Portraits f1.8 f2.8 f4

Strangways

Strangways

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,195
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
Okay so everybody agrees that a nifty fifty f1.8 is a good sharp portrait lens, but what aperture do you really use for portraits?

Eyes in focus with a blurred nose and ears doesn't seem quite right, so f1.8 isn't ideal. f2.8 is also a bit marginal so f4 seems the better choice.

What aperture and do you use for portraits? Obviously it will depend on the focal length of the lens, but I don't belive that an f1.8 lens is of any advantage.
 
Last edited:
With or without flash?
Low-light artificial ambient or warm evening sun?

There are so many variables, and the benefits of the nifty-fifty are at their best in low light situations rather than studio portraits. Although personally, I find the fifty to be always either too short or too long for portraits.
 
Alastair said:
With or without flash?
Low-light artificial ambient or warm evening sun?

There are so many variables, and the benefits of the nifty-fifty are at their best in low light situations rather than studio portraits. Although personally, I find the fifty to be always either too short or too long for portraits.
Click to expand...

What I'm trying to say Alistair is that I think f1.8 is to shallow a depth of field for portraits. I like all of the face to be in focus, not just the eyes. I never use f1.8 for portraits, but it seems a lot of people find that as long as the eyes are in focus it is okay.
 
Garden, twelve photographers will have thirteen opinions on what makes a good portrait.. and it's diversity that makes it interesting, tools for the job.. but the right tool will vary not only with the job but also with the person using the tool.

Personally, I'll generally use anything between about f/2 and f/8 for a portrait.. it depends on the mood I want to create.
 
Strangways said:
What I'm trying to say Alistair is that I think f1.8 is to shallow a depth of field for portraits. I like all of the face to be in focus, not just the eyes. I never use f1.8 for portraits, but it seems a lot of people find that as long as the eyes are in focus it is okay.
Click to expand...

Yup, I seldom use 1.8 for portraits either.

1.2 & 1.4 is where its at :D



 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Yup, I seldom use 1.8 for portraits either.

1.2 & 1.4 is where its at :D
*Snippy snip - images removed*
Click to expand...

Raymond, love the processing on both of those shots...what have you done with them?!
 
Last edited:
I love them too Raymond, but I do prefer portraits all in focus. The hair on the bottom left of the first photo is very distracting.
 
nope don't think the 50mm f1.8 is a sharp portrait lens lol

the aperture you use is dependant on the DOF you require.

Strangways said:
Okay so everybody agrees that a nifty fifty f1.8 is a good sharp portrait lens, but what aperture do you really use for portraits?

Eyes in focus with a blurred nose and ears doesn't seem quite right, so f1.8 isn't ideal. f2.8 is also a bit marginal so f4 seems the better choice.

What aperture and do you use for portraits? Obviously it will depend on the focal length of the lens, but I don't belive that an f1.8 lens is of any advantage.
Click to expand...
 
POAH said:
see I think the DOF used on those images is far too thin.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and you are entitled to that but in my opinion they are perfect.

Hell, the second one could be F/15 and you are not really seeing anymore as they are lying flat on the floor.
 
Gordon, if you don't like shallow DOF, then there's no point in spending the extra money on a fast lens. Personally when it comes to portraits and even in the studio, I'll stick between 1.4 and 2.8 :)
 
treeman said:
Gordon, if you don't like shallow DOF, then there's no point in spending the extra money on a fast lens. Personally when it comes to portraits and even in the studio, I'll stick between 1.4 and 2.8 :)
Click to expand...

Is that because you feel blurred noses and hair make a good portrait as long as the eyes are in focus? Or am I missing something?
 
Raymond Lin said:
That is your opinion and you are entitled to that but in my opinion they are perfect.

Hell, the second one could be F/15 and you are not really seeing anymore as they are lying flat on the floor.
Click to expand...

don't get me wrong DOF can be small on portraits.
 
Strangways said:
Is that because you feel blurred noses and hair make a good portrait as long as the eyes are in focus? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Art is subjective, so it could be said that we're all missing something as we all have different tastes.
 
Strangways said:
Okay so everybody agrees that a nifty fifty f1.8 is a good sharp portrait lens, but what aperture do you really use for portraits?
Click to expand...

I don't. Long time since I picked up that lens.

Strangways said:
Eyes in focus with a blurred nose and ears doesn't seem quite right,
Click to expand...

