# Thin dof posing/shooting advice



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

I'm currently shooting street people with their pets (well, dogs mostly, though I'm still looking for rats ) for a charity animal doctor project - a line of work I'd like to expand upon. Something like this...

_(Edit: url removed, I've got a model-release agreement, but still don't want to link them over the net.)_

"*Problem*": Now that I've got this shiny new full frame camera I have come to realize that I cannot get two models at once into the dof, at least not if one is an animal. I always end up shooting @f9-f11 for safety which kills the bokeh and has a distinct mobile phone look (well, my lens is white). Since I like the compression I'm usually using 100-200mm with my 70-300L.

*Question*: How do you big f2.8 people do it?! I try to get the models into one focal pane, but this really limits the choice of positions and micro-guiding the scene looks less natural. Do you seasoned photogs have any kind of advice on how to get some nice background blur in combination with in-focus shots which are usable at a larger print size like a calendar?


----------



## Eldar (Apr 30, 2014)

Street photography is not one of my strong sides, so I will not pretend to offer expert advice. I find street photography to be an area where it's very hard to be any good.

But the problem you're experiencing are one of the more mathematical problems of photography. The f-stop you choose gives you a certain dof and unless you get what you want in focus within that dof, then you're pretty much screwed.

My experience is that with wide f-stops there is no (few) substitute(s) for more moving around, to ensure that the focal plane covers the subjects you want covered. But this is rather obvious.

The other experience I have is that you can go for narrower f-stops, but then you should make sure you have proper distance to the background and that you shoot closer to ground. Then you will get Ok, though not perfect, bokeh and the ground around your subjects will be less dominating.

On the top 6 images on your flikr site, I think you have done a fairly good job at just that. On the next 10 I think the background becomes too dominant and the images becomes too busy and are loosing track of original intent.

You can also think about how you move to find subjects or how subjects move to find you. A bit like stillwater vs. river fishing. If you find a good spot to sit still and let the subjects find you, you may descover that a certain position naturally aligns the subjects to suit your focal plane.

But, there's no such thing as a free lunch, so practice, practice, practice ...


----------



## Badger (Apr 30, 2014)

I'm also waiting for the pros to weigh in on this but I'm guessing your choice of lens, and your desire for compression might be working against you. Out of curiosity, were you also using a flash with these shots? On camera?


----------



## bseitz234 (Apr 30, 2014)

What about all the apertures in between? I'm wondering if you step your way down towards 2.8, if you'll either get more practiced with getting both subjects into your DoF, while having a bit more leeway (say, at 5.6), or if you'll find that a middle aperture gives you the subject isolation you're after, while still having enough DoF to get both subjects fully in focus. I often go to f/4 when I've got two subjects to get in frame, and feel like it works pretty well for me...


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

Badger said:


> I'm also waiting for the pros to weigh in on this but I'm guessing your choice of lens, and your desire for compression might be working against you. Out of curiosity, were you also using a flash with these shots? On camera?



Good thing you're asking, this means my intention worked and it doesn't look over-flashed :-> ... yes, it's taken with two flashes (one on a bracket, one to the side) and a golden reflector. One flash was low on battery, the shadows on some are more prominent - I need to use my ext. battery pack more often. 

Concerning the compression: Well, I simply like the look, and it also differentiates me from mobile phones and "normal zoom" p&s.



bseitz234 said:


> I often go to f/4 when I've got two subjects to get in frame, and feel like it works pretty well for me...



No idea how you do it without explicit posing - which I try to reduce sine I'm no studio photog and try to find the natural middle ground between "snap" and "pro" look. Running around only works so much if you want to have a specific background part in the frame, and you'd need assistants who keep adjusting the lights. With these shots, everything with f5.6 was way out of focus unless you glue the two heads together.

Problems also is that the animals have a limited attention span and I have to shoot for safety, choosing a too shallow dof is a gamble and if the decisive shots are out of focus on one subject you can only enlarge them to web-size. Plus imho out of focus eyes always miss the "snap" I'm looking for.



Eldar said:


> On the top 6 images on your flikr site, I think you have done a fairly good job at just that. On the next 10 I think the background becomes too dominant and the images becomes too busy and are loosing track of original intent.



I'll read "fairly good" as a positive comment  though my understanding of English is fairly limited. Concerning the background, it was on some steps on a street sidewalk so there was no other subject-background relation available. I usually get away with some ps blur or a little negative clarity w/o making it look too edited though.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm currently shooting street people with their pets (well, dogs mostly, though I'm still looking for rats ) for a charity animal doctor project - a line of work I'd like to expand upon. Something like this...
> 
> "*Problem*": Now that I've got this shiny new full frame camera I have come to realize that I cannot get two models at once into the dof, at least not if one is an animal. I always end up shooting @f9-f11 for safety which kills the bokeh and has a distinct mobile phone look (well, my lens is white). Since I like the compression I'm usually using 100-200mm with my 70-300L.



First, I like the project -- providing basic veterinary services to the homeless is a wonderful gift.

Second, though I'm not generally a fan of post-processing for portraits, I think some judicious use of PS may be your answer. You want to focus on the person and pet to get your composition and emotional content set, but narrow DoF will make that much harder. I'm no expert, but try adding some background blur in post, or even subtle tonal/color adjustments to the background, e.g. very slight desaturation. I don't know if it'll work, but it might make your subjects pop. 

I'm not a pro, these are just some thoughts that crossed my brain.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 30, 2014)

As you know, at any aperture, your camera-lens combination will give you a DoF, which is a range of distances from the camera that will be in focus. To keep things easy, let's assume that for your specific camera-lens-aperture combination that your total DoF is 2 meters. As we all know, everything within that 2 meters will be in focus. Pretty easy stuff.

But unfortunately, where you focus (either manually or AF) will not be in the center of this 2 meter range. In other words, when I focus on an object with my 2 meter DoF, I won't have a nice 1 meter in front and 1 meter behind the object in focus. The point of focus will be closer to the near range of the DoF. For example, your point of focus (object) may have, perhaps, .5 meters infront in focus and 1.5 meters behind in focus -- still have the full 2 meter DoF, but it is not centered on the point of focus (object). There are ways to calcuate exactly where in the DoF range your point of focus will fall.

