What is your method for getting both eyes sharp when you are shooting a a head shot with the models face turned 45 degrees from camera focal plane? This is where the eyes are closer and further away, or front and back from the camera.

I've tried several approches with varying degrees of success.

2. Bridge of the nose: depending on focal length, aperture, and distance to subject, sometimes sharp sometimes not.
3. Closest tear duct: crap.
4. Backing away from the subject, bridge of the nose, and cropping in post process--sharp.
5. Same thing as 4 but at 200mm+ at 10+ yards. Same effect in that DOF becomes greater at the subject.

Specifically, is there a method to get both eyes sharp when you are using a 70mm lens and shooting at 4-5.6 at about 2.5 feet from the models face? Sometimes space is tight you know.

The image below is an example, but her face is even less than 45 degrees. But you get the point.

Thanks.

200mm f5 1/200th ISO 100 at about 8-10 feet.

Hmm, you can't defy the laws of physics.

With that aperture and that distance-to-subject and lens, etc. something's got to give. I tend to focus on the nearest eye, but I tend to shoot f8 or even f11 at least.

Edward

Well you could do it with a tilt/shift lens

Getting the two eyes in focus is relatively simple when you stop down enough and you keep to a reasonable distance.

There are more demanding situations where you are shooting jewelry on a model, such as a necklace, and have to keep both the product and the model's face in focus. Again, stopping down to the maximum you can without the lens going too soft, keeping your distance to the model to something that you can crop a little but not too much that you lose detail and the angle at which you shoot can help.

But also bracketing successive shots with focus on model, then focus on jewelry and so on, in case you need to comp in post.

Edward

That a boy. Damn right. LOL.

What's a reasonable distance given X focal length + aperture? Are we talking hyper-focal distances here? Also, what if you want to throw the background out of focus and it's only 10 feet behind? You really can't use F11. Am I making something out of nothing, or is this a real concern?

you want things you can't have. If you really want an out of focus background.. you have to shoot at either a larger aperture of move away from the background, of use different focal length.

If you don't want a different focal length and can not move away from the background, you have to use an open aperture.. no other way. So either change the position of hear head (straight to the cam), use a t/s lens.. or accept the fact that one eye will be out of focus. Or.. when the out of focus is more annoying than an in focus background... stop down.

Like said before.. it's physics.

Yes, I understand that. I'm just wanting to be thorough in my analysis. Still, do you follow any quick rules, or hyper focal? For instance, I could use a 16mm lens at F4 at say 5 feet, and then crop to the size I want--everything is in focus on the model. I mean have I been thinking correctly here?

But would that mean you run the risk of slight facial distortions because of the wider angle?

You are missing an important point here - perhaps the most important one: the right choice of focal length governs the drawing of the picture.

On FF 35mm I would stay with 135mm lens, which at about 5ft - 5.5ft will give you a fairly full head shot with a pleasant perspective; backing away to include more will change that, unfortunately, and if you end up at the distance where a 200mm would have given the full-frame close-up, then it flattens the face too much. Of course, only my opinion, but I did specialise in model work. Ask James what he´d suggest; a more contemporary opinion than mine is always worth having.

I would avoid the cropping ruse: something always gets lost...

At the same time as I was working, lots of photographers swore by 105mm, so take your pick, but for FF 35mm I would never go shorter.

Ciao - Rob C

A photograph isn't about numbers or hard and fast rules. In fact, the moment you say, oh yea a portrait must be a 105mm lens, or a beauty shot must require soft broad light with 40% fill, then you've pretty much lost your way.

Any photograph, especially a portrait must have a clear intent.

Is the intent to make the subject look traditionally pretty (like you showed in your photo?), or unique to themselves, or is it a statement of the artist.

Some portrait photographers have a very strong style and that style crosses all subjects, but it is as much a portrait of the photographer as it is the subject. Good for the photographer, probably not so good for the subject, depending on your point of view.

