50mm vs 85mm: Which is the Best Focal Length for Portraiture?

*This shot was taken with the Lensbaby Velvet 56 lens. Even with the model’s hand closer to lens than her face, the distortion is minimal and certainly not distracting.*

I’m fortunate enough to have been a pro shooter for many years now. I shoot a wide variety of subjects, but they all tend to fall into the categories of commercial portraits and fashion work. I’m always photographing people—no still lifes, product shots, or architecture. To say that I always photograph people as a portrait and fashion photographer may seem like an obvious statement, but it has a crucial impact for me and the lenses in which I choose to invest.

In addition to being a professional editorial and fashion photographer, I’m also heavily involved in training emerging photographers in the industry. The one question I get asked the most is: “Which lens should I buy to attain the best classic portraits?”

This is a very poignant question and one that we have all faced at least once in our photographic journey. To answer this question properly though, you have to bear in mind a few key factors, such as what you plan to photograph and whether you are allowed any creative freedom in capturing it.

If you’re going to be photographing products and architecture, then you need to bear in mind that 99% of the time you’ll have to document these things without any distortion and with very limited creative freedom. If you take a picture of a building with a 50mm lens from the ground, the distortion lines created by that lens can give the impression of it falling over. The same theory applies to smaller still life shots. Certain focal lengths of lenses are not suited to properly represent the straight lines we see in architecture and packaging. Your client is not going to be overly happy when you show them their building appearing to fall over or their packaging appearing bent and warped.

If, on the other hand, you are going to be photographing people, there are no straight lines in sight and you can afford to use the lens distortions to your advantage.

If you’ve made it this far, I’m sure you’ve probably realized this isn’t going to be a scientific article with distortion charts and algebraic formulas. This is simply my advice and opinion based on many years of experience and client perceptions of the work that I produce for them. If I’ve taken a portrait shot with my 50mm lens and I’ve made my subject appear taller—and thus slimmer—then they have yet to complain about such lens distortion! The point I’m making here is that, as photographers, we’re all in a creative field. We have creative freedom to create what we perceive to look good, not necessarily what looks “right.”

This image was shot with an 85mm lens to maximize the impact of the look from the model. The 85mm lens has compressed the image so that nothing appears closer or further away and all of the attention is brought to the model’s eyes.

Understanding the Key Differences Between 50mm and 85mm Lenses

Let’s back it up here a second. What actually is “right” when taking a portrait or fashion shot? What is deemed “right” by photographers is usually dictated by what our human eyes see. If you attach an 85mm lens to a full frame DSLR, hold it in portrait orientation, and then open both eyes and look through the viewfinder, you should see that both of the images from each eye line up, almost like you aren’t looking through a lens at all. Do the same with a 50mm lens and you’ll soon find that you can no longer merge the two images together. This happens because the 50mm lens is distorting its field of view. To photograph your subject in anything but 85mm then would cause some sort of distortion. This is the theory behind the slightly dated notion that 85mm-105mm are the classic sweet spot focal lengths to eliminate any accidental distortion.

As I just stated above, an 85mm lens is going to give you a more accurate representation of what’s in front of you. This lens will compress the shot so that things that are slightly closer to the camera appear to be on the same plane as things that are slightly further away. This will not only create some really nice shallow depth of field effects, but it also can be a little easier in general for beginner photographers to use. An 85mm lens won’t distort the subject in any way and will only compress your image, so whichever angle you decide to shoot your subject from you’re going to get pleasing results. For example, if somebody has a large nose and you photograph them with an 85mm lens, this won’t distort the nose but will rather give the impression of it being closer to the face and thus smaller. If you’d taken the same shot with a 50mm lens, you would certainly need to be a lot more careful about the position you photograph your subject from.

85mm lenses are great for tighter crop shots like this one. Here you can see that I’m very close to the model. Had I been using a 50mm lens, then I probably would have distorted her face and shoulder too much, which may have been distracting to the … — 85mm lenses are great for tighter crop shots like this one. Here you can see that I’m very close to the model. Had I been using a 50mm lens, then I probably would have distorted her face and shoulder too much, which may have been distracting to the viewer.

Selecting a Classic Portrait Lens: 50mm or 85mm?

Perfect. So if an 85mm lens won’t distort my image and I can pop it on my camera and shoot away without worrying about making people look ugly, then why on earth would I ever want a 50mm lens? The reason you may want one is so that you can enhance what’s in front of your camera, using experience and a little knowledge. The 50mm lens will definitely distort your subject. This will become more pronounced the closer you are to your subject, but you can use this distortion to your advantage with the right technique. If you get down a little lower than your standing subject (for example, you can start shooting up at them), you can make them look a little taller and thus a little slimmer. This won’t work all the time. It does depend on the body shape, but with a little experimentation you can usually find the right angle.

There are also times when you’ll be shooting in an interesting environment and you’d like to show more of the subject’s surroundings. This will be very tricky with an 85mm lens as it is more zoomed in, eliminating any room for your location to be displayed as well. The 50mm lens, on the other hand, with the proper usage, will have just enough distortion to show a lot of your surroundings but without distorting your subject negatively.
I personally use 50mm lenses all the time, whether it be in the studio or on location. I find them by far and away the more versatile choice. The most recent lens purchase I made was the new Lensbaby Velvet 56mm classic portrait lens. Not only did I want the lens’ signature edge diffusion, but I also wanted a lens that could properly represent my model and the location she was in for an upcoming editorial. It was a fashion shoot in a penthouse apartment, so I knew that not only would the space be tight but that I also wanted to show elements of the location in the shot with the model. With the available space and look I was after in mind, this shoot would just not have been possible with an 85mm lens.

