Shooting portraits with a wide aperture

U

ukranger

Messages
426
Edit My Images
No
Hi Guys,


Struggling with this one, I'm using a D7000 & a 50mm 1.8. Trying to shoot portraits at F1.8, but they seem to be conning out really soft.

I'm focusing around the eyes.

Any advice?
 
The widest aperture on any lens tends to be it's weakest!
Have you tried just stopping down a little?
Shutter speed,iso etc?
Maybe post up a couple of examples!
 
Will post examples when I'm back at the Mac. :)

I'm really looking for bokeh in my shots, so stopping down will kill that. :-(
 
Not really, try stepping down to 2.8.
Should still get a nice bokeh with that.
 
You will have a VERY narrow DOF at 1.8 which may mean that eyes may be in focus but nose, ears etc will be out which is not a good look in a portrait.

Bokeh is all very well but not at the expense of the main subject IMO.


Heather
 
ukranger said:
Hi Guys,


Struggling with this one, I'm using a D7000 & a 50mm 1.8. Trying to shoot portraits at F1.8, but they seem to be conning out really soft.

I'm focusing around the eyes.

Any advice?
Click to expand...

If you post some examples people may be able to help but there are two possible issues...

Firstly, your lens might be a bit soft at f1.8. Shooting some test shots should convince you one way or the other.

Secondly, at f1.8 DoF is thin if you're close to the subject so it may be worth checking some DoF tables if you're not sure.

I only have DoF tables for Canon APS-C, not Nikon, and they detail f1.4 and f2 and not f1.8 but guessing a little I'd guess that your DoF at 5ft from the subject will be in the region of 2 to 3 inches. At 10 ft your DoF will be in the region of 8 inches to a foot. Even at 5ft you should be able to get the eyes sharp if you hit focus and if neither the camera or the subject move between achieving focus and firing the shutter.

In your position I'd check the lens sharpness first by shooting a static subject and base my expectations on the result.
 
Are they soft at normal viewing sizes or only when pixel peeping?
 
Here's an example image, taken with my 50mm @ f1.8

It looks good on the cameras LCD, but when I put it on the mac….well… :-(

Thanks for all the advice & links guys. :)

TP-Soft_zps35398109.jpg
 
I am struggling to find a focus point in that image to be honest :shrug:

Do you have one shot at a smaller aperture say f2.8 or f4

Les (y)
 
Main problem with that image is flare, shooting into strong back/side lighting. A good lens hood would help a lot there, or shade the lens with your hand as you would shade your eyes. If you have a protection filter fitted, take it off. With very shallow depth of field, accurate focusing is critical at f/1.8.
 
Hmm - I'm wondering if the actual focus point is just short of her nose, hence nothing will be in focus.
What kind of focussing did you use?
Personally, I don't find manual focus much use and the camera default focus tends to focus on the nearest point which is rarely the eye - I prefer use single point focussing.

Also - if you focussed by the usual half pressing, pause (wait for the beep) then release the shutter; then the slight delay between focus and shutter is enough for the focus point to move significantly. The you and model only have to change the distance by a couple of inches and the eyes will look soft; this happens all too frequently. :)

What I suggest trying is to take a shot of something with a lot of texture and depth at about the same sort of distance, like a lawn, so we can see if there is anything sharp at any distance.
If my guess is right, then there will be something sharp and the lens is OK; the softness on your model would then simply technique - which can be fixed.
 
Also....
As already pointed out, using a big aperture lens wide open is never going to make a pixel peeper happy - it will look soft at 100%, especially the edges.
If only for web use or small prints (A4 or less), then that lens should be fine.

But sharpness is kinda missing the point of these lenses.
For example, here's one I shot recently wide open at f1.4 - does it matter is isn't pin sharp? I think not :)
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Bl...29170_qdcVvF#!i=2644822958&k=KGZp894&lb=1&s=A
It captured the moment, and that's what is important :)
 
With that framing I'd have used f/4 or f/5.6. Faster apertures work better for full body portraits.
 
A couple of other things to look at is processing the image, are you doing any image sharpening, are you shooting raw or jpeg, if jpeg is being used, what sharpening do you have set in the camera's menu, default on my D7000 is very soft in jpeg, with an f1.8 35mm moving the sharpening slider up in the camera menu and it makes a huge difference to jpegs.
 
I usually stop down to F2 or F2.5/2.4 (depending on lens used).

As said its crucial that you focus on the eyes (pupils), its also better to shift the focus point rather than focus & recompose as any movement from the original focal plane will show up due to the shallow depth of field.
 
The last picture looks like the focus was on the fern in the background, not the people.
 
ukranger said:
I agree, but the focus point was on the couple. :-/
Maybe the lens.
Click to expand...

Assuming that you have centre point selected the next question is why it missed focus. It could have missed because it couldn't achieve a lock, where abouts on which person was the focus point?

If you suspect the lens shoot some test shots and see if you can pin a problem down. It could be that your taking shots which are difficult for the cameras AF to lock on to, the couple shot could give problems depending on where you focused and that backlit shot of the girl could give AF problems too. If it is down to subject, detail and lighting you could try and help the AF system by aiming at something that the AF has the best possible chance of locking on to.
 
Find a suitable statue and shoot it on different settings - has your camera got live view?
 
woof woof said:
Assuming that you have centre point selected the next question is why it missed focus. It could have missed because it couldn't achieve a lock, where abouts on which person was the focus point?
Click to expand...


