# 85mm 1.2L II on Haute Dogs



## LightCrafterPhotography (Oct 31, 2012)

The Haute Poochure in Southern California as seen through the 85mm 1.2L II + 5D2. This was from a pre-Halloween event in Long Beach.

Full resolution and complete gallery:
http://www.lightcrafterphotography.com/p644709762
Click on slideshow and use left/right arrow keys to navigate.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Oct 31, 2012)

Here's a cutie.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Oct 31, 2012)

More cuties.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Oct 31, 2012)

Surveying the scene.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Oct 31, 2012)

A zebra dog?


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Oct 31, 2012)

The Hot Puppies.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 1, 2012)

maybe its my monitor or the downscaled images on the site but the focus looks off, not saying it is on the proper ones but I know sometimes uploading makes things wierd


----------



## victorwol (Nov 2, 2012)

Yep... They look a bit too soft, did you take them with the lens at f1.2? It's very tempting to do so, but this lens is so critical with focus probably as wide as a hair ))))))


----------



## fallenflowers (Nov 3, 2012)

maybe the editing cause the soft look? the filters being used to achieved post process look may caused images to soften.


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 5, 2012)

dof is too shallow for my taste. Decorated dogs and all u see is their face clearly


----------



## Bosman (Nov 6, 2012)

He did offer a link to his full res gallery if you are critiquing and asking then go look. I for one just smiled viewing these.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 9, 2012)

I would have preferred responses like “Whoa, how did you do that?”, but being this here is a forum, I recognize/respect everyone’s two cents. 8) 

So okay, here’s the context of the shooting that afternoon. Focusing an 85mm 1.2 LII mated to a 5D2 at f1.2 on the eye of a person is difficult. If you have tried this set up, you know what I’m talking about. Then imagine taking photos of an excitable pooch in a small crowded park filled with the scent and mugs of 101 other canines, their humans and mini humans. Let me tell you, it’s not going to be a walk in the park. You are literally crawling.

It was one of those days when I was shooting for myself, with no client to please or anything like that. I like to give myself some sort of a challenge on days like this, and sharpen my photographic reflexes, so to speak. The plan was to “work” the event with the gear I was carrying -one body and one lens only, 5D2 and 85mm 1.2 LII. Stick to ISO 100, and no aperture smaller than 2.5. 

But why at huge apertures? Simply because it is not easy to do, therefore it’s a challenge. I could have just gone the way of the F8 And Be There Philosophy, but that would have been too easy, too formulaic and boring for me. I mean where’s the challenge? Let’s try something different. Maybe if I were shooting for Petsmart or Iams, I would get everything in focus from the whiskers to the tail.


All images I post in forums are at 75 dpi, and that might help explain the observed softness. Also consider that I don’t ever do any sharpening –that’s just a personal preference. Most of the images were shot with apertures between 1.2 and 1.8. (There were a couple of images wherein the dog owners requested copies of, so I made those at 4.5 or 5.6.) The narrow slivers of depth of field and low resolution contribute to the perceived softness. If you go to the full res gallery, you will see the difference. The minimum I require is that the nearest eye should be in focus, and that’s what you’ll notice. Maybe there’s an image or two that may not be spot on, but I’m more than happy with my keep rate.


----------



## Bosman (Nov 9, 2012)

I need to do what you say is working the photographic reflexes since i am shooting an 85L II again. This was a great idea and a couple photo sales for your fun isn't bad either. Win win.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 10, 2012)

Bosman said:


> I need to do what you say is working the photographic reflexes since i am shooting an 85L II again. This was a great idea and a couple photo sales for your fun isn't bad either. Win win.


Getting out of the comfort zone makes for really effective exercise and help one prepare and get tuned-up for different shooting situations. Earning some money while doing it makes it more worth the while. In this case, it paid for gas and depreciation and a nice dinner for two after the event. And congrats on your return to the 85L II.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 10, 2012)

Looking at your link, did you use any kind of fill light on a few of they pics? There are a few that seem to have a little fill, but that could also be by the chance that there was something near she scene reflecting light. 

Thanks.


----------



## Bosman (Nov 10, 2012)

Yes it is nice! I had the 85LI not the II. I honestly don't know how much of a jump in focus speed there is experientially. Canon says 1.8x faster but I honestly wonder how it feels different. The one thing i do know is faster is always better but i managed shooting a full wedding recently and it did a nice job for me. Its best to shoot dancing with flash i found but when experimenting you can get some neat available light stuff but be prepared for a fail rate. Honestly With the kind of images this baby gives me, any drawbacks melt away like the bokeh does.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 10, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Looking at your link, did you use any kind of fill light on a few of they pics? There are a few that seem to have a little fill, but that could also be by the chance that there was something near she scene reflecting light.
> 
> Thanks.


That's very good observation. You are reading the light correctly. I used an off camera flash for fill at about minus 2/3 FEComp. I was holding the flash with the left hand, and managing the photography with the right. On the image of the devilish chihuahua, the sun was behind and to the right of me, but I still used the fill flash from the left.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 10, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Honestly With the kind of images this baby gives me, any drawbacks melt away like the bokeh does.


