portrait

[Watersedge]

When you take portrait photo i use 1 single af point and focus on the eyes at beteen 3.5 anf 4.5 f stop. Is using a single af poing beter than using multipld af points

 

[big soft moose]

like most of the rest of your posts that's a very generalised view - there isn't just one right way of taking a portrait, it depends on your subject, the situation etc.

However in very basic terms if you are shooting a static subject you are better using a single AF point (or possibly manual focus) so that the camera doesn't inadvertently focus on something other than the subject.

For example in those shots you posted from the wedding workshop , you patently used multiple points and it had focused on the rail on the right hand side, leaving the main subject slightly soft.

Also with regard to aperture , why are you using F3.5 (Is it because you only have a kit lens ? - if so be aware that its only f3.5 at the 18mm end).

I'd use anything from f1.8 through to f8 depending on how big a depth of field is needed (and the light and a mutiplicity of other factors)

 

[Watersedge]

Thanks if its a group of peope 3 rows depth would you focus on the middle row and use the f stop setting to get the other rows in focus.

 

[big soft moose]

very basically yes, if you need a wide depth of feild you need a narrower apperture, which one depending on all sorts of factors. In very very basic terms the plane of focus will be 1/3 in front of the focal point and 2/3 behind it

Also as regards where to focus i'd put the focal point on the most important part of the shot. if you are for example shooting a wedding i'd put the focus on the B&G

However , and I know i'm wasting my breath, someone who doesn't understand their camera has no business taking formal group shots anyway

 

[Watersedge]

Im not taking any shots im trying to understand the relationship betweem aperatire and focus. I could use the example of landscape then.

 

[faddius]

Im not taking any shots im trying to understand the relationship betweem aperatire and focus. I could use the example of landscape then.

For landscapes, a small aperture and focus to infinity. Even simpler, as generally for landscapes you want a huge depth of field to try to get as much in focus as possible.

 

[big soft moose]

Im not taking any shots im trying to understand the relationship betweem aperatire and focus. I could use the example of landscape then.

Get a good book for beginners, read your camera manual, read the other threads in talk basics

however in very simple terms the larger the aperture the narrower the depth of feild (ie the area that's in focus)

but it isn't that simple as aperture also has a bearing on exposure, as a larger aperture lets in more light, so if you want to use a large aperture in bright light you also need to use a fast shutter speed and/or reduce the iso

I'm also confused as i'm sure you said last june

ive used a slr for 10 years compact digital 4 years ans a dslr 1 year

That being so i'm struggling to see how you cannot know even the very basics of photography

 

[big soft moose]

For landscapes, a small aperture and focus to infinity. Even simpler, as generally for landscapes you want a huge depth of field to try to get as much in focus as possible.

strictly speaking you'll get more in focus if you focus on the hyperfocal distance (ie one third of the way into the frame) - because the DoF is one third in front of the focus point and 2 thirds behind it

 

[HoppyUK]

When you take portrait photo i use 1 single af point and focus on the eyes at beteen 3.5 anf 4.5 f stop. Is using a single af poing beter than using multipld af points

Always focus on the nearest eye. You'll struggle to do that accurately and reliably with anything other than a single AF point. With multiple AF points, the camera will usually lock on to the one over the nearest area of the subject.

Be aware that with focus-recompose technique, when a) you're close, b) you have to move the camera quite a long way to recompose, and c) you are shooting with a very low f/number, there is a danger that the plane of sharp focus will move behind the target area. Google it, but in practise it's not quite the problem that some folks make it out to be, and also in reality the usual cause of miss-focus with portriats like this is either the subject or photographer moving after focus has been set.

Im not taking any shots im trying to understand the relationship betweem aperatire and focus. I could use the example of landscape then.

Focusing a landscape and a close portrait are totally different. Depth of field varies a lot with distance of course, and also at close range it is roughly 50/50% in front and behind the focused focused point.

With more normal range subjects, like maybe a group portrait, it will be about 33/66% and hence the rule of thumb 'focus one third in'. With a landscape though, using the hyperfocal distance setting, the ratio from near to the horizon is more like 0.1:99.9%

BTW, if you focus a typical landscape 'one third of the way into the frame' you will almost certainly end up on a point a long way from the hyperfocal distance and lose out on a lot of potential near distance sharpness.

