Using A ND Filter In Studio Portraits?

[malling]

Why would anyone use ND for indoor portraits?

Just like why would you use f 2.8, for portraits? do you like half of the face out of focus?

I have never truly grasped the concept of tight dof with location portraits, then you can just as well shoot indoor. It’s actually a good thing that you can see the background as it benefits to the story of the picture, why on earth would you want it to blurry out.

Many people don't have a convenient studio, and even if they do the interesting person they want to photograph probably wouldn't want to relocate... 'Just as well shoot indoor' is frequently not an option!

If the background adds to the image it doesn't make much sense to 'blurry it out' but often it's a distraction and often when it does add it becomes distracting if fully sharp, a slightly blurred background can hint at the location enough to provide the story. Like so much of photography a balance is required!

I did not write that it should be sharp or in focus, I where referring to the portraits where you can’t see what the background is. One of the points of shooting on location is that it adds to the story, if you remove that it’s as good as shooting in a studio without the benefit of being in one.

I have yet to experience where I’m not able to find a decent spot even if the subject where reluctant to travel.

Who say you need a studio! there are very skilled photographers who never use one, as they only do location. For me it’s a bit of a lazy trick, that doesn’t do any subject right. A background dos not need to be perfect, small imperfections can be photoshopped or managed with different angles/perspectives.

 

[smoke665]

@petrochemist I just don't see any upside with it. One thing I noticed is he was using wired Master and slave, switching from a black background to a white, I wondered if maybe he was using the ND rather then adjusting the lights. Adjusting individual lights can be a PITA, that's why I like my controller that can adjust individual or as a group wireless. In the time he took to add the ND, I could have adjusted the lights and fired off two or three shots.

 

[petrochemist]

@petrochemist I just don't see any upside with it. One thing I noticed is he was using wired Master and slave, switching from a black background to a white, I wondered if maybe he was using the ND rather then adjusting the lights. Adjusting individual lights can be a PITA, that's why I like my controller that can adjust individual or as a group wireless. In the time he took to add the ND, I could have adjusted the lights and fired off two or three shots.

I couldn't imagine doing it either, an ND gel to lights perhaps (v. unlikely) but I think the only way I'd shoot studio lights with a ND is if I got a cheap lens that had a ND seized on...

 

[Braineack]

@petrochemist I just don't see any upside with it. One thing I noticed is he was using wired Master and slave, switching from a black background to a white, I wondered if maybe he was using the ND rather then adjusting the lights. Adjusting individual lights can be a PITA, that's why I like my controller that can adjust individual or as a group wireless. In the time he took to add the ND, I could have adjusted the lights and fired off two or three shots.

You're watching a highlight reel. You have absolutely zero context in why he went with an ND filter other than he was trying to shoot at 2.8 with studio lights. This is the same "trick" used when doing the same thing in daylight.

I do agree his body of work is nothing to write home about...so we should just ignore him completely.

 

[TWX]

Why would anyone use ND for indoor portraits?

Just like why would you use f 2.8, for portraits? do you like half of the face out of focus?

I have never truly grasped the concept of tight dof with location portraits, then you can just as well shoot indoor. It’s actually a good thing that you can see the background as it benefits to the story of the picture, why on earth would you want it to blurry out.

To play devil's advocate, on a Canon APS-C camera, a 50mm focal length at f/2.8 with a 20' distance to the subject is a depth of field of around five feet. At 10' distance, that depth of field is reduced to a little over a foot. For a full-frame camera you're looking at around 8' and 2' respectively with that lens and aperture. We're not talking one eye focused, the other eye blurry territory here.

Years ago really before I knew what I was doing with a DSLR, a local club I was a member of set up our home-made Star Trek transporter console at a local convention, with a Transporter Room shower curtain hanging on the wall behind it. We offered to take pictures with my Rebel XS and send them via e-mail to anyone that wanted, basically as a means of targeted marketing of our club.

The shower curtain transporter pad made an acceptable backdrop but it was by no means perfect, so there was not a lot of reason to specifically have it in focus. It needed to be focused well enough to supply context, but the people we were taking pictures of and the transporter console itself were the subjects of the photo. Given that the shower curtain wasn't a dead-perfect representation of the prop/scene from the show anyway, too much detail would have detracted, rather than added to the photos. The area we were set up in wasn't especially bright and since I had the camera on automatic I expect that most of the pictures were taken at the widest aperture the lens could produce at the particular zoom.

In hindsight I probably should have played with more manual settings, I probably could have gotten much better results. Apple's auto-brightening software was rather heavily used to quickly go through the pictures to improve them before sending them out.

 

[mrca]

His premise is using inexpensive gear. Many nexpensive lights can't be adjusted to a really low power so probably needed to add a nd to get wider aperture. My einsteins go to down to 2.8 ws from 640 ws full power and when through a feathered softbox, I can get down to 1.8 or 1.4 without clamping another diffuser panel to the front of the soft box which is still in tight.

 

[petrochemist]

His premise is using inexpensive gear. Many nexpensive lights can't be adjusted to a really low power so probably needed to add a nd to get wider aperture. My einsteins go to down to 2.8 ws from 640 ws full power and when through a feathered softbox, I can get down to 1.8 or 1.4 without clamping another diffuser panel to the front of the soft box which is still in tight.

One of my studio lights only has two settings, but if I need a dimmer light there are plenty of constant lights that will do the job for a tiny fraction of a reasonable ND filter. In fact my better studio light cost less than many ND filters I've seen advertised.
In the studio a ND gel for the lights is a better option than a filter on the camera if your lights won't turn down enough & adding extra diffusion softens the light too much.

 

[mrca]

A vari nd is a multi tasker outside the studio for knocking down brightness of backgrounds. It's not a one trick studio pony.