This image was taken of a singer who was was much shorter than the typical 5’10" height of a professional model. I was sitting on the floor looking up at her with my 50mm lens and from this angle I was able to utilize the lens distortion to make her… — This image was taken of a singer who was was much shorter than the typical 5’10" height of a professional model. I was sitting on the floor looking up at her with my 50mm lens and from this angle I was able to utilize the lens distortion to make her appear taller and more dominant in the image.

This is another 85mm shot but this time taken on location. The shot is a tighter crop and as such the 85mm lens compresses the image, leaving little room for distortion but also eliminating the majority of the model’s surroundings.

Again, I sat on the floor shooting up at my model with a 50mm lens to take this shot. I personally like the extra depth a 50mm lens gives you in a shot like this. A longer lens may well have compressed the image, but I like how the model’s shoulders… — Again, I sat on the floor shooting up at my model with a 50mm lens to take this shot. I personally like the extra depth a 50mm lens gives you in a shot like this. A longer lens may well have compressed the image, but I like how the model’s shoulders have been given extra shape through the lens distortion.

I was very pushed for space in this shot as I am actually photographing the model’s reflection in a mirror. It was only possible to get the whole scene in with the wider focal length of the Lensbaby Velvet 56.

For this shot I used the Lensbaby Velvet 56 again, and I’m really pushing how far I can get away with the lens distortion a 50mm gives you. I really wanted a wider shot like this so I could get more of the model’s environment in the frame. I am at j… — For this shot I used the Lensbaby Velvet 56 again, and I’m really pushing how far I can get away with the lens distortion a 50mm gives you. I really wanted a wider shot like this so I could get more of the model’s environment in the frame. I am at just the right distance from the model to avoid distorting her legs any more. Had I been any closer, her legs would appear abnormally large in relation to the rest of her body.

Bottom Line

If I could only take one lens to a portrait shoot, without hesitation it would be a 50mm lens. Yes, the 50mm does distort the subject whereas the 85mm lens doesn’t. However, with the proper skill and experience you can easily make this distortion work for you and not against you. Remember that we are the creatives. It’s up to us to make creative decisions on how our images look “best,” not “right.”

If you're interested in picking up the Lensbaby Velvet 56mm or any other Lensbaby product here in the UK then head on over to WEX and apply this 10% voucher code JAKEHICKS10 at checkout to receive your exclusive JHP discount :D

The Reality of Actually Getting Published - A List of 10 Magazines Run by Humans

It has been the modus operandi for every fashion photographer since light started hitting the silver halides, every single one of us who has been successful in terms of making money from our art has had to be published in magazines in one way or another.

Back when the world was a larger place and in a time where print was king and digital was still just a glimmer in Mr. Casio's eye, magazines were the only place to be if you wanted your fashion photography to be seen. In fact I'm talking about so long ago that magazines actually used to pay you the photographer to be in them (true story), because strangely enough your art was helping to sell their magazine and make them money.

Sadly those pay-days are long gone but it's not all bad. As a result of an over-saturated photography market so too are there now more magazines than stars in the sky, meaning that there is actually far more chance to get your work published and most importantly seen by others than ever before.

Love/Hate

As you may have noticed by the tone thus far of this article, there is a little love/hate relationship going on here between photographers and magazines. Photographers think their work is amazing and that for a magazine to have it on their pages is a privilege, one that is worth paying for no less. Magazines on the other hand think their magazine is amazing and to have your work grace their pages is a privilege, one that is worth paying them for in some cases (more on those art-murdering heathens later).

So where do we currently stand as photographers in this tenuous commercial stale-mate of exposure versus dignity? The reality is that times have moved on, no we no longer get paid to have our work in fashion magazines (this obviously excludes the commissions of high end fashion magazines) but we do get far more opportunity to get them published, which is fantastic news.

We as photographers should embrace this change, because this trade of photographic exposure for free magazine pages isn't going away any time soon. I understand the argument for 'never working for free' but truth be told, getting your images published in a magazine is not classed as working for free and it is certainly a far cry from working for a commercial client without pay. You should see getting your images in a magazine as a by-product of a shoot you were going to shoot anyway and remember you still have complete control over those images as they are yours to sell after the magazine has used them too.

Never Ever Pay to get Published

So now that we have established that fashion magazines displaying and sharing your images for free is actually a fair deal let's look at what truly isn't a fair deal. I am of course talking about the so called 'magazines' that charge photographers to be published within their covers. These are simply not fashion magazines, this is merely a modern Yellow-Pages of adverts for photographers, these fashion images/adverts are simply sold to the highest bidder.

You are not being 'published' in a fashion magazine if you pay to be in there and you are merely advertising yourself in a stack of murdered tree souls that will only ever be looked at by your mother.

Earn it

As those of us that have been fortunate enough to be published in fashion magazines will know, it is not simply a case of sending off an email to your favourite mag with a few thumbnails and 4 weeks later there's your images emblazoned on the cover. It takes time, patience and most importantly skill to be published. Magazines will not always except your work, nor like your style and you will receive rejection after rejection. But that's ok, because that magazine is maintaining a high standard of work within their covers. When your work is strong enough I guarantee you it will be showcased.

The magazines that charge you to be published aren't applying the same ethos, they just want your money because they can't sell advertising space to reputable companies because their magazine is crap and their magazine is crap because they house the highest bidder of photographers not the best photography. It's a slippery slope for them and one that isn't sustainable long term so please do not ever under any circumstances pay to get your work published. That money is far better spent on another shoot where your skills will grow and grow and I guarantee that when your skills have grown enough your images will be good enough to be recognised and published.

