Why 4/3" format is great for portraits

Tommi K1 said:

Wu Jiaqiu said:

ok no problems Tommi no camera.........

Click to expand...

No problems Wu, No logic...

Click to expand...

nice to see you have a sense of irony.....

knickerhawk said:

Great Bustard said:

knickerhawk said:

Great Bustard said:

But, here are some one-eye-in-focus portraits that I rather like:

Click to expand...

I rather like it too, but not because only one eye is in focus but, rather, despite only one eye being in focus. Below I've taken the liberty of trying to illustrate what "might have been" by somewhat giving the back eye a similar level of contrast and detail present in the front eye.



Of course, opinions/preferences will vary. That's the "art" of photography, but for me personally what makes this image succeed is the child's gaze. What is the child thinking? The eyes of the subject communicate almost everything in the image (the mouth's expression is a distant second here). In the original, the back eye being OOF and lightened helps to pull half of the child's face into the background. It is an artistic effect that has some appeal but, in so doing, it also creates ambiguity and what might even be called a distraction because of the differing lightness levels in the eyes. In this instance, a shot stopped down a bit more would have given you more flexibility to choose whether to retain an unambiguous differentiation of subject and background OR to merge them together with a bit of postprocessing to create the same effect your shallow shot forced upon you. Ironically, greater flexibility is often the argument promoted by larger format advocates.

One other point to consider here. Most of the images you posted could have been shot stopped down to create more DOF with either no meaningfully visible difference because any background is cropped out or obscured by shadows or blown out. For me, the only presented shot that really benefitted from being shot at such a wide aperture is the one of the girl on the floor. I personally find the effect of having a narrow strip of the carpet sharply in focus and the rest of it fall quickly out of focus to be somewhat distracting, but it's an image that would have been relatively tough to rescue from what otherwise looks like unwanted background without doing a lot of post work. The other shots would have benefitted from a little more DOF and the flexibility it would have given you to soften/defocus in post if desired.

They are all lovely shots of beautiful, photogenic kids, but I don't really think they advance the pro-shallow DOF argument.

Click to expand...

These are excellent points you raise! Specifically, did shallow DOF improve the photos, make the photos worse, or was it neither here nor there?

However, we can say the same thing about *any* technical aspect of photography. For example, let's say the photos had half or double the resolution. Would that have affected their "success"? What about two stops more/less DR? What about double/half the noise?

Click to expand...

What's interesting to me about these specific questions is that there are always two critical components to the answer - an asethetic component and an image size and display component. The latter component can be reasonably well answered with objectively supportable arguments. The former is pretty much a subjective one that is immune to objective and science-based considerations. For whatever reason, the objective component seems to dominate the discussions on these DPR forums with respect to resolution, noise and DR and the asethetic component is generally acknowledged to be unresolvable or, at least, unworthy of heated debate. It seems to me that the reverse condition applies to DOF. The objective component is relatively uncontroversial and just accepted as a given and all of the heat gets generated around the aesthetic component. Just an observation...

Click to expand...

A worthwhile observation to make.

knickerhawk said:

knickerhawk said:

So, let's go back to the photos I posted. Does shallow DOF make them better, worse, or neither here nor there? Well, obviously, that's subjective. In the case of the photo above, I feel the shallow DOF makes it look more natural in that I didn't simply take a deep DOF portrait and stamp it on a blank background which would make it a bit more artificial. Of course, one could argue (and, in my opinion, argue successfully) that there was perhaps too much blur in the far eye, and a more gentle transition would be preferable.

Click to expand...

My personal preference is to err on side of deeper DOF simply because I've learned (through way too many missed shots!) that it's almost always easier to deal with a little too much DOF in postprocessing than too little. I want to control the aesthetic dimension throughout and not leave too much to chance or my usually misplaced confidence in my shooting skills. For me, based purely on my personal experience and photographic capabilities, the "decisive moment" is usually expanded more by increasing DOF (albeit at the associated noise or shutter speed cost) than by decreasing DOF (albeit at the associated noise/shutter speed advantage).

