the 45mm doesn't provide shallow enough DoF... [image + shooting notes]

[tedolf]

rkeller wrote:

tedolf wrote:

this is really done very well, from the lighting, to the background selection to the pose, degree f background blur and timing.

Everything came together just right.

I see a lot of portrait work on this forum but this is one of the few occasions I have seen it done right.

Thanks Tedolf! But where's my "great photo, thanks for posting!™" award? : )

Also thank you for posting detailed notes on how you did it.

This is exaclty how posts should be done as well

Question: did you have the FL-36 set up as a rim light or more as a side light?

I think I'd call it more of a rim light, but not the kind where it's directly behind the subject - probably about 45 degrees to the side and back. Provides for a bit of modeling on the subject's temple and cheekbones on the right side (camera left). I turned that flash intensity up and down during the shoot (from the camera body - easy in RC manual mode), and this particular image was a more mellow version of that strobe.

And how many shots did you have to take to get this one?

I did a variety of compositions all at about the same subject distance, but moving a little side to side and up and down, working with the bridge elements and portrait vs. landscape orientations. Looking at my proofs, I have about 20 or so total with that lighting taken over the course of about 5 minutes total (not including setup). I like to a get a variety of expressions (even if just subtle variations) and framings for the client to choose from.

 

[REShultz]

An environmental portrait should, if anything, have less blur that this shot. The environmental part gets lost quickly, then making the shot a portrait.

This is a great shot.

 

[dennis tennis]

Yes, if you want environmental portrait. what if you don't?

Reminds me of the scene in LA Stories where Steve Martin's character went for pre-approval at the hottest restaurant in LA. "You may NOt have zee duck, you may have zee chicken".

 

[rkeller]

dennis tennis wrote:

Yes, if you want environmental portrait. what if you don't?

Reminds me of the scene in LA Stories where Steve Martin's character went for pre-approval at the hottest restaurant in LA. "You may NOt have zee duck, you may have zee chicken".

Good one! I think the question is how much shallow DoF you need/want. Or perhaps, to put it in different terms, whether the zee chicken tastes enough like zee duck.

In this case, I hesitated calling it an "environmental portrait" at all since the background is very blurred and abstracted. It has large enough features that it is still recognizable though.

 

[ryan2007]

Move the subject to a more non-descript location OR use the Panasonic 45 2.8 or Olympus 60 2.8 macro to physically get closer to the subject with the lens.

Three things effect depth of field. Focal length, aperture and camera to subject distance.

Use the Panasonic 35-100 2.8 at 100 2.8 and get as close as you can would be the best.

 

[rkeller]

jim stirling wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

The DPreview galleries tend to butcher any images making anything beyond composition hard to determine.

I find that the "original" version at the largest size looks good without the DPReview image quality tax applied.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

The largest size seems to be 1024pixels wide which certainly does not allow for any critical determination of sharpness or detail . I like the composition and choice of B&W for the subject

Jim

Jim: try this out. I think it is about a 66% crop or so.

You can see that the zone of focus starts to get slightly blurry back at the ears and at the top of the shoulder. There seems to be plenty of sharpness at the eyes. [Note after posting: the full-zoom DPreview-rendered version is slightly less critically sharp and contrasty than the Lightroom-exported JPEG on my computer. Oh well.]






--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

 

[assaft]

Very nice image. And great technique.


The only thing that slightly distracts my eye from the subject is the highlights surrounding his head. Maybe a slightly darker background would have been better.

I have almost zero experience with flash so it's impressive to see such results. I usually carry my E-PL2 as light as possible, even without a case, and in social events sometimes I'm facing very challenging light conditions that make me regret that I still haven't jumped into the flash world. It's just that I probably need the FL-600r and carrying it is against the philosophy of carrying the minimum. Why light is not light. This is from three days ago, heavily processed and downsized to get something usable from this poor 12MP sensor. It's a bit washed, but I gave up after 3 hours.

E-PL2 + 45/1.8 (no flash, exp pushed 2 stops in PP)

 

[random78]

Great Bustard wrote:

Sure. It does the same job as 90mm f/3.5 on FF or 60mm f/2.5 on APS-C. If you need more blur, get the 75 / 1.8, presuming the longer perspective is desirable and you have the room to frame it.

To nitpick your numbers, f1.8 on m43 is equivalent to about f/2.35 on Nikon/Sony APS-C and f/2.2 on Canon APS-C, it is not f/2.5.

However even that ignores the aspect ratio difference (4:3 vs 3:2). In OP's example the framing is determined by the vertical dimension and the vertical difference between Sony APS-C and m43 is only about 1.2x and it is only about 1.15x wrt to Canon. So in this example the m43 f1.8 works roughly like a 54mm f2.16 Sony or 52mm f2.07 Canon if framing is matched vertically.

 

[alatchin]

[No message]

 

[alatchin]

dennis tennis wrote:

Yes, if you want environmental portrait. what if you don't?

Dont shoot them in an environment... seems obvious enough to me :/

Reminds me of the scene in LA Stories where Steve Martin's character went for pre-approval at the hottest restaurant in LA. "You may NOt have zee duck, you may have zee chicken".

 

[windriver]

I like the DOF on this shot. Like someone else stated, the highlights around his head are slightly distracting to me; just my opinion.

Nice shot.

 

[rkeller]

windriver wrote:

I like the DOF on this shot. Like someone else stated, the highlights around his head are slightly distracting to me; just my opinion.

Nice shot.