Absolutely, I agree with you.


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 11, 2012)

Lovely shots, I just wish I got my response in before everyone else tore you photos down.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 11, 2012)

2n10 said:


> Lovely shots, I just wish I got my response in before everyone else tore you photos down.



Haha that's nice, thanks. But nothing was exactly torn down, and I don't see those as negative or adversarial at all. Nothing like what we see whenever a DXO Mark topic is posted. I'm here to contribute to/inspire others about what my Canon gear can do with my vision.


----------



## BL (Nov 11, 2012)

not sure what's to dislike. i love animals so these brought a smile 

for some reason they do look better through the link hosted offsite

thanks for sharing!


----------



## jondave (Nov 11, 2012)

LightCrafterPhotography said:


> I would have preferred responses like “Whoa, how did you do that?”, but being this here is a forum, I recognize/respect everyone’s two cents. 8)
> 
> So okay, here’s the context of the shooting that afternoon. Focusing an 85mm 1.2 LII mated to a 5D2 at f1.2 on the eye of a person is difficult. If you have tried this set up, you know what I’m talking about. Then imagine taking photos of an excitable pooch in a small crowded park filled with the scent and mugs of 101 other canines, their humans and mini humans. Let me tell you, it’s not going to be a walk in the park. You are literally crawling.
> 
> ...



Why did you even post your photos if you didn't want to be criticized? The world is cruel my friend, you'll either be praised if you're good or torn apart if you're not.

In your case, I think there's a difference between challenging yourself and what's objectively appropriate for the scenes/subjects you took.

Yes it's difficult to shoot moving subjects at large apertures, but I don't think it was appropriate for this. Bokeh? Yes it is definitely nice, but inappropriate for this scenario. 

Post processing is no excuse why your images are soft. That actually says a lot about your skills in post. The images are soft, period.

I also don't understand your preference not to sharpen. What's the point of using good glass then if not to get the sharpest images? Pros know the technical reasons why output sharpening is required. Some level of output sharpening is always required. Your preference not to sharpen comes across to me as you simply don't know why you need to and don't know how to.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## pdirestajr (Nov 11, 2012)

Why is "sharpness" such a requirement for photos now? Why can't a photo be "soft"? Or anything less than the optimal sharpness of a lab test? Photography is still considered art last time I checked. Most of the critiques on the poster's photos are subjective. Chill on the pixel peepin.


----------



## jondave (Nov 11, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Why is "sharpness" such a requirement for photos now? Why can't a photo be "soft"? Or anything less than the optimal sharpness of a lab test? Photography is still considered art last time I checked. Most of the critiques on the poster's photos are subjective. Chill on the pixel peepin.



No one's is pixel peeping. It's outrightly obvious that the photos are soft.

And you're missing the point. Softness is ok if appropriate for the scene/subject. In this case I don't think it's appropriate.

Yes photography is an art. But it doesn't mean any guy with a camera is an artist.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 11, 2012)

jondave said:


> Why did you even post your photos if you didn't want to be criticized?




I have yet to find somebody who posts online just because he wants to see the criticisms. But any sane person who posts online knows that criticisms come with the territory. I’m not averse to it, and I defended my position by defining the context in which the shoot was made. But it seems that you chose to disregard it.


----------



## pdirestajr (Nov 11, 2012)

jondave said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Why is "sharpness" such a requirement for photos now? Why can't a photo be "soft"? Or anything less than the optimal sharpness of a lab test? Photography is still considered art last time I checked. Most of the critiques on the poster's photos are subjective. Chill on the pixel peepin.
> ...



I wasn't aware there were rules on when/ where a certain technique
Is allowed to be used. Next you are goin to say it's not "appropriate" to take a portrait with a wide angle lens!


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 11, 2012)

jondave said:


> Post processing is no excuse why your images are soft. That actually says a lot about your skills in post.


 
I don't know where you got this. Did you find it in any of my posts mentioning an excuse like that? Come on.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 11, 2012)

jondave said:


> What's the point of using good glass then if not to get the sharpest images?


 
Exactly my point. Because it's good glass there is no need to sharpen.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 11, 2012)

jondave said:


> Some level of output sharpening is always required. Your preference not to sharpen comes across to me as you simply don't know why you need to and don't know how to.


 
Always required? Really? By whom? By you? If you are to be believed, then my career in photography is done because I have not sharpened and apparently I don't know why I need to and don't know how to according to you. And yet, I'm still waiting for a single customer asking for a refund because my "images are soft".


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 11, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> jondave said:
> 
> 
> > pdirestajr said:
> ...


 
Cyberopinions are cheap. Like an orifice, everyone has at least one.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Nov 12, 2012)

LightCrafterPhotography said:


> jondave said:
> 
> 
> > In your case, I think there's a difference between challenging yourself and what's objectively appropriate for the scenes/subjects you took.
> ...


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 12, 2012)

Sheesh give the guy a break guys I had no intention of starting a sharpness witch hunt it was merely an observation perhaps some AFMA might help. Cute subjects though


----------