Five Points to Remember When Submitting Your Work

Just before we all fire-up our emails and get ready to start carpet bombing every editors inbox we can find, let's just take a quick moment to bear a few things in mind from a photographers point of view.

Here are a few things to be mindful and careful of when submitting and agreeing to be published in these magazines.

They are your images, nobody else's, the magazine has no rights over them whatsoever. You are allowing them to be published in that one issue alone and probably displayed on social media. The magazine is not allowed to profit from the sale of your images now or ever.
Magazines are apparently busy, I get it but don't send off your best work and keep your fingers crossed for 6 months. They will usually state how long it will take them to get back to you but even the busiest and biggest magazines don't take any longer than 4 weeks to respond. In my opinion 4 weeks is a long time so unless the magazine is outstanding then as a guide I give it 2 weeks before I resubmit the shots to a different magazine.
Exclusivity is pretty much a mandatory requirement for every magazine now and that includes social media of course. Trust me I know how hard it is to not share your best work for months but you have to sit on it I'm afraid. It's also a very good idea to make sure the team is aware of this before going into a project. The model, MUA, stylist etc need to be made aware if you intend to submit work to publications and the possible timelines associated with doing so. For example if you send out all of the shots to the rest of the team, you have to be aware that the chance of somebody sharing one is extremely high. I myself have been burned before by a member of the team sharing an image before time and losing an imminent editorial. Now, nobody has the final images apart from me until they are published, it might sound harsh but it's in everybody's best interests, especially when a publication is the only thing certain team members are on board for to begin with.
If you are particularly happy with a shoot and it gets published in one magazine there is no harm in offering it to another magazine if it perfectly fits their submission guidelines. Be honest though, make sure you let them know its already been published and chances are if they love it they may publish it or allow it on their online features instead.
This last point should be pretty obvious but read the submission guidelines thoroughly. I know it's a pain in the ass to have to do all the work for them sometimes but you just have to suck it up I'm afraid. There is no point at all in getting the perfect shoot all emailed off to the perfect mag only to find out that they only review images through their online submission process. It's happened!

My Top Ten List of Fashion Magazines Worth Submitting To

So let's get down to the details of who we want to be published with. I'm going to be realistic here though, I'm not going to be handing out the editors email of Harpers and i-D here we need to be realistic of where we want to be to get the ball rolling. This list covers a range of different looks and all of them will require something different to get involved with. Some have a smaller following and thus a little easier to get into, some aren't even print based at all but have a colossal following and as such this list is intended to give you an initial jumping off point for your first submissions.

The following list is of course far from exhaustive but I have put together these magazines that I feel are displaying great imagery where your work being included alongside them is a positive thing. But most importantly I feel that these magazines are run by actual human beings, by that I mean that I have either been featured in these magazines myself and had great feedback as a result or I have communicated with them and understood their style and direction through an educated and understanding member of their team. I will not allow a magazine to use my work if they are insanely egotistical, dismissive and demanding nor will I allow any magazine to use my work with frankly ridiculous image rights requests.

:UPDATE: March 2017 - The links below have been checked and updated where appropriate - Alas, it would seem that the publishing world has suffered a few major blows of their own and as a result some of the publications below are no longer with us. I'll be on the lookout for new, more relevant publications soon and will publish my findings as soon as I have them.

Editorial Magazine - Submission Guidelines

A great magazine that simply focusses on the photography and not just some made up last minute back story or pithy story titles, just big bold and engaging imagery. Check out the guidelines too, they don't even insist on exclusivity if the images are good enough.

Elegant Magazine - Submission Guidelines

Elegant Mag has a whole host of awesome photographers on display so this would be a great place to get your work shown. They have several genres too including fashion, lingerie, beauty and ink so there's plenty of scope to submit too. They also get back to you within one week, wohoo!

Hacid Mag - Submission Guidelines

Spanish fashion magazine Hacid has been around for a little while now and established itself as having more of a cleaner look to its contents. If you're after the pure fashion photography that is more about the showcasing the clothes rather than photography that sells the idea of clothes then this is for you.

Like a Lion Magazine - Submission Guidelines :UPDATE: Although links and emails are still active, it appears very quiet over at Like a Lion mag. Probably not worth your time until I hear more I'm afraid.

This is still an emerging magazine but I like a lot of what they put out there and they are't afraid to use images that challenge the status quo. Definitely worth a look.

Lucy's Magazine - Submission Guidelines

I love Lucy's magazine, its always filled with the current photographic looks and the pages are always displaying big bright bold colours. This is the real deal fashion mag here so they want at least 6 different outfits displayed in your story before you submit.

10TEN Magazine - Submission Guidelines

Again here we have another emerging fashion magazine that is worth keeping an eye on. I've chatted to the editor a few times and he seems like a fairly open guy. They mainly look for a quirkier look, both in fashion styling and photography so if you feel you have something a little different in the pipeline then its definitely worth getting in touch with them.

NiF Magazine - Submission Guidelines

NiF Magazine has seen incredible popularity recently and has a huge audience for you to be exposed to. They really straddle the ever increasingly blurred line between fashion and nudity so although not strictly a fashion magazine they certainly summon the visual clout of one. Nif is very focused on the art of the process and if you have work that is not necessarily mainstream but bold, different and engaging then you stand a serious chance of being excepted into the fold.