OK, this may be interesting but how does it help you with your street person-dog problem.

The first step is to choose an aperture where your camera-lens combination will produce a DoF that will encompass the range differences between the person and the dog. To keep things easy, lets assume that this person-dog distance is just 1 meter with the person further away and the dog closer to you.. So assume you set your camera-lens system to what is needed to have a 2 meter total DoF. Whether you focus on the person or the dog, Piece of cake, guaranteed to get both person and dog in focus.... well probably not. 

If you focus on the person (rear object), your 2 meter DoF may not reach the dog (front object). Even though the dog is 1 meter in front of the person, the actual DoF from the point of focus (person) may result in a front DoF distance of less than one meter -- blurry mutt. 

Solution 1. Don't focus on the person or the dog, but focus about 1/3 the distance from the dog (front) to person (rear) You may have to use manual focus. Depending on the distance, 1/2 the distance may work too. This will "force" the normally unequal DoF range placement to include the two, now unequally placed subjects to be in focus. 

Solution 2. If you don't want to do this focus adjustment (or can't due to time), and you are forced to focus on one subject, focus on the front subject. Since the DoF will be larger behind the subject, you will have a better chance of catching the person behind the dog in focus. 

If you are tilting the camera down to get a picture of the dog, you are also altering the planes of focus, but that's a little more complicated topic. 

"Since I like the compression I'm usually using 100-200mm with my 70-300L" Just recognize that this compression you like is actually making your focusing issue harder. You might want to consider shooting wider and then perhaps cropping later.


----------



## surapon (Apr 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm currently shooting street people with their pets (well, dogs mostly, though I'm still looking for rats ) for a charity animal doctor project - a line of work I'd like to expand upon. Something like this...
> 
> _*Please *don't* quote this url*_, it's just for temporary reference: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157644399398525/
> 
> ...




Dear friend Marsu42
Here is the Link that I always use , when I have some questions about the Thin DOF , with diff. Cameras and Diff. Lenses

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

If you use the smart phone, , you can Up load this great Link to your phone too-------Sorry, I do not have smart phone to try, but my dear friend, The PRO tell me that-----Ha, Ha, Ha---The PRO wedding photographers still use this program, because he do not want blur people in the big group in the pictures.
Enjoy.
Surapon

PS, The Attached Photo = Canon 1DS, Canon EF 70-200 mm F/ 2.8 L IS USM, at 200 mm., at F= 4.5, SS = 1/ 160 sec., Iso = 100

The second Photo = Canon 5D MK II , EF 24-70 mm F/ 2.8 L ,( AV. Mode ) set F= 8.0, Camera will set SS = 1/500 sec( Super bright Sun shine in Greece), Set Iso = 100


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> The point of focus will be closer to the near range of the DoF. For example, your point of focus (object) may have, perhaps, .5 meters infront in focus and 1.5 meters behind in focus -- still have the full 2 meter DoF, but it is not centered on the point of focus (object). There are ways to calcuate exactly where in the DoF range your point of focus will fall.



The old '1/3 in front, 2/3 in back' rule of thumb is applicable mainly with wide (and ultrawide) lenses. As the focal length increases, the distribution of the DoF around the focal plane trends toward 50/50. For the stated and assumed parameters (FF sensor, 100-200mm range, distance appropriate to frame the example shots as appropriate), the distribution of the DoF around the focal plane is at worst about 45/55.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Solution 1. Don't focus on the person or the dog, but focus about 1/3 the distance from the dog (front) to person (rear) You may have to use manual focus. Depending on the distance, 1/2 the distance may work too.


 
As you've guessed, it's not practical to mf because of the time constraint with an animal...



AcutancePhotography said:


> Solution 2. If you don't want to do this focus adjustment (or can't due to time), and you are forced to focus on one subject, focus on the front subject. Since the DoF will be larger behind the subject, you will have a better chance of catching the person behind the dog in focus.



I found the problem with this is that if something near to the camera is out of focus, and the 2nd subject (usually the person) is sharp it still looks ok-ish... if the person is out of focus the shot looks plain broken, I tried both possibilities a lot before switching to deeper dof.



AcutancePhotography said:


> "Since I like the compression I'm usually using 100-200mm with my 70-300L" Just recognize that this compression you like is actually making your focusing issue harder. You might want to consider shooting wider and then perhaps cropping later.



It's not about filling the frame, but on how much distortion you have - and 2x head shots next to each other on full frame still have a distinct distortion, that's why 85mm is considered to be a "upper body lens" and 135mm a "face lens".


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 30, 2014)

I remember when I switched from 35mm film to digital APS-C. I liked to have more depth of field, but missed blur background. If you could ask the model to move away from the bottom ... But the homeless and their pets lose all spontaneity. I think you'll have to settle for openings F8 or F11, and perhaps blur the background in post production.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I think you'll have to settle for openings F8 or F11, and perhaps blur the background in post production.



Probably, though the problem with "visible" post-processing and this project is that too much gloss kills the authenticity. Actually this particular model didn't like her shots, I don't know the reasons yet, though I suspect it's already too much artificial lighting and "plush".

Then again, I've just been told a lot of non-pro models simply hate to see themselves in film - could be true in this case, too :-\


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 30, 2014)

I think it's your choice of focal lengths that's causing you the problems you describe. By using medium telephoto at this distance and framing, the aperture you are having to use to get adequate dof is overcoming the subject isolation. 

If I was going to shoot this same thing I'd be going for 50 or 85 mil and an aperture in the f5.6 region depending on distance, and then I'd be choosing my focus point carefully in order to be mid / fore of my desired dof. Even the 40 might work well.

On these shorter lenses at closer focusing distances you will retain an appropriate level of subject isolation. F2.8 wouldn't be appropriate for what you are trying to achieve anyway.