If your learning, probably the best thing to do is to stick with one lens and work that until you understand it. I would suggest wider instead of longer, as it will teach you to manipulate the subject and "fix" the image in front of the camera, rather than just throwing on longer lenses and trying to "fix" it yourslef.

It's not the distance, F-stop, or whatever, it's more of how you place the camera.

Actually, it's a shame more people don't start with view cameras, because then you learn how just keeping the subject level to the film plane (or not) can change the perspective and look of the photo as much as any change of lens.

With digital we truly are getting in the flat plane look of photography since most of the lenses don't move and with the dslrs, especially the Canons have such a heavy filter and smooth look that the detail is beginning to look less sharp than what we had with film or what you get with a non AA filtered camera.

Pesonally I think a lot of digital looks too smooth and if there is any reason to buy a mfdb, it's probalby because of the no aa filter.

One more thing, if your in the learning process (I guess we're all in the learning process), don't follow the rules, just break them, but never forget the intent of the photograph.





JR

Hi James

Thanks for jumping in so quickly with a response - I was also a bit surprised, but mainly gratified, by your comment on undue smoothness! Sort of goes in the direction of my earlier thoughts, where I had my doubts about current trends in models´skin textures in beauty and fashion work.

Ciao - Rob C

You just don't like retouching, but we're in a retouch world and if you don't believe look at the number of plastic surgeons in your town.

Last year I was at my retouchers and she had a print of a B list startlet lying in the grass nude.

I said, wow you've don't a lot of work on that image and the retoucher said "I haven't started yet".

Regardless,

Some people can retouch and still hold the integrity of the image some can't but usually the reason you see such overall smoothness is we retouch at 100% but once knocked down to the web size it looks too smooth, too clean.

Photographer's do not set the current "trend" (actually I wouldn't call it a trend), on retouching, clients do and most of the reason you see a lot of too smooth looks is there are a lot of not so good retouchers.



JR

The problem is well know by several photographers and a reason some won't post online anymore.
I have posted several time 100% crops because people were claiming there was no skin detail. Going back from 22MP to 799 on the longest side will kill detail (duh )

On you original question.
It's indeed a matter of shooting with a smaller aperture.
OR....
you can try to figure out when the angle of your camera to your model will get both eyes in a focusplane, but you're compostion will not be what you want as I read it here.

There is no trick, you have to shoot for what you need, I personally love the fact that one eye is sharp and the other not.

If you really want both eyes in sharp a DSLR with a long lens could be an option, but it won't throw your background completly out of focus unless you move your model FAR away from the background.

So it's a question that cannot be answered with a simple trick.
Well a T&S would indeed help

Just reading the previous posts, James allready mentioned the viewcamera and the focus plane, so that's double from my part, sorry.

That depends on where you shoot the face and how far away you are from the face. But yes, it will distort. You can use the distortion to advantage too, as you know, such as getting close and low to a models legs while she is lying down, and shooting up toward her face, which will make her legs look really, really long.

In any event, yes, you are correct. However, if you shoot the face 5 feet back and it's in the middle of the frame, you should be ok, or maybe 8 feet. You get my point. It will look different than a 200mm lens at an equal frame filling distance. For example, if you shoot the model 3/4 body at 8 feet with the 16mm and then back up with a 200mm until you get the same 3/4's of the body in the frame, the images will look different. Both can be good. I'm not trying to insult your knowledge on the subject, though. I'm sure you were just trying to make me think about my statement.

In my experience, which is vastly minuscule to most of yours, that is my perception too. When I shoot model shots, I like to use my 70-200L, inbetween 100 and 180mm, and even use it with my 1.4 teleconverter at 280mm for some shots. It just seems to give the best "look." Although I'm not bitching about the image above, which was taken at 70mm with my 24-70.

It's just harder to get right with a shorter focal length, or it's a less forgiving effort given you have to get a lot closer to the model, which meanws less DOF and more possible distortion. I've actually seen photographers using 400mm lenses and talking to the models on handset. The reason I understand why they do this is to get the entire model in sharp focus, from bust up say, and still have that nice completely blurred background, plus sharp eyes, since at 50 yards, the DOF is wide enough to get both eyes sharp in focus using f4.