Ellements Magazine - Submission Guidelines

Ellements magazine has been around for a little while and has a solid reach but it's style is a little harder to pin down. The fashion it displays is a little more mainstream so if you don't have access to antlers, latex collars and the latest fashion stylists just yet, some strong clean photography of the latest high street fashion trends could get you through the door. Like I mentioned, it has decent size audience so Ellements is certainly worth a look.

Papercut Magazine - Submission Guidelines :UPDATE: Sad times indeed but alas it seems like Papercut Mag may no longer be with us. If you're interested in some fantastic fashion photography inspiration though you should check out their past issues before they're gone for good Papercut Mag - past issues

I've included Papercut magazine here as an example of a magazine that is a little higher up the ladder in terms of exposure and thus a little harder to get into. Papercut has long been established as one of the top independent fashion magazines and as such probably receives a very high number of submissions from eager photographers hoping to grace their pages. As a consequence of this Papaercut has an example of one of those submission processes that is a little bit more tedious than others. You have to create a profile then upload your shots one by one at lo-res with each image being described and credited then repeat the process again upon selection at higher resolution. It also took them nearly 5 weeks to accept the shots so it goes to show that these higher volume mags can be tedious and also take their time.

Fashionising - Submission Guidelines

Fashionising is not technically even a fashion magazine, it solely exists on the web and makes no pretence otherwise. I have included it here in my list to illustrate a little point, we all want to be published but we all want to be 'printed'. Why? Well its because we want that immortalisation of a physical product we can all touch, hold and pass around. Trust me I get it, but we should be honest with ourselves with what we are really after. We are after 'exposure', we want our work to be seen by as many people as possible and printed matter is not necessarily always the best vessel to do that with. Fashionoisng seems to be more of an industry go-to site where editors, stylists, designers and other industry experts go to peruse the latest goings on. I've only had a few shoots 'published' on Fashionising and I can assure you that I've had more interest, feedback and communication from people through Fashionising than anywhere else. If you can get a profile sorted on here then its definitely worth the time.

Your Thoughts

So there you have it, my list of ten magazines that are worth looking at, all for different reasons and all spanning different genres and ideals. Remember never pay to get published and also remember that you as the photographer has the final say on the usage of your images so never sign anything to the contrary.

Please feel free to add your thoughts on this though as I can only comment on my personal experiences, if you've found yourself at the end of anything to the contrary then please feel free to chime in. Also I'd like to hear your recommendations on mags to submit too, its always good to hear of any that I hadn't considered.

I wish you all the best of luck with your submissions :)

Using your Ring Light as a Fill Light

It's rare that I shoot classic and clean beauty lighting these days. As photographer who is fascinated by light a lot of my shoots consist of around 4 or 5 lights, not just because I can but because I believe it adds something extra to my images. A lot of the cleaner beauty work you see is often achieved by only a couple of really well placed lights with modifiers that complement the subject. There is certainly nothing wrong with this simplicity and you will often find that photographers will say that this type of lighting does not 'get in the way' of the image. What they mean by that is that the viewer is presented with the subject without being distracted by the complicated lighting. This is the type of lighting technique we are all too familiar with when viewing fashion imagery these days. The vibrant, contrasting lighting of white background fashion images that displays the garment not the photography.

Recently I had the opportunity to play with a cleaner and simpler look with my lighting when I was fortunate enough to photograph the stunning model Natasha Jayne Heard The lighting required was to display Natasha's physique in as clean and simple a way possible without my lighting getting in the way. The images taken on the shoot are displayed here down below and I'd like to discuss some of the quick and easy ways I got the looks.

The image above was taken with a single silver 21" beauty dish. The results are ok but it gets a bit dark to wards the bottom of the image and the shadows are getting confusing.

First and foremost for this type of brief you want the image to have the impression of being lit by a single light source. The reason I mention this is because this is simplest way for our eyes to visually process a shot, as soon as we start adding background lights, hair lights and rim lights the image becomes harder for us to visually process. Although I use those additional lights a lot in my shots, it's because I want the viewer to linger on the image a little longer and if you're careful complex lighting can achieve that. With this shoot however I wanted all of the focus and attention on Natasha not my lighting.

To start off I used a very beautifying light modifier, the beauty dish. Mine was a 21" silver beauty with a diffusion cover and I placed it slightly above models head height and angled down at about 45 degrees. The resulting image can be seen here and although on first impression it doesn't look too bad I felt that there was certainly some room for improvement. Although I liked the contouring and structure the harder single light gave me on the skin it was getting a bit dark towards the bottom of frame and the shadows of the body were mixing with the shadows on the background. These aren't massive issues but it would be lazy photography if I didn't try to address them. The main issue being the confusing shadows on the body mixing with the background shadows, leaving them like this gives the impression of the model being far bigger than she actually is. Definitely not ideal.

The image above was taken for demonstration purposes and it shows what the image looks like when just the ring light, fill light is firing alone.

One remedy to this would be to bring her further away from the wall. The result would be less confusing shadows but a darker background and it still wouldn't rectify the slightly darker bottom half of the image. Another alternative to fixing this is too introduce a fill light. A fill light could be positioned on the floor and aimed up at the model to fill in some of those shadows. That's a good idea but we are shooting 3/4 length shots, the fill light will be more powerful at the legs than the head resulting in an awful effect that gives the image the clear look of it being lit by two light sources; something that we want to avoid. You see this horrendous type of lighting a lot and it comes from the mentality that because you can shoot portraits and head shots with that setup you can shoot 3/4 and full length shots with it. This is certainly not the case and caution should always be taken when you start to transfer your portrait lighting set ups to longer body shots.

The key light is a 21" white beauty dish positioned up high angled down towards the model. The fill light is a ring light. The red object in this image is actually the camera. — The key light is a 21" white beauty dish positioned up high angled down towards the model. The fill light is a ring light. The red object in this image is actually the camera.

