"couples" photo...

Briggie · September 8, 2007

Need some tips on how to take a portrait of two people, couples if you wish, and not have them side by side looking like "American Gothic", but still having both people's faces on focus. I'm sure i could open the aperture up a bit, but i don't want to lose all that bokeh!... any tricks you could share would be great!

ShepsMom · September 8, 2007

I'm not as proficient as some here, but what i would do, is open wider apperture and do bg bluring in PS. There probably is a way, but i'm not aware of it. Will see what others have to say.

Briggie · September 8, 2007

ShepsMom wrote:

I'm not as proficient as some here, but what i would do, is open wider apperture and do bg bluring in PS. There probably is a way, but i'm not aware of it. Will see what others have to say.

That's a good trick...but i'm not much of a whiz at PS just yet! Might be some incentive to get better at it, though! ;-)

Cheers!
Brige

OffTopic · September 9, 2007

I'm not a portrait photographer, and I'm sure one of them will know off the top of their head the magic combination(s)...but I use this on-line DOF calculator. Most people only think about the aperature, and don't realize that the focal length of the lens plays a part in the formula as well. Play around with different focal lengths and aperatures and see the effect on the distances in front of and behind your subject that will remain in focus.

An easier way would be to move them further from the background so you can use a smaller aperature and still keep a nice background blur. The calculator I linked to will help with that as well.

Hope that helps or at least gives you something to play around with until a more knowledgeable person responds with something so easy it makes us shake our heads.

I'm jealous of people who just know it off the top of their head and don't have to think about it as much as I do!

Briggie · September 9, 2007

OffTopic wrote:

I'm not a portrait photographer, and I'm sure one of them will know off the top of their head the magic combination(s)...but I use this on-line DOF calculator. Most people only think about the aperature, and don't realize that the focal length of the lens plays a part in the formula as well. Play around with different focal lengths and aperatures and see the effect on the distances in front of and behind your subject that will remain in focus.

An easier way would be to move them further from the background so you can use a smaller aperature and still keep a nice background blur. The calculator I linked to will help with that as well.

Hope that helps or at least gives you something to play around with until a more knowledgeable person responds with something so easy it makes us shake our heads.

I'm jealous of people who just know it off the top of their head and don't have to think about it as much as I do!

Thanks for the cool link, Lori! I've book marked the page! its certainly a good start, and like you say, maybe someone will have a no-brainer technique to add!!

i'm jealous of those people too!!:D

cheers!
Brige

Scott_Quier · September 11, 2007

What Lori had to say has a lot of merit - good advice.

To add:

Opening the aperture is making the aperture larger, smaller f-stop numbers, decreases the DOF, increasing the potential for brokeh. Stopping down the lens it just the reverse.
Rule of Thumb: For any given focal length, getting the lens closer to the subject and the subject further from the background will decrease the DOF, increasing the background brokeh, but also increasing the chances that one of your subjects will be OOF.
The DOF calculator that Lori pointed to is a very nice tool. Use it to determine for a given focal length and aperture, what positional relationships between your subjects, your camera, and your background to obtain to get the desired DOF.
There's a link (linkie) on the page Lori pointed to that provides a download for a DOF calculator for Palm OS. Now that's a useful tool!!! One more reason why I have a Palm PDA!

Briggie · September 11, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

What Lori had to say has a lot of merit - good advice.

To add:
Opening the aperture is making the aperture larger, smaller f-stop numbers, decreases the DOF, increasing the potential for brokeh. Stopping down the lens it just the reverse.

Rule of Thumb: For any given focal length, getting the lens closer to the subject and the subject further from the background will decrease the DOF, increasing the background brokeh, but also increasing the chances that one of your subjects will be OOF.

The DOF calculator that Lori pointed to is a very nice tool. Use it to determine for a given focal length and aperture, what positional relationships between your subjects, your camera, and your background to obtain to get the desired DOF.

