Aperture: Wide Open or Closed?

[chuasam]

I use the Nikon 105mm f/1.4
I typically do my portraits at f/2.0 - f/3.2
I see what you mean about the background but I do headshots...basically product shots of people.

 

[mrca]

The photographer is responsible for everything within the frame. Background is one of the elements. All elements and their arrangement, camera controls, lenses, lighting should support the purpose of the shot. Hopefully, the photographer has a purpose. It helps to have equipment to achieve that vision. As Ansel said, there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy idea. A camera will help give you a sharp, well exposed image (my harshest critique of an image since a camera can do that alone on a tripod) but a photographer creates the image. You know you need to up grade when your gear won't allow you to meet your vision.

 

[espresso2x]

I'm pleased you posted this; i thought your f8 ISO800 pictures from the other day looked excellent. IMO wide open is very often problematic, with less than desirable DOF.

For years I would purchase wide aperture lenses for the effect of getting the most shallow depth of field, with the creamiest possible render of the out of focus background being one of the major goals. As of late though, I find myself using my lenses in the f/8 range outdoors in natural light as well as in studio, and rather than caring about the way the background is rendered by the lens, I pay more attention to making sure the background is something interesting that harmonizes well with the rest of the image. I still get a background blur, especially on the longer lenses, but I've found that I prefer the sharp focus of the more closed aperture and how it gets more of a person and their clothes in focus. My main lens is a Canon 85mm f/1.8.

What do you prefer?

 

[AlanKlein]

I think portraits should have the entire head in focus from the tip of the nose to the back of the head. Overly doing shallow DOF on portraits so that the ears are out of focus for example hurt the portraiture. Beyond that, blur or don't blur the background depending on your preference and the shot.
Example:
Janet fence by Alan Klein, on Flickr

 

[mrca]

I like the eyes in, ears out narrow dof. It really drives the viewer to the subjects eyes and frontal plane including lips, eyes and eye brows that show emotion.

 

[DanOstergren]

I think portraits should have the entire head in focus from the tip of the nose to the back of the head. Overly doing shallow DOF on portraits so that the ears are out of focus for example hurt the portraiture. Beyond that, blur or don't blur the background depending on your preference and the shot.
Example:
Janet fence by Alan Klein, on Flickr

It's absolutely up to personal preference. I don't mind if the ears are a bit out of focus, but it really bugs me to have the nose out of focus.

 

[DanOstergren]

The photographer is responsible for everything within the frame. Background is one of the elements. All elements and their arrangement, camera controls, lenses, lighting should support the purpose of the shot. Hopefully, the photographer has a purpose. It helps to have equipment to achieve that vision. As Ansel said, there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy idea. A camera will help give you a sharp, well exposed image (my harshest critique of an image since a camera can do that alone on a tripod) but a photographer creates the image. You know you need to up grade when your gear won't allow you to meet your vision.

I absolutely agree it all comes down to the photographer. I was just saying how the narrow aperture has improved my photos and caused me to put more focus on improving more elements to the photograph rather than just blurring everything but the person out.

 

[DanOstergren]

As someone who shoots portraits though, I find that the change has absolutely elevated my work to a higher level. It's not to say that I dislike a shallow dof though.

I don't think the depth of field change has moved your work to a higher level, or at least I don't think its helpful to think of it in those terms. Instead what its done is it has broadened your horizons and given you a wider degree of creative skills and creative thinking to work with. That's not to say that the smaller aperture stuff is better, nor it is worse - what it is is simply different.
There is a trap that we can all fall into which is that when we start out we ask "what settings should I use for *insert subject/situation*". And by and large most situations will have rough to very specific guidelines which will be commonly used to achieve what the majority consider a pleasing photo. The trap is that once we learn that we don't expand our horizons outside of it (esp since often as not having learned the standard method, we see an improvement in our photography in general).

