Best Aparture/Shutter-combo for portraits?

elfving73

Hello guys!
Just a simple question: Is there a generally accepted "Ultimate" aparture/shutter-combination for portraits? I found myself mostly shooting with f5-f8 at 1/125-1/200. I'm just curious if there is a "magical combination" that seem to be the the most flattering for the model? :scratch

Regards / Matty

Andy

nope
sorry, matty - there's no magic settings... first think about what you're trying to do... if the bg is distracting, then use a wide-open aperture, like f/2.8 or smaller if you've got it. you'll need to be far enough back that you'll have at least both eyes in the dof for this to work right. there are other times when you want a shallow dof, and to throw everything oof, but that's a shooter's choice, isn't it?

my daughter, @f/2.8


the punker, @f/2.8


for situationals, more often than not you'll want a wide dof - so a smaller aperture is in order, and perhaps a wider lens, which will, by it's nature, have a greater dof.

the cabdriver @f/8...i wanted the whole cab in the dof


but then, as always, we have to be on our toes...keep thinking about your settings and imagine the final shot....

the suitseller, @f/5.6... i wanted him in sharp focus, and the clothes slightly blurred as they were somewhat distracting but definitely adding to the situational portrait


regarding shutter speed, the only real concern there is to have a fast enough shutter speed to ensure a sharp shot - meaning no camera shake. the old rule of thumb, 1/focal length is good for most folks.

hope this helps,

elfving73

Hey there, Andy!
Thanx for you input! Great shots! Now, I can't put this together - how is it possible that you have such a beautiful daughter? *Kidding*

Yes, I know that theory with apartures and DOP. But I'm sure I've read somewhere, sometime, that there is a "golden combination". But when thinking a little more thoroughly about it, I guess it's the ultimate aparture/focal lenght-combo I'm looking for! *Haha*

Hmm... yes! Now I think remember where I read about this! I think it was in an ol' photography book written by... gee, what was his name again. Something like Hed... Head....Headgecho, Headgecco..... gah! Never mind!

Well! Well! Now I'm of for a shooting! Outdoor portrait of a woman called Linda! We'll see if I find a perfect combo for this shoot!

Matty

Shay Stephens

I agree with Andy. There is no ultimate setting. Every portrait will be different and unique. When I do portraits, I am all over the map with settings.

Now having said that...

The normal to telephoto focal lengths and wide apertures are most often seen in portraits of one to two people. If one was to average the focal length and aperture used, it would probably be 100mm and f/2.8. It's hard to go wrong with that look.

Now having said that...

Of course not every portrait session will allow this type of setting. Always using the same setting or relying on a predetermined setting will adversely affect the technical, creative, and/or artistic need to incorporate elements into or out of a scene (as Andy has ably demonstrated).

So the bottom line is shoot what you need to shoot in the way you need to shoot it. Your own experience and style (emerging or established) should dictate the settings used, not a national average setting

elfving73 wrote:

Yes, I know that theory with apartures and DOP. But I'm sure I've read somewhere, sometime, that there is a "golden combination". But when thinking a little more thoroughly about it, I guess it's the ultimate aparture/focal lenght-combo I'm looking for! *Haha*
Matty

ginger_55

Shay Stephens wrote:

I agree with Andy. There is no ultimate setting. Every portrait will be different and unique. When I do portraits, I am all over the map with settings.

Now having said that...

The normal to telephoto focal lengths and wide apertures are most often seen in portraits of one to two people. If one was to average the focal length and aperture used, it would probably be 100mm and f/2.8. It's hard to go wrong with that look.

Now having said that...

Of course not every portrait session will allow this type of setting. Always using the same setting or relying on a predetermined setting will adversely affect the technical, creative, and/or artistic need to incorporate elements into or out of a scene (as Andy has ably demonstrated).

So the bottom line is shoot what you need to shoot in the way you need to shoot it. Your own experience and style (emerging or established) should dictate the settings used, not a national average setting

Yes, Shay and Andy, I agree totally.

And if your Monsignor decides to pose by sticking his tongue out at you, don't stop to check settings.

Often books, people, will give "absolutes", probably what they use the most, but even questionable to me, if they are absolutes to them. I print them out, if possible, think I will never forget them and I usually do.

Often portraits do throw the background of focus, or somehow make it less impotant, or totally "not there".

However, think of Annie Liebowitz, a large part of her "style" comes from the background, often, but not always, IMO.

ginger

(PS, Andy's whole family is beautiful, as is Andy. And all he talks about is food, go figure that one......... maybe talking is not the same as eating.)

4labs

One great thing about this site is that folks like Andy and Shay are so willing to share their expertise. I learned tons just from looking at their exif when they post pics.

erich6

I agree that there isn't a magical setting and that it all depends on what you are trying to show with the picture. However, in *most* cases using a longer focal length (~100 mm) will give better results. This is because the short focal lengths result in distortions and exagerated proportions because of perspective. Longer focal lengths result in more natural proportions and gives a bit of space between the model and the camera which generally results in a more relaxed subject. Also, the longer focal lengths tend to minimize the amount of background so they make the subject stand out better (this is good as long as that's what you want to do of course....).

Here are a couple of pictures I took of my son last year. Both were taken at f/5.6 but the first one was using 18 mm focal length while the second one was with 55 mm (using a Digital Rebel so the 35 mm film equivalent focal lengths are longer).



Note the exageration of the facial features. The short focal length gives a wide angle view and results in a distracting background.



This second shot results in a more natural facial rendition and a much reduced background giving an overall more pleasing result.

Again, these are general guidelines but good ones to use for basic portrait shots.

You were probably thinking of John Hedgecoe. He's written numerous photography books so you probably found some reference to this there.

Erich