There's a link (linkie) on the page Lori pointed to that provides a download for a DOF calculator for Palm OS. Now that's a useful tool!!! One more reason why I have a Palm PDA!

thanks Scott,

okay...so if i stop down, but bring my subjects farther away from the
background, i may still get a somewhat pleasing bokeh? Then there would be less chance one of the two subjects would be OOF? Guess its a matter of practicing and seeing what works and what doesn't?? gotta love digital for pain-free practicing!!

The palm Ap is pretty cool...but i'm a Mac girl.. so much for a good excuse to buy a new toy!!

Scott_Quier · September 11, 2007

Briggie wrote:

thanks Scott,

okay...so if i stop down, but bring my subjects farther away from the
background, i may still get a somewhat pleasing bokeh? Then there would be less chance one of the two subjects would be OOF? Guess its a matter of practicing and seeing what works and what doesn't?? gotta love digital for pain-free practicing!!

Yes. Using the calculator will reduce the amount of time you spend experimenting or will, at least, help determine the direction of your experimentation.

Briggie wrote:

The palm Ap is pretty cool...but i'm a Mac girl.. so much for a good excuse to buy a new toy!!

Here's your excuse to buy a new toy!

Palm Pilots will sync with Mac just fine, maybe even better than with a PC - opinions vary. The application that is installed on the Palm is nothing but a data file as far as either a PC or Mac is concerned. So, just because you are burdened

with a Mac is no reason for not also having a Palm PDA - they do play well together. And, I find the PDA to be very useful in helping me keep my life approximating a sense of order.

So, consider this permission to consider a new toy!

Briggie · September 11, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

Yes. Using the calculator will reduce the amount of time you spend experimenting or will, at least, help determine the direction of your experimentation.

Here's your excuse to buy a new toy!

Palm Pilots will sync with Mac just fine, maybe even better than with a PC - opinions vary. The application that is installed on the Palm is nothing but a data file as far as either a PC or Mac is concerned. So, just because you are burdened with a Mac is no reason for not also having a Palm PDA - they do play well together. And, I find the PDA to be very useful in helping me keep my life approximating a sense of order.

So, consider this permission to consider a new toy!

Ah...you rock Scott!!! I should never have doubted Apple's capacity to play well with others! :ivar... excellent! And Palms have improved quite a bit since i had one in my prior PC life!! ;-) i had gone back to the stone age for a while with the tried and true paper agenda, but could certainly find good use for a homeless PDA:D!!

Thanks for the info!!

and Happy Patriot's Day!
Brige

Shane422 · September 11, 2007

There is also a commercial product called the Expoaperture for use in the field for those of us without a palm pilot. Its made by the same people who make the Expodisc. I believe you can also get this at Adorama or B&H.

Briggie · September 12, 2007

Shane422 wrote:

There is also a commercial product called the Expoaperture for use in the field for those of us without a palm pilot. Its made by the same people who make the Expodisc. I believe you can also get this at Adorama or B&H.

Well now, that could be pretty interesting!! fits right into the old gig bag too!! thanks Shane!

Brige

jeffreaux2 · September 12, 2007

Excellent Question.....

I fumbled around with the same problem for awhile. I learned the hard way, through many bad photos. Distance to BG is paramount if you want it blurred. Smaller aperature is paramount if you want subjects in focus. I have found that with two people, it is best to try and get their faces in the same focal plane....the same distance to the lens. Even if they seem exactly the same distance, F1.8 to 2.8 is usually WAAAAAY too shallow to keep both in focus. F3.5 might be about as far as I will go, but I find that F4 shots are about where my lenses begin to peak in sharpness anyway. If there are more than 2 in the shot, I generally start out at F5.6. Here you will sometimes lose the ability to blur the BG. For really large groups....teams....I will shoot at the smallest aperature I can use and maintain a reasonable shutter speed. Now about that Background. You seem bent on blurring. Keep in mind that it is not always neccessary to blur the BG. If the BG is attractive, and non distracting then there is really no need to blur. I would rather this....either a bg with absolutely nothing made made in it, or a bg with very very interesting archetecture in it. Either way, if it is blurred or not I am ok. It is tricky to blur a bg in photoshop and sell it off as in camera depth of focus, but it isn't impossible.

