The Hug. 2018, Beyond 200 feet of My House™, Favourite, Inspiration, Nikon, Nikon 58mm f/1.4G, Nikon D850, Portrait ↑ Nikon D850 + Nikon 58mm f/1.4 G. Related
12 thoughts on “The Hug.”
Beautiful image Peter. Has a very painterly feel to it. Nice work.
Thank you Dave! Has your 58 arrived yet?
It has. Really has been an eye opener. Absolutely love using it and I’m really excited for wedding and portrait season. I’m a huge fan of Mark Tucker’s work, and I feel this could be a solid tool to approach some of the portraits he has created. Has a medium format look that I love. I’m in trouble, starting to look at the 28 1.4 to go with it…. Down the rabbit hole I go.
I’ve gotten a few images up on Instagram if your interested.
I just had a look! Great!!!
I’m so happy that you’re happy; I always worry when I make recommendations whether people will be pleased or whether they will have bad luck with a defective piece of gear, etc.
LOL regarding the 28/1.4. As you know the 28/58 is my 1-2 kit and I highly recommend both lenses. The performance from the 28 is more predictable than the 58 lens and is also wonderful for people-centric images.
I agree with Dave…”painterly”. Not sure what it is about the image, but I absolutely agree. It’s quite beautiful.
As hard as I’m trying to avoid it, I fear I am headed down the same rabbit hole.
Thank you kindly John.
Re: the rabbit whole: be careful!
Wunderfull image Peter. Makes me want to step in the car and hug my 83 year old mum, right after i hugged my kids. The power of (good) photography. Thanks for posting.
Makes me wonder also if this lens would work on the D700 (regarding AF).
Thanks Roel, you made me feel very good just now — the power of good words!
I can’t speak to AF function on the D700 (I suspect it should be okay, given the reduced need for precision with 12 MP) but the rendering will be similarly beautiful.
I used the 58 on my D700 for a short time and had no issues with AF… compared to anything else I was using then, like, for instance, the 85/1.8.
I know this is way late, but I’ve been thinking about this portrait and all the “painterly” comments, including some expressed uncertainty about what it is about it that gives that impression. Certainly, I definitely agree it’s painterly. I’ve been thinking about why it seems so. I pulled out my Janson’s “History of Art” and paged through lots of great painting reproductions.
I’d put this most nearly into the Dutch tradition, perhaps a bit Vermeer ish, based on the “plane of light” in the photo, spreading from left to right and falling particularly on the faces and hands. No painting, however, seems to light so (realistically) partially one of the key figure’s faces. In Vermeer you’d see the left of R’s face way more evenly lit. What is even more similar (IMHO) is the dark richness and warmth of the shadow areas. In the Dutch paintings this can look almost heavy at times, where it’s not that here, but the richness seems to me to be quite similar.
And then there’s the subject matter: a domestic scene. The Dutch paintings are often domestic or at least quite everyday (like taverns, etc). Even the emotional content of them seems at least accessible to everyone, if not utterly common.
There is sometimes some discussion about the “art” in Peter’s images, but those that doubt it need only look at Vermeer’s “Woman Holding a Balance”, where a very obviously pregnant young woman is, as the title suggests, holding up a scale and weighing (perhaps) the future for her (as yet unborn) child. Quite domestic, everyday in its concerns (at least for mothers), the shadows are rich, and the use of light spectacular. This image and the Vermeer are in no way equivalent, but I think the similarities at least partly explain why this seems so “painterly”.
Greg, “better late than ever”, as they say 🙂 …but you are being too kind!!!
I will admit, however, that when people describe a photograph of mine as “painterly”, I can’t help but consider it high praise indeed (mostly because many painters have a good understanding of light and many photographers don’t).
Thank you again.