I know that every situation is different but I just wondered which aperture all you portrait photographers typically find yourself using the most?
Charlie
Excellent question, however the importance of aperture will change with focal distance, the distance to the background and obviously available light. The aim being to keep the relavant features in focus while bluring the distractions in the background. I am assuming this is for natural light portraiture rather than studio so the variations are far greater. Essentially the wider the aperture the better so long as all the features remain in focus. I look forward to hearing from others
Thanks for your reply Stan, one of the reasons I've asked this question is that I've noticed a lot of portraits where apertures of 2.8 and below have been used, and despite the subject's face not being parallel to the sensor plane, both eyes are in focus.
Whenever I try this, the depth of field seems to be so narrow that I can only achieve one eye in focus and I can't understand what I'm doing wrong.
Thanks for your reply Stan, one of the reasons I've asked this question is that I've noticed a lot of portraits where apertures of 2.8 and below have been used, and despite the subject's face not being parallel to the sensor plane, both eyes are in focus.
Whenever I try this, the depth of field seems to be so narrow that I can only achieve one eye in focus and I can't understand what I'm doing wrong.
Charlie
Well this would depend on your focal length and how close/far you are from the subject. If you shoot at f/2.8 and are very close (say 2 feet), both eyes will not be in focus if the subjects face is not parallel to the sensor plane. However, if you step back a few feet(6 feet) they will be in focus.
Again, this depends on focal length and distance from the subject.
When I am shooting with the apeture wide open I usually pick an eye which is the most important for the particular pose and focus on that one. I have lots of portraits where one eye is slightly out of focus and the image is decidedly better if I picked the proper eye. That said, only rarely do I let the other eye be far enough out of focus that you would be able to detect it at web resolution.
Thanks guys for your input, I'm disappointed there hasn't been a greater response to my original question but ho hum.
Here's an image I took at f1.4, one eye is slightly out of focus, I still really like the shot, however I'm assuming from a technical point of view a professional photographer would consider too much of the image is out of focus, the ears for instance?
Using the DOF calculator, thanks for the link, I now realise that using a 50mm lens at about 50cm at 1.4 gives you almost no DOF
I try very hard to avoid shooting anything wider than f/2. Aside from the DoF issues, I don't have any lenses that are sharp enough wider than that. The Canon 50 f/1.4 in particular looks great at f/2 but is very soft at f/1.4. If I absolutely need the extra light, I'll go to f/1.6 rather than f/1.4.
Barnack (http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/) is a program that may help with learning what DOF is for a given lens at various settings. It will also analyse existing images if you preserved the EXIF information in them.
Naturally it helps if you can calculate approximate value on the fly.
Coming back to your original question I don't think there is a universal answer to that. Portraits vary from only 1 eye in focus to the whole universe in focus depending on the intention. Formal portraits tend to have at least both eyes in focus and seldom beyond the depth of the head as the surroundings in such portraits add no value.
It all comes down to what you want to show or express.
F/2.8 tele
On another hand if the portrait it is to show a bit more than a face you may increase the DOF to show the environment or some objects that add to the character of the photographed person:
Thanks Ted, excellent pictures by the way. I guess it's a case of almost having a DOF calculator in your head, an instinct for the DOF you have to play with depending on your lens, distance and aperture.
So much to think about, still I'm thoroughly enjoying learning this stuff and thanks for the link to that software, it's very interesting, shame there's not a Mac version.
Thanks guys for your input, I'm disappointed there hasn't been a greater response to my original question but ho hum.
Here's an image I took at f1.4, one eye is slightly out of focus, I still really like the shot, however I'm assuming from a technical point of view a professional photographer would consider too much of the image is out of focus, the ears for instance?
Using the DOF calculator, thanks for the link, I now realise that using a 50mm lens at about 50cm at 1.4 gives you almost no DOF
Charlie
I expected more discussion on this topic too, so I'll throw in my own stream of conscious for good measure. I am still working my way through this conundrum myself. People call certain lenses "portrait lenses" because of their ability to shoot at wide apertures and get that ever-important background blur. So, one would think, aren't I supposed to leverage that ability? But, I've been blasted on other forums for shooting portraits at 2.8. One person in particular came short of calling me a moron for shooting indoor portraits at anything wider than f8, presuming that any indoor portrait shooter has complete control over backgrounds. (discuss!)