There's a reason why the 50 and 85 mm focal lengths are so popular


----------



## agierke (Apr 30, 2014)

> I always end up shooting @f9-f11 for safety which kills the bokeh and has a distinct mobile phone look (well, my lens is white). Since I like the compression I'm usually using 100-200mm with my 70-300L.



i'm afraid that's just the nature of the beast (forgive the pun). the only time i'll shoot at 2.8 on a long lens is if i am shooting a single individual or trying to isolate an individual in a group. usually for two people F4 is max aperture i will go with.

dogs are just tricky. its a bit easier maintaining depth of field with people because faces are relatively flat compared to dogs. if you want tip of nose back to ears in focus with a dog you generally need smaller apertures. that being said, i dont think you need to be hyper critical with holding the depth of field with these types of shots. 

below is an example. shot at 140mm on 70-200mm F2.8, @ F4 1/320th ISO 1600. yes the dog starts to go a little soft but the client was perfectly happy with the shot. you have to remember that the end goal is to please the client. the likelihood of your average person noticing that the tip of the dogs nose isn't critically sharp and feeling that its ruining the photo is almost nil. they will be thrilled if it only captures the cuteness of their buddy...which most likely it will.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 30, 2014)

1st, I think the pictures you shot look great already! Good luck improving on an already good thing!

This is a great question and the previous expert answers are very detailed and thought provoking. I could picture myself doing about the same things that you are doing and then I guess I would be asking the same questions! This is definitely a situation where learning from experience really pays off!!

The image in my mind that keeps popping up as I read this thread is of the professional photographers shooting outdoors with a ton of gear and assistants. In order to get the beautiful model to look tack sharp and stunning, they literally have two crews armed with 2-way radios. One crew is at the camera on a tripod with a huge lens. The other crew is at the model with light modifiers, lights, etc. The camera is some number of many yards away more or less. The background is also quite a long distance away depending on how defined they want it in the shot.

Obviously the point is to use a larger DoF for better focus but still get the desired blurred background, esp if there is more than one subject in the shot. So in your case, you are trying to achieve a bit of optical physics magic. As you already know, there is only so much you can do within the limits of what you are attempting.

Concentrate on nailing the things that can't be fixed later and must be right in camera. Since you have little control of the subject in this case, that is what you must get right. Focus/sharpness (or your desired effect) of the eyes, faces, etc and the pose, the smiles, the moment. Everything else, esp the background, cropping, etc you will just have to do your best with in photoshop.

Personally, when I shoot people, esp groups or couples, I have learned the hard way to not drop below f/5.6 (depending on my distance which is usually within on camera flash range) and try to move the subject(s) away from the background as much as possible if I want it to blur. I can go with a more narrow DoF (lower f stop) the further I am away from the subject.

That's simply my amateur opinion. I'm reading this with great interest as well and I'm glad you asked the question.

NOTE: As I read over the other posts in comparison to mine, mine seems like a complete waste of time, as in Duh!. First time I've considered clicking the 'remove' link!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 30, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Personally, when I shoot people, esp groups or couples, I have learned the hard way to not drop below f/5.6 (depending on my distance which is usually within on camera flash range) and try to move the subject(s) away from the background as much as possible if I want it to blur. I can go with a more narrow DoF (lower f stop) the further I am away from the subject.



You make an important point that many people miss: 2.8 and less isn't everything.


----------



## agierke (Apr 30, 2014)

i agree with sporgon about using a 50mm or 85mm rather than your longer focal lengths. compression from focal length is one thing but i noticed in alot of your shots your background wasnt that far away. so you are basically losing the benefits of the longer lens if a shallower depth of field is the desired look. 

in my above posted shot, i would not have used the 70-200mm if it weren't for the corridor like view i had of the sidewalk. if my background is a bit closer but i still want the isolation of shallow depth of field then i'm going for one of my fast primes. even a 35mm used properly can give good results at much wider apertures.

below shot: 35mm 1.4 @ F2.2 1/2000th ISO 800


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Concentrate on nailing the things that can't be fixed later and must be right in camera. Since you have little control of the subject in this case, that is what you must get right. Focus/sharpness (or your desired effect) of the eyes, faces, etc and the pose, the smiles, the moment. Everything else, esp the background, cropping, etc you will just have to do your best with in photoshop.



That's about what I currently do, and I am taking quite a lot of shots achieving it. Sometimes I feel completely dumb when I happen tell clients how many shots I took (don't!), they seldom realize how often it flashes. But my competition seems to do the same, ~200 shots in an hour, give the client 10-20 to chose from, really postprocess 2-5 (depending on copy/paste ability with the particular shots). If all failed, offer a 2nd shooting for free.



RustyTheGeek said:


> Personally, when I shoot people, esp groups or couples, I have learned the hard way to not drop below f/5.6 (depending on my distance which is usually within on camera flash range) and try to move the subject(s) away from the background as much as possible if I want it to blur. I can go with a more narrow DoF (lower f stop) the further I am away from the subject.



I indeed have have lots to learn, though I think I'm rather ok when it comes to telling what I can postprocess and what not (never let anyone look at the angles of the uncropped shot ). This is what I currently think:

* *before* shooting look for better background relationship next time, this time we were simply walking about, the background looked nice and it even had more space than your average sidewalk in crowded Berlin.

* shoot with large dof first (f9-f11), produce keepers, then try thinner dof (f5.6) as a bonus. This problem becomes less prominent when shooting for small export size, but with larger print size options there is no comparison between (always subjective) dof on the camera lcd and a large monitor @home.

* let the model ack' the shooting style in-between, even if they can hardly miss how the scenery looks


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

agierke said:


> i agree with sporgon about using a 50mm or 85mm rather than your longer focal lengths.



Double-post because this is an important question for me: Most shots are 85mm-160mm - but I really don't have an option because I'm lacking a "standard" zoom, 17-40L ("standard" on backup 60d crop) and 70-300L. My 100L with f2.8 produces a way too thin dof wide open. 

