Question about a portrait shoot

[timno1]

I did my first shoot with a paid model this morning.Basically it was for me to learn how to work with a model and try different techniques.
We did the shoot on the coast (of Sydney),and the weather was shocking,so that certainly didnt help.My main question is,what f-stop do most of you guys use for a portrait shoot? For most of my shots i used f1.4 on a 50mm lens,but most of the shots suffer from poor focus.
I will definitely book another shoot soon,and i really want to improve on my first attempt.
Any help will be much appreciated.

[MATT]

Is it poor focus or lack of DOF . DOF is very small at f1.4 .Post up a few images for us to look at.

i don't have a great deal of experience but it would depend on what you are trying to achieve as to the fstop number you use. I find for every day stuff on my 50 1.4 on the d300 I shoot at about 4.5-5.6 gives good results, but that is if I wan to make sure the face is crisp.

It may be better to use a smaller aperture and up the ISO a little compensate.

I'm sure you will get plenty of helpful replys from people with more experience with this and It may even be worth having another person to come to a shoot like this to share expenses and to bounce ideas off of.

Good luck

MATT

[timno1]

Hey Matt,here are a few examples.I used a Canon EOS 40d with a 50mm lens set at f1.4.



I have sports for a number of years,so i decided to give a portrait shoot a go.The weather was very poor but i was hoping for much sharper pics.

[Geoff]

Hi Timmo,
Good on you for facing this bloody awful weather we've been having.
I would suggest that 1.4 for a full body/torso or even head portrait shoot, would be too wide open (too narrow a depth of field). If you have a very narrow depth of field then the whole image isn't going to look crisp and sharp.

The first image in your post is VERY soft, not strictly out of focus, but certainly as you say, not sharp.
What ISO were u using here and did you use any fill flash? (if at all?).

When I do this type of shoot, and if there is ample light (and judging by the look of the day with cloud but enough natural light) I'd shoot with an aperture of ABOUT 4-6. I'm not sure about the Canon 50 1.4 but I primarily use the 85 1.4 in the Nikon range and I know that's where it's 'sweet spot' is.

Here's a few I did on a shoot at the beach only last week, with the aperture ranging from 2.8 through to 5.

F 2.8 ISO 100, 85mm.

F6.0 ISO 100, 85mm.

F2.8 ISO 100, 85mm.

F3.2 ISO 100, 85mm.

A few questions for you also.
In the first shot, was there a lot of sea spray or mist? Was your lens filter (or the lens itself dirty?).

The 2nd shot is significantly sharper and has a much better contrast ratio to it.

Have you done any PP on these or are they straight out of the camera?

Hope this is of some help.

Oh yeah, it could be your camera too, it's a Canon, get a Nikon and you'll be right

[timno1]

Geoff,thanks for the constructive comments.To answer your questions,I was using an ISO of 200 in the first shot,then when i shot around the cliffs (the 2nd pic) i changed it to 350,because it was a little darker there.I didnt use fill in flash because it was natural light without any shadows,and i thought using f1.4,i wouldnt need it.
You make a good point about the sea spray,because it was very windy this morning,and thinking back,there probably was some fine spray around.
No i havent done any PP on these shots,i thought i would post them here straight out of the camera,just to stress my point about the focus.

[gstark]

From the "I have a hammer, so every problem's a nail" school of photography.

Given that you were shooting at f/1.4, with the exception of the first image, what you're seeing is pretty much an expected outcome.

The deal with aperture is that you should always be shooting with an aperture setting that is appropriate to your desired results, as well as based upon the ambient conditions. Shooting at f/1.4 is pretty much for special circumstances, those being (typically) extreme low light, or extremely shallow depth of field. That's why you buy a fast lens, after all, isn't it? While today was by no means bright and sunny, I didn't see it being an extremely low-light day either.

My point being that just because you have f/1.4 available, doesn't mean that you should be using it all the time.

In this case, I suspect that you've shot yourself in the foot.

Twice.

First of all, by shooting wide open, you have just a very limited area where your image will be in sharp focus. The shallow depth of field of this lens has worked against you.

And then, by shooting wide open, you're not taking advantage of the lens's best working area, its sweet spot. I have an 85 f/1.4, as well as a 50 f/1.4, but for these sorts of images, I'd be shooting at between f/6.3 and f/9, which is where the lens is just magic. Sharp, and beautiful bokeh.

Geoff has raised a question about image #1, which isn't just soft, but also lacking in contrast, and his question about spray or some other optical interference is spot on.

But also, in the other images ... what was your wb setting? The colours seem to me to be insipid and pale, tending towards cyan or blue, which is a clear sign for me - especially when coupled with the shooting conditions encountered - that the wb is not correct. See if you can hit these images with a blow torch (or a wb adjustment if you prefer) and warm them up a notch or three, and then see if they start to look a bit better.

[timno1]

I was probably a bit nieve going into this shoot,and i had the wb on auto.I have never really had to alter the wb in my sports pics before,so i pretty much took the same tact this time.
This shoot was pretty much a chance for myself to work with a model,but i really shouldve put a lot more thought into such this as f-stop,ISO etc.
Thanks for all your comments guys,i will truelly be taking them on board when i do another shoot.

[Geoff]

Tim, if you'd like some company on your next portrait shoot, I'd be happy to help out and show you what I know.

[Biggzie]

Do you realise that some people spend a lot of time perfecting soft focusing in Photoshop or have softfocus filters or even smear vasaline over them to get results like photo #1, and all you did was walk onto a beach ...

[Shoot]

Tim, if you'd like some company on your next portrait shoot, I'd be happy to help out and show you what I know.

I know I wasn't exactly invited Tim but nonetheless I'm going to put my hand up and say that I'd also be willing to come with you and see if i can't get some experience in doing some more portraiture work... Of course it goes without saying that id be more than willing to pay for my share of the costs involved, and I don't live all that far from you..

I'd be just as interested in the process of organising the model for the day to shooting some frames, any experience is good experience.

[jdear]

Aside from the choices you made to expose the photo (It is certainly possible to shoot wide - 1.4 etc and nail it) - the quality of light in these locations... well... sucked! - (dark, overcast, flat lighting)

If the light is bad - you can either:
- improve it
- postpone the shoot

improve it by off-camera flash, video light, reflectors (although wouldn't have helped too much) + other light sources.

postpone it - even if its a paid gig - If you don't like the available light and you don't feel confident creating your own, move it to another date! I had 4 shoots this weekend and I cancelled down to 2 because of the wind and cloud cover.

Here was the weather I was shooting in yesterday:



here was some of the photos I pulled from it:





(more on blog)

shot around 500-800iso with off-camera flash.

Hope this is somewhat helpful
Jonathan