Creek Portrait Session

[CherylL]

My niece and her son were in town for a short visit. Fortunately weather was good and we did a creek session. With all of the rain last week the creek is up and flowing swiftly. I had to cancel a session with a friend. My go to lens for portraits outside is the 135мм, but went with 50мм because of the short distance. I wore water shoes so I could move about to the different rocks in the creek.
C&C welcome

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

 

[jeffashman]

A very nice set of images!

 

[CherylL]

A very nice set of images!

Thanks Jeff! Love the creek setting.

 

[smoke665]

You have posing and locations nailed! Only negative comment (and it's a fetish with me), is eye focus (both). I've shot a lot of portraits wide open but when doing so, you have to be extremely cognizant of the focal plane especially with a short focal length. You're DOF is so thin that if the subjects head is turned even a little one eye will be OF. That's why it's better to use a 200mm (as DOF is a function of aperture and distance to subject) you can open up that DOF by moving further away, the compression factor also helps to seperate the subject from the background. I've also mentioned a off camera bare flash high on a stand will really open up the shadows in the eyes.

 

[CherylL]

You have posing and locations nailed! Only negative comment (and it's a fetish with me), is eye focus (both). I've shot a lot of portraits wide open but when doing so, you have to be extremely cognizant of the focal plane especially with a short focal length. You're DOF is so thin that if the subjects head is turned even a little one eye will be OF. That's why it's better to use a 200mm (as DOF is a function of aperture and distance to subject) you can open up that DOF by moving further away, the compression factor also helps to seperate the subject from the background. I've also mentioned a off camera bare flash high on a stand will really open up the shadows in the eyes.

Thanks for the feedback Bill. Agree on the DOF is better with a longer focal length. I need to keep that in mind when I use the 50 vs the 135.
For OCF, I don't have a trigger for the R6. The one I have is for the 5D which I no longer have that camera. My assistant to hold the flash didn't want to get his feet wet and I wouldn't want him to fall at his age. Spots in the creek were very slippery.

I do miss using my flash. What trigger receiver do you recommend for the R6?

 

[smoke665]

do miss using my flash. What trigger receiver do you recommend for the R6?

As the flash used in this scenario is not intended to overide the ambient just fill for the shadows, you don't need much for a trigger. Set the flash on manual, probably won't even need to meter. Any cheap generic trigger with a center pin should work. Neewer has a set for less than $40, simple to operate. If your camera and flash supports wireless you may not even need a trigger.

 

[Thiophilos]

... it's better to use a 200mm (as DOF is a function of aperture and distance to subject) you can open up that DOF by moving further away, the compression factor also helps to seperate the subject from the background. ...

... Agree on the DOF is better with a longer focal length.

The benefit of using a longer focal length is that the background becomes blurrier and gives better subject isolation. But the DOF stays the same (for the same framing) with the same aperture.

For the same framing, same sensor format, and same viewing conditions, only aperture affects DOF.

Here are some numbers with DOF calculated by DOFMaster.

F 50mm, distance 25 ft, f/2.8: DOF is 13.8 ft
F 200mm, distance 100 ft, f/2.8: DOF is 12.9 ft.

Well darn, they are not exactly the same. But they are within engineering precision.

What I said breaks down as one gets close to the hyperfocal distance, but DOF isn't usually a concern then.

 

[smoke665]

F 50mm, distance 25 ft, f/2.8: DOF is 13.8 ft
F 200mm, distance 100 ft, f/2.8: DOF is 12.9 ft.

Might want to recheck your numbers, the total DOF on a 50 mm, f/2.8, at 25 ft from the subject is not 13.8 ft, it will vary some depending on model/brand but is more on the order of +/- 8 ft.

What your missing is FOV, 25 ft from subject on a 50mm or 100 ft on a 200mm are unrealistic distances for a portrait unless it's part of an environmental shot. Depending on the shot (full length, head & shoulders, head shot), to fill the frame you'll be more on the order of 4-12 ft on a 50 mm that will get you a DOF in the range of less than 2" to roughly 21". With my 200mm f/2.8 it isn't really practical for full length because of the distance to subject required for sufficient FOV. Typically I'm shooting head or head & shoulders in the range of 15-25 ft distance. That equates to a DOF of +/- 2" to 6".

I doubt you'll see many portraits shot at a hyperfocal distance.

 

[Thiophilos]

Might want to recheck your numbers, the total DOF on a 50 mm, f/2.8, at 25 ft from the subject is not 13.8 ft, it will vary some depending on model/brand but is more on the order of +/- 8 ft.

What your missing is FOV, 25 ft from subject on a 50mm or 100 ft on a 200mm are unrealistic distances for a portrait unless it's part of an environmental shot. Depending on the shot (full length, head & shoulders, head shot), to fill the frame you'll be more on the order of 4-12 ft on a 50 mm that will get you a DOF in the range of less than 2" to roughly 21". With my 200mm f/2.8 it isn't really practical for full length because of the distance to subject required for sufficient FOV. Typically I'm shooting head or head & shoulders in the range of 15-25 ft distance. That equates to a DOF of +/- 2" to 6".

I doubt you'll see many portraits shot at a hyperfocal distance.

The DOF numbers are from DOFMaster. They use a CoC of 0.03 mm. I would prefer 0.02, and that does indeed give a DOF of about 8 ft as you say.

Agreed about distances, but they were just an example.

 

[CherylL]

The benefit of using a longer focal length is that the background becomes blurrier and gives better subject isolation. But the DOF stays the same (for the same framing) with the same aperture.

For the same framing, same sensor format, and same viewing conditions, only aperture affects DOF.

Here are some numbers with DOF calculated by DOFMaster.

F 50mm, distance 25 ft, f/2.8: DOF is 13.8 ft
F 200mm, distance 100 ft, f/2.8: DOF is 12.9 ft.

Well darn, they are not exactly the same. But they are within engineering precision.

What I said breaks down as one gets close to the hyperfocal distance, but DOF isn't usually a concern then.

I agree that a longer focal length is preferred to separate the subject from background. My preferred portrait lens is the 135, but in the creek I don't have room to backup. The creek curves a bit to get a good shot.

I used the DOF calculator and see that the 50 at 2.2 with 10 feet from subject is an in-focus area of 1.63 ft. At 5 feet from subject it is .4 ft Big difference!

 

[Thiophilos]

I agree that a longer focal length is preferred to separate the subject from background. My preferred portrait lens is the 135, but in the creek I don't have room to backup. The creek curves a bit to get a good shot.

I used the DOF calculator and see that the 50 at 2.2 with 10 feet from subject is an in-focus area of 1.63 ft. At 5 feet from subject it is .4 ft Big difference!

Yes, DOF changes a lot when the distance changes while keeping the same lens. The framing also changes a lot when you move closer like that.

But you can't gain DOF by changing to a different lens, if you want the same picture (same framing). Wide angle lenses have a reputation for having more DOF. Yes they do, for general shooting distances that they are typically used for. But they won't get you more DOF at the same framing, because you have to move closer for that.