Greg, last night I got into a heated discussion with a portrait tog
Well I think you ended the ‘debate’ the moment you said this wasn’t the style you wanted. Really that’s all there is to it; we make the pictures WE want to make not what the rules tell us to make or what other people expect.
Ironically though, I have, mostly, defaulted to the principle that the ‘portrait tog’ espoused though perhaps not quite as severely as to stop down to f/8.
It does of course all depend on a number of variables (how shallow the depth of field ends up being). The longer the focal length and the closer you are to the subject, the less DoF there will be at a given aperture. And of course you can achieve the same sense of very shallow DoF by being relatively close to your subject and having a large distance between them and the background.
If you’re shooting at f/1.4 on an 85mm lens and you are about 1m away from the subject then you are going to struggle to get anything other than about 1cm of focus depth, which would mean the eyes and only the eyes in focus. That image of Bradley above is a good example but it also shows what is all too easy to have happen; the camera has actually focused on the rim of his glasses so actually the eyes are not even in focus. Fortunately that helps make that picture more interesting; it gives a sense of slight detachments between the subject and the viewer; it encourages them to try and refocus and connect, and when they do the subject still seems a little remote. While I will be honest and say that the idea of deliberately defocusing to achieve that effect was not what I had in mind at that moment; the result that I just described is. I’m learning that while you can have a very clear image of the final picture in mind when shooting, actually getting that is at least 50% luck (well it is in my case).
A lot of the other portraits I’ve shot I have stopped down to anywhere between f/2-2.8 up to f/5.6. But I rarely go to f/8 and I only tend to stop down beyond f/2.8 when either I’m trying to make an environmental portrait (which is much more fashionable in the art world these days – have a look at anything in the Taylor Wessing or National Portrait awards and portraits shot at f/8 or f/16 on MF film, in bedrooms or sparse living areas or even outside are everywhere) or where I have control over the background and I know that it is uniform and bland and I don’t need to knock it out to get the subject to stand out.
The images below were all shot at f/5.6 or f/8 but then they had a black screen behind the subject so I could do this and I specifically wanted to have the whole person in focus because that was the story I wanted to tell.
I love the fact that the debate exists and I love the fact that the debate causes you to explore your creativity and think more about what you’re trying to achieve and why. But I cannot abide it if the debate is based on what someone else thinks you should be doing. Good for you on resisting that with the ‘portrait tog’.
As for the debate on my Flickr feed and the thought that I put in, probably I think too much (I always have about almost everything anyway) and I’m probably trying a little too hard, but I am getting a lot out of doing that and it’s helping me personally in so many ways. For me at least, it is all about the person, both in front of the lens and behind the camera.
Lastly, Andy I so so love that shot. It’s quite a different one from you. Not something I haven’t seen you do before but not something you’ve really done recently and I honestly love it. I love the composition, the colour, lighting and the story it tells.
Mother & Daughter by Greg Turner[/url], on Flickr