In my case, finding the 'sweet spot' fstop is about balancing technical accuracy versus a feeling of artistry. My general view is the smaller aperture the less "feel" it has. So my shots tend to be on the wider side, and yes there are many shots I miss focus on. I am on a mission to get that perfect child portrait where (out of camera) the eyes are sharp and the rest of the features gradually blur out (you made a valiant attempt here!). Which, adds yet another factor and that is subject. The "sharp eyes/blurry face" approach would read totally different on an adult model.
That said, I'm using my 17-85 more often these days to gauge how much sharper my portraits could be, and how blurry (or not) I can get the backgrounds at say, f5.6 or f8. For group shots its a must. But I can't say that close up individual portraits benefit that much....jury's still out.
People call certain lenses "portrait lenses" because of their ability to shoot at wide apertures and get that ever-important background blur. So, one would think, aren't I supposed to leverage that ability?
Yes, this confuses me too, why buy a really fast lens if use of those apertures is frowned upon?
But, I've been blasted on other forums for shooting portraits at 2.8. One person in particular came short of calling me a moron for shooting indoor portraits at anything wider than f8, presuming that any indoor portrait shooter has complete control over backgrounds. (discuss!).
This is clearly nonsense and I think we know who the moron is in this case.
I am on a mission to get that perfect child portrait where (out of camera) the eyes are sharp and the rest of the features gradually blur out (you made a valiant attempt here!)
I had a look around your site and I think it's fair to say you already have some great pictures.
I think a lot of my problems stem from the fact that my subject is a baby, I'm determined to use natural light, I strongly dislike flash light (though fill flash is something I need to explore more.) So I'm generally looking at high ISO's or large apertures, or both because as you probably know babies never sit still so I also need a fast shutter speed if any of the image is going to be sharp.
Also with the size of the subject you need to be pretty close which further narrows the DOF, it's definitely a challenge.
One person in particular came short of calling me a moron for shooting indoor portraits at anything wider than f8, presuming that any indoor portrait shooter has complete control over backgrounds. (discuss!)
I know that every situation is different but I just wondered which aperture all you portrait photographers typically find yourself using the most?
Charlie
It depends on individual style and preferred tastes. I shoot at all apertures. I *love* portraits at f/2.8 on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I'll also shoot my 85, wide open, or stopped down, depends on what/whom/lighting and more.
I'm digging the discussion though! BTW, this belongs in Technique so I'm moving it
People call certain lenses "portrait lenses" because of their ability to shoot at wide apertures and get that ever-important background blur.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but lenses are described as "portrait lenses" because of their focal length & not because of the the max aperture. Longer focal lengths tend to be more flattering.
So, one would think, aren't I supposed to leverage that ability? But, I've been blasted on other forums for shooting portraits at 2.8. One person in particular came short of calling me a moron for shooting indoor portraits at anything wider than f8, presuming that any indoor portrait shooter has complete control over backgrounds. (discuss!)
In my case, finding the 'sweet spot' fstop is about balancing technical accuracy versus a feeling of artistry. My general view is the smaller aperture the less "feel" it has. So my shots tend to be on the wider side, and yes there are many shots I miss focus on. I am on a mission to get that perfect child portrait where (out of camera) the eyes are sharp and the rest of the features gradually blur out (you made a valiant attempt here!). Which, adds yet another factor and that is subject. The "sharp eyes/blurry face" approach would read totally different on an adult model.
Within the boundries of achieving the correct exposure I don't think there is a right or wrong aperture for portraits. Depth of field is tool that you need to understand, control but above all use for a reason (not just exposure). So if you want to shoot wide open that's fine but the reason for doing so needs to be apparent in the picture.
