People photography and wide-open apertures...

[splproductions]

I primarily do people photography. When I first started out I would often shoot with wide open apertures in the 1.4 to 2.0 range. But then I started realizing that I either wasn't nailing the focus due to the narrow DOF, or I wasn't liking the fact that the eyes were in focus but the ear was slightly OOF. So for the past while I'm usually around the f/3.2 range and I've liked my results much more. My lenses are also obviously much sharper at f/3.2 than f/1.4.


My question is... for those out there shooting people, how often are you actually shooting below f/2.8? It seems like using wider apertures is great for letting in light, but it seems like you are limiting your ability to take a great shot due to the super narrow DOF.

 

[Derrel]

You are discovering the problems associated with using wide apertures...missed focus...mis-applied depth of field band...one eye-in-one-eye-out; near ear out far ear in;nose OOF,eyes in-focus; out of focus foreheads; fuzzy hairdos...etc.etc.etc.

I SELDOM shoot at f/2.8 on people. f/3.2, f/3.5, f/4, f/4.5, f/4.8, f/5.6 --- all produce excellent results with quality lenses. It's always a good idea to focus carefully, but when shooting at wide apertures at close ranges, it becomes a HUGE, make-or-break kind of deal...when shooting multiple people, or groups, I start thinking f/7.1 or f/8 almost all the time...and devising strategies to make that happen!

 

[tirediron]

Unless I need to shoot wider, I always try for f4 - f8.

 

[rexbobcat]

I love to shoot at wide open if my subject turned too far to the side otherwise I do get the one eye in and one eye out of focus deal.

But I'm also one of those "hold on one more" people so that I can get multiple photos just in case the focus is missed lol

With groups though, depending on how the group is posed I usually use f/11-ish

 

[KmH]

Don't get stuck on lens aperture when you think about depth-of-field. Don't forget that lens focal length and focus point distance also affect the depth-of-field. How far your subject is from the background will also determine how far outside the far limit of the DoF, and how blurred the background will be.

So you have 4 DoF parameters you have to consider, not just 1.

Consider what happens when a longer focal length is used, assuming the same lens aperture is used and subject scale in the image frame is maintained.

• The photographer has to be further away from the subject
• The longer focal length magnifies the both the foreground, and background
• Blurred background elements also get magnified making them look more blurred

It turns out that when subject scale is maintained by increasing the focus point distance from the focal plane in the camera, the DoF with the longer focal length is the same as the DoF a shorter focal length delivers with the closer to the camera shorter focus point distance.

You can verify this by plugging different focal lengths and focus point distances into a DoF calculator. if you double the focal length, double the focus point distance.

A 50 mm lens set to f/5.6 and using a focus point distance of 10 feet delivers a total DoF that is 2.76 feet deep using a Nikon Dxxxx crop sensor camera.
A 100 mm lens set to f/5.6 and using a focus point distance of 20 feet delivers a total DoF that is virtually the same at 2.73 feet deep using a Nikon Dxxxx crop sensor camera. But, the blurred background the 100 mm lens delivers will look blurrier because the image content in the background will be magnified and look bigger.

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Not having a fundamental understanding of how DoF works is likely the most common failing of amateur photographers.

 

[jowensphoto]

This seems to be a trend among newer portrait shooters.

I promise I'm not being obtuse, but I'd like to know why.

 

[MLeeK]

RARELY do I shoot wide open for portraits. I can't remember the last time I shot at less than about f/4 for a portrait.

 

[rexbobcat]

This seems to be a trend among newer portrait shooters.

I promise I'm not being obtuse, but I'd like to know why.

Because if I want to have some sense of a discernible background, I shoot wide angle.



If I can get the technical aspect of a portrait where I want it wide open, then gosh darn it I'm going to shoot wide open....unless the background wasn't an issue maybe, like in a studio against a black background or something.

 

[jowensphoto]

Rex, you're hardly new!

I frequent another forum, mostly MWACs (forgive me, but its true). I'd say 99% miss focus because, in their words, "I alwaaaaays shoot wide open." Most of the time it doesn't work. Perhaps it is just a lack of understanding.
"

 

[rexbobcat]

Rex, you're hardly new!

I frequent another forum, mostly MWACs (forgive me, but its true). I'd say 99% miss focus because, in their words, "I alwaaaaays shoot wide open." Most of the time it doesn't work. Perhaps it is just a lack of understanding.
"

Oh lol I just get all defensive because I am one of those people who love the ultra shallow DoF portraits, which seem to be getting more and more cliche by the day.

I just don't want anyone to think less of me because "omg all the portraits at f/1.8." haha

My bad! XP

 

[Tee]

I'm a fan of f/5.6. It's my go-to aperture and from there I adjust wide or stopped down.

 

[paigew]

I usually shoot at f2.2-2.8. I used to shoot at 3.2 and have gradually started shooting wider. I would like to be able to get sharp photos at 1.8 but I need models who will hold still. It takes practice shooting wide open, but you can get nice sharp photos. I wouldn't suggest it on a newbie though for sure.

 

[KmH]

This seems to be a trend among newer portrait shooters.

I promise I'm not being obtuse, but I'd like to know why.

Insufficient photographic technical knowledge.

 

[amolitor]

There's definitely a light fad for bokeh these days. People want fast lenses and they shoot them wide open. They may be dumb, but the mass of amateurs has an impact on what people think of as photography. Pros who want to stay abreast of style best keep this in mind.

I'm starting to see a fair bit of down-market fashion using straight-on flash, for instance. It's what their clientele sees on facebook, it's what photographs are supposed to look like. Best you give them that.

The work of the mass of amateurs isn't the only input to what's fashionable, but it's in-play always.

 

[splproductions]

People want fast lenses and they shoot them wide open.

OK... so the entire reason I started this thread is because I'm considering getting an f/2.8 prime. But it seems like everyone knocks on a 2.8 prime for being so slow... what's it good for... etc, etc.

But 90% of what I shoot is people, and from what everyone is saying, I should probably be staying in the f/4 and up range. So I'm thinking a slow prime should be fine for me. And if I do need something wider I can throw on a different lens (albeit at a different focal length).