just love the way Astia renders skin tones. It's realistic and low contrast -- something I've been a fan of since I took up photography, and, something which I've been criticised for in the past. I'm not sure if we can really compare film and digital, because there's so many different types of films, all specialising in something or other; black and white portraiture, to wildlife to landscapes, and, so on. A lot of it also comes down to scanning, as well. The scans I received today were pretty much rubbish, with a very, very heavy red bias, particularly in the shadows.
At the end of the day, I try and make pictures which the couples will hopefully cherish each time they pick up their wedding album; I think very hard about what I'm doing, as oppose to just taking snapshots.
Judging by her SMS to me after viewing these very images this morning, "Oh wow, those pics look AMAZING" I think I'm doing OK.
Thought I'd mix it up a bit, as no-one posts any portraiture on here. Like landscapes, it's something I'd love to see more of. Making photos of people is extremely difficult, particularly when you're having to think on your feet and pressed for time.
Thanks for the thought-provoking comments.
H