Why A Shallow DOF For Studio Portraiture?

I understand for portraits using a shallow DOF is nice because it can help blur out the background. My question howerver is; in a studio or a plain room with the absence of a background to blur, why would one decide to use a shallow DOF such as F2.8 or F4? Wouldn't F8 enable the subject to be fairly sharp all over? Isn't this the desired effect? Why would you want hair or the edges of the subject to be softer than along the focus plain?

Thanks

Because it is more flattering and hides some skin defects. In a portrait, you want the viewer to look at the eyes first. For portraits, it is not unusual to want to have some parts of the face that are blurred a little just to keep the main focus on the eyes. Older portrait photographers used to work with larger format and longer lenses. I used to do portraits with a 5x7 camera and a 250 mm lens. The depth of field was very narrow and this is what was liked then.

So this is my view on this subject, opinions might vary.

Thanks but what about when shooting head and shoulders or 3/4 shots with an absence of a background? More of the subject would be soft than just a headshot but is it the same reason as you said? for the eyes to be sharper than the rest of the image? In your personal opinion Marcel, if you were doing a mixture of head, head and shoulders, 3/4 and full body shots in a plain room or studio, what aperture would you use? or would you vary it?

gohan2091 said:

Thanks but what about when shooting head and shoulders or 3/4 shots with an absence of a background? More of the subject would be soft than just a headshot but is it the same reason as you said? for the eyes to be sharper than the rest of the image? In your personal opinion Marcel, if you were doing a mixture of head, head and shoulders, 3/4 and full body shots in a plain room or studio, what aperture would you use? or would you vary it?

Click to expand...

For head and shoulders and 3/4 and full body shots, then it depends on the intent. I also used to do model composites for agencies and was at the time shooting hasselblad and I'd be using flash around f11-16 to show all of the person with little imperfections not corrected.

​But for portraits, in the usual sense, we'd have someone retouch the negatives (that's why we were shooting larger format) to hide little skin imperfections. This is also why less depth of field was wanted.

Even in the studio blurring out the backdrop will save work in photoshop for example taking out wrinkles in the backdrop material, that's why I do it, even with a steamer when one uses backrops over and over they get a little shabby looking.

So it seems one would use a shallow DOF in a studio or plain room scenario if they want to hide skin imperfections. I see, but I don't see any other reason why you'd want to do this. I prefer sharp images all over when the background is not in consideration.

WJYPhoto, I don't have a studio but I am doing my first portrait shoot in a small cream room tomorrow so the background would be a plain wall, so no wrinkles to worry about and no reason for me to use a shallow DOF other than to hide skin imperfections which I can do post production anyway.

gohan2091 said:

So it seems one would use a shallow DOF in a studio or plain room scenario if they want to hide skin imperfections. I see, but I don't see any other reason why you'd want to do this. I prefer sharp images all over when the background is not in consideration.

WJYPhoto, I don't have a studio but I am doing my first portrait shoot in a small cream room tomorrow so the background would be a plain wall, so no wrinkles to worry about and no reason for me to use a shallow DOF other than to hide skin imperfections which I can do post production anyway.

Click to expand...

It's not just the skin imperfections, it's also the fact that narrow DOF gives depth to the face. When too sharp, it flattens the face and removes character.

Just made a thread about same subject more or less, also in this portrait section. Just had my first studio shoot, if you dont count one time where I didn't did the setup myself but only used what another guy had fixed.

On that occasion, it was full body shots, therefore f/8. But maybe it should be less for portraits - but like you, I want the hair around tack sharp.

​

Also, the sweet spot for most lenses is stopped down a bit from wide open. So, if you have a 2.8 lens, your lens is at its best at f4-f5.6, Stopping down further to f8 or above helps when you're shooting groups or landscapes. A lens at 100mm, f4 at 10 ' has a DOF of 8". Plenty of room to get all of a face in focus. Shooting at 200mm and 2.8 at 20' gives you 6" DOF. So even wide open you can get almost all of the person in a portrait in focus.

Once my lighting is set up, I might vary the aperture to adjust my lighting, just as I might change SS to modify ambient light. Doesn't have as much to do with focus as it does with lighting.

​I'm new here, but my understanding of photography is that its like cooking food. Everyone has there own taste, and style. =) I enjoy pictures with a little bit of bokeh and I also enjoy pictures with razor sharpness. I figure it depends on the content, and intended results. =)

That is the beauty of photography. Do it how you see fit and develop what works for you and your style.

In my portraiture class this semester, we have been shooting at F5.6-13. Shooting mostly half body and headshots. To hide imperfections, we play with shadows by varying the light ratios.

I don't like having the face in focus and not the ears, especially for business headshots.



» William via Tapatalk

I read a lot of photo tutorials and articles, particularly at night once I have visited all of my forum haunts.

Tonight I was reading a tutorial series by Chuck Gardner.

I will include just the most relevant snippet of what was in this article addressing exactly the question you posted. I am not posting to counter any argument pro/con. I am simply posting what I found was pertinent and interesting regarding DOF in portraits.

Here is a link to the entire article/tutorial:
http://super.nova.org/DPR/Bokeh/

Chuck Gardner said:

Wide apertures on a camera lens do in a photo what our brains do in nature. Contrasting sharpness within a photo sends a subconscious message to the brain, of the viewer, regarding what is most important. Sending that clue via shallow DOF in a photo is important because when we look at a photo all of it is usually in focus at the same time and absent any other visual clues such as tonal or color contrast, or leading lines we will have trouble identifying what is most important in the photo or the message the photographer is trying to deliver.

When we look at a photo with selective DOF we subconsciously know where the important things are and go there instinctively. The most interesting and effective photographs tend to be those with a center of interest which contrasts strongly with the background. If the area of strongest contrast isn't the most interesting, the intended message of the photo can be missed or misinterpreted by the viewer. If no particular area of the photo contrasts in sharpness, tone, or color from the background the viewer may have difficulty deciding what in the photo is most important.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with Chuck Gardner. What we see naturally and what we see in a picture are two really different aspects. Remember, a photo is a "representation of reality", until it's manipulated into what we want to see, or even to what we want the viewer to see. Then again, that's how I interpret a photo, so it's strictly MY opinion, and not to be construed as pure fact.