Currently I have to work out if I really need a "standard" lens or prime in the 50mm range for these types of shots, if if using 70mm and a few steps back is sufficient... I'm quite on a budget here, and these charity shots are not paid :-\


----------



## agierke (Apr 30, 2014)

> My 100L with f2.8 produces a way too thin dof wide open.



well, you dont HAVE to shoot wide open. i think sporgons suggestion and mine is that you should understand what each focal length will behave like and what apertures are afforded to you given any given situation.

you could use the 17-40mm at 40mm and F4 and get usable shots. you could also use the 70-300 at 70mm and 5.6 and get usable shots. its all about understanding how each lens will behave in a given situation and what apertures are available to you given the look you are trying to achieve.

unfortunately this takes alot of time and shots to familiarize yourself with how your gear behaves in certain situations so you can confidently make decisions quickly during a shoot. i know when i can pull off F2 on my 35mm or when wider than F5.6 isnt an option on my 70-200mm. but i only know that through taking ALOT of shots where things didnt work out.

beyond that, considering the shots you posted, i would suggest you ditch shooting in sunny spots and seek out more flattering light. you are using the speedlights to fill well but it still looks flashy to me. softer, more diffused light is much more flattering for portrait work. you can still use a speedlight on camera with diffuser to pop a little catchlight in the eyes while shooting in shade and maintain a more natural light look.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 30, 2014)

I've thought about this... but I don't think it is an option I can use with my body's firmware.

Shoot two images onewide open and the other at f8 in quick succession... then over lap then in layers in Photoshop and just make the dog in focus...

I think it would look strange at really large print sizes, but at calendar size, it would go unnoticed.

I probably should read the manual, but I don't think any bodies are set up for that type of on the fly automatic adjustment.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 30, 2014)

I've also mulled over taking the shot with a small aperture... waiting till the subject is away... turning the focus to manual so it doesn't shift, and the opening the aperture wide... And then placing them in the bokeh filed image with Photoshop.

You would need a tripod of course.


----------



## agierke (Apr 30, 2014)

> I've also mulled over taking the shot with a small aperture... waiting till the subject is away... turning the focus to manual so it doesn't shift, and the opening the aperture wide... And then placing them in the bokeh filed image with Photoshop.
> 
> You would need a tripod of course.






> I've thought about this... but I don't think it is an option I can use with my body's firmware.
> 
> Shoot two images onewide open and the other at f8 in quick succession... then over lap then in layers in Photoshop and just make the dog in focus...
> 
> ...



you could do this...it takes a considerable amount of time and care in PP to do it so it doesn't look fake (even at smaller outputs). or, you can just find the appropriate aperture, focal length and distance from subject while you are shooting.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The old '1/3 in front, 2/3 in back' rule of thumb is applicable mainly with wide (and ultrawide) lenses. As the focal length increases, the distribution of the DoF around the focal plane trends toward 50/50. For the stated and assumed parameters (FF sensor, 100-200mm range, distance appropriate to frame the example shots as appropriate), the distribution of the DoF around the focal plane is at worst about 45/55.



That's a real good point (that I should have at least touched on), as the FL increases, the more even the placement of the DoF to the point of focus becomes. There is a sweet spot for every FL/f/distance combination. 

However, I don't agree that the 1/3 rule only applies to wide and ultrawide lenses. A 50mm at street photography ranges will have the 1/3-2/3 distribution. But you are right that using the longer FL lenses will bring the center of the DoF range closer to the point of focus. 

There is a really handy calculator at http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html which can help the OP figure out what distance, FL, and aperture will give him not only the right full DoF but which combination will give him the proper DoF placement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Shoot two images onewide open and the other at f8 in quick succession..
> 
> I probably should read the manual, but I don't think any bodies are set up for that type of on the fly automatic adjustment.



With the camera in Tv mode, exposure bracketing will change the aperture. Of course, in this case you don't want to change the exposure, so something else must be automatically changed to maintain a metered exposure. 

@Marsu42, does ML have the capability to shoot bracketed apertures while compensating with ISO or shutter speed to maintain a neutral exposure? If not, maybe you'll add it?  A burst of bracket aperture shots from f/5.6 to f/14, for example, would allow you to select in post the shot with the widest aperture that still had sufficient DoF for your subjects. Using flash would complicate things, though...


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot two images onewide open and the other at f8 in quick succession..
> ...



That would be lovely. I tend to use the factory firmware, but I would seriously jump ship for that option.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 30, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


+1 (or 2?) on that. I bracket DOF a lot when I shoot macro, though I'm still a scaredy cat with ML :-[

And to answer the original post, I get closer and shoot with a wider lens or stand further back and shoot with a longer lens (usually the latter). I know that sounds stupidly simple, but both things work to increase DOF while still isolating the subject at f/2.8 or greater. Beyond that, aligning yourself and your subjects to the focal plane is about all your can do, sometimes you have to live with a bit of softness, so try to get the eyes in focus.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > i agree with sporgon about using a 50mm or 85mm rather than your longer focal lengths.
> ...



I think I'm getting a handle on your situation now; am i right in thinking you just use the 17-40 and 70-300, and you were using the latter as it is a better 'portrait' type lens ?

You are really missing the 50 mm focal length on FF. I think in your original post you asked what a professional would do. Well I think I can say with 100% certainly that there will now be one single (genuine) professional who doesn't have access to the 50 mm focal length. 

If you are going to shoot these types of pictures I would strongly recommend you get a fifty of some sort; the 50/1.8 is the cheapest way in.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 30, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> +1 (or 2?) on that. I bracket DOF a lot when I shoot macro, though I'm still a scaredy cat with ML :-[
> 
> And to answer the original post, I get closer and shoot with a wider lens or stand further back and shoot with a longer lens (usually the latter). I know that sounds stupidly simple, but both things work to increase DOF while still isolating the subject at f/2.8 or greater. Beyond that, aligning yourself and your subjects to the focal plane is about all your can do, sometimes you have to live with a bit of softness, so try to get the eyes in focus.