Click to expand...

Fair to say. That is, one can always add blur, but blur cannot be undone. On the other hand, when I miss focus, it's generally by a lot more than what a two stop more narrow aperture would have covered. Furthermore, simulating the more shallow DOF in post can often be a pain depending on the scene.

knickerhawk said:

knickerhawk said:

Interestingly, this brings up a point I've long meant to discuss. Sometimes, people use wide apertures on long lenses with the subject well separated from the background resulting in enough DOF to cover the entire subject but massive background blur. Often, but not always, this has the same kind of artificial look to me.

Click to expand...

I agree it's an interesting issue. Today, that look is generally associated with expensive equipment and pro photography. What will be fascinating to see is how long this persists as algorithmically generated blur becomes commonplace in cellphone cameras on up. Once the masses can do it and post it on Instagram, how will the pros and the equipment elites respond?

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Dutch Newchurch said:

Thank you.

I enjoyed the gallery particularly!

Click to expand...

I did as well enjoy his gallery. It was something refreshing from a while.

Dutch Newchurch said:

I think the thing is this. Top end cameras are the most expensive because they have much of the best technology available in the range. In recent years, Nikon and Canon have included large sensors in that 'top-end' package. (The 1Diii and D2x, as earlier examples, were not 'full frame'. Despite that, they were considered quite suitable for portrait photography.).

Click to expand...

But needs to be remembered that Canon and Nikon are very legacy camera manufacturers and their heritance is in 135 format. They are not famous for medium format or large format. They haven't really done a small pocket cameras with microfilm or even tried to go smaller like Olympus did with their PEN series (about APS size film) but instead being known by 135 format.

So when going digital, only wealthy people could pay for a DSLR and have legacy lenses, meaning 1D and later 5D were their heritance for SLR era and there they have been stuck. For long time "DSLR" was the word for top quality etc as it wasn't a pocket camera.

Dutch Newchurch said:

That - full frame - has been seized on as the reason to buy a 'top end' camera. Very often it is one of the reasons. But, there are many others, such as the viewfinder, the focusing system, the FPS rate, the buffer, the build quality, the support from the importer, and the handling.

Click to expand...

Many things that many wanted or expected from a advanced SLR and then so on from advanced DSLR.

Dutch Newchurch said:

So, because 'full frame' has been the signifier of top end hardware, 'bokeh' and high ISO performance have become seen to be the reason for wanting full frame, rather than some of the more nuanced reasons.

I'll have that glass of wine now, thank you. And go back and look at the pictures.

Click to expand...

That is the good reasoning since the semiconductor business didn't get great start to produce sensors that performance were on level that what they can do now, reason why 35mm sensor production was difficult and expensive as so many sensors failed tests.

It was not long time ago when ASA 125 on film was fast, or when 800 was like extreme. And suddenly one got access to ISO 3200 and then ISO 6400 and now we are where, in four million? Just in sake of getting it to specs sheet, how many percentage really cares about ISO values above 3200-6400 in majority of their work?

Sometimes it is nice to take a educational lapse to "other side" by shooting just with max ISO (extended) and do best you can do with that. It is like taking a single prime lens for given day to force yourself work around the limitations not get what you would otherwise do but learn to accept that sometimes you can do less than wanted.

(in a spirit: "It's about the Journey, Not the Destination")

knickerhawk said:

bobn2 said:

knickerhawk said:

They are all lovely shots of beautiful, photogenic kids, but I don't really think they advance the pro-shallow DOF argument.

Click to expand...

That's because it's a somewhat facile argument. Shallow and deep DOF are both properties that the medium offers, and you can use them creatively as you wish. To argue that 'shallow DOF' or 'deep DOF' is either better than the other is just silly. It depends on what you're trying to do.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't disagree with the "it's just silly" point you're making. In that regard, I think it's mostly a straw man argument that the OP is making in the first place.

Click to expand...

Oh what is the straw man argument when I am stating that there are different kind people who want different things and m4/3 is great system for portraitures regardless what the other groups says?

