What was used to take these?

divamum

If you go to the gallery page here I would LOVE to know how the non-stage shots were done (mostly headshots, but a couple of 3/4 as well) - starting at the top going l-r images 1, 3, 5, 19, 10, 11 etc etc (you can't direct click on the images, so I can't link them) ). 9 and 15 in particular exhibit the look I mean. Is it just VERY shallow DOF, or is this a tilt-shift at work? The blurring seems to me to be inconsistent with front to back DOF, thus why I'm confused. I love the look, but have no idea how it was achieved....

Thanks!

ChatKat

Winddow Light
These were shot with window light - no flash and a lens maybe a 50 - 70 focal length 1.2 at 3.5 - you can see the photographer reflected in the eyes and there is no flash, a big window - almost appears to be in a dance studio with window light in the downloadable images. The eyese are crsipy in focus but the rest of the face is low dof.

Editing to add - There are three headshots for download - there is one where the eyes are crisp. The other two where she is on an angle. there is one eye out of focus. So I think the apeture is lower. One of the images appears that the photographer has a reflector in hand too. I'd never let these go with one eye out of focus!

divamum

ChatKat wrote:

These were shot with window light - no flash and a lens maybe a 50 - 70 focal length 1.2 at 3.5 - you can see the photographer reflected in the eyes and there is no flash, a big window - almost appears to be in a dance studio with window light in the downloadable images. The eyese are crsipy in focus but the rest of the face is low dof.

Thanks so much for the answer, Kat - I figured natural light, but it's the actual DOF that has me confused. The one that baffles me most I think is 15 (5th down on the RH side - not one of the download ones). The DOF is shallow enough that her shoulders are way OOF, but both eyes are sharp. How'd the photog do that?! bow

ChatKat

divamum wrote:

Thanks so much for the answer, Kat - I figured natural light, but it's the actual DOF that has me confused. The one that baffles me most I think is 15 (5th down on the RH side - not one of the download ones). The DOF is shallow enough that her shoulders are way OOF, but both eyes are sharp. How'd the photog do that?! bow

The distance between the photographer and the subject was fairly close and the aperture was wide. I'd say it was very possibly at 2.0 Maybe this was shot with the 50 1.2 or 85 1.2 or 135 2.0. I do this a lot. It's one of my favorite looks...I have an image in my studio taken at 1.2 with the 50 - all that is in focus is the dogs nose. Not even the eyes. I get many requests for that look.

Here is a link to the image I am talking about:
http://www.flashfrozenphotography.com/gallery/4038703_s8HKx/3/505584240_NsTFh/Original

Llywellyn

In #9, the focus actually fell on the nose. Zoomed out, I was a little thrown, too, because if the focus was on her eyes, I didn't understand why a part of her neck on the same plane wasn't sharp. Zoomed in, I can see the focus landed on her nose, and the bit of hair on the side of her face that's on the same plane is also sharp. So I agree with Kat's assessment: very shallow DOF with photographer close to the subject.

In #15, the photographer is above the model a bit, which helps throw the shoulders more OOF because the distance between them and the close photographer increases than if done straight on (hence why I take lots of photos from above at very shallow DOFs myself ).

I'd actually guess an 85mm 1.2/1.4, though.

divamum

Thanks both of you! I guess the dof is just so shallow that it confused me into thinking it was something more complicated than that, especially since in #15 her head is angled slightly... yet both eyes are sharp (PP a sharp ey in from another shot?! Hmmm....)

Appreciate the answers Of course, since none of my glass is fast enough (or sharp enough wide open!) to do that I'm not sure I can achieve it myself, but a girl can dream....

Llywellyn

divamum wrote:

Thanks both of you! I guess the dof is just so shallow that it confused me into thinking it was something more complicated than that, especially since in #15 her head is angled slightly... yet both eyes are sharp (PP a sharp ey in from another shot?! Hmmm....)

I'm not positive both eyes are sharp in #15; tough to tell at that size. If it is sharp, the photographer being slightly above the subject affects the DOF more severely up and down (as that becomes front to back from the lens's perspective). It would take some tweaking to know exactly what aperture was used, but f/2.2-3.2 would be my guess for the eyes to be that sharp and the rest thrown.

Dang it, now I want to experiment... :giggle And I want an 85/1.4 to do it with! I'm in the same boat as you, wish I could afford it.

kdog

ChatKat wrote:

I'd say it was very possibly at 2.0 Maybe this was shot with the 50 1.2 or 85 1.2 or 135 2.0.

I'd vote for the 85 F1.2, wide open. In fact, I'm sure of it. (The downloadable images contain the exif data. ) Camera is a 1DsMII.

Pretty impressive analysis there, ChatKat.

divamum

kdog wrote:

I'd vote for the 85 F1.2, wide open. In fact, I'm sure of it. (The downloadable images contain the exif data. ) Camera is a 1DsMII.

Pretty impressive analysis there, ChatKat.

Well DUH - it never even occurred to me to try and snag the exif data, especially since I was only looking at the gallery files. Gold stars all round, I think!!

Tim Kamppinen

Part of getting that narrow depth of field is that the camera was full frame. If the same shot was taken with the same lens on a crop sensor, more would be in focus because to get the same composition you'd have to stand further back, increasing the focal distance and thereby increasing DOF.

You could get it even shallower if you shot with larger format than 35mm because then you'd have to get the camera even closer to the subject and the DOF would be reduced as a result. Of course at some point you'd start to get unwanted perspective distortion...

kwcrow

divamum wrote:

Thanks so much for the answer, Kat - I figured natural light, but it's the actual DOF that has me confused. The one that baffles me most I think is 15 (5th down on the RH side - not one of the download ones). The DOF is shallow enough that her shoulders are way OOF, but both eyes are sharp. How'd the photog do that?! bow

It could be done in post processing with a second layer out of focus with a painted mask in the neck area leaving the shoulder and face in focus. Just a thought. Could also be very low depth of field with eyes and shoulder in the same plane.

ChatKat

kdog wrote:

I'd vote for the 85 F1.2, wide open. In fact, I'm sure of it. (The downloadable images contain the exif data. ) Camera is a 1DsMII.

Pretty impressive analysis there, ChatKat.

I was at the office and there isn't any software to read exif there. Thanks. I have the 50 1.2L and the 135 2.0L - My 85 is the 1.8 but when it grows up it wants to the the 1.2. And I bought my first 5d not because of wanting full frame but because I wanted the DOF from the 50 2.5 that I got when I shot film. The Canon 50 2.5 - if you can find them - are great for these kinds of shots without breaking the bank.