Working DOF

[jcdeboever]

@Derrel inspired me the other day in another thread. The (Obligatory) Brick Wall Shot - Share Yours I was alarmed at what the depth of field could add to a portrait. Well of course I had to explore this on my lens. My goal was to sculp the subject with a speedlight to create separation. Open for critique.

 

[Derrel]

Dogs can be tough, especially larger working breeds like this one; oftentimes the nose is distractingly out of focus, but in this instance it is only mildly out of focus and when seen on an iPhone it looks okay, and the eyes are plenty sharp, and the background is well out of focus and is free of distracting elements.

Even though you may have the background of focus, it is possible for a lighted object or an object of bright color or of unusual shape or unusual reflective nature to be distracting, but in this case it looks to be a couch and a throw pillow. In this instance the background is hinted at,but not shown too-sharply. This is a good example of selective focus. It appears to me that the use of the speedlight has illuminated the dog's eyes quite a bit, in a good way.

 

[smoke665]

was alarmed at what the depth of field could add to a portrait.

Alarmed as in good or bad? Personally I want the tip of the nose to the front edge of the ears in focus, with the iris being the exact focus point. As Derrel pointed, out some dogs and some people have some pretty big noses. In that case I would adjust my DOF to keep the nose in focus a let the ears go OOF.

Dog fur is easy to overexposed and lose detail as in camera right on the nose, eye and even the tongue.

 

[smoke665]

@jcdeboever coincidentally this popped up on my feed to anther site. This reiterated what I said earlier about keeping your DOF equal to the distance from the tip of the nose to the ears. In particular pay attention to the clam shell lighting. I'd never really thought about it but it makes perfect sense given the structure of a dogs face. Using the large soft modifier overhead quarantees equal light in the eyes. Plus the softness prevents some of the specular highlights from forming on the fur. 7 tips for taking your pet photography to the next level | Profoto (US)

 

[paigew]

Cute shot! Are you trying to experiment with shallow DOF? Out of curiosity, have you ever tried shooting totally wide open?

I like this shot. I do most the photos for our local dog rescue and the slightly oof nose doesn't bother me I one bit, her slight smile and expression are perfect. What a gorgeous lab. [emoji7]

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Designer]

Open for critique.

Your DOF is very thin. Personally, I would prefer to see the entire head in better focus. As in; from the nose to the ears. Even the back edge of the ears. Such a shallow DOF as this shot is distracting, IMO.

 

[paigew]

Looking at this on the computer now...have you done any sharpening? It does seem a bit soft, what were your settings?

I sharpened it, added some dehaze, clarity, noise reduction. reduced shadows a bit....

 

[photoflyer]

oftentimes the nose is distractingly out of focus

It is funny because I was thinking this and then saw Derrel's comment.

It is not you fault. Forgive me, but it is the nature of the beast.

I do not have a solution but maybe someone else will. If you stop the lens down you have less bokeh and less background separation but more of the face is in focus. Of course you may also struggle with a slow shutter speed which can be problematic if the subject can't sit still.

If the animal will sit still then a little focus bracketing might help. Move the focus point forward on the face in successive shots and then use the one that is the best compromise between focus behind the eyes and in front. To me, eyes forward focus would likely be best.

This image looks very good to me because a casual observer will be drawn to the eyes. It is only when you ask a group like us to critique it that you will get this kind of feedback.

 

[Derrel]

One trick is to make a selection of an out-of-focus area and then use some sharpening (not unsharp mask but sharpening), and then fade that by about 40% and then reapply sharpening and fade that by 40%. This is a technique that I used to use quite a bit for newspaper production photos which are typically seen about 4x6 in size on 80 line screen newsprint.

I think this might be what Paige W is talking about when she asked if you had applied any sharpening. After you have applied the sharpening and faded it twice then you can take the entire image and apply unsharp masking.

 

[Space Face]

Looking at this on the computer now...have you done any sharpening? It does seem a bit soft, what were your settings?

I sharpened it, added some dehaze, clarity, noise reduction. reduced shadows a bit....View attachment 197325

This is what I was thinking too. If you are going to go with such a shallow dof you really need to ensure the sharp bits are indeed really sharp. I think the edit is an improvement.

Generally I don't mind in this type of shot if the nose (in this case) is out of focus but as above, the eyes need to be spot on.

 

[smoke665]

This has drawn a lot of suggestions many of which deal with correcting the image as shot but the title says DOF and the text deals with "what DOF can add to a portrait", as such IMO it's more about "what to do before the shutter clicks then after.

The OP references @Derrel 's shot (an excellent example of DOF control in a portrait). Drawing from that image according to the EXIF it was shot with an 85mm at f2.8 (with +2/3 EC), 1/400, ISO 500. It appears the focus point was 8' 10.29", giving him a hair over 3" in front of the focus point and 31/4" behind the focus point, for a total DOF of just over 6.29". The settings used here provided ample opportunity to achieve not only sharpness in the eyes and face but sufficient OOF for separation, all "without trying to fix it post".

Now let's compare the OP's image. FUJI 63mm at f3.6, 1/20, ISO 1000. The EXIF didn't record focus distance or DOF numbers but given the way it's filling the frame let's say 5' away. At that distance using the other settings I'd surmise a total DOF of 3" half the amount that Derrel had. Drop the distance to 4' and your down to only 2". Either is way to thin for the subject to capture the nose and eyes in focus, and probably marginal for the eyes because of how deep they're set in the sockets.

Having followed the OP for some time, I know he's highly qualified and produces images which are far above the level of this image. I also know that he's much more pragmatic then I in his approach, and prefers SOOC to post editing. So to respond directly to his OP "My goal was to sculp the subject with a speedlight to create separation". I have to say, I belive you failed on your goal, both with DOF and use of the speedlight.