Everything you need to know about depth of field here, including an excellent calculator http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

[donut]

but it isn't that simple as aperture also has a bearing on exposure, as a larger aperture lets in more light, so if you want to use a large aperture in bright light you also need to use a slow shutter speed and/or reduce the iso





That being so i'm struggling to see how you cannot know even the very basics of photography

really ?

 

[big soft moose]

really ?

No - doh moment - you'll need to use a faster shutter speed, or a lower iso , or both - slight moment of higher/lower confusion :bonk:

 

[boyfalldown]

doesn't your swpp training tell you everything you need to know?

 

[big soft moose]

arggghhh, lets not get into the joys of the swpp debate again.

 

[onona]

like most of the rest of your posts that's a very generalised view - there isn't just one right way of taking a portrait, it depends on your subject, the situation etc.

This. This. This.

I think people get way too hung up on the idea that there's a precise, specific single method to deal with any photographic situation, when in fact, like any creative endeavour, there are many ways to deal with them. First and foremost, do whatever yields the results you like. Does it look good? Yes? Then it doesn't really matter how you got it. Knowing your camera and the relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO is really the only technical stuff you need to really grasp inside out. Once you have that, you can manipulate those to get whatever you're after.

 

[SarahLee]

Just a pre-emptive warning for the thread to stay civil please.

I know that Ian has asked these questions before and already received similar responses, but this is Talk Basics and we need to try to be helpful in here. The explanations may also be useful for other new members.

Ian, it would be a good idea for you to review earlier threads where you've asked the same thing and maybe come back with some specific questions about the bits that didn't make sense.

 

[big soft moose]

I would recommend this book Photographers guide to light to anyone who is having similar difficulties to ian

I had it when i was starting out and its very helpful in understanding how various factors relate, and what settings to use when - of course it can't be definitive guide but it is a good help to anyone learning the basics.

 

[Bristolian]

Thanks if its a group of peope 3 rows depth would you focus on the middle row and use the f stop setting to get the other rows in focus.

Personally, in these situation I focus on the front row (normally the centre person) as the depth of focus is less in front of the focal point than it is behind - roughly 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind.

Depending on your aperture, focussing on the middle row may throw the front row out of focus while keeping the rear row in focus - probably not what you're wanting to achieve. With a wide enough aperture you might even end up with only the middle row in focus

 

[Pookeyhead]

If you're being REALLY pedantic, using a single AF point and reframing is technically shifting the plane of focus as you rotate the camera around the vertical axis (or horizontal if you're shooting portrait), and with really wide apertures you can actually do more harm than good.

If it's a static object, and you have all the time in the world... here's a radical idea... how about focusing manually? Like they used to do before AF became so common place? Anyone would think no one took a sharp image prior to AF

 

[DemiLion]

If you're being REALLY pedantic, using a single AF point and reframing is technically shifting the plane of focus as you rotate the camera around the vertical axis (or horizontal if you're shooting portrait), and with really wide apertures you can actually do more harm than good.

If it's a static object, and you have all the time in the world... here's a radical idea... how about focusing manually? Like they used to do before AF became so common place? Anyone would think no one took a sharp image prior to AF

If you're being really, really pedantic, the plane of variance depends on which direction you move the camera after focusing.

There's a good reason why lots of people with film cameras got sharp images; the focusing screen was usually specifically designed for manual use.

 

[Pookeyhead]

But you're either rotating it left or right, or tilting it up or down.. either way you're altering the plane of focus from where you had it when you focused. You can't argue with that.

I find it just as easy to focus manually with my D800 as I do with my FM2... which is quite dark and coarse in comparison. I rarely ever used the split screen section of the FM2, and I found the micro prism section next to useless. I still shoot a great deal of film, and have several film Nikons including FM2, FE, and F3HP. I also have a F5, and find the D800 just as easy as all of those, and better than most of them.

