Aperture settings and headshots

Stanmore said

Here's the absolute, definitive and FINAL-FINAL answer to your question ... The aperture that *YOU* thinks looks best...

Not me, not him, or her, or it... Just "you, Elmo"... Adam Sandler - Sesame Street - YouTube - You can work the rest out I hope

If you're not sure, testy-TEST, McTest Face ... Will take you about 30 minutes in your hectic, time-poor life.

This is a fine approach for some. But I still stick to the point made in the second sentence of my opening post:

“I am particularly looking for ‘challenges’ to my standard techniques and artistic ‘go to’s.”

In this sense ‘challenge’ means:

• the same as continuous professional development
• challenging your perceptions 
• if you always do what you always do, you always get what you always get

Glamourportraits said

Gothic Image said

Glamourportraits said

But now I am retired and can afford to take a step back and question why I do what I do and ask if there are other ways. And this post has really help me do that, not just by being shown plenty of images as examples, but also a few words explaining how they were produced and often with what equipment or what philosophy. For me this thread has been better than any YouTube video as it is really relevant to the images I see on here (if that makes sense) 

Indeed.  My philosophy is basically to always shoot wide open with a fast prime, usually the trusty "magic pixie dust" EF 85mm f1.2L.  Quite frankly, I could probably dispose of the aperture control on both that and my recently acquired RF 50mm f1.2L!  :-)

Here's the EF 85mm f1.2L again, shot at very close range wide open with my R5:

Lovely image and perfect for showing the fall off of focus.

From this image, and few others I have seen, I realise it’s good to sometimes shoot a bit looser than just a headshot 👍

This has been enhanced by the depth of field, however, it demonstrates more so the application of thought, planning, styling, concept, lighting, colour tone, props. A fab image well executed, intriguing and a pleasant change from 'passport type headshots' no matter how shallow a dof they might have. Creativity and concept is key for something 'different'. My 2p.

Glamourportraits said

Stanmore said

Here's the absolute, definitive and FINAL-FINAL answer to your question ... The aperture that *YOU* thinks looks best...

Not me, not him, or her, or it... Just "you, Elmo"... Adam Sandler - Sesame Street - YouTube - You can work the rest out I hope

If you're not sure, testy-TEST, McTest Face ... Will take you about 30 minutes in your hectic, time-poor life.

This is a fine approach for some. But I still stick to the point made in the second sentence of my opening post:

“I am particularly looking for ‘challenges’ to my standard techniques and artistic ‘go to’s.”

In this sense ‘challenge’ means:

• the same as continuous professional development
• challenging your perceptions 
• if you always do what you always do, you always get what you always get

Small format - wide open, focus on the near eye, subject appears to melt into the background.

Medium format - ~f/8, long lens, subject appears to pop out of the background.

Large format is something I want to try but the suggested approach I have seen with 5x4 is f/11<~>f/16 and use the camera movements to shape the DoF so that the head is in sharp focus but the neck isn't. Or vice versa...

The Ghost said

Glamourportraits said

Stanmore said

Here's the absolute, definitive and FINAL-FINAL answer to your question ... The aperture that *YOU* thinks looks best...

Not me, not him, or her, or it... Just "you, Elmo"... Adam Sandler - Sesame Street - YouTube - You can work the rest out I hope

If you're not sure, testy-TEST, McTest Face ... Will take you about 30 minutes in your hectic, time-poor life.

This is a fine approach for some. But I still stick to the point made in the second sentence of my opening post:

“I am particularly looking for ‘challenges’ to my standard techniques and artistic ‘go to’s.”

In this sense ‘challenge’ means:

• the same as continuous professional development
• challenging your perceptions 
• if you always do what you always do, you always get what you always get

Small format - wide open, focus on the near eye, subject appears to melt into the background.

Medium format - ~f/8, long lens, subject appears to pop out of the background.

Large format is something I want to try but the suggested approach I have seen with 5x4 is f/11<~>f/16 and use the camera movements to shape the DoF so that the head is in sharp focus but the neck isn't. Or vice versa...

Having just very recently introducing myself to medium format in film and digital, those descriptions are very useful guides 👍

I have no desire at the moment to try large format, but never say never. And I always admire those that do. 

indemnity said

Glamourportraits said

Gothic Image said

Glamourportraits said

But now I am retired and can afford to take a step back and question why I do what I do and ask if there are other ways. And this post has really help me do that, not just by being shown plenty of images as examples, but also a few words explaining how they were produced and often with what equipment or what philosophy. For me this thread has been better than any YouTube video as it is really relevant to the images I see on here (if that makes sense) 

Indeed.  My philosophy is basically to always shoot wide open with a fast prime, usually the trusty "magic pixie dust" EF 85mm f1.2L.  Quite frankly, I could probably dispose of the aperture control on both that and my recently acquired RF 50mm f1.2L!  :-)

Here's the EF 85mm f1.2L again, shot at very close range wide open with my R5:

Lovely image and perfect for showing the fall off of focus.

From this image, and few others I have seen, I realise it’s good to sometimes shoot a bit looser than just a headshot 👍

This has been enhanced by the depth of field, however, it demonstrates more so the application of thought, planning, styling, concept, lighting, colour tone, props. A fab image well executed, intriguing and a pleasant change from 'passport type headshots' no matter how shallow a dof they might have. Creativity and concept is key for something 'different'. My 2p.