So we want a light that will fill in the shadows but not give the appearance of the light coming from any given direction, cue the ring light. The ring light is so often overlooked as a fill light, most of the time you see it begin used in fashion to blast away any shadows as a single key light. The effect is pretty cool don't get me wrong and its certainly very beautifying but it is a little lazy and it certainly does have its limitations. By combining my ring light with my beauty dish I am able to get the best of both worlds; strong directional and beautifying light from my beauty dish plus softer shadows and a clearer distinction between the model and the background.

For this shoot I used my Bowens Ringlite converter, this is an awesome alternative to an actual ring flash as it does just about the same thing as an actual ring flash but only at a quarter of the price. It does this by not having a flash bulb of its own inside but by evenly channeling the flash already on your strobe around its interior offering a slightly more affordable alternative to the cumbersome purpose built ring flashes.

To get the look I wanted I had to make sure that the Ringlite wasn't too powerful, remember this is a fill light now so you want it to be less powerful than the beauty dish key light. I played with a couple of different ratios but for the most part I liked it when the ring light was about a stop less powerful than the beauty dish.

Of course once I'd taken a few clean and classic shots I couldn't resist adding a bit of colour into the mix via some gels. This was actually a really simple and effective technique as all I did was find some old gels, cut a hole in the middle of them and then stick them to the front of my Ringlite.

There is a huge amount of scope to experiment and play with this basic concept of having a Ringlite/flash as a fill light and because this fill light is actually coming directly from the camera position i.e the viewers point of view, you can get away with using it in so many different set ups. The Ringlite does have an optimum use range in my opinion and thats probably the half and 3/4 length body shots. Any closer than that and effect is too powerful, any further away and the effect gets lost. That medium range has the ability to enhance the shape on the body by allowing the light to fall off towards the edges. See how the sides of the thighs and torso fall off to shadow? That's because the Ringlite is lighting the closest thing to it and is falling to shadow on the things that are further away than that. Get the exposure spot on with the ring light and you can get some stunningly beautiful shots via the contouring of light on your model.

If you're fortunate enough to get your hands on one of these Ringlite Converters then I'd definitely recommend it as they are certainly a very versatile piece of kit to have in your arsenal. Start out by just using it as a key light to begin with, get those classic fashion shots against a white wall and get a feel for how the light looks. Once you've played with that for a bit you'll have a better understanding of the light fall-off so you then can start to play around with some of more interesting uses for it like as a fill light and so on.

Let me know how you get on and if you've already got the Ringlite Converter or another ring flash then feel free to let me know some of your thoughts or set ups too.

Here's a link to take a look at the Bowens Ringlite Converter

The Lensbaby Velvet 56mm f1.6 Lens Review

Lensbaby

The Lensbaby brand has been around for a while now and it's a name that is synomonous with helping photographers see in a new way but perhaps most importtanly in my opinion they also help to inject a bit of the creativity and art back into this slightly more clinical digital age of photography.

Up until now Lensbaby has always been about making lens for photographers that would add a creative edge to the image taking process. They make a variety of lenses, some of which distort the field of focus on a horizontal plane like their Edge 80 lens or their Composer Pro lens that distorts the image on radial focal point all fully adjustable by the user. I have used one of their lenses at some point during nearly all of my shoots for a long time now and although the effects produced are incredibly dramatic I have never thought to use a Lensbaby on an entire shoot from start to finish, that is until now.

This shot of Ryo Love was taken on the Lensbaby Edge 80. See how the plane of focus is split on the horizontal axis so only the top half is sharp. It's worth noting that the out of focus parts of an image with this lens produce distortion-free bokeh… — This shot of Ryo Love was taken on the Lensbaby Edge 80. See how the plane of focus is split on the horizontal axis so only the top half is sharp. It's worth noting that the out of focus parts of an image with this lens produce distortion-free bokeh; see how the balls of light sparkle? This is something that can only be produced 'in-camera' and no image editing program can truly reproduce.

What type of look does it produce?

With Lensbaby's introduction of their new Velvet 56mm they have in my opinion gone less 'art' and more 'practical', this is a lens that with the right experience could be used on any shoot to help give an engaging look to a shot without overpowering it as their other lenses may have done previously.

Those of you who know the Velvet lens I'm referring too may be raising an eyebrow at that statement because every advertising shot shown for the lens so far has been pretty dramatic and eye-catching but maybe not a look you want throughout an entire shoot. The images have been bright, glowing, soft, hazy closeups shot at crazily low f-numbers but that is not all this lens can do. Sure the Velvet's key qualities is that it produces these gorgeous diffuse images that have a magical glow too them and I enjoy taking these types of shots immensely but that effect is really only available at the very wide open apertures of f1.6 and f2. Start to stop your lens down a little and you will start to create a far more defining and practical look and style.

When you start to shoot at f4 or f5.6 on this lens you will begin to create images that are more reminiscent of lenses from a by-gone era and without using the phrase 'vintage lens look' you will certainly get a feeling of nostalgia from the shots you capture. If you were to stop-down even more to f8, f11 and beyond you actually have an incredibly sharp lens that will take crystal clear images all day with minimal distortions towards the edges, no diffusion and very little in the way to say that this is an art lens by any means. It is my opinion that this is an incredibly versatile lens and with a little practice and experience of its characteristics this is certainly a lens that you could use on an entire shoot that would produce nothing but outstanding images that were as 'artistic' as you dictate.