 

[Phil V]

But you're either rotating it left or right, or tilting it up or down.. either way you're altering the plane of focus from where you had it when you focused. You can't argue with that.

I find it just as easy to focus manually with my D800 as I do with my FM2... which is quite dark and coarse in comparison. I rarely ever used the split screen section of the FM2, and I found the micro prism section next to useless. I still shoot a great deal of film, and have several film Nikons including FM2, FE, and F3HP. I also have a F5, and find the D800 just as easy as all of those, and better than most of them.

With respect, the D800 focussing screen isn't really a typical DSLR screen, lots of people reading this for advice will have a crop body, many with a pentamirror and most with 3.5 or slower glass.

Manual focussing a startup DSLR compared to a startup non-AF SLR are like chalk and cheese. (I got my first AF SLR in 2001 -first SLR 1985 - I waited for the technology to mature)

So for a lower end DSLR with a kit lens, focus recompose should be fine Full frame with a 1.4 portrait lens, it's a really bad idea.

Ian. Buy at least one of the books that have been recommended, then get out and shoot some stuff. If you can't figure it out with a camera in your hand and looking at the results; then honestly - photography probably isn't for you:shrug:. Give yourself a chance of learning by getting out and shooting stuff.

 

[Nod]

doesn't your swpp training tell you everything you need to know?

:rofl: (PML!!!)

 

[Nod]

Personally, I'm not a fan of ultra shallow DoF, especially in portraits. As a general rule, I prefer to shoot at an aperture that (when focus is on the closest eye) has enough DoF to have the far eye acceptably sharp. Of course, if you're working with available light, you may need to be wide open (low number) but sometimes it's better to have a little noise creeping in than large areas of out of focus image.

Even in sweeping landscapes, there's often a point of more interest than the rest of the scene, whether it's a tractor, a stack of bales or even a gateway. If this is somewhere between 1/3rd to 2/3rd of the way between me and the horizon, I'll usually use that as the point of focus and use the DoF preview button to check that my chosen aperture is narrow enough (higher number) to keep the fore and background acceptably sharp. If that means the shutter speed drops below handholdable, well, that's what tripods are for!

 

[Pookeyhead]

With respect, the D800 focussing screen isn't really a typical DSLR screen, l

I'll grant you that. I am talking about when you've got all the time in the world here though.

Personally I'd use a single AF point and just re-frame... the focal plane thing was really just being a little pedantic. In reality you're not likely to run into issues because of that unless you're really up close to a subject at f1.4.

 

[big soft moose]

the op has a 60D (or possibly a D60 ) and a kit lens (I assume the 18-55) , trying to manual focus that lens is a really bad idea as it has a tendency to drift.

with a cross of AF points it shouldn't be necessary to recompose in a lot of situations - you just select the AF point which is on the desired focal point.

 

[Watersedge]

i correct my camera on my profile now to a 60D

 

[DemiLion]

But you're either rotating it left or right, or tilting it up or down.. either way you're altering the plane of focus from where you had it when you focused. You can't argue with that.

Nope I can't and I completely agree. I was just pointing out that the variance of the plane depends on which way you reposition the camera rather than the orientation or the sensor (ie portrait or landscape).

Personally I'd use a single AF point and just re-frame... the focal plane thing was really just being a little pedantic. In reality you're not likely to run into issues because of that unless you're really up close to a subject at f1.4.

Yup!

But it's an important one if you're working with shallow DoFs.

As for the manual focus, I agree with both you an Phil to an extent. But on the basis that Watersedge has proved himself to not understand some of the basics of photography, it's better to start crawling before toddling!!

 

[dalegt4]

This. This. This.

I think people get way too hung up on the idea that there's a precise, specific single method to deal with any photographic situation, when in fact, like any creative endeavour, there are many ways to deal with them. First and foremost, do whatever yields the results you like. Does it look good? Yes? Then it doesn't really matter how you got it. Knowing your camera and the relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO is really the only technical stuff you need to really grasp inside out. Once you have that, you can manipulate those to get whatever you're after.

i agree with that, there is no better way of finding the answers than practice and knowing your camera inside out, i personally shoot 1 focus point and either av for manual for portrait