| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/17/2004 07:04:56 PM · #26 |
If you get the eyes in focus, it's amazing how good it looks even wide open, IMO. It adds a depth and modeling to the face that more magnification from a telephoto from a further spot away doesn't quite achieve. To each his own, of course.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I have done some head shots with my 50mm f/1.8. When the head and shoulders are full frame with that lens, f/1.8 is way too shallow. F/8 would probably be a good place to start. You may be successful at f/5.6. Experiment with it and see what works. A large aperture when the subject is close to the camera on the 50mm lens creates a very shallow depth of field. I was working at about 5' and was unsuccessful shooting wide open. |
Message edited by author 2004-05-17 19:05:28. |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 07:37:57 PM · #27 |
That's the thing that was driving me crazy when I shot wide open. I'd only get one eye in focus because she had her face turned on the slightest angle.
Is there a 1.6x reduction in DoF with the 300D vs. a full frame? If so, I'm thinking I should have shot at 2.8-3.2 instead of 2.0 |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 07:39:52 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Some fill flash would really help to bring out her face, maybe with a slight warming gel to warm up the skintones. |
I tried some flash fill shots, but they totaly blew out her face. I think keeping the camera on aperture priority killed my use of the on camera flash close up.
Thanks for the tip on the warming gel, maybe it'll cut down on the intensity of the flash. |
You just need to dial down the flash, -1 to -1.5 stops under ambient should do it. Try shooting in manual if you need to.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2004 07:43:13 PM · #29 |
Are you kidding? 50mm @ 1.4 is the one of the best for portraits for a 10D, that's equivalent to 80 mm on 35mm lens! not to mention the 1.4 aperature.
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Not the best lens for portrait shots... you want minimum dof for portraits so your background is blurred. To get minimum dof, use the aperture at it's widest (low number). Try to avoid shadows by not shooting at midday, and by using relective surfaces to bounce light onto the shadow areas. |
|
|
|
|
05/17/2004 07:45:31 PM · #30 |
Yup. DOF is based on the sensor/film size + the focal length/aperature.
Check out //www.dofmaster.com, and you can find the difference between 10D versus 35 mm film for example for the same lens/aperature. 10D has less equivalent DOF at the same aperature/f-stop i think.
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
That's the thing that was driving me crazy when I shot wide open. I'd only get one eye in focus because she had her face turned on the slightest angle.
Is there a 1.6x reduction in DoF with the 300D vs. a full frame? If so, I'm thinking I should have shot at 2.8-3.2 instead of 2.0 |
Message edited by author 2004-05-17 19:46:49. |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 07:53:30 PM · #31 |
| Wow! Really cool site, but I think you have an extra comma in the URL, paganini. With the flash dial-down is that just doing a EV change by hitting the Av+/- button? |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 07:56:22 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
Is there a 1.6x reduction in DoF with the 300D vs. a full frame? If so, I'm thinking I should have shot at 2.8-3.2 instead of 2.0 |
The crop doesn't change the DOF in any way. The light moves through the lense and strikes the focal plane at back of the camera the same way as it would on a full frame 35mm camera, only the CMOS is samller than 35mm, so you record less of the image. At 1.8 only a few inches is in focus close in, this can create some real drama but it makes a better photograph than it does a likeness. If you want art, open it up , if you want a portrait dial it down enough so the focus includes at least the tip of the nose to the back of her ears. If you want to get the nice boken you have when the 50mm is at 1.8 but the dof is too tight, move back and use a bigger lens.
She looks pretty fair, perhaps try bouncing some light off a warm colored fabric if you dont have a gold disk. Shifting the light toward golden on one side creates better modeling and a healthier look.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2004 07:58:33 PM · #33 |
Running the on-line calc tells me that shooting at about 4 feet subject distance with an f/2.0, my acceptable DoF was about 1.7 inches. Now I know why her eyes were not both in focus.
That's a really cool calc!! |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 08:03:41 PM · #34 |
Thanks to everyone. This has really helped me with how I'll do the shoot next time. Unfortunately, timing requires that we go with the original shot (the best out of ~400 that day). Here's the final version.
 |
|
|
|
05/17/2004 10:19:57 PM · #35 |
AFter all this, I just have to ask, what is this for and why the rush?
Deannda
If you can tell me, curiousity got the better of me |
|
|
|
05/18/2004 04:41:41 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
Originally posted by nborton:
i have a ton of shots in my portfolio of Anastasia where i just went around the corner. i used a 105mm, however, i too think that 50mm can be fine considering the 1.6x factor as long as you don't care about working close. i actually like shooting closer anyway. |
Can you tell me roughly what apertures you used for the Anastasia pics? Would I be able to use similar settings to your 105 with my 50 to achieve the same results? |
they are all at f/5 |
|
|
|
05/18/2004 08:39:48 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Neuferland:
AFter all this, I just have to ask, what is this for and why the rush?
Deannda
If you can tell me, curiousity got the better of me |
Sure! :^) She's in a play that starts in June. The production needs everybody's headshots to assemble the marketing/promotional packet.
