# 100mm L not for portraits?



## Jack56 (Jan 28, 2014)

Of course is this lens for portraits. But what am I doing wrong?
I don't know wether I may post this question here but there I go.
I have to make some photos at my work. Today I took a few, but I didn't manage to get both ladies sharp. What am I doing wrong or do I really need another lens for nice (bokeh) photos?


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 28, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> Of course is this lens for portraits. But what am I doing wrong?
> I don't know wether I may post this question here but there I go.
> I have to make some photos at my work. Today I took a few, but I didn't manage to get both ladies sharp. What am I doing wrong or do I really need another lens for nice (bokeh) photos?


You need to close down the aperture (larger f/stop number). That's all.


----------



## Jack56 (Jan 28, 2014)

To be honest, I took this one in the Auto mode. Not smart of me, but I was a bit lazy. You think that's the way to do it?
I focussed on the eyes of the left girl and those eyes are sharp. When I use the AV mode I still have to focus on the eyes of one child? The aperture was f/2.8 by the way.


----------



## eli452 (Jan 28, 2014)

f/2.8 has little dof. Simply use a wider f-stop. Use the DOF button or Live View to check in focus eyes and DOF.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 28, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> To be honest, I took this one in the Auto mode. Not smart of me, but I was a bit lazy. You think that's the way to do it?
> I focussed on the eyes of the left girl and those eyes are sharp. When I use the AV mode I still have to focus on the eyes of one child? The aperture was f/2.8 by the way.


Yes, f/2.8 is too shallow (in terms of depth of field) at this distance. In this case, I would switch to Av mode and use f/8 or even f/11. It's usually better to focus on the rear most subject if you can't focus on something in between, so that was definitely correct.


----------



## dcm (Jan 28, 2014)

At 10' with 100mm f2.8 the depth of field is about 3" front and 3" back. At f5.6 it increases to about 5" front and 6" back. At f11 it is about 9" front and 11 inches back. If you are closer, its even thinner. You can also move to your left a bit to bring them closer to the same plane, pick a point between them. Look for the focus points in the viewfinder for both girls to light up as you change the aperture to be sure they are both in focus.


----------



## Jack56 (Jan 28, 2014)

Thank you all for the quick replies. I do appreciate that very much. I will do some exercise this evening and will try again this week.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2014)

dcm said:


> At 10' with 100mm f2.8 the depth of field is about 3" front and 3" back. At f5.6 it increases to about 5" front and 6" back. At f11 it is about 9" front and 11 inches back. If you are closer, its even thinner. You can also move to your left a bit to bring them closer to the same plane, pick a point between them. Look for the focus points in the viewfinder for both girls to light up as you change the aperture to be sure they are both in focus.



A rough estimate suggests the image in the OP was shot from a distance of a bit less than 5' (if a FF camera; 8' if APS-C). Either way, that means a DoF of about 2-3" for the OP's image which is far too shallow. Given the relative position of the subjects, even f/16 would be barely enough to get both pairs of eyes in focus from that distance at that angle.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 28, 2014)

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


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 29, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> Of course is this lens for portraits. But what am I doing wrong?
> I don't know wether I may post this question here but there I go.
> I have to make some photos at my work. Today I took a few, but I didn't manage to get both ladies sharp. What am I doing wrong or do I really need another lens for nice (bokeh) photos?



Move a bit to the left so that both faces are more or less equidistant from you.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 29, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> Of course is this lens for portraits. But what am I doing wrong?



Grab a "depth of field" calculator and look how deep the dof is for what you've shot (distance, aperture), the result is for a usual export/view size.

Then you'll see why "*thin dof posing*" is part of a photog's toolkit, if you want to have some background blur or are shooting at close distance, esp. macro, you cannot close the aperture enough to get everything in focus or end up with extremely high iso or very long shutter times.