It ain't THIS OR THAT. like Bobn2 and GP argue about by popular culture ideology that the capability to go shallower than other group ever wants is somewhat better.

There is a three holes in a ship and it is sinking quickly. You have a three objects that each has different properties. Regardless that each hole and object are different, there is a perfect match for each of the hole and object but question is to find out what to be used and where.

Using a smallest object for largest hole is not good idea. Using a largest object for smallest hole is not good idea, even when you can plug the hole, but you leave largest hole unplugged. The perfect combination is to plug each of the holes with its size matching object so all holes are plugged. Regardless of the size of either one, that is the perfect combination.

The point is, 35mm is great system for portraits, as great as m4/3 is too. Neither one is better for the given task, unless the requirement is unsuited for it. And we are talking about system camera, not a single camera (single specific body, single specific lens, single specific subject and time) but system that can be combined to multiple different kind shape and form so they can be used in different situations (weight, size, time, price etc etc). Because the kid can use bicycle to get school few blocks from home, doesn't mean it is best transportation for the father who needs to move between different long or short distance places, nor it ain't good for mother who travels each time to specific place and both home and workplace are next to same bus line stops.

One can be perfection to given situation, but nothing can be perfect for everything.

So if one needs to stop down with m4/3 camera, why they wouldn't need to stop down with a 35mm camera with same situation regarding the needed DOF? If a 50% of the portrait photographers needs would be met by a m4/3 system, why the 35mm would be better in regard of that DOF?

Why it is popularly said that the 35mm is better because "you can do this or that to get that needed DOF"?

That is why a 4/3" is great format for portraiture. It ain't the best, but great one and it can be perfect one too. Just like 35mm ain't the best, but it can be perfect and great one too. You can have two different formats for great portraiture resulting perfect results, neither one being best.

This is the same problem with the body or sensor size comparisons. People post "Oh, but look how a A7 with a 35mm f/1.4 is smaller than GH5 with 17mm f/1.2!". When the fact is that we are talking about system camera, where we are comparing a system to a system.

Tommi K1 said:

Like if someone quotes "Human eyes are the window to the person soul", then wouldn't it be odd if the "windows to person soul" are blurry if wanted to present something in the person using that idea?

Click to expand...

Sure it would be odd. Someone wouldn't do that for that purpose.

Member said:

Or if someone says "Your life story is told by your hands", and then the person hands are blurry?

or

Click to expand...

Well, they might:

50mm f/1.4 on FF (25mm f/0.7 mFT equivalent):



100mm f/2 on FF (50mm f/1 mFT equivalent):

Member said:

That is the visual language, how we can tell things. And popular discussion how the shallow DOF is the better way for portraits makes different discussion. Why a women liked from portraits that were taken through a soccins or vaseline smeared filters to smoother their skins and make them look younger etc. Or why some want to strongly bring up the old age as a wisdom, or as a sign of life style.

So if popular stating is that one way (shallow DOF) is the requirement for good portraits, then ain't that like locking the ways to tell stories different way?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone says that "one way (shallow DOF) is the requirement for good portraits". In fact, most studio portraiture is well stopped down.

I read your dissertation and could not find the answer to the question.

Poor comprehension skill on my part I suppose.

You discussed your thoughts on DoF in portraiture, and gave some nice examples, but still no particular relevance to M.43 that I could see.

Or is it the owners of M.43 and FF and how they use their cameras and how they use, or in your view misuse DoF, that concerns you ?

So please Tommi, in one or two sentences tell my why M.43 is good, or better than other formats, for portraiture.

Peter

Messier Object said:

So please Tommi, in one or two sentences tell my why M.43 is good, or better than other formats, for portraiture.

Click to expand...

It is all explained there.

If you need for a wanted DOF to be a 8cm and you need need to stop down to get there, why is then the other better than the another when both are required to be stopped down?

Why the other ain't great format for portraiture for wanted DOF, when it too is required to be stopped down?

The thing is, not everyone need a car that top speed is 320kph. Some do, most don't as they need just 140kph.

