portraits aperture value?

jackdaw

whats the best aperture value for portraits ?

I find using f2.8 or lower leaves some of the face a bit blurry , sometimes this is a nice effect ... but hard to get the whole face in focus on f2.8 ...

I find f4 .. even f8 good for this ... problem is with these you don't get as much as a bokeh ...

Borderfox

Depends on the lens and how close you are to the subject, use 70-200 but be quite close to the subject and shoot at f4 and the bokeh will be very nice. I have shot portraits at f1.8 because the background is crap, focus on an eye.

ThOnda

It depends on picture style. If it is going to be a creative portrait, you can do whatever you want. Close, open, smudge, colorise...

challengemaster

Take off the bubblewrap.. it might focus better :pac:

Seriously though - Main thing imo to get in focus is the eyes, after that.. meh? Artistic license ftw!

DaireQuinlan

ThOnda wrote: »

... colorise ...

well, lets not go TOO far, shall we ?

challengemaster

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

well, lets not go TOO far, shall we ?

...why? If thats what the photographer wants to do in PP, I see no problem with it.

ThOnda

Why? Photography is a creative art and does not have to produce very truthful 2D images of 3D reality.

DaireQuinlan

ThOnda wrote: »

Why? Photography is a creative art and does not have to produce very truthful 2D images of 3D reality.

Ah. I was thinking more of those shots that people convert to B&W but leave one bit selectively colourised. Its up there alongside bad HDR as one of my pet hates.

Fionn

if you want the person to be in full focus you'll need a smaller aperture to get them in focus, one problem that can occur if it's rushed is that the focus is actually on the nose rather than the eyes.
and lots of non-photography people ask for selective colourisation - what can ya do??

Fajitas!

I love my low depth of field, often shooting from 1.2 - 1.8, but at the end of the day, whatever works, works, try everything, you'll soon figure it out (And how dirty your sensor is... :pac: )

kensutz

Exactly what Fajitas said, experiment because there's no definite aperture to use. Like most things in photography, experiment first and ask questions later if you can't get the desired result.

Ricky91t

I think if the eyes are sharp the photo will look great really,imo they are the things that count.

XLR8

ThOnda wrote: »

Why? Photography is a creative art and does not have to produce very truthful 2D images of 3D reality.

Love that picture, it works really well.

I love messing in photoshop but I never show anything i've been 'creative' with. People tend to frown upon it.

Jackdaw, it all depends on what lens you're using, distance from the subject, desired effect etc.

Digital is cheap so just practice on an inanimate object at different stops at different angles using different lighting techniques and you'll find something you like.

There are basic rules but who wants to take shots the same as everyone else... the rules are there to be broken. Just experiment, it's much more fun.

nilhg

And of course it depends on the format you are using, IIRC the OP has a full frame camera, and using that, for any given f ratio (remember f number does not equal aperture) and focal length, the DOF will be different to an APS or four thirds camera.

from equivalence

For the same shutter speed, the same f-ratio on different systems results in a different total amount of light, and thus a different total amount of noise (for sensors of the same efficiency).

Thus, it is the aperture, not the f-ratio, that determines both the DOF and total amount of light (for a given scene, perspective, FOV, and shutter speed). As stated above, the aperture is the quotient of the focal length and the f-ratio. For example, a 50mm lens at f/2 has an aperture of 50mm / 2 = 25mm. So, for the same perspective, framing, shutter speed, and aperture on different systems, the same total amount of light will fall onto the sensor, and will also give the same DOF for the image. Let's consider images taken of the same scene from the same position with the same framing and shutter speed:

1) 5D at 80mm, f/8 (aperture = 80mm / 8 = 10mm), 1/200, ISO 400
2) D300 at 53mm, f/5 (aperture = 53mm / 5 ~ 10mm), 1/200, ISO 160
3) 40D at 50mm, f/5 (aperture = 50mm / 5 = 10mm), 1/200, ISO 160
4) E3 at 40mm, f/4 (aperture = 40mm / 4 = 10mm), 1/200, ISO 100

Really though there is no good or bad as long as you can get the effect you want.

Fajitas!