Agreed completely. But whilst I enjoy viewing images like this, I don’t really have the passion or desire to immerse myself in the process of - thought, planning, styling, concept, lighting, colour tone, props etc.

Certainly not with models, though I may delve deeper into still life photography as I got into it a bit in my late teens/early 20’s and see it’s potential to help me get through those long dark winter nights later in the year. 

I have also dabbled with the thought of doing group shoots where it’s all done for me, but I have never really been interested in just clicking a button. 

That doesn’t mean never - just not now. Especially with summer coming up I am too excited for some outdoor natural light shoots and in particular a lot of beach shoots. 

And I hope I don’t appear dismissive of your suggestion. I certainly take on board what you suggest. And it’s been great being challenged and being a reflector, I am sure I will mull over your point in more detail over the next few days. Thank you. 

Short answer:  f7.1 (mostly) with studio strobe + whatever I can get away with in ambient light. ;-)

Edited by Timmee

Huw said

Theory?

Come on guys. Find someone with a head, spend twenty minutes experimenting….  :)

You don't even have to find someone with a head.... i have a mannequin head named Dorris. 

F8 on an 85mm . 

FuNkY FoCuS - Continuous Lighting - in close - duck and weave, bob and move - in and out (sweet spots) -switching from 2.8 to 2.2 , 2 .  1.8 and from facial recognition to  manual focus points -   then there's the  model playing my facial games. put it all together and what do you have.... Bibbledeebobbledeeboo!  unpredictable exciting surprises. 

Edited by W A L L Y

Glamourportraits said

Stanmore said

Here's the absolute, definitive and FINAL-FINAL answer to your question ... The aperture that *YOU* thinks looks best...

 

This is a fine approach for some. But I still stick to the point made in the second sentence of my opening post:

“I am particularly looking for ‘challenges’ to my standard techniques and artistic ‘go to’s.”

TBH you need to go and experiment.  

There are 3 factors which determine how quickly stuff goes out of focus.  (1) How far it is from the plane of perfect focus (2) The square of the focal length of the lens. (3) The f/ number (not the aperture in mm or any other measure but the ratio of aperture to focal length.)  Plenty of stuff available to explain the theory and maths. 

If you want a blurred background you can move the subject away from the background, move the camera nearer the subject, use a longer focal length, or a wider aperture (smaller f/ number). If you want a headshot with very shallow d.o.f  (i.e. nose and ears aren't in focus at the same time),  longer focal length tends to trump everything else, longer focal length and closer camera position/tight framing  and wide aperture can give crazy shallow d.o.f.  I have an 85mm f/1.4, and have shot portraits with an old 90mm macro f/2.5 - my experience is that ultra-shallow d.o.f. is hard to work with but also becomes a bit of gimmick after a while, so while it's nice to have f/1.4 available ,f/2.8 is often enough. 

This 

gets shallow but not ultra shallow D.o.F with a "standard" lens on FF, it's only f/2.8 but it's shot very close - but the shallow d.o.f and the way the way part of the face is hidden are working together. 

This old FPI

is a longer focal length - crop sensor and equivalent of 120mm - and wider aperture (f/1.8), but shot from further away and it does the same thing. 

And a new one 

ff 85mm and f/2     But these aren't normal go-tos    "f/8 and be there" is a far better starting point for a lot of studio stuff. 

And then YOU need to ask 'artistic' questions about what do I want to make foreground / subject (in focus, well lit) / background.  That last one for example, Rin has her eyes closed, so our "look to the eyes"  reflex doesn't fire. I don't want the hands - with saturated Red Nails and bright wedding ring - to pull the attention, so I want shallow D.o.F.  but I can play the reverse game. 

It's all about the hands but we have a recognisable face (ff , 21mm lens and f/2.4 but the 21 doesn't throw the background out of focus anything like the others).

Faces partly in focus.... you need to decide how to use that selective focus.  Change were the camera is relative to your subject as well as the aperture. I'm very pleased with that first shot, but it's as much about connection with the model that comes from being close, working by natural light and using a little lens instead of my monster 85 as it about camera settings.  IMHO if you want to 'Challenge your standard techniques and artistic go-tos' it's as much those things as a camera setting, but some people like to start with setting and say "OK so if I set this what sort of pictures does it lead me to make". If you want to do that, set f/2.8 and experiment from there :-) 

Edited by CalmNudes

CalmNudes said

 

ff 85mm and f/2     But these aren't normal go-tos    "f/8 and be there" is a far better starting point for a lot of studio stuff. 

And then YOU need to ask 'artistic' questions about what do I want to make foreground / subject (in focus, well lit) / background.  That last one for example, Rin has her eyes closed, so our "look to the eyes"  reflex doesn't fire. I don't want the hands - with saturated Red Nails and bright wedding ring - to pull the attention, so I want shallow D.o.F.  but I can play the reverse game. 

 

The problem is that red nails are so contrasty that the eye automatically goes there and they're out of focus. It's probably an impossible ask to get them in focus and keep the face in. Great concept/shot regardless.

For an interesting take on portraiture, Herb Ritts almost exclusively used a 6x7 Mamiya with a 150mm lens, set to between f/5.6 and f/8.

This post has been filtered based on your content filter settings because it is NSFW. View reply