So why a car that goes faster to others 180kph by maxing to 320kph, is better or "greater" for those who don't need 320kph?

I am not talking about my opinion for demanded DOF but about the popular claims that other is better than another for everyone.

Or if it is wanted to be made "about me" then:

If I need a 80cm stick, then why a stick that is 150cm is better for me than a 120cm stick is when I need to cut both anyways to 80cm length?

Why the 150cm stick is better than 120cm one, if there is larger customer base that needs only a 80cm, than a customer base that needs 140cm?

tt321 said:

Great Bustard said:

knickerhawk said:

Great Bustard said:

But, here are some one-eye-in-focus portraits that I rather like:

Click to expand...

I rather like it too, but not because only one eye is in focus but, rather, despite only one eye being in focus. Below I've taken the liberty of trying to illustrate what "might have been" by somewhat giving the back eye a similar level of contrast and detail present in the front eye.



Of course, opinions/preferences will vary. That's the "art" of photography, but for me personally what makes this image succeed is the child's gaze. What is the child thinking? The eyes of the subject communicate almost everything in the image (the mouth's expression is a distant second here). In the original, the back eye being OOF and lightened helps to pull half of the child's face into the background. It is an artistic effect that has some appeal but, in so doing, it also creates ambiguity and what might even be called a distraction because of the differing lightness levels in the eyes. In this instance, a shot stopped down a bit more would have given you more flexibility to choose whether to retain an unambiguous differentiation of subject and background OR to merge them together with a bit of postprocessing to create the same effect your shallow shot forced upon you. Ironically, greater flexibility is often the argument promoted by larger format advocates.

One other point to consider here. Most of the images you posted could have been shot stopped down to create more DOF with either no meaningfully visible difference because any background is cropped out or obscured by shadows or blown out. For me, the only presented shot that really benefitted from being shot at such a wide aperture is the one of the girl on the floor. I personally find the effect of having a narrow strip of the carpet sharply in focus and the rest of it fall quickly out of focus to be somewhat distracting, but it's an image that would have been relatively tough to rescue from what otherwise looks like unwanted background without doing a lot of post work. The other shots would have benefitted from a little more DOF and the flexibility it would have given you to soften/defocus in post if desired.

They are all lovely shots of beautiful, photogenic kids, but I don't really think they advance the pro-shallow DOF argument.

Click to expand...

These are excellent points you raise! Specifically, did shallow DOF improve the photos, make the photos worse, or was it neither here nor there?

However, we can say the same thing about *any* technical aspect of photography. For example, let's say the photos had half or double the resolution. Would that have affected their "success"? What about two stops more/less DR? What about double/half the noise?

So, let's go back to the photos I posted. Does shallow DOF make them better, worse, or neither here nor there? Well, obviously, that's subjective. In the case of the photo above, I feel the shallow DOF makes it look more natural in that I didn't simply take a deep DOF portrait and stamp it on a blank background which would make it a bit more artificial. Of course, one could argue (and, in my opinion, argue successfully) that there was perhaps too much blur in the far eye, and a more gentle transition would be preferable.

Interestingly, this brings up a point I've long meant to discuss. Sometimes, people use wide apertures on long lenses with the subject well separated from the background resulting in enough DOF to cover the entire subject but massive background blur. Often, but not always, this has the same kind of artificial look to me.

Anyway, outstanding points you raised!

Click to expand...

Good discussion. Seems the OP inspired a good thread.

I am more interested in another of the shots you posted, the very tightly framed one.

Click to expand...

There were a few of those. Let me post one of them for this discussion (hopefully, it was the one you had in mind):

tt321 said:

There is no far background/foreground at all and surely you could have made everything within DoF without bringing in any 'distraction'? Why then you still chose the shallow DoF? Just to emphasize the eyes? I am thinking they don't need emphasizing - they'd be the centre of attention even if everything is sharp.

Click to expand...