Her old headshot was taken by a friend with a film SLR and 3200(!!) ISO film. The guy at the camera store suggested it, but it just sounds crazy for a headshot. The old headshot was definitely amateur hour. It was an ok shot, but incredibly grainy, surprisingly motion blurred (for that speed film) and way too contrasty. I suspect the camera didn't know what to do with 3200 ISO.
Although I know that this new shot isn't perfect it's several orders of magnitude better than the old one. :^) |
|
|
|
05/18/2004 10:36:44 AM · #38 |
EDIT... didnt see page two at 1st....
Message edited by author 2004-05-18 10:37:28.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2004 10:45:52 AM · #39 |
Actually it does -- the sensor size (film size, format, whatever) has a direct relationship with the DOF, because DOF is related to the PRINT size at 11x14 (or 8x10, i forgot which one) viewed at a certain distance, so larger/smaller film size when done with enlarging to the print size matters.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
Is there a 1.6x reduction in DoF with the 300D vs. a full frame? If so, I'm thinking I should have shot at 2.8-3.2 instead of 2.0 |
The crop doesn't change the DOF in any way. The light moves through the lense and strikes the focal plane at back of the camera the same way as it would on a full frame 35mm camera, only the CMOS is samller than 35mm, so you record less of the image. At 1.8 only a few inches is in focus close in, this can create some real drama but it makes a better photograph than it does a likeness. If you want art, open it up , if you want a portrait dial it down enough so the focus includes at least the tip of the nose to the back of her ears. If you want to get the nice boken you have when the 50mm is at 1.8 but the dof is too tight, move back and use a bigger lens.
She looks pretty fair, perhaps try bouncing some light off a warm colored fabric if you dont have a gold disk. Shifting the light toward golden on one side creates better modeling and a healthier look. |
|
|
|
|
05/19/2004 02:21:04 AM · #40 |
[quote=paganini] Actually it does -- the sensor size (film size, format, whatever) has a direct relationship with the DOF, because DOF is related to the PRINT size at 11x14 (or 8x10, i forgot which one) viewed at a certain distance, so larger/smaller film size when done with enlarging to the print size matters.[quote=paganini]
So if I were to cover over half of my sensor with black electrical tape it would change the DOF that the uncovered part of the sensor would record? I was under the impression that depth of feild was determined in the lens, and that if you put any camera body behind a given lens, or for that matter a blank wall to focus the light on like in the old camera obscura days of victorian entertainment, the amount of the subject that appears to be in focus when the light moves through the lens and strikes the film/sensor/wall is determined in the glass elements of the lens and how the appature steers the light through those elements.
I'm not saying I'm sure, but if sensor size ties into DOF there is a chapter in the back of te book I forgot to read.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2004 02:47:01 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So if I were to cover over half of my sensor with black electrical tape it would change the DOF that the uncovered part of the sensor would record? I was under the impression that depth of feild was determined in the lens, and that if you put any camera body behind a given lens, or for that matter a blank wall to focus the light on like in the old camera obscura days of victorian entertainment, the amount of the subject that appears to be in focus when the light moves through the lens and strikes the film/sensor/wall is determined in the glass elements of the lens and how the appature steers the light through those elements.
I'm not saying I'm sure, but if sensor size ties into DOF there is a chapter in the back of te book I forgot to read. |
I don't claim to understand it, but the link paganini originally posted has this article //dfleming.ameranet.com/dof_dslr.html which seems to support the idea of differing DoFs.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2004 03:18:48 AM · #42 |
edit : comment removed, I should have read the whole article before responding.
Message edited by author 2004-05-19 04:10:58.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2004 03:33:13 AM · #43 |
I don't claim to understand it, but the link paganini originally posted has this article //dfleming.ameranet.com/dof_dslr.html which seems to support the idea of differing DoFs. [/quote]
OK, got it, thanks for reposing the link, to paraphrase, to get the same image using different sensor sizes you need to use different distances from the object. Things different distances from the camera will have a different depth of feild. So sensor size does not change the DOF unless you concider the resulting image as the constant. If the f stop is the constant, the DOF will be the same, but less of the image will be recorded. The smaller the sensor, with a constant image the greater the DOF, because of course you are farther way.
In a totally unrelated issue, check out some headshot studios online, you will see an amazing sameness to their product. This either speaks to their lack of imagination, or that casting directors know exactly what they want. One of the constants is bright big eyes, wide open at the camera, with no more and no less than one catch light reflected in them. While I do like natural light portraiture, if it is bright out models have this annoying habit of trying to keep their retinas from being seared by squinting, no matter how much I yell at them. To get the big eyed look you have to shoot in the shade or inside with a flash.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2004 03:43:01 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
While I do like natural light portraiture, if it is bright out models have this annoying habit of trying to keep their retinas from being seared by squinting, no matter how much I yell at them. To get the big eyed look you have to shoot in the shade or inside with a flash. |
YES! My GF and I were joking about this during the shoot. I complained about the squinting and she complained about the brightness. Then I told her something like "The piece-of-meat will let it's eyes be burned out for the shot..." We laughed about it and then started riffing on some Zoolander dialog.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/14/2025 10:55:53 AM EDT.