Rather then "fixing" this image, in the future I'd pay careful attention to my DOF requirements, and work accordingly. On lighting dogs the link I posted above offers some good suggestions.

 

[paigew]

Having followed the OP for some time, I know he's highly qualified and produces images which are far above the level of this image. I also know that he's much more pragmatic then I in his approach, and prefers SOOC to post editing. So to respond directly to his OP "My goal was to sculp the subject with a speedlight to create separation". I have to say, I belive you failed on your goal, both with DOF and use of the speedlight.

Rather then "fixing" this image, in the future I'd pay careful attention to my DOF requirements, and work accordingly. On lighting dogs the link I posted above offers some good suggestions.

Photos are not meant to be shared SOOC, especially if you shoot RAW. It is expected that the contrast, shadows, sharpening, etc will be applied. This image does not need "fixing" it needs editing, or in other words, it needs to be completed You wouldn't share a film negative without developing it first, would you?

 

[smoke665]

Photos are not meant to be shared SOOC,

Might want to peruse some of JC's postings. He has always taken great pride (rightly so) in his ability to produce an SOOC image and doesn't care much for editing. There are many others on here that feel much the same. Myself I generally consider the final image requirement (including post processing if any) and strive for the best possible SOOC image that will give me a full data file to work with.

It is expected that the contrast, shadows, sharpening, etc will be applied.

Why in the world would you expect this? Unless I'm working on a creative composition, I try to keep my editing minimal. Basic things like contrast, shadows, sharpness, should have been addressed before I clicked the shutter.

As to editing "this" image, I may be wrong but I don't believe that's what the OP was seeking, based on his post.

You wouldn't share a film negative without developing it first, would you?

Given that JC has been heavily involved in film, and developing, I'm pretty sure he'd agree there would be nothing to share without developing the film, but that's an apples/oranges comparison. Having started in film back in the 60's, i would point out, any "editing" options after snapping the shutter would be minimal (choice of developer/time). Possibly you meant edits to the scan/conversion? Even there, a good shot doesn't necessarily mean you "have to edit".

 

[paigew]

Might want to peruse some of JC's postings. He has always taken great pride (rightly so) in his ability to produce an SOOC image and doesn't care much for editing. There are many others on here that feel much the same. Myself I generally consider the final image requirement (including post processing if any) and strive for the best possible SOOC image that will give me a full data file to work with.

I don't know JC off the top of my head, but what you are saying, ultimately doesn't make much sense. You do not choose either or (good SOOC/editing) you do both. I am a firm believer you should strive to get your shot to look perfect in camera. I am quite the realist that way, not one of those photogs who just underexposes everything only to "save" it later with post processing. I even do double exposures and creative shots in camera. You are wrong in your belief that every RAW image could not benefit from editing. I know that I have a stylistic approach to my photos but many people have a "clean edit" which is very true to life (low tone curve/contrast/colors play) so you might not know that it has been "processed" (edited). I honestly do not know one professional photographer, who sells or publishes their raw image files. It's simply unheard of.

Raw image (per wikipedia):
A camera raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, a motion picture film scanner, or other image scanner.[1][2] Raw files are named so because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be printed

see full article: Raw image format - Wikipedia

I also take "great pride" in my ability to nail an image SOOC, almost every time, in any situation or light (I have shot births with one candle, weddings in the dark or with neon reception lights, photos out of a moving car window, underwater photos, sports, pets, children). My livelihood depends on my abilities, actually. I will attach some examples of SOOC vs edited raw images, as well as some film shots

It is expected that the contrast, shadows, sharpening, etc will be applied.

Why in the world would you expect this? Unless I'm working on a creative composition, I try to keep my editing minimal. Basic things like contrast, shadows, sharpness, should have been addressed before I clicked the shutter.

As to editing "this" image, I may be wrong but I don't believe that's what the OP was seeking, based on his post.

While shadows and contrast (QUALITY/DIRECTION OF LIGHT) should be addressed before you click the shutter, post processing should always involve at least minimal sharpening, contrast....I mean, basic edits really. I can go through if you are interested in the basic editing panel.

Given that JC has been heavily involved in film, and developing, I'm pretty sure he'd agree there would be nothing to share without developing the film, but that's an apples/oranges comparison. Having started in film back in the 60's, i would point out, any "editing" options after snapping the shutter would be minimal (choice of developer/time). Possibly you meant edits to the scan/conversion? Even there, a good shot doesn't necessarily mean you "have to edit".

You may hear the word "edit" and automatically think "instagram filter" when in reality "editing" is the layman's term for "post processing", which absolutely should involve adjusting at least your basic developer panel.

Although I do not develop my own film, I do know that the developer/scanner does indeed have some deciding factors in the contrast/exposure, etc of the final scanned image. I have a lot of success shooting film as well.

FILM SCANS:

digital images SOOC vs EDITS.

 

[vintagesnaps]

If you spent any time on here you'd know JC. He's an exceptional photographer and very talented.

I'm not sure that Wikipedia is necessarily the best source or that definition is the best explanation. Professional photographers usually do not sell/license usage of Raw images unless it's highly paid commercial work for a client. I used to do photos for marketing for a local team and I had no use for the sponsor images, and a client may want to use the images in a variety of ways.

I don't understand saying you shoot SOOC and then edit/post process every image. That's not necessary; I often do NO post on a digital image. None. Just open it in Photoshop and look at it... if it's good and prints well I'm done. Sometimes I might do some adjustment. Smoke's right, it isn't necessary to have to edit.

I've shown my original negatives to another photographer when I used a shared darkroom at a local university. I showed images from the negative projected onto the easel, but I didn't give anyone my original negatives. I don't post copies of those (digitized) online. So I may have shown someone my negatives, but I don't make those public.