So, your question, then, is why the shallow DOF for that photo? Wouldn't it work just as well, or even better, with a deeper DOF? You may well be right.

tt321 said:

I personally vote for 'neither here nor there', except in a few of the OP's examples where shallower DoF would not have worked as well.

Click to expand...

I won't argue against it. What I will do is present a rare example of a photo I shot at multiple apertures:





I shot that at f/1.2, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8 on FF. Of the photos, I liked the f/1.2 one the best. That said, I would expect that most people would think that photo sucks no matter what the aperture. But, me being me, I like it a lot (even printed it at 12 x 18 inches and liked it all the more).

So, you brought another 2 photos into discussion that is totally pointless, and both are not portraits.

First set of hands for me belongs to "Lady Death" because this is the way I see it. Thus, first photo does not support your ... ok... I think I want to stop here...

Second set of hands, yes, belongs to a granny. Believe me, it would not lose a bit of the visual charge being totally in focus with deep, very deep, DOF or having even more shallow DOF. This shot exploits well known associations - old life gives a blessing to a new one. Yeah, I've seen some similar.. and more than ones

BTW, it is time to stop teaching and preaching, and time to amaze community with your filled with artistry photos

--
Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

I guess not. Some are taken with (gasp) full frame. Even (double gasp) Canon. And they don't have EXIF data, so you can't tell the fstop.

So what is the purpose of this post except a long rant to justify your purchase?

Tommi K1 said:

Wu Jiaqiu said:

i love your portraits of historical figures................

Click to expand...

I love your invention of logic!

Click to expand...

Is logic showing a bunch of photos taken with Canon FF to justify M43rds as being the best?

Hey, lets post a bunch of random photos and hope something sticks.

Jeez.

Tommi K1 said:

knickerhawk said:

bobn2 said:

knickerhawk said:

They are all lovely shots of beautiful, photogenic kids, but I don't really think they advance the pro-shallow DOF argument.

Click to expand...

That's because it's a somewhat facile argument. Shallow and deep DOF are both properties that the medium offers, and you can use them creatively as you wish. To argue that 'shallow DOF' or 'deep DOF' is either better than the other is just silly. It depends on what you're trying to do.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't disagree with the "it's just silly" point you're making. In that regard, I think it's mostly a straw man argument that the OP is making in the first place.

Click to expand...

Oh what is the straw man argument when I am stating that there are different kind people who want different things and m4/3 is great system for portraitures regardless what the other groups says?

Click to expand...

It is a straw man because you have not referenced (and I'm not aware of) any "groups" claiming that mFT isn't capable of (or "great" at) rendering portraits specifically because it can't deliver DOF as shallow as larger systems. In my personal experience here participating in way too many of the format discussions, shallow DOF portraiture is rarely considered. It's a mere blip on the radar compared to other modes of photography in which the shallower DOF possibilities of larger formats are pimped by our visitors from Fullframe Land. It is a very weak case to be made, so any fullframe fan with an ounce of intelligence isn't going to dwell on shallow DOF portraiture as the reason to reject mFT.

Member said:

It ain't THIS OR THAT. like Bobn2 and GP argue about by popular culture ideology that the capability to go shallower than other group ever wants is somewhat better.

Click to expand...

Incoherent (like much of the rest of your post that I've clipped).

Great Bustard said:

Tommi K1 said:

Like if someone quotes "Human eyes are the window to the person soul", then wouldn't it be odd if the "windows to person soul" are blurry if wanted to present something in the person using that idea?

Click to expand...

Sure it would be odd. Someone wouldn't do that for that purpose.

Great Bustard said:

Or if someone says "Your life story is told by your hands", and then the person hands are blurry?

or

Click to expand...

Well, they might:

50mm f/1.4 on FF (25mm f/0.7 mFT equivalent):

100mm f/2 on FF (50mm f/1 mFT equivalent):

Great Bustard said:

That is the visual language, how we can tell things. And popular discussion how the shallow DOF is the better way for portraits makes different discussion. Why a women liked from portraits that were taken through a soccins or vaseline smeared filters to smoother their skins and make them look younger etc. Or why some want to strongly bring up the old age as a wisdom, or as a sign of life style.

