Too shallow DOF for portrait?

reznap · Mar 3, 2010

Picture is my daughter.

The eyes are in focus, well mostly anyway, and I figured that was enough. Really surprised with how hard it is to get perfect focus using the 50mm at 1.8... auto or manual.

When I brush her hair and dress her up and put her against a nice background should I shoot such a low DOF that her hair is out of focus? I can't tell if I like it or if it's distracting. Wanted opinions, thanks.

----I know I cut off her hair to the right and centered her in the frame and she looks mad... but it was the best-focused of the bunch.

rufus5150 · Mar 3, 2010

I shoot portraits, close-up, with super-narrow DOF all of the time... it's fine. You really have to nail the shot though and when you do, it takes on quite this ethereal nature to it that can be extremely pleasing.

I know I cut off her hair to the right and centered her in the frame and she looks mad... but it was the best-focused of the bunch.

Serious looking kids can make for some of the best portraits. Don't worry too much about the hair, but take the opportunity to crop it such that it's equally cut off on the other side -- this makes her hair create a natural frame which can be an extremely effective technique to frame the face.

reznap · Mar 3, 2010

rufus5150 said:
Don't worry too much about the hair, but take the opportunity to crop it such that it's equally cut off on the other side -- this makes her hair create a natural frame which can be an extremely effective technique to frame the face.

I just tried that thinking: "Yeah, whatever... like it's gonna make a difference"

That's a great tip though..

Really cool, thanks very much. Also made the 'Dora' PJs a little less obvious, lol. I might have to put this one in a frame now.

rufus5150 · Mar 3, 2010

Here's an edit -- some midtone contrast added, made the eyes pop a bit, pulled a teensy bit of the red out, and put it into a 4x5 crop using her hair as a natural frame:

JimmyO · Mar 3, 2010

Doesnt really matter to me aslong as the eyes are in focus

reznap · Mar 3, 2010

rufus5150 said:
Here's an edit -- some midtone contrast added, made the eyes pop a bit, pulled a teensy bit of the red out, and put it into a 4x5 crop using her hair as a natural frame:
:snip to keep forum neat and tidy:

Even better than what I had just done. I like it a lot, thanks!

mbcreate · Mar 3, 2010

You got a gorgeous kid. She's really beautiful...
But did you take the shot at her eye level?
Sometimes your position make a big difference
But I love the pic after crop work... good job rufus5150

pbelarge · Mar 4, 2010

Mad or not, she is very cute.

In the crop shot, the flash in her eyes becomes more prevalent. Can that be removed without affecting the photo?

bazooka · Mar 4, 2010

The eyes still seem soft to me. At f/1.8, it's going to be a challenge to get both eyes in focus at the same time.

rufus5150 · Mar 4, 2010

pbelarge said:
In the crop shot, the flash in her eyes becomes more prevalent. Can that be removed without affecting the photo?

I'm not sure I've ever seen this question before... most people ask how to get catchlights IN to eyes

reznap · Mar 4, 2010

Thanks for the comments everyone.

bazooka said:
The eyes still seem soft to me. At f/1.8, it's going to be a challenge to get both eyes in focus at the same time.

Actually, (her) right eye was a little less in focus, so I did some selective sharpening. I did some more experimenting today and it's definitely easier for me to use manual focus and make sure I'm square with both her eyes. If only I could get her to smile and sit still...

I was on eye level with her, she had her head tilted a bit.

And didn't use a flash. The reflection is daylight from a bay window.

-paul

BKMOOD · Mar 4, 2010

I shoot portraits all the time and I cant imagine ever shooting anyone at 1.8 unless Im after a particular effect and Im never after that particular effect.

Did you want a razor thin depth of field? If so, you achieved it. If you didnt want a razor thin depth of field, you need a different F-stop.

Early · Mar 4, 2010

reznap said:
Picture is my daughter.

The eyes are in focus, well mostly anyway, and I figured that was enough. Really surprised with how hard it is to get perfect focus using the 50mm at 1.8... auto or manual.

When I brush her hair and dress her up and put her against a nice background should I shoot such a low DOF that her hair is out of focus? I can't tell if I like it or if it's distracting. Wanted opinions, thanks.

----I know I cut off her hair to the right and centered her in the frame and she looks mad... but it was the best-focused of the bunch.

An opinion you asked for, an opinion you shall get. As you suggested, I do find such a narrow dof distracting, at least in this case.

reznap · Mar 4, 2010

BKMOOD said:
I shoot portraits all the time and I cant imagine ever shooting anyone at 1.8 unless Im after a particular effect and Im never after that particular effect.

Did you want a razor thin depth of field? If so, you achieved it. If you didnt want a razor thin depth of field, you need a different F-stop.

Well, part of me is liking the depth of field just for the novelty value, this being my first DSLR. So yeah, it's what I was going for but not for a good reason and if I decide to do more serious portraits I'll probably use a narrower (er, smaller hole bigger number) aperture.

Pugs · Mar 4, 2010

Portraits with a very shallow depth of field can be stunning! The important thing as people have mentioned is to get both eyes in focus or have one eye VERY sharp and the other DELIBERATELY out of focus due to the angle of the camera to the face. In this case, the right eye is noticeably out of focus and not deliberately so.

Otherwise, it's a lovely candid portrait.

Oh, and the crop is a definite improvement.