Wow! Me Too! I find it sort of funny using a high dollar DSLR with tons of features only to adjust the photographic effect simply by moving around, back and forth, etc.  I sometimes do the same thing with the off camera flash. If I have an assistant (usually my poor younger son), I direct him to just move up and back to adjust the lighting and then review the shot on the LCD. It's faster than changing settings.

Rusty


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

agierke said:


> > My 100L with f2.8 produces a way too thin dof wide open.
> 
> 
> well, you dont HAVE to shoot wide open. i think sporgons suggestion and mine is that you should understand what each focal length will behave like and what apertures are afforded to you given any given situation.



What I meant to say that for most situations, I don't find it worthwhile to exchange the 70-300L ([email protected]) for the 100L/2.8 ... I use the macro for stills like sleeping horses and, well, macro, but not for portraiture. Keep in mind I'm using a 6d so I focus & recompose all the time which is a pita on moving subjects.



agierke said:


> beyond that, considering the shots you posted, i would suggest you ditch shooting in sunny spots and seek out more flattering light. you are using the speedlights to fill well but it still looks flashy to me. softer, more diffused light is much more flattering for portrait work. you can still use a speedlight on camera with diffuser to pop a little catchlight in the eyes while shooting in shade and maintain a more natural light look.



Thanks, I'll try that! Diffused is hard to come by outdoors when shooting on my own at this time of day, but I agree the ones in full sun are too hard and I had to use too much fill flash to prevent deep shadows. I posted it to give the model a choice because what I like isn't necessarily universally shared, alas, I'll ditch the so-so shots next time right away.

Having said that, this series is intended to give an impression of the people using the free dog doctor care - and considering an project I had as a template, any shots of mine make the model look way, way too good already 



agierke said:


> @Marsu42, does ML have the capability to shoot bracketed apertures while compensating with ISO or shutter speed to maintain a neutral exposure? If not, maybe you'll add it?  A burst of bracket aperture shots from f/5.6 to f/14, for example, would allow you to select in post the shot with the widest aperture that still had sufficient DoF for your subjects.



Yes, ML has dof bracketing, but the subject would have to remain in pose and the ML version is way slower than the Canon bracketing you're used to - so no option for quick bursts I'm afraid to say.



agierke said:


> Using flash would complicate things, though...



ML hasn't full speedlite control atm as the prop hasn't been fully reversed engineered yet and also is only available when entering the flash menu in the canon menu. Obviously the flash fw part is an external "addon" probably from another dev team and not fully integrated.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I think I'm getting a handle on your situation now; am i right in thinking you just use the 17-40 and 70-300, and you were using the latter as it is a better 'portrait' type lens ?



Yes, that's right, certainly better as the 17-40L ... I only recently moved to ff and used the 17-40L on crop as a "normal" zoom. Alas, "pro" doesn't just mean spending money, but also earning it and make do what's availabe?



Sporgon said:


> If you are going to shoot these types of pictures I would strongly recommend you get a fifty of some sort; the 50/1.8 is the cheapest way in.



I had that until it broke after it fell down (100% plastic) but I hated it as it's so soft and has a horrible bokeh. I also have to admit that I currently feel that for two models (pet & person) I can do most things @70mm other people might use a 50mm for because they have it in the bag?


----------



## agierke (Apr 30, 2014)

> Diffused is hard to come by outdoors when shooting on my own at this time of day



yes, it can be difficult to find that really special quality light. if its not there, its not there. sometimes you just have to make do with what you got. 

to avoid that though, i do lots of scouting for locations that tend to have quality light in spite of how much cloud cover there is. shadows being casted, exteriors that bounce light back into scene, etc and then try to schedule as many shoots at these locations as possible. i avoid open parks like the plague...too unpredictable especially considering i work almost exclusively alone and don't have the option to bring sunblockers, reflectors, and other such light modifying gear. im sure this matches the situation many find themselves working under.



> Having said that, this series is intended to give an impression of the people using the free dog doctor care - and considering an project I had as a template, any shots of mine make the model look way, way too good already



i definitely think the images are serviceable. for what the project is and what the end uses may be i think they will work fine. i understand there is a difference between "they work" and being personally satisfied with the shots. i imagine you seek greater personal satisfaction through your original post. 

that in mind, i still think you can use your existing gear, open up a bit on the aperture, find backgrounds that allow for greater fall off and you can get more personally pleasing results. i would find it in camera first before resorting to PP tricks...those things tend to look fake and cheesy and are a ton of effort in post. i imagine most people get tired and compromise their post production resulting in that faked look.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

agierke said:


> yes, it can be difficult to find that really special quality light. if its not there, its not there. sometimes you just have to make do with what you got.



Indeed, and in my recent experience it's not easy to relay the fact that I cannot conjure good light out of nowhere, some lighting test shots are required before shooting at a spontaneous location the model says the pet knows and is familiar with. Probably people are too used to studio settings or plain p&s?



agierke said:


> i definitely think the images are serviceable. for what the project is and what the end uses may be i think they will work fine. i understand there is a difference between "they work" and being personally satisfied with the shots. i imagine you seek greater personal satisfaction through your original post.



I admit it's not entirely satisfactory if the model hates the shots, even though everybody else and their cat says their ok, fine, great :-\ ... but after speaking with the model it's plain that the problem is not the style I shot with but other aspects I won't disclose since I linked the pictures.

Point is that it's not only for the project, but I'm dual-using them for my personal portfolio, so I try to make it look somewhat favorable and pro-ish. The template images I saw are are all shot with nearly infinity dof, probably the other photog was too afraid to open up the aperture... so I'm not the worst possible case 



agierke said:


> that in mind, i still think you can use your existing gear, open up a bit on the aperture, find backgrounds that allow for greater fall off and you can get more personally pleasing results. i would find it in camera first before resorting to PP tricks...those things tend to look fake and cheesy and are a ton of effort in post. i imagine most people get tired and compromise their post production resulting in that faked look.