So if popular stating is that one way (shallow DOF) is the requirement for good portraits, then ain't that like locking the ways to tell stories different way?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone says that "one way (shallow DOF) is the requirement for good portraits". In fact, most studio portraiture is well stopped down.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but there are important exceptions (as you've argued for and illustrated). One of my very favorite photographers, Richard Learoyd, masterfully manages DOF in very large fine art portraits. If you ever get the chance to see his work, run, don't walk to the gallery.

Speaking of hands, here's a wonderful example by Learoyd of how DOF can be used to communicate meaning in an image:

You mentioned long focal lengths (150mmm equivalent) and the thin depth of field associated with using such lenses, as well as using wider lenses (35-50) and stopping down to make use of context.

But what if you want to achieve thin depth of field at 35-50mm?

PerL said:

Its about storytelling. See a good movie and pay attention on how the director work with DOF to direct your attention. It is composing in 3D vs 2D (infinite DOF).

Click to expand...

Take a look: director uses camera movement, director uses lens ZOOM. DOF is a byproduct.

And it too was designed for that.

For reasons known only to me, before I stumbled on this thread I was trying to learn more about the selfie culture and that led to instagram influencers who have perfected lighting, makeup and posing with an iPhone with the same genius as Mr. Karsh

Tommi K1 said:

Messier Object said:

So please Tommi, in one or two sentences tell my why M.43 is good, or better than other formats, for portraiture.

Click to expand...

It is all explained there.

If you need for a wanted DOF to be a 8cm and you need need to stop down to get there, why is then the other better than the another when both are required to be stopped down?

Why the other ain't great format for portraiture for wanted DOF, when it too is required to be stopped down?

The thing is, not everyone need a car that top speed is 320kph. Some do, most don't as they need just 140kph.

So why a car that goes faster to others 180kph by maxing to 320kph, is better or "greater" for those who don't need 320kph?

I am not talking about my opinion for demanded DOF but about the popular claims that other is better than another for everyone.

Or if it is wanted to be made "about me" then:

If I need a 80cm stick, then why a stick that is 150cm is better for me than a 120cm stick is when I need to cut both anyways to 80cm length?

Why the 150cm stick is better than 120cm one, if there is larger customer base that needs only a 80cm, than a customer base that needs 140cm?

Click to expand...

so M.43 is no better, and adequate DoF can be obtained with all formats. And it is only when a narrow DoF is desired that larger formats have some advantage.

That seens like a no-brainer to me, and I'm sure that everyone here understands it

Peter

Good selection of different portrait styles. Probably any of those styles could be strongly approximated by almost any of the currently available cameras, be that MF, FF, Aps-c, or M4/3. The final image quality from any of these formats, depending upon your post processing skills, for a very large number of photographs, will be virtually identical in final image presentation ( assuming average viewers, lighting, and reasonable final viewing sizes).

For more difficult situations, as you must clearly know, there will be definitely advantages of one format over the other. Of course these are only important if you happen to shoot in these situations that need the specific advantages.

You seem to be unnecessarily concerned about the thinness or thickness of the depth of field. In my opinion this is, for nominal portraiture, almost of no consequence,however it is easy to illustrate the effect of depth of field. I am sure you could provide some excellent examples of portraiture using M4/3 and what you think is appropriate depth of field usage varying from wide to narrow and where the "advantage" of wide DOF for portraits on M4/3 is visible..

For example, M4/3 probably could not reproduce this effect of thin depth of field and blurred background with the same perspective.


85 mm F 1.2 on full frame

It is also trivial to generate more than adequate depth of field for portraiture on full frame and use with appropriate image perspective and not resort to 'super small"apertures.



Super wide depth of field needs smaller apertures particularly for full frame.



--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Dan_168 said:

Why? I don't know, but I was told FF and APS-C is also great for portrait too. in fact, I prefer them a lot more. Iphone works great too.

Click to expand...

Medium format is even better, film that is, not digital. ;-)