Rob, I've never cropped that much either. I prefer not to but if it works, I'd be hard pressed to say why not, except that yes, you lose detail.

I agree with all you said here. I also understand focal plane and changing perspectives, but if we all stuck to film planes, our images would all start to look the same. Rules, and this is your point too, are just good starting points, but also, you can't change the physics of the lens, camera, and light. I've read numerous books and essays on this subject, and many photographers say things like, Shoot for the bridge of the nose, the closest tear duct gland, or use the hyperfocal distance and make sure your focal point is 1/3 of the way into where ever you need the front 1/3 and the back 2/3s in focus, given that focal length and aperture you're shooting. I'm just wondering what you all do, or if you even worry about it at all.

It's quite easy, as you all know, to keep anything sharp when the subject is parallel to the film plane or sensor plane. That just isn't gonna happen lest all shot are frontal shots, or we use tilt lenses, which probably won't cure, but improve anyway.

Yeah everything is smoooooooth these days. perhaps this is a result of PS where you can make the worst skin baby smooth really fast in post processing. I've gotten so good at it I can smooth a face and take out 99% of unwanted lines, zits, and blemishes in about 3 minutes from start to finish. Of course I do have a secret weapon that I've learned to tweak that speeds that process up about 75% also.

Either that or the clients like it, and so do their agents?

I've really enjoyed all your answers and time. I hope there is more to say on this subject before the thread dies, such as some real world examples that you all use. I have noticed that when I shoot a waist up shoot with my 70-200 at over 135mm, the eyes are in sharp focus if I shoot for the bridge of the nose, or the closest tear duct. So maybe there is the fast and breakable rule: use a 135mm+ lens and shoot the waist up, and use f4+.

EOS 5D with 70-200mm f/4
ISO200 f/6.3

Yes, but now turn the face to the boy's right anotehr 30 degrees to about 40 degrees off dead center. What do you get?

You are kidding, right? How can you wish for a rule like that? I mean.. the focal lenght so much influences your picture. Not just the dof, but the width of view and thus the amount of space/surroundings around your subject.



is shot at 35mm on 35mm equivalant. Showing exactly the amount of street that I wanted.


is shot at 85mm on 35mm equivalent, therefore not showing a lot more than just the girl. Photo 1 is shot in The Netherlands, the second one in NYC.. but you can't see that, because of the longer focal length.

If you would like to see that it's NYC, you'd need a different distance from your subject, or a different focal length.. as below.


So, I can not see why you would use a specific focal length just to control your sharpness. Use it to control your composition and the content of your image and use your aperture to control your sharpness.

And the way I work: just focus on the eye and about 1/3rd of the sharpness will be in front and 2/3rd will be behind the point of focus. But I DO want the eyes spot on sharp.. so I DO need to focus on the eyes.. the 2/3rd behind maybe kinda sharp, it's nog really sharp.

That was a nice explanation, but your pictures aren't very representative of how to get sharp eyes. I don't even know if these fashion examples can be called "portraits".
I think you didn't understand what James wrote.
Nice pictures BTW but I think they are a bit out of the subject.

i was only using those to explain him why he should not think in fixed rules of using xx focal lengths.

I did read James' post and I did understand it. BUT.. a few posts later Dwdallen still was asking for a fixed rule. Which I answered to.

btw: do you really think it matters whether it's a pretty girl in pretty clothes of whether it's an asian kid in front of a background roll?

My rule is focus on the highlights of the nearest eye, let the other take care of itself

Edmund

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. For sure I was not saying use a specific focal length all the time. That would be, well, obvious I would think. But for specific focal lengths, what I was asking is how best do you try to keep the eyes, both eyes, in focus given a 45 degree to film plane. The further away the lens is from the model the more DOF you have at any one part of the body, including the eye sockets. As for ambient effect, I think what you describe is common knowledge even for serious amateur photographers, don't you think?