If you used centre focus, then reframed, at f/1.8 there's a fair chance that the subject won't be in focus.
 
st599 said:
If you used centre focus, then reframed, at f/1.8 there's a fair chance that the subject won't be in focus.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't apply in this case. Focus-recompose errors only become significant when a) you're very close, like 3ft or so, b) and subject is well off-centre, c) and shooting at a very low f/number. You need all three conditions for there to be a problem.

One possibility in this case is the AF has picked up on an area behind the couple, in-between them.
 
The issue is likely not 100% directed to the aperture but at the point you are choosing to focus on. I would use a single focus point in the camera, half press the shutter with the focus point on the eyes (its eyes you need sharp to make the image look good) then recompose and fully press the shutter.

This is the method I use for portraits of a single subject.

EDIT - This is an example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61780014@N08/8690111638/sizes/l/in/photostream/
 
Last edited:
FrattonFreak said:
for your second example F/1.8 is far, far too wide, you would only have some hair on the back of their heads in focus.

I suggest you start at f/4 minimum
Click to expand...

I disagree with this.

Firstly, at the distance in that shot the depth of field will be more than adequate; here's a similar framing taken at f1.4 - you need to be pixel peeping to tell her face isn't quite as sharp at his, you'd never see the difference on an A3 print.

Secondly, even at much closer distances where shallow DoF is significant the results look fine. Here's a head and shoulders shot at f1.4 - the eyes are sharp, that's all that really matters.
 
ukranger said:
I'm really looking for bokeh in my shots, so stopping down will kill that. :-(
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. f/1.8 - f/2.2 won't make a great deal of noticeable difference in general terms. Certainly not in the single portrait you posted above with the sea that far in the distance.

The only lens of mine I'll happily shoot wide open is the 135L
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
I disagree with this.

Firstly, at the distance in that shot the depth of field will be more than adequate; here's a similar framing taken at f1.4 - you need to be pixel peeping to tell her face isn't quite as sharp at his, you'd never see the difference on an A3 print.

Secondly, even at much closer distances where shallow DoF is significant the results look fine. Here's a head and shoulders shot at f1.4 - the eyes are sharp, that's all that really matters.
Click to expand...

A lens with an aperture of f/1.8 being shot at f/1.8 isn't going to be its sharpest aperture. The image I was talking about was the one of the back of a couple, its not a sharp eyes only image as you can't see them. It would be pointless to use such a wide aperture and small depth of field for this image. Please re-read my post and be aware what image I'm referring to - thanks
 
LeeRatters said:
Not necessarily. f/1.8 - f/2.2 won't make a great deal of noticeable difference in general terms. Certainly not in the single portrait you posted above with the sea that far in the distance.

The only lens of mine I'll happily shoot wide open is the 135L
Click to expand...

Spot on (y). Its to do with the distance between the subject and the background.

You need to get back to basics. A sharp image is what counts every time - once you start mastering this then practice the creative elements.

I think I now understand what your problem is. You are prioritising bokeh over sharpness of image. Your focus point for the image is also an issue

Here is an exercise for you. Put the camera on a tripod taking images of say 5 or 6 bottles in an angled row away from the camera. Using a single focus spot take images focusing on front, middle and back bottle and repeat using varying apertures. Examine the images and see what this teaches you.

These are things that we have all learnt the hard way and it will make you a better photographer to learn these :)
 
FrattonFreak said:
A lens with an aperture of f/1.8 being shot at f/1.8 isn't going to be its sharpest aperture. The image I was talking about was the one of the back of a couple, its not a sharp eyes only image as you can't see them. It would be pointless to use such a wide aperture and small depth of field for this image. Please re-read my post and be aware what image I'm referring to - thanks
Click to expand...

Maybe you could please read back and make what you were trying to say a bit clearer?
In the second shot the couple are not sharp because of missed focus, nothing to do with aperture.

At that distance f1.8 should have allowed the couple to be sharp and the background slightly blurred, which is a look that usually works well.
The burning question is why focus was missed.
 
Maybe we'll just agree that we use different techniques - This is an example of what I mean. This image was shot at f/5, its more a snapshot and its a small file but the point I make is that at f/5 you can sufficient depth of field and also the background is put into bokeh and using my single focus point, half press to get focus on eyes then recompose:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61780014@N08/9580085491/

I one 100% agree with you that the OP#s issue is 100% to do with not getting the point of focus correct
 
FrattonFreak said:
Maybe we'll just agree that we use different techniques - This is an example of what I mean. This image was shot at f/5, its more a snapshot and its a small file but the point I make is that at f/5 you can sufficient depth of field and also the background is put into bokeh and using my single focus point, half press to get focus on eyes then recompose:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61780014@N08/9580085491/

I one 100% agree with you that the OP#s issue is 100% to do with not getting the point of focus correct
Click to expand...

But there's a massive difference between f5 at 3 feet away and f5 at 15 feet away, which is the distance in the OP's shot. At that distance f5 would be suitable for a group shot;)
 
Agreed however it was a group shot - two people with their backs to the camera:)

I'm showing the OP how close-ups like the one he took / displayed in the earlier post don't need to be at f/1.8

Anyway as we have all said the OP's problem to be addressed first is focussing on the subject or part of subject he wants sharp. Until that's addressed it really wont matter what aperture he uses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top