I'm with you on that, I tried a lot of available options and most work to some extend, but only in a very cautious manner or to the edges, everything else looks digital and fake. Plus getting it right in camera saves a lot of time in post ... if you have in-focus shots to work with at all.

I have a couple of similar shots tomorrow and the next days so I'll try to report back if I grown in experience if anybody is interested :->


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'm getting a handle on your situation now; am i right in thinking you just use the 17-40 and 70-300, and you were using the latter as it is a better 'portrait' type lens ?
> ...



It's not just a case of 'what you have in your bag at the time'. If you need to produce a certain type of shot then you must be able to achieve it, more so when you are being commissioned to do so. There is a significant difference between 50 and 70. 

I know what you mean about the 50/1.8. My other suggestion for maximum cost effectiveness is the 40 pancake. This lens has a very pleasant bokeh in many instances.

If you are shooting again tomorrow I suggest trying your 17-40 at 35-40 @ around f4 - 5.6 depending on what is going to give you your 0.5 -0.7 m dof that you are looking for. I think you might be surprised. When you look at agierke's 35mm shot at 1.4 there is no problem with lack of compression, in fact it is an excellent picture. You are going to be in a different orientation and closer and not focusing on a single pane so you'll need to use a smaller aperture. Remember to try and get a focus point fore or midway of your dof range. 

Post what you get, I'll be interested to see.


----------



## agierke (Apr 30, 2014)

yes i am interested as well to see additional shoots. good luck with it!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 30, 2014)

I'm sure you must have tried just standing far back, as Mackguyver and Rusty mentioned, and cropping it afterwards?
You should get decent DoF about 20-25 feet from the subject with 135-150mm at f/4 or f/5.6.
And have you tried fixing a location somewhat in front of the rear subject (the person), maybe a stationary point, instead of focusing on him/her? That'll allow you to utilize more of your DoF. 
I'll try to experiment with this in the next few days. Just need to find a dog...


----------



## DanielW (Apr 30, 2014)

Marsu42, what if you tried introducing blur not from narrow DoF, but from motion? I know dogs aren't the easiest fellas to photograph, but I think that if you used a wide lens stopped down and from a relatively short distance, walking backwards in front of the subjects at their very speed, you might get an interesting angle and blur the background while keeping both subjects in focus. (Your camera should sound like a machine gun, though, to increase the odds of nailing it.)
I think it would work and add some cool effect to your shots.
Cheers,
Daniel


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2014)

agierke said:


> yes i am interested as well to see additional shoots. good luck with it!



Will do, and thanks all, very valuable and friendly advice here - good the new "technique" section is on CR.



sagittariansrock said:


> I'm sure you must have tried just standing far back, as Mackguyver and Rusty mentioned, and cropping it afterwards?



It was on the sidewalk, I would have been run over by cars 



sagittariansrock said:


> And have you tried fixing a location somewhat in front of the rear subject (the person), maybe a stationary point, instead of focusing on him/her? That'll allow you to utilize more of your DoF.



Good idea in general, but it's pretty complicated to find the sweet dof spot in a dynamic scene - I'll try to learn it, but the simplest way is to focus on the front subject's eyes and hope for the 1/3-2/3 dof division... though it seems to tend to 50/50 on long lenses as I just read. To repeat myself, having to focus/recompose with the 6d often doesn't make it easier.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 1, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm currently shooting street people with their pets (well, dogs mostly, though I'm still looking for rats ) for a charity animal doctor project - a line of work I'd like to expand upon. Something like this...
> 
> _(Edit: url removed, I've got a model-release agreement, but still don't want to link them over the net.)_
> 
> ...



If you were to accept to try manual focus, the problem would have an easy fix, - use a tilt shift lens.

Disclaimer: I have not read all pages of this thread, just the first one.


----------



## mackguyver (May 1, 2014)

Quasimodo said:


> If you were to accept to try manual focus, the problem would have an easy fix, - use a tilt shift lens.
> 
> Disclaimer: I have not read all pages of this thread, just the first one.


I don't know if I'd call it an easy or even appropriate fix, but it is one way to possible way solve the issue. The issue with tilt shift is that to get this right, you'd really need to use a tripod, LiveView, and manual adjustments and readjustments of tilt and focus, which are not practical for portraits, especially ones with animals (see first page...)


----------



## Quasimodo (May 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > If you were to accept to try manual focus, the problem would have an easy fix, - use a tilt shift lens.
> ...



Yes the movement involved makes it cumberstone, and to adjust the plane of focus on the fly is hard, otherwise given the right f-stop it should not be necessary to use a tripod for nailing the shot.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2014)

agierke said:


> yes i am interested as well to see additional shoots. good luck with it!



Well, you asked - I think I did a bit better dof-wise these times, here are two series from this week ... took a while, this kind of crowd is rather unreliable at turning up when you had agreed to 

I think I'm indeed missing the 40-70 range, 40mm is too distorted (even though you can catch a lot of the surroundings like the train and the squatted house the guy used to lived them before he was evicted), and 70mm+ has the dof problem.

For the close up shots with ~120mm I needed to use ~f11, and still not both person and pet are in focus. Sometimes I know I didn't manage to af the correct spot for optimal dof usage, but that's really hard to do the instant the scene looks ok with 6d focus & recompose... I don't know if it would be easier with a "real" 5d3-ish af system. 

The wide angle shots were done with f8, for the dog this was enough for in-focus models and a bit of background separation blur. For the cat I couldn't manage this, so I resorted to f4 out of focus blur for the model in the background on some shots.

Still, either I'm still getting it completely wrong, or I really need to get a 50mm , or getting pet and person in focus w/o explicit thin-dof posing on full frame is really extremely hard to do @100% crop and I should simply more often resort to creative blur of one part?

Btw to get the whole dynamic range I was using Magic Lantern's dual_iso module for 14.5ev dr, otherwise black dog and bright sky is really tricky. Lighting was done with one flash on bracket and another next to the model.


----------



## jdramirez (May 8, 2014)

I was playing with variable aperture settings plus exposure bracketing the other day.. And the results were as expected, but if I ettr, I can save most of the images.