Not sure I've explained myself very well, but I know what I mean
I shoot almost all my portraits with my 85 at 1.8 or my 50 at 1.4. As much as possible I do this. Basically... wide open regardless of the lens I'm using. (Post NOTE: After looking through portraits for examples, I realized that I have a LOT of portraits taken at about 3.2, many more than I thought, and all with the idea of getting the eyes in focus).
And you're right... you are not going to get both eyes in focus unless you are shooting straight on to your subject. In most cases this is okay, but in your example it doesn't quite work and here's why:
When shooting more straight on you need to make sure both eyes are sharp. Your example doesn't really lead the viewer to the sharp eye so much. Either less straight on or more straight on (so the eyes are on the same plane).
When shooting straight on like that I would close it down to 2.8/3.5 to ensure getting both eyes in sharp.
A couple examples...
Here, I closed it down to f4 because I needed both eyes to be sharp in both the images. These two shots are about both eyes. They would have looked like a mistakes if only one of the eyes was sharp.
In this shot, I wanted the viewer led to the front eye, so it is shot at 1.4.
Live with intention.
Walk to the edge.
Listen hard.
Pratice wellness.
Play with abandon.
Laugh.
Choose with no regrets.
Appreciate your friends.
Continue to learn.
Do what you love.
Live as if this is all there is.
Yes, this confuses me too, why buy a really fast lens if use of those apertures is frowned upon?
Because, quite simply, a fast lens has benefits even if never shot with a fast aperture. Lets say you never shoot wider than f/5.6. Then why buy a 50/1.4 instead of a 50/5.6 (if such an animal existed)? Well, remember, auto-focus and exposure metering are all done with the lens wide open. So the 1.4 lens will let in a ton more light (being four stops faster, lets in 16 times more light), which makes AF and exposure metering more accurate. Also your view through the view finder will be much brighter, making it easier to see your shot, judge focus, etc. Lastly, auto-focus is also more accurate with a wide aperture. This is because wide apertures fall off on focus substantially faster, so its easier to detect when focus is on or off. This is independant of what aperture is actually chosen for the shot, because, as mentioned, the AF happens wide-open.
Because, quite simply, a fast lens has benefits even if never shot with a fast aperture. Lets say you never shoot wider than f/5.6. Then why buy a 50/1.4 instead of a 50/5.6 (if such an animal existed)? Well, remember, auto-focus and exposure metering are all done with the lens wide open. So the 1.4 lens will let in a ton more light (being four stops faster, lets in 16 times more light), which makes AF and exposure metering more accurate. Also your view through the view finder will be much brighter, making it easier to see your shot, judge focus, etc. Lastly, auto-focus is also more accurate with a wide aperture. This is because wide apertures fall off on focus substantially faster, so its easier to detect when focus is on or off. This is independant of what aperture is actually chosen for the shot, because, as mentioned, the AF happens wide-open.
I didn't know what happened to this thread, glad to see it was moved! (I'm still getting used to Dgrin's symbols, and I didn't see one that indicated it had moved from People). At any rate, mercphoto, your point is a very important one that I had not fully wrapped my head around, you explained it very well.
I think a lot of my problems stem from the fact that my subject is a baby, I'm determined to use natural light, I strongly dislike flash light (though fill flash is something I need to explore more.) So I'm generally looking at high ISO's or large apertures, or both because as you probably know babies never sit still so I also need a fast shutter speed if any of the image is going to be sharp.
Something I've tried recently that works well with newborns (NOT toddlers ) are continuous lights: clamp lamps from lowe's, with clear 200w tungstens on light stands + umbrellas. The newborns stay pretty still if you've got a parent holding them, or nearby, and they LOVE looking at the lights. And, besides being cheaper than strobes, the lights don't flash at them. Plus, if you're like me and shoot babies au naturel, it keeps them warmer.
I took a series of shots of my 2-year-old son shortly after I took my 135mm f/2 out of the box to get a feeling for the lens. Here are a couple of samples from that session shot on my 5D at ISO 400, mostly f/2 @ 1/125. At least for my skill set, that is pushing the hairy edge on several fronts. He never stops moving and can easily move out of focus between the auto-focus measurement and exposure. In addition, I have to concentrate to handhold a 135mm lens at 1/125. The point here was practice and learning not getting the perfect shot.