That depends on the shot, doesn't bother me if it's well taken.

Strangways said:
What aperture and do you use for portraits?
Click to expand...

Whatever aperture the look I want dictates. Or what the light dictates if there's nothing I can do about it.

Strangways said:
Obviously it will depend on the focal length of the lens,
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Focal length has nothing to do with what aperture you use.

You're the one taking the portrait, if you don't like shooting with a shallow depth of field, then save your cash, and don't buy a wide aperture lens.

To get the whole face/head/hair in sharp focus will depend on your framing and the aperture you use. Practice makes perfect as they say. :thumbs:
 
f8, 1/125th to 1/200th usually fro portraits. I find most expect all the image to be in focus.
Occasionally I'll mix with a shallow depth of field, baby feet etc.
 
Strangways said:
Is that because you feel blurred noses and hair make a good portrait as long as the eyes are in focus? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Quite simply, yes. I think so, and my clients think so too. However I'm sure they'll be just as many who don't.
It's art, you either like it or you don't, unfortunately photography also involves science, but the trick is to acknowledge that, and not be ruled by it :)
 
50mm lens at f1.8 with the subject at 8 feet away (studio distance?), you get 6" of depth of field, only 4" at 6 feet, so you've got to be fairly spot on and at that distance you're going to get some hair at the back of the head out of focus, especially with long, curvy, whispy hair.

At f8 at 8 foot distance, you've got 29" depth of field, so plenty to get the whole subject in.

Now artistically is another matter
 
sorry i'm wrong, what i mean is focusing on something in the foreground compared to background, using mm was just my rubbish way of explaining it, wrongly.

what i meant was f1.8 will give a different depth of field focusing on something 5 metres away compared to 100 metres away.

for instance, if i set my 24-105L to F4, and take a portrait picture at 24mm, then zoom in to 105mm(still F4) but step right back so the composition of the fram is the same, the depth of field will be different in the two shots.

does that make sence? or am i waffling still? lol
 
Last edited:
Andy_S said:
It does if you are aiming for a specific depth of field :-)
Click to expand...

You are correct Andy, if you want a specific depth of field at a fixed aperture and distance this can be achieved by changing the focal length.
 
Alan_T said:
what i meant was f1.8 will give a different depth of field focusing on something 5 metres away compared to 100 metres away.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will, because your magnification will be very different. But that's assuming you stay at f/1.8 (or whatever).

Alan_T said:
for instance, if i set my 24-105L to F4, and take a portrait picture at 24mm, then zoom in to 105mm(still F4) but step right back so the composition of the fram is the same, the depth of field will be different in the two shots.
Click to expand...

No it won't. The background in your shots will be different, but if you frame the person's face the same, then the depth of field will be almost exactly the same.


Strangways said:
You are correct Andy, if you want a specific depth of field at a fixed aperture and distance this can be achieved by changing the focal length.
Click to expand...

True, but changing the focal length will give you a completely different picture, with different framing - which is what actually effects the depth of field. (Magnification of your subject).

This is a pretty dull topic which has been discussed ad infinitum though. :)
 
Just jumping in to support James who is correct in what he's saying.

Only two things affect depth of field. Magnification and aperture.
 
Thirded for James opinion. :thumbs:

joescrivens said:
What makes you think that 1.8 or lowers results in out of focus noses and ears?

these were all shot between 1.6 and f/2 no out of focus noses or ears here



Click to expand...


Yeah but they're not very close so thats why you have enough DoF. Like in the closest one her hands are oof. :)
Could we argue the aims of the shot above would have benefited with say half a stop more? The background would sill be way oof and pretty, just not quite so manic and all of her hands would be in the sharper Dof range. Sure its subjective but I'm guessing you didn't intended her hands to be just oof like that?
 
Nose and ears out of focus ;)
5642978868_90549430ce_z.jpg


f/2, 1/125, ISO100. Shot with probably the best natural lighting for portraits I've ever encountered. She was sitting on her coffee table and I was sitting in a chair in the bay window of her room. Afternoon summer sun was reflecting off the white houses across the street and flowing into the room through the window.
 
woosh ! that is the sound of this convo going right over my head ....one day i will understand all this lol :)
 
Raymond Lin said:
As much as I want to tell the world I am afraid I can't share that.

It it is all done in LR anyway, no special actions in PS.
Click to expand...

Nae worries, if its all LR stuff then it narrows down what I might expect in PS! ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top