It was a fun exercise... but it is still just better to get it right in advance.


----------



## mackguyver (May 8, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > yes i am interested as well to see additional shoots. good luck with it!
> ...


I can definitely see the improvement and while I realize I offered the least specific advice, I'm glad to see that you experimented a bit with focal lengths & apertures. I think you're getting closer to what your trying to achieve and the results themselves are quite nice, and you should be happy with the photos 

Here's some additional feedback on your new work, but bear with me as I try to find the words to explain what I'm trying to say:

Try to think in 2D and make use of perspective compression. If you put the pet in front of the person, you need far more DOF than if you put the pet beside the person. For busy backgrounds that you need to blur, try to put the person beside the pet so their eyes are on the same plane, or close to it. For simpler backgrounds, put the pet in front for variety with the other shots. If you have plenty of room in front and behind, use a longer focal length, say 135mm and stop down. The perspective distortion puts them closer together and in practice requires a bit less DOF. Additionally, the narrower field of view creates more "apparent" blur to the background, making f/11 at 135mm look more like f/4 at 50mm. The people with the stroller in front of the tree and flag might have been a good subject for this, assuming you had room behind you to use a longer focal length.

Also, work with the background - if it's part of the story (good or bad) of the photo, don't be afraid to go to f/8 or f/11 and use a wider angle to incorporate the background so it becomes an environmental portrait. The photo of the owner with his black Labrador in front of the train (the widest one) is a great example of how to do this and I think that shot came out great. The shot with the redhead and the building in the background is also good because it's an interesting background. Generally, I start with environmental portraits and move in to tighter shots. The builds comfort with my subject and gives me a good choice of shots later. Sometimes the background makes the shot, other times the eyes tell the story in a tight headshot.

With wider lenses, again consider perspective distortion. Don't put a large pet in front or it will look large and far away from the owner. Use wide lenses to shoot side-by-sides or with the owner tightly holding a smaller pet.

Finally, if you can't get things to work, work on being creative (as you've done in many of your shots), but don't be afraid of some motion blur or creative blurring. Show a dog licking the owner's face or wagging its tail with some motion blur, or a dog jumping, cat grooming, etc.

More than anything, just practice shooting at large apertures as much as you can so get a "feel" for how aperture, DOF, and focal lengths all work together and don't be afraid of some blur, as long as you are the one controlling it. 

I realize you may be a bit frustrated, but I think you're doing great work and should be proud of the photos you've taken. Keep shooting, analyzing your own work, and improving each time.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 8, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > yes i am interested as well to see additional shoots. good luck with it!
> ...



Not much to say that hasn't been said but *I want to compliment you on the shots*. I think anyone here would be glad with these results. *You did a great job*. Tweak all you want but you are improving on a very good product already.

As for the 6D AF system and whether a 5D3 would make a difference... rest easy. That ain't it. I think you know better than that. The issues you are dealing with here can't even be much affected with manual focus. It's definitely NOT the camera, it's the variations of aperture, etc. Lens? Maybe. But not the camera. I have both the 5D3 and the 6D and in 90% of cases, the AF works fine on both. Sports and fast moving AF needs are better addressed with the 5D3. Lower light, the 6D. But I rarely even remember which camera I'm shooting with in most cases, based on any perceptable problems that is.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 8, 2014)

Sometimes going back to the basics helps. Maybe whip out a tripod on a sunny day and get a "subject" to focus on with a detailed background some distance behind it. Then do the good old exposure exercise where you maintain the same exposure but vary the aperture and shutter speeds and work your way through all the f/stops. When you compare the shots, it might help jog your 'noggin on what will work for you. You could also toss in some varying distances from the subject at each f/stop to see how that affects the DOF, compression and bokeh.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Here's some additional feedback on your new work



Thanks, feedback from other photogs is most welcome, though _please remove the flickr link from your post_ - I usually try to keep my CR nick and photog work separate and my flickr account unlinked to the rest of the net.



mackguyver said:


> Try to think in 2D and make use of perspective compression. If you put the pet in front of the person, you need far more DOF than if you put the pet beside the person. For busy backgrounds that you need to blur, try to put the person beside the pet so their eyes are on the same plane, or close to it.



I try to do this all the time  ... problem is that it looks very artificial and "posed", esp. with a dog - with cats, people are more prone to hug them next to their face. Personally, I try to avoid micro-directing the scene, so if after 1-2 suggestions from me what might be a nice idea people don't react accordingly I let the matter drop - the pets are exhausted quick enough w/o me putting additional pressure on them. But I'll keep figuring out ways for thin dof posing nevertheless. 



mackguyver said:


> If you have plenty of room in front and behind, use a longer focal length, say 135mm and stop down. The perspective distortion puts them closer together and in practice requires a bit less DOF.



Interesting point, I never used this systematically - though in this case I was to a wall or on the edge of the train platform, so my creativity was rather restricted.



mackguyver said:


> Also, work with the background - if it's part of the story (good or bad) of the photo, don't be afraid to go to f/8 or f/11 and use a wider angle to incorporate the background so it becomes an environmental portrait.



Problem is that with this method, I'm at iso 6400 in no time - not very bad with the 6d, but then shutter speed keeps dropping and creates unwanted blur on the moving pet. I'm often using hss as the 1/180 x-sync on the 6d is so slow.



mackguyver said:


> The photo of the owner with his black Labrador in front of the train (the widest one) is a great example of how to do this and I think that shot came out great.



Thanks  ... I'm always hesitant to use this "environmental portrait style" because I keep thinking you can also do this with your smartphone and don't need a €2500€ dslr... but at least I have lighting gear to separate me from the crowd.



mackguyver said:


> Generally, I start with environmental portraits and move in to tighter shots. The builds comfort with my subject and gives me a good choice of shots later. Sometimes the background makes the shot, other times the eyes tell the story in a tight headshot.