Here is a shot where, at least to my eyes, the short DoF works. His eyes are just at the back end of the DoF range which puts most of his facial features in resonable focus. Note that this is an unsharpened RAW conversion so it could be sharper with some work.
Here is a shot which would probably been better stopped down to f/4 or so:
Overall, I think I have a lot to learn about f/2 before I start pushing wider. While a lot of people wax lyrical about the 85 f/1.2, I want to get to the point where I am very comfortable with the 85 f/1.8 and the 135 f/2 before I even consider going there.
Clearly, wide open aperatures and specific focal lengths are not needed for good portraits. It all depends upon the situation you're in. Here is an example of what I would consider a decent candid portrait, that is not done at normal "portrait" focal length and/or aperature (200mm & f/4)
It depends on individual style and preferred tastes. I shoot at all apertures. I *love* portraits at f/2.8 on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I'll also shoot my 85, wide open, or stopped down, depends on what/whom/lighting and more.
I've just discovered the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, it really is a sweet lens, I guess the 70-200 f4L's on the market.
Here, I closed it down to f4 because I needed both eyes to be sharp in both the images. These two shots are about both eyes. They would have looked like a mistakes if only one of the eyes was sharp.
Wow Jim, those are some fantastic images, thanks for the info, it's making a lot of sense.
Because, quite simply, a fast lens has benefits even if never shot with a fast aperture. Lets say you never shoot wider than f/5.6. Then why buy a 50/1.4 instead of a 50/5.6 (if such an animal existed)? Well, remember, auto-focus and exposure metering are all done with the lens wide open. So the 1.4 lens will let in a ton more light (being four stops faster, lets in 16 times more light), which makes AF and exposure metering more accurate. Also your view through the view finder will be much brighter, making it easier to see your shot, judge focus, etc. Lastly, auto-focus is also more accurate with a wide aperture. This is because wide apertures fall off on focus substantially faster, so its easier to detect when focus is on or off. This is independant of what aperture is actually chosen for the shot, because, as mentioned, the AF happens wide-open.
Thanks Bill, I think this is what they call joined up thinking, thanks for making this clear.
Liquidair, those are some lovely shots, well done.
I'm off to practice some more with my new 70-200 so I won't be going any wider than 2.8 for now anyway.
People call certain lenses "portrait lenses" because of their ability to shoot at wide apertures and get that ever-important background blur.
Huh!? No-one calls lenses 'portrait lenses' for their high speed. Or only morons do that. It's the focal length that makes a lens a portrait lens. If the focal length is between two and three times the format diagonal, then it's a portrait lens. And of course the minimum focusing distance should be short enough to be able to make a human head or face fill the frame. A high lens speed is, as usual, nice to have and often useful but not mandatory.
But, I've been blasted on other forums for shooting portraits at 2.8. One person in particular came short of calling me a moron for shooting indoor portraits at anything wider than f/8 ...
My general view is the smaller aperture the less "feel" it has.
Well ... yes. It's a matter of taste. In my opinion, these days people tend to confuse poor sharpness with 'feel' ... but when they like it ... A blurred background usually (not always) is visually pleasing in a portrait shot---but a face where everything but one eye is out of focus usually is not (exceptions may exist---as usual). So in most cases, the apertures used for head-only or face-only portraits on APS-C or 35-mm film are f/2.8 to f/4 (f/4 to f/8 for medium format). Smaller apertures are used when the photographer wants to deliberately include the surroundings into the portrait (e. g. a person at work or in his/her favourite place); wider apertures are used when forced to by poor lighting conditions.
DOF is a function of aperture and distance from the subject. Technically, it is not a function of focal length.
DOF calculators are used by some folks like a religiious ikon.
A better option for me is the use of the Depth of Field Preview button on my camera body. The image gets darker, but if you give it 10 or 15 seconds, the DOF becomes visible. After you do this a while, you can almost see it in your mind's eye while shooting.