Focal length of lens also plays a big part. Tough to blur anything at wide angles!

Here is an example or two
1.F7.1 at 28mm.....

2.F5 at 32mm....

3.F8 at 75mm

Briggie · September 12, 2007

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Excellent Question.....

I fumbled around with the same problem for awhile. I learned the hard way, through many bad photos. Distance to BG is paramount if you want it blurred. Smaller aperature is paramount if you want subjects in focus. I have found that with two people, it is best to try and get their faces in the same focal plane....the same distance to the lens. Even if they seem exactly the same distance, F1.8 to 2.8 is usually WAAAAAY too shallow to keep both in focus. F3.5 might be about as far as I will go, but I find that F4 shots are about where my lenses begin to peak in sharpness anyway. If there are more than 2 in the shot, I generally start out at F5.6. Here you will sometimes lose the ability to blur the BG. For really large groups....teams....I will shoot at the smallest aperature I can use and maintain a reasonable shutter speed. Now about that Background. You seem bent on blurring. Keep in mind that it is not always neccessary to blur the BG. If the BG is attractive, and non distracting then there is really no need to blur. I would rather this....either a bg with absolutely nothing made made in it, or a bg with very very interesting archetecture in it. Either way, if it is blurred or not I am ok. It is tricky to blur a bg in photoshop and sell it off as in camera depth of focus, but it isn't impossible.

You're so right!! i've been so focused on DOF and bokeh, that i've forgotten all about just using an interesting BG!! kinda like not seeing the forest for the trees!! thanks very much for that point of view/reminder!!

I agree with you on blurring in post...i've seen it done in this forum, and more often than not, i tell right off! not nice at all...

Thanks Jeffreaux!!

jeffreaux2 · September 12, 2007

Briggie wrote:

You're so right!! i've been so focused on DOF and bokeh, that i've forgotten all about just using an interesting BG!! kinda like not seeing the forest for the trees!! thanks very much for that point of view/reminder!!

I agree with you on blurring in post...i've seen it done in this forum, and more often than not, i tell right off! not nice at all...

Thanks Jeffreaux!!

Another thing.......nothing beats knowing what you can and cannot get away with when using your own equipment. The charts and guides probably would be a great idea, but I wouldn't want to be so reliant on that as to be fumbling around looking up numbers while one of lifes incredible moments slips away.

Briggie · September 12, 2007

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Another thing.......nothing beats knowing what you can and cannot get away with when using your own equipment. The charts and guides probably would be a great idea, but I wouldn't want to be so reliant on that as to be fumbling around looking up numbers while one of lifes incredible moments slips away.

too right!! thanks for the pearls of wisdom! love your pics, so means a lot!!
Still discovering my D50, but its been a lot of fun along the way!!
cheers!
brige

Briggie · September 12, 2007

One last thing, jeff...were the pics you had in your post taken with your Tam 28-75?... and how do you like that lens for portraits? looks good from the posts!! i've been tossing around the idea of getting one... right now my portrait lens is my nifty fifty 1.8... think its worth getting the Tam??

jeffreaux2 · September 13, 2007

Tamron

Briggie wrote:

One last thing, jeff...were the pics you had in your post taken with your Tam 28-75?... and how do you like that lens for portraits? looks good from the posts!! i've been tossing around the idea of getting one... right now my portrait lens is my nifty fifty 1.8... think its worth getting the Tam??

Yes all three were taken with that lens. It is still used more often than any of my other lenses. I bought it for me for christmas last year. If the Nikon 501.8 performs similar to the canon plastic fantastic 50mmF1.8 I can give you a good comparison. My 50mm is pretty dang finicky/unforgiving at F1.8 to 2.8...after that it starts behaving a little better. It is a $70 lens, and the small amout that it is maybe misfocusing can ruin things real quick at those aperatures IF I am not paying real close attention to what I am doing. Of course by F4 it is nearly hard to imagine that I am using a sub $100 lense, as it is razor sharp.