That's very good advice, I did it the other way round this time and imho your method is really better - I might even get away with using "test shots" while close up shots need some minimal posing.



mackguyver said:


> With wider lenses, again consider perspective distortion. Don't put a large pet in front or it will look large and far away from the owner. Use wide lenses to shoot side-by-sides or with the owner tightly holding a smaller pet.



Well, they'll be hesitant to exchange animals :-> but still excellent point I'll keep in mind.



mackguyver said:


> Finally, if you can't get things to work, work on being creative (as you've done in many of your shots), but don't be afraid of some motion blur or creative blurring. Show a dog licking the owner's face or wagging its tail with some motion blur, or a dog jumping, cat grooming, etc.



Hmmmyes, I'm rather hesitant on this as a "pro" look on a "snapshot style" scene is extremely hard to manage



mackguyver said:


> Finally, if you can't More than anything, just practice shooting at large apertures as much as you can so get a "feel" for how aperture, DOF, and focal lengths all work together and don't be afraid of some blur, as long as you are the one controlling it.



Problem with pets is that they're quickly exhausted and the "natural" look is gone, after 5-10 min of lighting test and location scouting you've maybe got 20min, and then it might be already to late. That's why getting practice on live subjects is hard to come by, but I ordered rubber heads to pose for me so I can try out different dof and lighting styles @home.



mackguyver said:


> I realize you may be a bit frustrated, but I think you're doing great work and should be proud of the photos you've taken. Keep shooting, analyzing your own work, and improving each time.



Actually, I'm currently rather happy with my progress esp. as I now know that shooting these scenes is rather difficult... I realize this when I find shooting single models or pets is extremely easy to do in comparison  ... thanks for commenting!


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Not much to say that hasn't been said but *I want to compliment you on the shots*. I think anyone here would be glad with these results. *You did a great job*. Tweak all you want but you are improving on a very good product already.



Right, that's what I wanted to hear, 4000+ posts on CR have finally paid off :-> ... thanks! Btw this is about the same feedback I'm getting from around here, that's why I currently dare to try to go pro with pet and animal photography.



RustyTheGeek said:


> As for the 6D AF system and whether a 5D3 would make a difference... rest easy. That ain't it. I think you know better than that. The issues you are dealing with here can't even be much affected with manual focus. It's definitely NOT the camera



That's very good to know as you know both cameras, it dampens my 5d3 inferiority complex a bit  ... the other day, I saw the boss of the homelesss peope street magazine project walk about with the editorial 1dx+24-70L2, I couldn't believe my eyes. He still takes terrible pictures and doesn't even use a single flash :->

The one thing might help just a bit that with the 1dx/5d3 af focus & recompose distance is a bit less than from the center 6d spot, but alas, the af points are rather crowded to the center on the big cameras so it really might not result in any noticeable difference.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Not much to say that hasn't been said but *I want to compliment you on the shots*. I think anyone here would be glad with these results. *You did a great job*. Tweak all you want but you are improving on a very good product already.
> ...



Think about the cameras this way... if someone handed you a 30D or a 40D, would you still love shooting with one? Could you still make great pictures with it? Heck, would you almost be ready to go find/get another one? I'm confident that my answer to these questions is YES, I loved both of those bodies and shot 1000's of great images with them. Obviously my newer cameras are EASIER to shoot with because they have better sensors and the full frame gives me more creative latitude.

Bottom line, it's YOU that takes the picture. And it sounds like you could shoot the same great shots with a 30D, 40D, 6D or whatever you have in your hand. (Too bad the guy with the 1Dx can't say that, eh?) My point here is, don't pine after the 5D3 or 1Dx too much. I love the 6D, it's a great camera. Don't sweat it. Be glad you have the 6D, enjoy using it with confidence and without any remorse!


----------



## mackguyver (May 9, 2014)

I'm sorry about re-posting the link and I removed it last night. I had "one of those" days yesterday and my eyes were glazing over around the time I wrote the post . I understand what you're saying about posed subjects and personally, I'm rather impressed you're able to hold the pets attention that long! With portraits, the technical side is less important as long as it's good enough. privatebydesign posted this article recently (Steve McCurry Sharp) and I think that is a pretty good way to look at it. I'd rather capture a softer photo of the perfect moment/expression than have a dull but technically perfect shot.

Also, you must be shooting in pretty dim light to be at ISO6400 at f/11 & 1/180s. I agree that 1/180s is pretty marginal for pet movement, but I'm sure it works with lighting. In terms of smartphone and snapshot style photos and separating your work, that is the challenge we're up against and lighting and a subtle or complete blurring of the background are what you can use to set your work apart. Even the shallow DOF is under assault, however from the new Google camera app that does this and lots of iPhone and PS plug ins that generate bokeh. Yes, they suck in comparison to the real thing, but they're getting better each day, and at phone resolution it's hard to tell. Keeping a step ahead and setting your work apart from others is a challenge, but as Rusty and I have said, you're doing a good job of that! 

Practicing at home is a good idea and I agree with Rusty that the 6D is a nice camera and given what you're shooting, the 5DIII or 1D X are likely to make very little difference. The higher x-sync speeds are nice if you're trying to overpower the sun, but beyond that, there's nothing too much that would do much for you. You can always order the grip if you find yourself shooting a lot of photos in the portrait orientation. Also, as you mention, just because you have great gear doesn't mean the photos will be any good. For years, I've shot wildlife beside people with 1D__ cameras and 600-800 lenses and they don't understand how I'm getting such good shots with my Rebel XSi and 400 f/5.6 lens. The same thing used to happen when I shot fashion with cheap gear - I frequently sold dozens of photos at runway shows with a 3MP Kodak DC4800 and a crappy Sunpak flash back in the early days of digital even as I stood next to guys with top of the line film & digital SLRs and 200mm f/1.8 lenses. My timing, lighting, and PS skills set my work apart as I moved from film SLRs to digital and eventually D-SLRs. 

I'm glad that you're happy with your work (as you should be) and always remember two things that are really the same thing - no one shoots great shots every time and only show your best work. If you saw the outtakes of many of the best photographers that you admire, you'd think a whole lot less of them


----------