DOF is a function of aperture and distance from the subject. Technically, it is not a function of focal length.
Sorry, that's not true. Actually, depth-of-field (DOF) is a function of image size, aperture, and magnification. Magnification, in turn, is a function of image size, distance, and focal length. So if you're considering distance, you must consider focal length as well.
DOF calculators are used by some folks like a religious ikon.
Agreed! In real life, DOF calculators are mostly useless, as they may give you an idea about the depth of the sharpness---but they miserably fail to give you an idea about the blur beyond the area of sharpness! And that actually is the most important part.
Sorry, that's not true. Actually, depth-of-field (DOF) is a function of image size, aperture, and magnification. Magnification, in turn, is a function of image size, distance, and focal length. So if you're considering distance, you must consider focal length as well.
Agreed! In real life, DOF calculators are mostly useless, as they may give you an idea about the depth of the sharpness---but they miserably fail to give you an idea about the blur beyond the area of sharpness! And that actually is the most important part.
That definitely is true.
-- Olaf
When I refer to DOF and focal length, I am assuming that the size of the subject in the image does not change. IF you change the size of the subject in an image, then DOF can be influenced by a number of factors. But IF the subject is the same size, whether shot with a 28mm or a 300mm lens, the DOF is basically identical ( Unless you change the size of the film. sensor recording the image - the size of the sensor makes a big difference in DOF also )
For the sake of argument, I was not comparing a 35mm DOF to that of an 8x10 view cameras with the same lens.
When I refer to DOF and focal length, I am assuming that the size of the subject in the image does not change. IF you change the size of the subject in an image, then DOF can be influenced by a number of factors. But IF the subject is the same size, whether shot with a 28mm or a 300mm lens, the DOF is basically identical ( Unless you change the size of the film. sensor recording the image - the size of the sensor makes a big difference in DOF also )
For the sake of argument, I was not comparing a 35mm DOF to that of an 8x10 view cameras with the same lens.
This approximation is only true if your focus distance is shorter than about half the hyperfocal distance. Since the hyperfocal distance varies with focal length, the DoF can vary with focal length. That said, portraits shot close to hyperfocal distance are rare in APS and 35mm format because of the distortions of wide angle lenses. If you are using a P&S you might get there.
Back to the OP's question: I went through the EXIF of some portraits I have taken and took some more just to test. My conclusion was this: unless you want to get the background in focus there is no reason ever to stop down beyond f/8 in 35mm or f/5.0 for APS (1.6 crop). A 3/4 view headshot on my 5D (35mm format) at f/5.6 was just a touch soft on one eye and you wouldn't notice that on prints less that 16x20. Straight on, you can shoot comfortably at f/4 since the ears can tolerate more blurring than the eyes. f/2.8 starts to get that "thin DoF" look, but it is still pretty easy to get both eyes in focus. f/2 and wider are challenging and need to be used carefully. Note: for APS format (1.6 crop) adjust all these apetures 1 1/3 stops wider.
Comments
Excellent question, however the importance of aperture will change with focal distance, the distance to the background and obviously available light. The aim being to keep the relavant features in focus while bluring the distractions in the background. I am assuming this is for natural light portraiture rather than studio so the variations are far greater. Essentially the wider the aperture the better so long as all the features remain in focus. I look forward to hearing from others
Cheers
Stan
Whenever I try this, the depth of field seems to be so narrow that I can only achieve one eye in focus and I can't understand what I'm doing wrong.
Charlie
Well this would depend on your focal length and how close/far you are from the subject. If you shoot at f/2.8 and are very close (say 2 feet), both eyes will not be in focus if the subjects face is not parallel to the sensor plane. However, if you step back a few feet(6 feet) they will be in focus.
Again, this depends on focal length and distance from the subject.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Here's an image I took at f1.4, one eye is slightly out of focus, I still really like the shot, however I'm assuming from a technical point of view a professional photographer would consider too much of the image is out of focus, the ears for instance?