Thanks. I agree about the potential distraction. I have a few different variations in framings to choose from where the highlights are not an issue (and some where they are more of one).

 

[jim stirling]

rkeller wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

The DPreview galleries tend to butcher any images making anything beyond composition hard to determine.

I find that the "original" version at the largest size looks good without the DPReview image quality tax applied.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

The largest size seems to be 1024pixels wide which certainly does not allow for any critical determination of sharpness or detail . I like the composition and choice of B&W for the subject

Jim

Jim: try this out. I think it is about a 66% crop or so.

You can see that the zone of focus starts to get slightly blurry back at the ears and at the top of the shoulder. There seems to be plenty of sharpness at the eyes. [Note after posting: the full-zoom DPreview-rendered version is slightly less critically sharp and contrasty than the Lightroom-exported JPEG on my computer. Oh well.]





--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

I wasn't doubting you Rick ,I have the 45mm it’s a great performer and I expected the original image to be exactly as you described it. My only comment was regarding the DPreview image hosting which can really suck the quality out of a posted image , I have exchanged original images with folk on the forum and the difference can be staggering. Apparently they improved the gallery when they improved the forum that worked out great.

Jim

 

[Ulric]

rkeller wrote:

... or maybe it does.

In this portrait, yes, it does.

 

[rkeller]

jim stirling wrote:

rkeller wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

The DPreview galleries tend to butcher any images making anything beyond composition hard to determine.

I find that the "original" version at the largest size looks good without the DPReview image quality tax applied.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

The largest size seems to be 1024pixels wide which certainly does not allow for any critical determination of sharpness or detail . I like the composition and choice of B&W for the subject

Jim

Jim: try this out. I think it is about a 66% crop or so.

You can see that the zone of focus starts to get slightly blurry back at the ears and at the top of the shoulder. There seems to be plenty of sharpness at the eyes. [Note after posting: the full-zoom DPreview-rendered version is slightly less critically sharp and contrasty than the Lightroom-exported JPEG on my computer. Oh well.]





--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"
"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan
"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

I wasn't doubting you Rick ,I have the 45mm it’s a great performer and I expected the original image to be exactly as you described it. My only comment was regarding the DPreview image hosting which can really suck the quality out of a posted image , I have exchanged original images with folk on the forum and the difference can be staggering. Apparently they improved the gallery when they improved the forum that worked out great.

Jim

That's OK, I figured it was better to show rather than tell anyway. The DPreview image hosting in this case does not seem horrible (as long as you click to enlarge), but it is certainly not 100 %.

--
"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself." - George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"

"Unfortunately, in digital photography a lot of people are seeing pixels, not photographs ... Everyone together now: it's not the pixels. Sing it with me." - Thom Hogan

"If you pick up a camera with any sort of serious intent, you will at least occasionally need to use a flash. Done deal. Lock solid, Take it to the bank." - Joe McNally

 

[clengman]

ryan2007 wrote:

Move the subject to a more non-descript location OR use the Panasonic 45 2.8 or Olympus 60 2.8 macro to physically get closer to the subject with the lens.

Man... You post some of the most bizarre replies on this forum. I'm constantly amazed. Indeed, if you move into macro range you will end up with very narrow DOF... but how does that make sense for a portrait?!

Three things effect depth of field. Focal length, aperture and camera to subject distance.

Use the Panasonic 35-100 2.8 at 100 2.8 and get as close as you can would be the best.

The oly 75 f/1.8 would be better, or a MF 85 f/1.8. There are a lot of those around.

 

[Kim Letkeman]

jim stirling wrote:

I wasn't doubting you Rick ,I have the 45mm it’s a great performer and I expected the original image to be exactly as you described it. My only comment was regarding the DPreview image hosting which can really suck the quality out of a posted image , I have exchanged original images with folk on the forum and the difference can be staggering. Apparently they improved the gallery when they improved the forum that worked out great.

I always host my images outside and link ... then when people click "view original" they get to see what I am hosting.

I also disagree with your earlier comment that you cannot see detail at 1024. While you cannot pixel peep at that size, the difference between a nice, detailed image and a smear-fest is perfectly obvious.

 

[jim stirling]

Kim Letkeman wrote:

jim stirling wrote:

I wasn't doubting you Rick ,I have the 45mm it’s a great performer and I expected the original image to be exactly as you described it. My only comment was regarding the DPreview image hosting which can really suck the quality out of a posted image , I have exchanged original images with folk on the forum and the difference can be staggering. Apparently they improved the gallery when they improved the forum that worked out great.

I always host my images outside and link ... then when people click "view original" they get to see what I am hosting.

I also disagree with your earlier comment that you cannot see detail at 1024. While you cannot pixel peep at that size, the difference between a nice, detailed image and a smear-fest is perfectly obvious.

 

[CharlesB58]

is how someone with knowledge of his gear along with knowledge of technique for the genre can produce an excellent image under conditions which some people would say it couldn't be done. I've found that this is frequently the case when people engage in equivalency arguments about DoF. It's about using your knowledge rather than depend on the gear to make up for lack of knowledge. Well done.

The idea of bokeh rendering the background unrecognizable is both overrated and overdone anyway. Some of the most evocative and effective portraits are environmental portraits in which elements in the background are clearly shown, or only blurred enough to not distract. In this case, the bridge structure is at just the right point to not be distracting, but still communicate the idea that the subject is involved in "bridging" a communication gap through his expertise.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

rkeller wrote:

...




--

He's had a haircut, but he'll still kill you with a captive-bolt stungun.