Reading mode: Light Dark

How thin a DOF?

Go to last post
V

vvume

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
400
Reaction score
0
Location
US
From discussions, it appears that thin DOF (combined with a nice Bokeh) is the holy grail for everything except Landscapes & Macro. For practical/professional portraiture, how thin a DOF do folks really use most of the time?
 
Not for me when shooting wildlife with a 500mm. Within reason the greater the DOF the better as compensates for focus innacuracies on fast moving subjects and allows more of the subject to be in focus.

--
We'll wait in stone circles 'til the force comes through ---
lines joint in faint discord and the stormwatch brews

a concert of kings as the white sea snaps at the heels of a soft prayer whispered.
 
vvume said:
From discussions, it appears that thin DOF (combined with a nice Bokeh) is the holy grail for everything except Landscapes & Macro. For practical/professional portraiture, how thin a DOF do folks really use most of the time?
Click to expand...
Studio portraits often make use of very deep DOFs, actually. People typically use wide apertures to get less noise in lower light, and shallow DOF is a consequence of the wider aperture, rather than an end in, and of, itself.

In addition, it's important to distinguish between background blur and DOF. Typically, people want a strong background blur, but a DOF deep enough to cover the subject. The best way to do that is to use a longer focal length and higher f-ratio. For example, shoot the subject at 200mm f/4 as opposed to 50mm f/1.2.

However, it's no always possible to frame the shot at the longer focal length, and, as mentioned further up, for natural light, noise is an issue.

That said, here are some examples of why I, personally, like shallow DOF:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=36430145

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=36507505

Plenty of shallow DOF portraits in the second link.
 
It depends on the shot but with a crop F 2.0 is good but full frame F 4 is good....
Full frame has nicer bokeh but sometimes too narrow DOF and I'll shoot at 5.6..

Some lenses will have nicer bokeh, like the 24-70 has nicer bokeh then the 24-105 or 17-55 but the 17-55 and 24-105 are better landscape lenses.....

Most zooms are sharpest at F4 to F5.6 so with a crop you will have to compromise DOF for sharpness, with FF it works just about right....
 
...for a general answer. Its really about how and what you shoot and the look & feel you want to have.

I find that for outdoor portraits in places that I do not know very well I will often try to keep under f/2.8 to avoid too much background "noise". Indoor it hardly matters (except if shooting snaps), because you have almost complete control of the environment. But often you can compensate by using a longer lens.

At the very wide end I usually do not shoot wide open, but nearly wide open (1 stop down). This will improve the iq with regard to color, flare etc.

A few samples:

Not that wide open (f/4 & f/5)







Very wide open (f/1.6







Extremely wide (f1.2)

 
Outstanding - I just bought the f1.2 85 and hope I can get results like yours.

Steven
 
Great Bustard said:
Studio portraits often make use of very deep DOFs, actually. People typically use wide apertures to get less noise in lower light, and shallow DOF is a consequence of the wider aperture, rather than an end in, and of, itself.
Click to expand...
I have noticed this as well in the studio portraits of my son arranged by his daycare. They seem to be using f/8 on a crop with a flash and substitute a bokeh with a backdrop.

This is probably a very subjective topic, but I find pictures that completely obscure or blow out the background (like f/1.2 on a FF, or using a telephoto) kind of meaningless for portraiture (excluding artwork specifically aimed at exploiting thin DOF of mostly non-facial subjects). I think there has to enough detail in the background to give some context for the subject (unless the background is so horrible or distracting that it was done intentionally), with the goal of softening them up just enough to preserve discernibility with soft focus. An example of what I consider to be a too little DOF can be shown through this picture available on this post by carlk (due credit to carlk for the picture; apologies if this is considered inappropriate): http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=36848891&page=2

I find this DOF to be a bit too thin since it completely obscures the background to a point where nothing is discernible to gain a meaningful context (ignoring the fact that the bokeh is not entirely soft and pleasing). Maybe it is just my personal preference, and the vast majority finds this to be exactly what they consider ideal.