The Tamron isn't quite as sharp, but is very predictable at all aperatures. It behaves the same at F2.8 as at F8. The bokeh is more pleasing....more aperature blades. It is built well. It is sharper than the kit lense, but it is very rare to find a zoom lense that is as sharp as a prime. Mine is a tad soft at 28mm. I have the box and paperwork in my truck, and even talked to Tamron's customer service about the lense (they were very knowledgable and welcoming). They said it is possible that the lense is front focusing a small amount. I have seen threads on other forums of others with Canon cameras and 1.6X crop sensors having this issue, but have not heard of anyone with Nikon or other brands having this issue. I was told to include the camera make/model# if I send it in so that they can calibrate it for that specific camera. Everyone that I have read that sent theirs in for this seem satisfied after calibration. It is a small annoyance for me, as it is only noticable at large aperatures, and 28mm, AND if the subject is 30 or so feet away or more. It does fine at smaller aperatures for landscapes and such. Now why have I not sent it in yet? Because it is my most used lense. I always seem to have something scheduled that I do not want to be without it for that particular shoot. It is plenty sharp enough for my small time portrait sales, and most of my work has been done with it. Oh well I am nearly ready to just send it and if I HAVE to have a wide angle lense for something, just use the kit lense. The real joy is the 6......SIX year warranty!!!! THAT IS AWESOME!!! So I hope I haven't scared you away from it as it truely is a good lense. There are some others on this forum who use it and will probably tell you pretty much the same. If mine broke....I would replace it with another Tamron 28-75.......Now you see it...YES I reccomend it. I would probably feel the same way about it if it were a $700 lense, but as you know it only costs half that.

There are other photos in my galleries that I have used it for....if you need a password to view ant feel free to send a private message.

Also, there are a handfull of pictures still on my old pbase site, plenty of samples there too.

www.pbase.com/jeffreaux2

Giselle · September 13, 2007

how about going another way?
When I take pictures of a gay couple I want to make sure they aren't mistaken for just friends or brothers or sisters. So I like to get a group of shots... some have no face or one face or the other. Then they buy more too!
examples...

Briggie · September 13, 2007

Giselle wrote:

When I take pictures of a gay couple I want to make sure they aren't mistaken for just friends or brothers or sisters. So I like to get a group of shots... some have no face or one face or the other. Then they buy more too!
examples...

yeah..i have others in this set that are a little more intimate. I don't think they are used to being photographed this way as a couple. we have plans of going out again, and just take pics of the two of them. these were taken at the end of a day's shoot of the guy in the foreground. His partner is a bit of challenge to get on film

...you know when someone says they aren't very photogenic, your first instinct is to say "yeah, sure...wait til you see the pics i can make of you!"...well, he's right!! its almost impossible to get a shot off where he's not blinking or something! But, i love a challenge!!

Cheers!
Brige

Briggie · September 13, 2007

Thanks for the info Jeff...you've confirmed what i've heard about this lens! and the idea of a christmas gift to myself is a very good one indeed!!

It's now officially on my wish list!! Thanks for helping me out on that one!!

Ciao!
Brige

Giselle · September 14, 2007

Briggie wrote:

His partner is a bit of challenge to get on film ...you know when someone says they aren't very photogenic, your first instinct is to say "yeah, sure...wait til you see the pics i can make of you!"...well, he's right!! its almost impossible to get a shot off where he's not blinking or something! But, i love a challenge!!

that would be my huband too, he looks like he is in pain every time

pathfinder · September 15, 2007

Brige,

I have written several threads here on dgrin about the value to be found in the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di.

I think it compares favorably with my Canon 24-70 f2.8 L.

The Tammy 28-75 is sharp, fast, small, light and inexpensive. I posted a series of shots with a 5D with it, so it is serviceable on a full frame body, although it is better for a crop body.

I bought it several years ago as my first purchase to use on a Canon 10D. The Canon 10D is long gone, but I still use the Tammy on my newer bodies. It has travelled over numerous mountain passes on my motorcycle, and continues to deliver first rate image quality. It has not lead an easy life, but keeps on ticking.