Ricky91t wrote: »

I think if the eyes are sharp the photo will look great really,imo they are the things that count.

Sharpness is overrated :pac:

DaireQuinlan

nilhg wrote: »

And of course it depends on the format you are using, IIRC the OP has a full frame camera, and using that, for any given f ratio (remember f number does not equal aperture) and focal length, the DOF will be different to an APS or four thirds camera.

Well that, for a start, is just flat out wrong. An 80mm lens on a cropped frame camera focused at 10 meters will have precisely the same depth of field as an 80mm lens on a full frame camera focused at 10 meters, or a medium format camera focused at 10 meters. The only difference is the field of view. In order to get an equivalent composition you have to move closer with a full frame in comparison to a cropped camera, and closer still with a medium format camera. This results in the DOF appearing smaller.

And I've no idea what he's blathering on about focal lengths and apertures. For every EV there are equivalent shutter speeds and aperture values. It has nothing whatsoever to do with format or focal length ...

charybdis

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Well that, for a start, is just flat out wrong. An 80mm lens on a cropped frame camera focused at 10 meters will have precisely the same depth of field as an 80mm lens on a full frame camera focused at 10 meters, or a medium format camera focused at 10 meters. The only difference is the field of view. In order to get an equivalent composition you have to move closer with a full frame in comparison to a cropped camera, and closer still with a medium format camera. This results in the DOF appearing smaller.

And I've no idea what he's blathering on about focal lengths and apertures. For every EV there are equivalent shutter speeds and aperture values. It has nothing whatsoever to do with format or focal length ...

The depth-of-field doesn't *appear* smaller, it *is* smaller. As you've said, "in order to get an equivalent composition you have to move closer with a [larger sensor]", or use a longer lens, both of which would result in a shallower depth of field.

jackdaw wrote: »

whats the best aperture value for portraits ?

I find using f2.8 or lower leaves some of the face a bit blurry , sometimes this is a nice effect ... but hard to get the whole face in focus on f2.8 ...

I find f4 .. even f8 good for this ... problem is with these you don't get as much as a bokeh ...

As others have said, if you want to use a large aperture to create a diffuse background, make sure you are focused on one of the eyes.

Also, "bokeh" is not a quantitative term, although I'm not sure you're really implying it is as I don't understand what "much as a bokeh" means.

nilhg

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Well that, for a start, is just flat out wrong. An 80mm lens on a cropped frame camera focused at 10 meters will have precisely the same depth of field as an 80mm lens on a full frame camera focused at 10 meters, or a medium format camera focused at 10 meters. The only difference is the field of view. In order to get an equivalent composition you have to move closer with a full frame in comparison to a cropped camera, and closer still with a medium format camera. This results in the DOF appearing smaller.

While technically you're right, you are I'm sure aware that people are using their camera's to capture a composition, especially when the OP is about portraits.

And I've no idea what he's blathering on about focal lengths and apertures. For every EV there are equivalent shutter speeds and aperture values. It has nothing whatsoever to do with format or focal length ...[/QUOTE]

He's blathering on about using different systems to capture a shot with the same EV and AOV and DOF.

There are three threads on the top page of this forum ATM from folks who've gone FF and are now realising that better high ISO is not the only difference between formats, folk who learned on film SLRs will probably find it easier to change than people who started with digital.

mikeanywhere

Fajitas! wrote: »

I love my low depth of field, often shooting from 1.2 - 1.8, but at the end of the day, whatever works, works, try everything, you'll soon figure it out (And how dirty your sensor is... :pac: )

Same here!!

It really comes down to trial and error. Getting to know what works well in the situation you are in (ie location, light and lens[es] etc) and I suppose what it is you are trying to create.

Note to self - clean sensor more often!!

Fajitas! wrote: »

Sharpness is overrated :pac:

Al - you really need to work on those self portraits :P

DaireQuinlan

nilhg wrote: »

He's blathering on about using different systems to capture a shot with the same EV and AOV and DOF.

Yes, but unfortunately he's talking complete nonsense.

For the same shutter speed, the same f-ratio on different systems results in a different total amount of light, and thus a different total amount of noise (for sensors of the same efficiency).