 
Not a problem. Thanks for credit me for the picture you think has too thin DOF. ;-) Actually I think you meant too blurred background not too thin DOF. It's purely personal preferences. Many of us love the blurred out backgound verses the "environmental portriat" which are just different styles. The idea is you want the viewer's attention to be concentrated on the subjet but not context of the background. Matter of fact I think it's much easier to get a good portriat with blurred backgound than an environmental portrait. There is only a fine line separates environmental portriat and landscape with people in it. Again these are just different styles no right or wrong about either.
vvume said:
Great Bustard said:
Studio portraits often make use of very deep DOFs, actually. People typically use wide apertures to get less noise in lower light, and shallow DOF is a consequence of the wider aperture, rather than an end in, and of, itself.
Click to expand...
I have noticed this as well in the studio portraits of my son arranged by his daycare. They seem to be using f/8 on a crop with a flash and substitute a bokeh with a backdrop.

This is probably a very subjective topic, but I find pictures that completely obscure or blow out the background (like f/1.2 on a FF, or using a telephoto) kind of meaningless for portraiture (excluding artwork specifically aimed at exploiting thin DOF of mostly non-facial subjects). I think there has to enough detail in the background to give some context for the subject (unless the background is so horrible or distracting that it was done intentionally), with the goal of softening them up just enough to preserve discernibility with soft focus. An example of what I consider to be a too little DOF can be shown through this picture available on this post by carlk (due credit to carlk for the picture; apologies if this is considered inappropriate): http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=36848891&page=2

I find this DOF to be a bit too thin since it completely obscures the background to a point where nothing is discernible to gain a meaningful context (ignoring the fact that the bokeh is not entirely soft and pleasing). Maybe it is just my personal preference, and the vast majority finds this to be exactly what they consider ideal.

Click to expand...
 
f/2 is the best DOF for portrait and macro ... anything wider is a matter of taste.
standard is 2.8 though, but I like f/2 more ...

-a
vvume said:
From discussions, it appears that thin DOF (combined with a nice Bokeh) is the holy grail for everything except Landscapes & Macro. For practical/professional portraiture, how thin a DOF do folks really use most of the time?
Click to expand...
 
I assume you mean this for FF.
alien3333 said:
f/2 is the best DOF for portrait and macro ... anything wider is a matter of taste.
standard is 2.8 though, but I like f/2 more ...

-a
vvume said:
From discussions, it appears that thin DOF (combined with a nice Bokeh) is the holy grail for everything except Landscapes & Macro. For practical/professional portraiture, how thin a DOF do folks really use most of the time?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the correction. Yes, I was referring to too blurred a background (related to DOF) - I wasn't aware of the term 'environmental portraiture' - thanks for introducing the term! I guess I prefer environmental portraits by and large.
carlk said:
Not a problem. Thanks for credit me for the picture you think has too thin DOF. ;-) Actually I think you meant too blurred background not too thin DOF. It's purely personal preferences. Many of us love the blurred out backgound verses the "environmental portriat" which are just different styles. The idea is you want the viewer's attention to be concentrated on the subjet but not context of the background. Matter of fact I think it's much easier to get a good portriat with blurred backgound than an environmental portrait. There is only a fine line separates environmental portriat and landscape with people in it. Again these are just different styles no right or wrong about either.
vvume said:
Great Bustard said:
Studio portraits often make use of very deep DOFs, actually. People typically use wide apertures to get less noise in lower light, and shallow DOF is a consequence of the wider aperture, rather than an end in, and of, itself.
Click to expand...
I have noticed this as well in the studio portraits of my son arranged by his daycare. They seem to be using f/8 on a crop with a flash and substitute a bokeh with a backdrop.