Portrait of the artist Dan Le Sac taken on the Lensbaby Velvet lens at ISO 100, 1/80 sec at f2.8. Note the increase in glow towards the edges of this lens, particular around the foot in this shot where the light appears to wrap around him.

How does it feel?

The Velvet is a very solid piece of engineering indeed and as soon as you smoothly slide the 400 gram lens out its box for the first time you know you're holding a serious piece of kit. I myself have gone for the polished silver version as it looks pretty amazing but the Velvet also comes in a black finish too. The lens itself is a manual focus lens that is very solid and the focus ring is very firm and precise, something that most auto-focus lenses won't have. The firmness of the focus ring is great for helping you nail focus on subjects like portraits but not if you plan on making dramatic focus pulls quite quickly like with a moving subject. The lens won't talk to the camera in any way so the aperture is adjusted via the aperture ring at the base of the lens and again these change with a very resounding and firm click so it's very easy to feel your way around this lens without having to look at it. Unfortunately the design of the Nikon's means the aperture ring is hidden under the onboard flash on most Nikon DSLR's but the Canon version is unhindered and clearly visible.

This shot of Natasha Jayne Heard taken on the Lensbaby Velvet  ISO 250, 1/125 sec at f 4. — This shot of Natasha Jayne Heard taken on the Lensbaby Velvet ISO 250, 1/125 sec at f 4.

I'm no scientist

I'm no scientist, I just take pretty pictures but the reason I wouldn't compare the Velvet to a vintage lens is that the older lenses we can buy adaptors for and affix to our modern cameras often tend to produce chromatic fringing (bleeding of colours often seen as red edging) in the softer areas, this is certainly not present on the Velvet. The other distinction to point out is that this lens is not 'blurring' the image as I often hear people saying, the lens is actually capturing a sharp image underneath a diffused version on top. This is a tricky look to explain but even wide open at f1.6 there is still a sharp image in there it's just being diffused as well. Those of you that have used diffusion filters may well understand what I mean but the big difference here is that the Velvet diffuses the image without any loss in contrast. I've no idea how they're doing this but it's definitely a very cool look.

The sweet-spot for the Velvet is always in the middle and although its far less noticeable when you're stopped down the effect is certainly dramatic and worth bearing in mind when you're wide open. It's also worth nothing that in the right conditions you will start to see a lovely swirling effect of the background bokeh which again becomes far more apparent towards the edges of a shot.

Tried and very tested

I have had the fortune of having this lens for a few weeks now since its release and I have used it on several photoshoots including multiple portrait shoots, model portfolios and fashion editorials and I'd like to think that I have had the benefit of time on my side to properly get to know the lens. The reason I mention this is because I have heard a couple of people talking about the lens who have only used it once or not even used the Velvet at all. I think to those looking at this lens from the outside have been quick to judge it as a blur-inducing, soft-focus lens that emulates an effect that can be simply reproduced in post production. I fear this is a little naive in my opinion, I'm certainly no slouch when it comes to post-pro but just like all of the effects that previous Lensbaby lenses create the Velvet look cannot in my opinion be recreated to the same extent with editing software. You really have to use the lens yourself to see what I mean but the gentle swirling of background blur and transition from sweet spot to softness based on object depth and distance to the lens is very impressive and would be so counter productive to try and achieve in post.

The Velvet lens at f1.6. Even wide open like this the diffusion is completely controllable and as far as I have seen the flare is not something to panic about either. It's worth noting that this portrait of Natasha Jayne Heard has a large softbox be… — The Velvet lens at f1.6. Even wide open like this the diffusion is completely controllable and as far as I have seen the flare is not something to panic about either. It's worth noting that this portrait of Natasha Jayne Heard has a large softbox behind her pointing at camera which resulted in no flare at all wide open like this.

Is it long enough?

The other interesting point to bring up about this lens is the focal length. The Velvet comes it at 56mm and although I thought nothing of this and I personally felt this was an ideal focal length for the portrait and model work that I do, a couple of people disagreed. The reason they are concerned about this focal length for portraits is that it technically 'distorts' the subject. This is always a tricky subject to debate because the distortion is only based on what our human eye is used to seeing. To get an accurate like-for-like look of what's in front of you, you would probably need a longer lens like 85mm. You can try this yourselves, attach an 85mm to your full frame camera, hold it in portrait mode and open both eyes as you look through it. The two images should line up pretty accurately, do the same with a wider angle lens and the images won't align hence the concern about distortion. I personally think this is a very antiquated perception of what photography is about; if you are cataloguing a crime scene where size and scale are mandatory factors with zero tolerance for deviation then yes I'd stick to an 85mm. If you're looking to create an engaging portrait that is just as much about evoking a feeling and mood about a subject as it is about what they look like with creative tools and effects then no I don't think shooting at 85mm is remotely necessary beyond personal preference.

So to sum up the Lensbaby Velvet

First off this is a very solid lens with impeccable build quality and design with the option of black or silver finishes for Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Sony. At present the silver finishes are a little more expensive than the black.

Very firm focus and aperture rings, something that is quite important on manual focus lenses that don't communicate with the camera. The Nikon cameras tend to hide the aperture ring setting but after a while you don't really need to check this anyway, you can just feel the adjustments by the resounding clicks.

The 56mm focal length is very versatile indeed and great for taking portraits in a more limited space where longer lenses prohibits backing up to get more in.

Most importantly the look that the Velvet produces is what will ultimately make you fall in love with it. This is not a vintage lens remake and as such does not bring some of the shortcomings of dated engineering. It does however evoke an incredibly nostalgic look that will blow you away each and every time. The lens produces those iconic dreamy and glowing images when used wide open at f1.6 and f2 but once you start to stop it down the shots are very practical indeed and I personally love using this lens at around f4 and f5.6. At these apertures the lens has a very gradual sweet spot of focus that leaves the only the edges in a diffused glow that is not too overpowering.