The problem (if you see it that way) gets worse with a full frame camera, for "everything in focus" snapshots with deep dof a crop, compact camera or a mobile phone might be more adequate... for everything else, you need to put some thought into it before pressing the shutter button


----------



## koolman (Jan 29, 2014)

I use the 100 L on a crop 550d all the time for portraits. I think the lens is stunning as its overall colors and IQ are top of the top. As far as your picture a few tips:

1) When shooting 2 kids or more - try and get the kids to be all more or less the same distance from you. Here the right hand child is much closer. I try if possible to pose them a little.

2) I would shoot in AV mode and stop down to f/4 or 5.6.

3) Take a few shots with trial and error - so you can fine tune the focus.

For one subject - you can open up to 2.8.


----------



## photonius (Jan 29, 2014)

As others said, your depth of focus (DOF) is not enough. In the old days, manual focus lenses had DOF markings for different apertures, nice and useful.

Have a look at dofmaster.com , gives you tables, online calculations, how it works.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 29, 2014)

photonius said:


> In the old days, manual focus lenses had DOF markings for different apertures, nice and useful.



In the olden days, some Canon bodies even had a helper mode "adepth" for this - af at spot one, af at spot two & it calculates the required f-stop... alas, newer cameras have you-dont-wanna-know how many creative zone programs, but this has been lost along the way.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > In the old days, manual focus lenses had DOF markings for different apertures, nice and useful.
> ...



Yes ... troublesome but not insurmountable now-a-days. One can simply download a DoF app on their phones.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 29, 2014)

J.R. said:


> One can simply download a DoF app on their phones.



What good is that on its own? If I want to have to required f-stop between a tree 100m away and a hill 130m away, do you carry a long enough stick or an adequate optical tool  ... imho your best bet is Magic Lantern, it shows the focal distance in m and you can *then* input into a smartphone. If you have one. Working & with you. Which I haven't. Both not.

With digital, I guess Canon expects people to revert to simply trial & error, that's why they removed a-dep.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 29, 2014)

How about: Step to your left untill both girls are the same distance away.

Shallow depth of field is a blessing and a curse. There are electronic ways to deal with it, and then there is the get the subject(s) in focus technique.


----------



## gbchriste (Jan 29, 2014)

Like others said, when shooting multiple people at f2.8, you've got to get their eyes positioned as close to the same focal plane as you can.


----------



## sandymandy (Jan 29, 2014)

you cant have super awesome blurry bokeh and still have a huge area of sharpness in a photo. the only way to achieve this is by dof stacking which is tbh useless for people photography. you "could" get a big blurry background and have the kids in focus (both) if u took e.g. 300mm lens, but that also means u have to move back waaaaay more which is probably not possible indoors.
or, focus one girl first, snap + focus 2nd girl, snap + put the photo of girl 1 and girl 2 in one photo with photoshop or equal.


----------



## Badger (Jan 29, 2014)

My key learning here? There are DOF calculators for smart phones! 

Just checked, I found 44 on iOS. Awesome! I am not one of those people that can do the math in my head and I sometimes panic or worry when taking group shots as to what to set the aperture to. 

Thanks guys!


----------



## Hardwire (Jan 29, 2014)

I used to get lost on the math of DOF, so shoot shoot and shoot some more until you get to grips with it.

I have also come past this guys videos and he did one a while back on understanding depth of field which might help give you a better understanding:

"PhotoTips" Episode 110 - Understanding DOF (Depth Of Field) 

Simply stopping down (larger F number, from 2.8 to F8/11) as others have said or changing your plane of focus by moving to your left slightly so both of the childrens eyes are in line, or even stepping backwards to increase the DOF.

All part of the learning experience and if anyone here says they have never had the same issue, they are telling fibs!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > One can simply download a DoF app on their phones.
> ...



Most lenses are 'adequate optical tools' - while they no longer have aperture markings, the majority of enses (cheaper/consumer lenses notwithstanding) still have a distance scale.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> .