I have numerous 13x19 images shot with it - for the money, it can't be beat.

I can post links to images shot with it if you want to see them.

Briggie · September 15, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Brige,

I have written several threads here on dgrin about the value to be found in the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di.

I think it compares favorably with my Canon 24-70 f2.8 L.

The Tammy 28-75 is sharp, fast, small, light and inexpensive. I posted a series of shots with a 5D with it, so it is serviceable on a full frame body, although it is better for a crop body.

I bought it several years ago as my first purchase to use on a Canon 10D. The Canon 10D is long gone, but I still use the Tammy on my newer bodies. It has travelled over numerous mountain passes on my motorcycle, and continues to deliver first rate image quality. It has not lead an easy life, but keeps on ticking.

I have numerous 13x19 images shot with it - for the money, it can't be beat.

I can post links to images shot with it if you want to see them.

For sure!! I'd love to see them! Is it true that it gives f2.8 through the whole focal range? Thanks for your review! Definitely on my wish list, and with a few pics to back it up, might just be able to get it past the family banker!!

cheers!
Brige

Briggie · September 15, 2007

Giselle wrote:

that would be my huband too, he looks like he is in pain every time

just realized that i've got one of your pics in a post i made a page back... just wanted you to know that i have NO idea how that managed to get there!!!

i took a look at your smugmug port, but never did i link any images!! really weird! just wanted you to know that i wasn't trying to pass that off as my own!!...

have a great weekend, Giselle!
Brige

jeffreaux2 · September 15, 2007

Briggie wrote:

For sure!! I'd love to see them! Is it true that it gives f2.8 through the whole focal range? Thanks for your review! Definitely on my wish list, and with a few pics to back it up, might just be able to get it past the family banker!!

cheers!
Brige

Yes....constant F2.8 is available at ALL focal lengths on that lens.

Briggie · September 15, 2007

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Yes....constant F2.8 is available at ALL focal lengths on that lens.

sweet...thanks jeff!

Scott_Quier · September 16, 2007

RE: Tammy 28-75 f/2.8

with everything PF had to say about this Tammy. I can't compare it against the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L as I've never held one of these in my hands.

I shot my first two weddings with this lens (the tammy) and found it to be sharp and fast. The AF tended to hunt a touch in very dark environs (read: at the reception). All that having been said, I think it's a very good lens and one that I will not sell off anytime soon - it's just too versatile.

Briggie · September 16, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

with everything PF had to say about this Tammy. I can't compare it against the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L as I've never held one of these in my hands.

I shot my first two weddings with this lens (the tammy) and found it to be sharp and fast. The AF tended to hunt a touch in very dark environs (read: at the reception). All that having been said, I think it's a very good lens and one that I will not sell off anytime soon - it's just too versatile.

Great... well, i guess that about clinches it! will certainly invest in one! all i have right now as a passable portrait lens is my nifty fifty. It's a really great prime for the money, but i found that even it can be a little long if you're in a cramped space... Tammy it is!

Cheers Scott!
Brige

Scott_Quier · September 18, 2007

Briggie wrote:

Great... well, i guess that about clinches it! will certainly invest in one! all i have right now as a passable portrait lens is my nifty fifty. It's a really great prime for the money, but i found that even it can be a little long if you're in a cramped space... Tammy it is!

Cheers Scott!
Brige

There's one for sale in the flea market right now - you can see it here.

Briggie · September 18, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

There's one for sale in the flea market right now - you can see it here.

I saw that... unfortunately, its a Canon mount. I'm a Nikon girl!

Also, with the exchange, shipping, possibly duty if it's by UPS, i could probably pick one up new for not much more, and get the whole of the great warranty..

But thanks for the info!

Scott_Quier · September 18, 2007

Briggie wrote:

I saw that... unfortunately, its a Canon mount. I'm a Nikon girl! Also, with the exchange, shipping, possibly duty if it's by UPS, i could probably pick one up new for not much more, and get the whole of the great warranty..

But thanks for the info!

Oooops, Mia Culpa!

"couples" photo...

Comments