Macro is a fine example where most people advise and use a small aperture - many often get to a point where small apertures are not just desirable, but a defining requirement (I've even seen a few people defining macro photography as not just close up or highly magnified, but where the use of a small aperture is part of their definition for it). It closes their mind to experimenting outside of those guidelines that they built for themselves.
Furthermore experimenting outside can often be harder; the standard method is not only often a pleasing result, but also the most practical and easier to master. Moving outside things can get harder in ways that they weren't before. Eg dealing with the wider apertures in macro the razor thin depth of field gets even thinner and more critical to place - meanwhile in portraits (as you are doing) using a smaller aperture is now bringing the background more into focus than ever before so now you've really got to pay attention to things which, in the past, you might have totally ignored.

We can definitely have different opinions on this. I absolutely believe the change in depth of field (as a singular element to the shot) has significantly elevated my portrait and fashion work.

 

[weepete]

Is that because you're paying more attention to the background though?

But to answer the original question I have a very slight bias towards smaller apertures. I tend to like complex images with quite a lot going on compositionally, though it can be harder to get to balance. Both small and large apertures have their place though, and as long as it works with the shot they can both be a valid choice.

 

[mrca]

Dan, I often shoot nothing but black and white as an exercise to highten my awareness of light and shadow. Keeping the background sharp adds more elements inside the frame that the photographer must compose. It's why my 8mm fisheye is the most difficult lens in the bag. I even have to be careful not to get my feet in the shot since it is a 180 degree angle of view. On the other hand, my 400mm 2.8 has a narrow angle of view that simplifies the image and the razor thin dof makes it even smaller. For me, the dof depends on the purpose of the shot and whether the background contributes to or detracts from my message. In my portrait work, the frontal face plane is often what I want to emphasize with the expression contained in it. Ears and nose tip don't contribute to expression so to maximize the frontal plane, shallow dof helps maximize my vision. Totally different from a location shot where the location explains or contributes to the meaning of the shot and needs to be sharp as well as the subject.

 

[DanOstergren]

Dan, I often shoot nothing but black and white as an exercise to highten my awareness of light and shadow. Keeping the background sharp adds more elements inside the frame that the photographer must compose. It's why my 8mm fisheye is the most difficult lens in the bag. I even have to be careful not to get my feet in the shot since it is a 180 degree angle of view. On the other hand, my 400mm 2.8 has a narrow angle of view that simplifies the image and the razor thin dof makes it even smaller. For me, the dof depends on the purpose of the shot and whether the background contributes to or detracts from my message. In my portrait work, the frontal face plane is often what I want to emphasize with the expression contained in it. Ears and nose tip don't contribute to expression so to maximize the frontal plane, shallow dof helps maximize my vision. Totally different from a location shot where the location explains or contributes to the meaning of the shot and needs to be sharp as well as the subject.

To each their own, I'm simply explaining how it has improved my own portrait and fashion work. We all do things differently, and I prefer not to shoot wide open.

 

[DanOstergren]

Is that because you're paying more attention to the background though?

But to answer the original question I have a very slight bias towards smaller apertures. I tend to like complex images with quite a lot going on compositionally, though it can be harder to get to balance. Both small and large apertures have their place though, and as long as it works with the shot they can both be a valid choice.

I'm absolutely paying more attention to the background, rather than letting it melt away.

 

[mrca]

Dan, there is no right or wrong. As McNally said, they aren't rules they are sort of guidelines. However, leaving in a cluttered, distracting background is usually not desirable. Fashion needs the clothing to be emphasized and is often shot on white or gray seamless to eliminate anything from competing with the product. Shallow dof places the attention on the subject or face in portraiture. But we all have our preferences and that is what develops our style.

 

[keen.observer]

For myself-family snaps, vacation photos, etc-I like sharp backgrounds. For other people-clients, family members wanting portraits, etc-I go for Bokeh.

 

[AlanKlein]

For myself-family snaps, vacation photos, etc-I like sharp backgrounds. For other people-clients, family members wanting portraits, etc-I go for Bokeh.

Me too. One of the advantages of P&S's and my 1 inch Sony beside how handy they are to carry on vacation.