Which brings to lite a better question: How do you increase the DOF between the eyes, other than increasing aperture?

As I stated above, I "think" one method is using a 200mm lens as far back as you can for the frame you want, which increases DOF at the focal point. Of course if you are shooting a 3/4 body shot with a 50mm lens on a full frame camera at 10 feet, it's going to be quite easy to get the eyes sharp, as long as you aim at the model because your DOF is 2.94 ft total!

On the other hand, decrease that same scenario to 5 feet the DOF is .71 feet. In both cases you get sharp eyes by aiming at the closest eye.

I don't know how focal length and feet from subject would translate to how full the frame is, but just as an example using the same parameters as above, with these changes: 200mm at 20 feet gives you a DOF of .71 feet or about 8.5 inches. I would guess that at 20 feet using a 200mm lens compared to a 50mm at 10 feet would give you a head shot. If you wanted a head shot, without cropping, using the 50mm example you would need to be much closer. Let's say 3 feet which brings the DOF down to a 1/4 of a foot or 3 inches.

Hmmm. I'm going to look at my image again to see what I was doing. I'm beginning to think I was simply too close for the respective aperture and lens length I was using. I was in very tight places both times, once a hotel and the other a smaller front room with a grand piano in it. Three inches should be enough DOF to get both eyes sharp without a problem.



BTW I liked your images a lot.

I'm not looking for fixed rules. I think that was clear in several of my responses. More like a "method(s)" that is NOT fixed, but works.

Also, you really do need to think about focal lengths, DOF, and apertures in a "fixed" sense because that is truly what dictates whether or not you get a sharp focus in a given area, such as from one eye to the next.

The Asian kid was a good example. Your images, while very nice and professional, are not, simply because they do not sow the eyes close up or clear enough to discern whether or not you nailed the focus on them, or at least nailed both eyes in the same focus--that's not even the point of your images.

Unless the intent is to capture on eye out of focus for affect, I detest eyes that are not at least in the same focus. I may need to adjust my position here, but having one eye slightly out of focus from the other eye--for no reason--drives me F-ing crazy.

Even if both eyes are not pin sharp, as long as they are focused the same and not grossly out of focus from each other, and not distracting, many times I can live with it. An exception would be where the eyes are not the main focal point.

I just think if one eye is out OOF there should be a reason for doing it, either equipment and physics or affect.

Ad A) I guess you could use a DOF table to figure out the largest aperture that will give you what you need, at a certain focal length and distance to subject. Of use T/S lenses/

Ad there is no other way. The only other way is to use a different focal length, but that influences you picture so much more that just the DOF. What you COULD do.. is move from MFDB to a Canon 40D. Due to smaller sensor the DOF increases, But you don't want that

Focus on the front eye

and stop down or use a T/S lens if you decide you need the second eye sharp(er)

I dont buy all the hyper focal crap - its sharp or it isnt - and if the front eye isnt sharp it just looks wrong (mostly)

S

Have a close look at some work by the Observer phtographer Jane Bown (prints or in a book not on the web) - her focus is all over the place - I find it really annoying

Good. We're nailing it all down and I feel more in control of my equipment. I know all of this, but sometimes I think I get sloppy by just simply not talking about it for a time. LEt me post an image I think is decent, except for the eye. Now I think this image could have worked if the front eye was composed just slightly differently from where it is in the frame, and more specifically it's angle to the lens. No amount of cropping can fix a bad angle. By changing the angle of her face more away from the camera, or bringing the camera down further to create a sharper angle to the camera in relation to her face would have made it more obvious and pleasing that the furthest eye needs to be out of focus for effect. The way it is here, it just annoys me.

This is right out of the camera with no processing or sharpening. I just went from RAW to jpg with a resize. It was shot at 200mm, so if I wanted to get that close without getting as close as I was to the subject, I'd have to crop. And yes, she does have almost perfect skin.

200mm at f4 no cropping.