Can you get amazing images straight out of the box of whatever you point the Velvet at? No you cannot. This is a new creative tool, try not to think of it as a new lens, this is a new piece of equipment that you need to learn how to use not unlike the other Lensbaby lenses. With some practice you will start to produce some very unique images that can be as soft and glowing as you like at wider apertures. Dial it down though and you have a very characteristic lens that you can use all day.

Click on the image above to enlarge them. I have include them here in a hi-resoultion so be patient. The first four images are taken at f1.6 and f2.8 and last three are taken at f4. It's clear to see the difference even with minimal aperture adjustments.

The behind-the-scenes images above were taken at a recent fashion editorial shoot in London. A lot of these were taken by Dan Le Sac of me whilst I worked and they are taken at a variety of apertures from f1.6 to f5.6.

Here are the resulting images taken on the day too. All of the above shots were taken on the Velvet 56mm and I'm pretty sure that most of these were taken at either f4 or f5.6. To get some of these shots at a wider aperture like this I also used a 2 stop ND filter to give me shallower depth of field.

Pick up a Velvet at WEX here in the UK

Or here in the US

A Photographers thoughts on Horst: Photographer of Style

Horst: Photographer of Style Exhibition in London's V&A museum.

As the title suggests this article is a look at famous photographer Horst's V&A exhibition from a photographers point of view. The V&A museum in London is famous for it's vast fashion collections over the years so there are many great reviews of Horst's exhibition out there with this fashion and art history view in mind.

These reviews are exceptional in their own right but I wanted to dig a little deeper for the photographer who might want to see and know more about the exhibition and purely focus on looking at it from a photographic point of view.

Horst enjoying the obligatory cigarette at work in his studio.Image: Roy Steven/Time & Life Pictures — Horst enjoying the obligatory cigarette at work in his studio.
Image: Roy Steven/Time & Life Pictures

The History of Horst (1906-99)

Horst was born in Germany in 1906 and originally studied design and architecture but took his first photographs for Vogue in Paris in 1931 and shot some of his last work for them some 60 years after that in Manhattan New York. Over that period Horst amassed over 90 Vogue front covers, something that I very much doubt will ever be matched or beaten again. It could well be argued that Horst actually is the history of fashion photography with his work being among the first to be published when magazines were making the transition from illustration to photographs all the way up to nearly the present day. In fact it wasn't until 1992 that Horst finally had to put down his camera due to failing eyesight. During that vast career Horst had photographed the great models of the time including Coco Chanel and Schiaparelli in the early 1930's, collaborated with Salvador Dali later on that decade and then went on to photograph the great actors and actresses of Hollywood in the 1940's like Marlene Dietrich. After this Horst went on to explore other photographic avenues with extensive travel photography and abstract nature photography before photographing the homes and gardens of the rich and famous.

It's clear to all that Horst was a serious influence on the fashion of the time and still continues to influence it now but I want to take a look behind the fashion and the Chanel's and Dali's and look at his photographic process.

Helen Bennett by Horst 1935. Horst had a fascination of playing with light and this sort of experimentation in his early career was key to his later style.

Horst and Developing a Photographic Style

Although I am certainly no famous fashion photographer myself I do pride myself on constructing an image around the human form and the fashion that adorns it. As such I did find this extensive retrospective of Horst's photography incredibly interesting but that it not to say that it excludes photographers from other genres. Horst's photographic journey and process is by no means unique and I'm sure those of us that have been shooting for a while may well see similarities with our own personal trial and error lighting styles with Horst's own exploration of light.

The exhibition starts very early on in Horst's career but even still there are only one or two shots of his extremely first works. Whether by choice or by the sheer fact that no actual photographs remain from this period the work shown is surprising. I say this because it is not typical Horst, the lighting is very clean, soft and has little in the way of shadows. In fact the lighting is technically excellent even then but the images certainly have no soul or personality and it was only after this and after he started working for Vogue in the 30's that he developed his individual photographic style.

Coco Chanel photographed by Horst in 1937. Clearly this was during his 'darker' style and during the same year Vogue lectured him on not having enough light in his shots.

During those formative years Vogue's publisher Conde Montrose Nast invested large sums of money into improving the quality of image reproduction so he insisted that Vogue photographers work on large format 10x8 glass plate cameras. It was during this time that Horst got to grips with this technique and remember we are referring to the 1930's where only hot lights were used, no light meter and no Polaroids existed. Poses often had to be held for several seconds and even then Horst was famously known for taking up to two days to set up his lights for a single shot. Photography back then was as much a skill as it was a science as it was an art form, and every single image was meticulously pre-visulaised.

In the exhibition we see Horst's sketch books and his drawings of how he wants the shots to look beforehand, this is a rare insight into the process a photographer would have to go through before even taking the shot. As well as sketches the exhibition also showcases some of Horst's contact sheets (single prints that show every single frame taken on a complete roll in a 1 to 1 scale), these are particularly interesting as it shows his workflow of adjusting the set, props and and the poses throughout a shoot. Remember he is not able to review each shot as he's taking them so these adjustments are the result of an organic process without prejudice from the previous frame.

