• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Just a thought

J

Jon Mark

New member
on something I've been thinking about for a few weeks. When one shoots primes (85, 100 and 135) for portraits, does one ever consider choosing the f-stop which maximizes sharpness (i.e. MTF graphs) or comes close to it?

For example: (Source is from PhotoZone, so this is just for discussion sake)

85mm 1.2 the IQ "sharpness" reaches maximum at f4
85mm 1.8 the IQ "sharpness reaches maximum at f4
100mm 2.0 the IQ "sharpness" reaches maximum at f4
100mm 2.8 the IQ "sharpness" reaches maximum at f5.6
135mm 2.0 the IQ "sharpness" reaches maximum at f5.6

Granted by doing the above method, I realize one sacrifices bokeh for IQ. Anyone with thoughts on this? Do many others shoot primes wide open for portraits?

Thanks for taking the time to read this!
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
MacAllen said:
on something I've been thinking about for a few weeks. When one shoots primes (85, 100 and 135) for portraits, does one ever consider choosing the f-stop which maximizes sharpness (i.e. MTF graphs) or comes close to it?

For example: (Source is from PhotoZone, so this is just for discussion sake)

85mm 1.2 the IQ "sharpness" reaches maximum at f4
85mm 1.8 the IQ "sharpness reaches maximum at f4
100mm 2.0 the IQ "sharpness" reaches maximum at f4
100mm 2.8 the IQ "sharpness" reaches maximum at f5.6
135mm 2.0 the IQ "sharpness" reaches maximum at f5.6

Granted by doing the above method, I realize one sacrifices bokeh for IQ. Anyone with thoughts on this? Do many others shoot primes wide open for portraits?

Thanks for taking the time to read this!
Click to expand...
Hi,

It doesn't take much time to read your post. It's much more difficult to respond!

I can't see any description of your current work nor any reference to it.

So to give a useful answer, orientation is tough. We don't know where the question originates. You could be a well celebrated large format landscape photographer, the head of a graphics department or someone who who is starting out. I apologise I don't fill in the gaps.

For now, I can say that, AFAIK, no portrait photographer cares about MTF. Mostly it is about relating to the subject, sense of what they want for the image and lighting.

That said, a lot of lenses can be swapped out.

Asher
 
Last edited:
T

Tom Yi

New member
For me, the marginal loss of resolution doesn't bother me shooting digitally since it can be compensated for with sharpening. DOF is more important for me.

However, I'd have to agree that the lens isn't as important as composition/emotional feel, use of colors, and lighting in making a great artistic portrait.
 
Last edited:
F

Frank Doorhof

Guest
I think sharpness is WAY WAY overrated.
Of course a picture has to be sharp, but I think some people forget all the other important things that make a picture.

For example, the DOF in the face, I don't care for f4.0 if I want the effect of f1.8 or f8.0

I shoot alot of portrets with the 85 1.8 Canon and f4.0 is for most portraits not usuable due to the DOF (on the 5D that is).

Always remember it's the photo that tells the story, the bokeh, the color/light etc. that extra 10-20% sharpness will be unnoticable in a good shot.

look at what for example Helmut Newton used :D
 
J

Jon Mark

New member
Thanks to all for the input. I've been an avid hobbiest after a ~8 yr hiatus due to academic pursuits. Now that we have a son, its so much easier to always have a model "available." This whole question came out of some observations where some portraits (in available light) had an eye "out of focus" due to the DOF being so shallow. These observations are related to relying on available ambient light or a 580ex and often shooting wide open. Investing in a decent lighting system will allow greater control of DOF.

I guess to only way to get better is to put your images out there and get some feedback. Here are some samples of my work -- let the bloodfest begin!

Jake%20studio.jpg


Yoomi%20alert.jpg


Any feedback is welcome!
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Parents and gandparents would love to have you photograph their precious bundles for the first setup. It is simple and delightful. I'll let Frank or someone else discuss the lighting.

What is better than oriental features and red!

Asher
 
T

Tom Yi

New member
I like the lighting and the feel of the first one better, I think the second one could benefit from a shallower dof and a tighter crop. Both are good in my view.
 
T

Tom Yi

New member
Mac,
Would you mind me taking liberties with editing your shot for sole sake of discussion on this forum.
Another thing is that I can't seem to use the upload feature, it tells me that I've already uploaded the maximum of 1 file.
I'll send my edited pic to Asher to post.

I didn't like the negative space on the right, so I cropped it out and then a bit less off the left, so the face is a bit less centered. I also cropped the top of the head as well as I found the transition from the headband to the hairline a bit rough. I dodged the eyes for a bit more pop and converted to monotone. If I had a bigger file, I'd be able to work on the tones so the transition is a bit nicer, but oh well. This crop focuses the viewer to lock onto the eyes more in my view. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd work on making the image a bit softer in feel by burning the corners of the image and maybe work in a duotone or something to excentuate the skin.
86720242-M.jpg
 
Last edited:
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Tom I like what you did.

What's this about one upload limit? Are you uploading the image to OPF or linking the image?

Asher
 
J

Jon Mark

New member
Nice job! I like your comments about the hairline being a rough transition and how the crop shifts focus to the eyes. Each day provides more learning. Thanks for the help!
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
We've done well then!

But can the second picture be improved but in color and does that need to be so heavily cropped?

Asher
 
T

Tom Yi

New member
In my view, yes.
I would have recommended shooting in verticle/portrait mode and cropping with the lens.
The amount of cropping is very individual, but I prefer to be more minimalistic and not have things unless it adds to the image impact. The negative space and the background does not add anything to the shot in my view and it actually distracts from the baby. So why not go b/w with a bit of contrast which eliminates the background? I think it works better.
 
G

Gary Ayala

New member
You need to Photoshop in some angel wings on the first shot ( ... I know ... they're already there ... just folded).

I like Tom's crop but I would crop more on the left, to about the knee ... mmmhh ... maybe even a bit more, thereby reducing the black empty space in the upper right, yet still retaing the movement of the off-centered subject. Then I would do considerable selective burning/darkening:
1) the headband;
2) the lower left cheek;
3) the upper left arm and shoulder;
4) the background (remove all details); and
5) the blanket in the lower right.

The studio photogs I know state that the eyes must be sharp. And most will selectively soften the skin and selective sharpen the eyes. One old photog hates the newer lenses as he feel the new lenses are much too sharp for his portrait work. (I think he drops/rolls any new lens down concrete steps prior to use.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top