This has been bandied around for about as long as people have been getting confused about crop ratios and APS sized sensors.

f/2.8 is f/2.8 is f/2.8. period. I measure a scene using an external light meter and get a setting of f/2.8 at 1/100, then I can apply that reading to a large format camera, a medium format camera, a full frame or 35mm film camera, a cropped frame dslr, or a P&S with a sensor the size of my thumbnail, presuming it has some sort of manual mode. This is presuming they're all at the same ISO, or have the same ISO film loaded.

And the whole POINT of the aperture reading is that it is directly related to the amount of light passing through the lens, IRRESPECTIVE of focal length and format size. A 50mm set to f/2.8 will pass exactly the same amount of light as a 300mm set to f/2.8. Thats the whole point !

quilmore

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yes, but unfortunately he's talking complete nonsense.



This has been bandied around for about as long as people have been getting confused about crop ratios and APS sized sensors.

f/2.8 is f/2.8 is f/2.8. period. I measure a scene using an external light meter and get a setting of f/2.8 at 1/100, then I can apply that reading to a large format camera, a medium format camera, a full frame or 35mm film camera, a cropped frame dslr, or a P&S with a sensor the size of my thumbnail, presuming it has some sort of manual mode. This is presuming they're all at the same ISO, or have the same ISO film loaded.

And the whole POINT of the aperture reading is that it is directly related to the amount of light passing through the lens, IRRESPECTIVE of focal length and format size. A 50mm set to f/2.8 will pass exactly the same amount of light as a 300mm set to f/2.8. Thats the whole point !

disagree!
different lenses transmit light in a different way
a 50mm f/1.4 will be at least half a stop faster than a cheap 18-55 lens at 50mm and at the same aperture

it's all down to how much light the lenses absorbs/transmit and how many glass is in them
metering through the lens is the only way to avoid it
I have 3 lenses that can go 50mm, set the camera manually in the same way and the exposure of the 3 pictures will be different

Hugh_C

And the answer is ......

f/5.6



or wider. Honestly, there's some great discussion in this thread, but I haven't seen anyone suggest a nice fast prime, something like an 85mm which would be nice on a full frame or crop. The 85 is ledge, as my middle kid would say. Only problem is I don't have one

Hugh

AnCatDubh

jackdaw wrote: »

whats the best aperture value for portraits ?

I find using f2.8 or lower leaves some of the face a bit blurry , sometimes this is a nice effect ... but hard to get the whole face in focus on f2.8 ...

I find f4 .. even f8 good for this ... problem is with these you don't get as much as a bokeh ...

There's a lot of "it depends on...." here and its all probably valid given certain situations.

The how-to's will tell you f9 or f11 with a 80/100mm prime which is in a formal setting / lighting environment (at least if i remember correctly what a Scott Kelby book said).

I like more bokeh but as you reported above when you go to 2.8 and below you can end up with more creative shots but that mightn't be what you are looking for.

A happy compromise I find is that which you have reported above at f4 somewhere around 70mm - at least thats what the exif says on my favourite portrait take says.

Remember zooms will have the sweet spot where they perform the best somewhere mid range in the focal length and mid range in the aperture. + or - thereafter and you will compromise on what the lens can do for you. Prime thus should be more consistent in so far as the focal length will be fixed in the equation.

In terms of getting better bokeh - at f4 and 70mm alter the distance to subject by moving closer. This will have a significant effect on it.

Thats my take on it however technically correct or not

DaireQuinlan

quilmore wrote: »

disagree!
different lenses transmit light in a different way
a 50mm f/1.4 will be at least half a stop faster than a cheap 18-55 lens at 50mm and at the same aperture

it's all down to how much light the lenses absorbs/transmit and how many glass is in them
metering through the lens is the only way to avoid it
I have 3 lenses that can go 50mm, set the camera manually in the same way and the exposure of the 3 pictures will be different

Yeah that is true, although the difference isn't as significant anymore. I'd chosen not to muddy the waters with a discussion about T-stops though IIRC we actually had a thread about them not too long ago. The actual loss is anything up to a third of a stop for a modern multicoated zoom lens, and less than that again for a modern multicoated prime.