This is probably a very subjective topic, but I find pictures that completely obscure or blow out the background (like f/1.2 on a FF, or using a telephoto) kind of meaningless for portraiture (excluding artwork specifically aimed at exploiting thin DOF of mostly non-facial subjects). I think there has to enough detail in the background to give some context for the subject (unless the background is so horrible or distracting that it was done intentionally), with the goal of softening them up just enough to preserve discernibility with soft focus. An example of what I consider to be a too little DOF can be shown through this picture available on this post by carlk (due credit to carlk for the picture; apologies if this is considered inappropriate): http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=36848891&page=2

I find this DOF to be a bit too thin since it completely obscures the background to a point where nothing is discernible to gain a meaningful context (ignoring the fact that the bokeh is not entirely soft and pleasing). Maybe it is just my personal preference, and the vast majority finds this to be exactly what they consider ideal.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
correct, FF , you read my mind :)
in crop canon 1.6x or nikon 1.5x, you may get the same effect with f/1.4 :)

-a
vvume said:
alien3333 said:
f/2 is the best DOF for portrait and macro ... anything wider is a matter of taste.
standard is 2.8 though, but I like f/2 more ...

-a
vvume said:
From discussions, it appears that thin DOF (combined with a nice Bokeh) is the holy grail for everything except Landscapes & Macro. For practical/professional portraiture, how thin a DOF do folks really use most of the time?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Also, don't confuse background blur with DOF. They can be very different. Longer lenses can still obtain a ton of background blur, but maintain deeper DOF. For example, a shot at 200mm f4 might have a more diffuse background than 50mm f2, yet with the same framing the DOF would be twice as deep.
 
There are darned few situations in which it is advisable to shoot at apertures that given centimeters/inches thin dof. In most portraits, for example, you'd have to deal with a nose being in focus and an eye not, or vice versa. More often one would use a smaller than maximum aperture.

You can still get good bokeh without using the very largest aperture. The focal length of the lens makes a difference (longer, all else equal, makes for a fuzzier background) as does the subject to background distance.

Dan
vvume said:
From discussions, it appears that thin DOF (combined with a nice Bokeh) is the holy grail for everything except Landscapes & Macro. For practical/professional portraiture, how thin a DOF do folks really use most of the time?
Click to expand...
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
 
vvume said:
Great Bustard said:
Studio portraits often make use of very deep DOFs, actually. People typically use wide apertures to get less noise in lower light, and shallow DOF is a consequence of the wider aperture, rather than an end in, and of, itself.
Click to expand...
I have noticed this as well in the studio portraits of my son arranged by his daycare. They seem to be using f/8 on a crop with a flash and substitute a bokeh with a backdrop.
Click to expand...
DOF and background blur are not synonomous -- you can often get a greater background blur and greater DOF by using a longer focal length and higher f-ratio.

For example, 50mm f/1.2:



100mm f/2:



Perhaps the most effective way to reduce DOF and increase background blur is to frame more tightly. Compare the 50mm f/1.2 pic above with the 50mm f/2.8 pic below:



Also, "bokeh" is the quality of the background blur, not the quantity of it. Here's a good tutorial on bokeh:

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

Often, the bokeh is better stopped down, but the blur is less.
vvume said:
This is probably a very subjective topic, but I find pictures that completely obscure or blow out the background (like f/1.2 on a FF, or using a telephoto) kind of meaningless for portraiture (excluding artwork specifically aimed at exploiting thin DOF of mostly non-facial subjects). I think there has to enough detail in the background to give some context for the subject (unless the background is so horrible or distracting that it was done intentionally), with the goal of softening them up just enough to preserve discernibility with soft focus. An example of what I consider to be a too little DOF can be shown through this picture available on this post by carlk (due credit to carlk for the picture; apologies if this is considered inappropriate): http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=36848891&page=2

I find this DOF to be a bit too thin since it completely obscures the background to a point where nothing is discernible to gain a meaningful context (ignoring the fact that the bokeh is not entirely soft and pleasing). Maybe it is just my personal preference, and the vast majority finds this to be exactly what they consider ideal.

Click to expand...
As I said, how tightly you frame has a lot to do with it the blur. I often shoot at f/1.2, but not with such a tight framing, where the background still plays a significant role, the the blur separates the subject from the background:



but have found that wide open with tight framing still works, depending on the scene:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top