Portrait/People what is your method for sharp eyes

[dwdallam]

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+.

[Henry Goh]

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

[dwdallam]

EOS 5D with 70-200mm f/4
ISO200 f/6.3
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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?

[Markpark]

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+.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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.

[samuel_js]

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.

  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.

[Markpark]

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?

[eronald]

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

Edmund

[dwdallam]

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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.

[dwdallam]

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?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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.

[Markpark]

A) 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.

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

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

[Morgan_Moore]

I'm not looking for fixed rules.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204432\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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

[dwdallam]

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.