In the centre of one of the exhibition rooms there stands a case of about 10 prints from the 1930's of a single model. The model states that Horst discovered her and made her the model she later became and the images displayed here in this case are the first shots they took together. This series of shots is what we would probably refer to today as a 'test' or collaboration and each of the shots are dated. Each shot has a different date, some are in a run of consecutive days but the models portfolio of shots clearly took several weeks to compile. This was a time when each and every shot was meticulously crafted to match not only the set and the lighting but the model and fashion as well.

Earlier I mentioned that Horst really started to develop his style in the 1930's at Vogue and this is the time when you could really see him playing and experimenting with the lights. I will be honest and say that some of the lighting is a little odd during this period and I think to begin with he may have focused too heavily on lighting the gowns and left some slightly odd lighting on the models faces but after a while he soon took great pride in very dramatic lighting and often plunging the scene into heavy shadow to really exaggerate the contrast and drama in a shot. In fact this drama became so apparent in his work that chief editor of Vogue in 1937 drafted a memo:

Horst's style a the time was certainly dramatic but it wasn't making him any friends at the Vogue office as Chief Editor at the time lectured him on the 'lack of light in his photography'.

"I have been lecturing Horst about the lack of light in his photography. We have simply got to overcome this desire on the part of our photographers to shroud everything in deepest mystery".

I think every great photographer has come up against this backlash when you try to initiate anything different but it is usually a sure sign that you are going in the right direction.

Horst further refined his style and its clear to see his background in sculpture taking an influence. Greek statues were always designed and created under direct sunlight and the poses and forms were always born with this in mind. Although Horst took influence in painstakingly trying to make his models skin look like marble with his lighting he found that the usual direct overhead light was too strong and accentuated lines and wrinkles. As a result you see him play with the light in a way to reduce this and end up with some very dramatic imagery especially at the time but that he is still famous for now .

Many of Horst's images would undergo extensive retouching. Here we can see the notes for the retoucher to go over. From accentuating eyelashes, adding makeup and lightening lines and wrinkles everything was made perfect before it made it to the page… — Many of Horst's images would undergo extensive retouching. Here we can see the notes for the retoucher to go over. From accentuating eyelashes, adding makeup and lightening lines and wrinkles everything was made perfect before it made it to the pages of Vogue.
Image: Conde Nast/Horst Estate

Correlations to then and now in the Photographic Industry

The exhibition also held a few surprises to me that perhaps only a photographer would find interesting. Sure there are some of his original cameras there like the big 10x8 and his old Rolleiflex medium format camera but there were also some behind the scenes videos and most intriguingly several before and after retouching photographs. I was aware that retouching in some form or another had been going on since photography began, even I had to get the mini paint brushes and dyes out on a few prints back in the day to remove dust but I was still surprised at the 'cosmetic' retouching undertaken in Vogue in the 1930's. In fact even before the shot had been taken models were apparently physically cutting their boobs and hips to gain the 'perfect' shape but once the shot had been taken dramatic amounts of retouching was then applied as well.

This is one of Horst's most famous images, the Mainbocher Corset shot 1939. On the left we have the original and on the right we have the retouched version. In the exhibition we can clearly see more detail and notes on the process but the work was s… — This is one of Horst's most famous images, the Mainbocher Corset shot 1939. On the left we have the original and on the right we have the retouched version. In the exhibition we can clearly see more detail and notes on the process but the work was so well done that even upon closer inspection you couldn't tell without seeing a side by side comparison.
Image: Horst

There wasn't a huge amount of detail on the process but as far as I could tell actual paint was applied to the prints before finally being ready for publication. Simone Eyrard the skilful retoucher of the Paris studio would do the the usual removal of wires and cables, marks on the floor and even an entire light stand apparently but there were also detailed retouching notes on what we would refer to now as 'liquifying'. This was done on everything from toes to hips, arms and anything that wasn't inline with the idealised vision of beauty at the time. It just goes to show that retouching is fast approaching its 100th birthday and is hardly a new phenomenon in the fashion and beauty industry.

Lastly I'd just to highlight another 'new' issue that we feel we are under threat by as photographers that has in actuality been going on for longer that we'd like to imagine. This issue is what I refer to as the 'throw away image' the incessant tidal wave of photographs from an Instagram generation that we are subjected to each and every day. In fact we aren't the only people to have felt this way when a Swedish fashion model spoke about Horst's work and was quoted as saying:

"I feel such soothing blessings by your beautiful work - even more so today when we live in a sea of flickering snapshots, bombarded from everywhere"

Lisa Fonssagrives 1976

I very much doubt Ms Fonssagrives would be very impressed about the 350 million photos uploaded to Facebook alone each and every day.

Horst in colour. In this room the V&A showcase all of Horst's Vogue covers plus some his huge full colour prints from the time.

Parts of the Horst Exhibition I Haven't Covered

As I mentioned at the start the point of this article was to look at the Horst Exhibition through a photographers eye but all I have really spoken about is his early career which spanned his first years at Vogue where he really adapted and grew his style. What I haven't touched on is his phenomenal colour work and the fantastic collection of massive colour prints that really have to be seen to be believed. Remember lots of these prints are from 10x8 plates so the quality is still unheard of even today with the most modern digital cameras (a theoretical 10x8 sensor could conceivably produce a 500 megapixel image, even if the lens would fail you long before that). They also have all of Horst's Vogue front covers on display and many other rooms of prints of nudes, interiors and abstract nature shots, in fact the exhibition holds an impressive 270 of his images so its certainly well worth a visit in my opinion.

The Horst: Photographer of Style Exhibition is running from the 6th September to 14th January 2015 at the V&A museum in London. Tickets cost us £14 on the door and it took us around 2 hours to see everything at leisure.

If you've already been or plan to go feel free to let me know your thoughts and ideas on Horst's work.