Using the DOF calculator, thanks for the link, I now realise that using a 50mm lens at about 50cm at 1.4 gives you almost no DOF
Charlie
Naturally it helps if you can calculate approximate value on the fly.
Coming back to your original question I don't think there is a universal answer to that. Portraits vary from only 1 eye in focus to the whole universe in focus depending on the intention. Formal portraits tend to have at least both eyes in focus and seldom beyond the depth of the head as the surroundings in such portraits add no value.
It all comes down to what you want to show or express.
F/2.8 tele
On another hand if the portrait it is to show a bit more than a face you may increase the DOF to show the environment or some objects that add to the character of the photographed person:
F/4.5 wide
Ted Szukalski - Gallery of Digital Photography
Vote for me on Cool Photoblogs
So much to think about, still I'm thoroughly enjoying learning this stuff and thanks for the link to that software, it's very interesting, shame there's not a Mac version.
Charlie
In my case, finding the 'sweet spot' fstop is about balancing technical accuracy versus a feeling of artistry. My general view is the smaller aperture the less "feel" it has. So my shots tend to be on the wider side, and yes there are many shots I miss focus on. I am on a mission to get that perfect child portrait where (out of camera) the eyes are sharp and the rest of the features gradually blur out (you made a valiant attempt here!). Which, adds yet another factor and that is subject. The "sharp eyes/blurry face" approach would read totally different on an adult model.
That said, I'm using my 17-85 more often these days to gauge how much sharper my portraits could be, and how blurry (or not) I can get the backgrounds at say, f5.6 or f8. For group shots its a must. But I can't say that close up individual portraits benefit that much....jury's still out.
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
Yes, this confuses me too, why buy a really fast lens if use of those apertures is frowned upon?
This is clearly nonsense and I think we know who the moron is in this case.
I had a look around your site and I think it's fair to say you already have some great pictures.
I think a lot of my problems stem from the fact that my subject is a baby, I'm determined to use natural light, I strongly dislike flash light (though fill flash is something I need to explore more.) So I'm generally looking at high ISO's or large apertures, or both because as you probably know babies never sit still so I also need a fast shutter speed if any of the image is going to be sharp.
Also with the size of the subject you need to be pretty close which further narrows the DOF, it's definitely a challenge.
Charlie
Got a link?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I'm digging the discussion though! BTW, this belongs in Technique so I'm moving it
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Within the boundries of achieving the correct exposure I don't think there is a right or wrong aperture for portraits. Depth of field is tool that you need to understand, control but above all use for a reason (not just exposure). So if you want to shoot wide open that's fine but the reason for doing so needs to be apparent in the picture.
Not sure I've explained myself very well, but I know what I mean
gubbs.smugmug.com
I shoot almost all my portraits with my 85 at 1.8 or my 50 at 1.4. As much as possible I do this. Basically... wide open regardless of the lens I'm using. (Post NOTE: After looking through portraits for examples, I realized that I have a LOT of portraits taken at about 3.2, many more than I thought, and all with the idea of getting the eyes in focus).
And you're right... you are not going to get both eyes in focus unless you are shooting straight on to your subject. In most cases this is okay, but in your example it doesn't quite work and here's why:
When shooting more straight on you need to make sure both eyes are sharp. Your example doesn't really lead the viewer to the sharp eye so much. Either less straight on or more straight on (so the eyes are on the same plane).
When shooting straight on like that I would close it down to 2.8/3.5 to ensure getting both eyes in sharp.
A couple examples...
Here, I closed it down to f4 because I needed both eyes to be sharp in both the images. These two shots are about both eyes. They would have looked like a mistakes if only one of the eyes was sharp.
In this shot, I wanted the viewer led to the front eye, so it is shot at 1.4.
Walk to the edge.
Listen hard.
Pratice wellness.
Play with abandon.
Laugh.
Choose with no regrets.
Appreciate your friends.
Continue to learn.
Do what you love.
Live as if this is all there is.
And you LOVE your 70-200L at f/2.8, too
http://www.pbase.com/jimfuglestad/image/31398635
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I didn't know what happened to this thread, glad to see it was moved! (I'm still getting used to Dgrin's symbols, and I didn't see one that indicated it had moved from People). At any rate, mercphoto, your point is a very important one that I had not fully wrapped my head around, you explained it very well.
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=106052&forum_id=65&page=1
ok, so maybe its more condescending than hostile...still the point remains.
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
Thanks! I'm working at it.
Something I've tried recently that works well with newborns (NOT toddlers
My findings exactly, which prompted my initial question about this on Steve's...thanks for bringing it up here!
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
Here is a shot where, at least to my eyes, the short DoF works. His eyes are just at the back end of the DoF range which puts most of his facial features in resonable focus. Note that this is an unsharpened RAW conversion so it could be sharper with some work.
Here is a shot which would probably been better stopped down to f/4 or so:
Some other shots from this session are here:
http://liquidair.smugmug.com/gallery/1958795
Overall, I think I have a lot to learn about f/2 before I start pushing wider. While a lot of people wax lyrical about the 85 f/1.2, I want to get to the point where I am very comfortable with the 85 f/1.8 and the 135 f/2 before I even consider going there.
http://www.pbase.com/lardog
Wow Jim, those are some fantastic images, thanks for the info, it's making a lot of sense.
Thanks Bill, I think this is what they call joined up thinking, thanks for making this clear.
Liquidair, those are some lovely shots, well done.
I'm off to practice some more with my new 70-200 so I won't be going any wider than 2.8 for now anyway.
Charlie
Don't listen to fools.
Well ... yes. It's a matter of taste. In my opinion, these days people tend to confuse poor sharpness with 'feel' ... but when they like it ... A blurred background usually (not always) is visually pleasing in a portrait shot---but a face where everything but one eye is out of focus usually is not (exceptions may exist---as usual). So in most cases, the apertures used for head-only or face-only portraits on APS-C or 35-mm film are f/2.8 to f/4 (f/4 to f/8 for medium format). Smaller apertures are used when the photographer wants to deliberately include the surroundings into the portrait (e. g. a person at work or in his/her favourite place); wider apertures are used when forced to by poor lighting conditions.
If that is your mission then by all means go ahead! But don't expect this approach to work well in general.
-- Olaf
DOF calculators are used by some folks like a religiious ikon.
A better option for me is the use of the Depth of Field Preview button on my camera body. The image gets darker, but if you give it 10 or 15 seconds, the DOF becomes visible. After you do this a while, you can almost see it in your mind's eye while shooting.
SO f1.4, f2.8, f4 f5.6 f8, f11 their all good
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Agreed! In real life, DOF calculators are mostly useless, as they may give you an idea about the depth of the sharpness---but they miserably fail to give you an idea about the blur beyond the area of sharpness! And that actually is the most important part.
That definitely is true.
-- Olaf
For the sake of argument, I was not comparing a 35mm DOF to that of an 8x10 view cameras with the same lens.
Here is one quick reference that focal length is not a factor in DOF IF the subject is the same size - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
This approximation is only true if your focus distance is shorter than about half the hyperfocal distance. Since the hyperfocal distance varies with focal length, the DoF can vary with focal length. That said, portraits shot close to hyperfocal distance are rare in APS and 35mm format because of the distortions of wide angle lenses. If you are using a P&S you might get there.
Back to the OP's question: I went through the EXIF of some portraits I have taken and took some more just to test. My conclusion was this: unless you want to get the background in focus there is no reason ever to stop down beyond f/8 in 35mm or f/5.0 for APS (1.6 crop). A 3/4 view headshot on my 5D (35mm format) at f/5.6 was just a touch soft on one eye and you wouldn't notice that on prints less that 16x20. Straight on, you can shoot comfortably at f/4 since the ears can tolerate more blurring than the eyes. f/2.8 starts to get that "thin DoF" look, but it is still pretty easy to get both eyes in focus. f/2 and wider are challenging and need to be used carefully. Note: for APS format (1.6 crop) adjust all these apetures 1 1/3 stops wider.