Most lenses are 'adequate optical tools' - while they no longer have aperture markings, the majority of enses (cheaper/consumer lenses notwithstanding) still have a distance scale. 
[/quote]

??? Zeiss 15mm 2.8 does have a distamce scale in it, or am I looking at the wrong thing?


in either case, macro lenses being overall so sharp, are not the ideal portrait lens, as they will reveal too many skin flaw. Sure there is always PP, but narrow DOF is part of their signature - that's why the ef 100mm f2 is prefered as a portrait lens


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 29, 2014)

Hardwire said:


> All part of the learning experience and if anyone here says they have never had the same issue, they are telling fibs!



What you need to do is to re-define it as a personal photography style, then you'll never have the "issue"


----------



## PhotoCat (Jan 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > In the old days, manual focus lenses had DOF markings for different apertures, nice and useful.
> ...



mm... new magic lantern feature request?


----------



## Badger (Jan 29, 2014)

> I have also come past this guys videos and he did one a while back on understanding depth of field which might help give you a better understanding:



Thanks, great video.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > One can simply download a DoF app on their phones.
> ...



Yes of course one can think of several instances where something might not work but for general shooting thisworks pretty well. As pointed out by Neuro, with the distance scale it can work even better.


----------



## epsiloneri (Jan 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> In the olden days ...


In the even older days you could tilt the focal plane and have both girls in focus. As long as they were still for the duration of setup and exposure....

(you can actually still do this with a TS lens, not the 100L, but it is a bit of a challenge with moving subjects)


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 29, 2014)

epsiloneri said:


> As long as they were still for the duration of setup and exposure....



Maybe it's about time to bring back the neck holders so subjects don't move during exposure like on portraits in the 1800s :-o


----------



## Hardwire (Jan 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> epsiloneri said:
> 
> 
> > As long as they were still for the duration of setup and exposure....
> ...



"Stocks"? 

Maybe thats where the term "Stock photos" came from


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2014)

NWPhil said:


> ??? Zeiss 15mm 2.8 does have a distamce scale in it, or am I looking at the wrong thing?



The pictured Zeiss lens has both a distance scale and DoF markings. In fact, many Canon prime lenses (even new ones like the 35/2 IS below) have both a distance scale and DoF markings. Zoom lenses tend not to have DoF markings for the obvious reason that DoF changes with the focal length.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 29, 2014)

2.8 you are not going to be getting both in focus, and depending on how close you are, you may find it hard to get 1 girls entire face in focus... much too shallow. Tilt shift lenses are great for subjects on multiple planes of focus, but impractical on the budget. You can stop down the lens, but you will slow down your shutter speed to compensate so depending on the light in the room, that could be an issue. You could also raise ISO so you dont lose shutter speed, but that's another ball of wax.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> NWPhil said:
> 
> 
> > ??? Zeiss 15mm 2.8 does have a distamce scale in it, or am I looking at the wrong thing?
> ...



it makes sense - thanks for the clarification


----------



## Harry Muff (Jan 29, 2014)

Less questioning the equipment, more learning basic photography.




That's the answer to this problem.


----------



## jasonsim (Jan 29, 2014)

You need to get further away or increase your depth of field by selecting a smaller aperture (maybe f/5.6 or f/8).

Kind regards,
Jason



Jack56 said:


> Of course is this lens for portraits. But what am I doing wrong?
> I don't know wether I may post this question here but there I go.
> I have to make some photos at my work. Today I took a few, but I didn't manage to get both ladies sharp. What am I doing wrong or do I really need another lens for nice (bokeh) photos?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 29, 2014)

You didn't ask for this but I thought I'd see if there was a way to save the image. Not perfect and this was very quick but here is what I did.

Copied the layer
Applied some heavy sharpening in Photoshop to the new layer.
Used a mask to mask out everything but the nearer girl's eyes.
Merged the two layers.
Created a new layer.
Used a high pass filter and hard light blending mode and then once again masked out everything but her eyes and this time a little of hair.

I often used the high pass filter to add a little extra sharpening to eyes in portraits. It's amazing how often you can rescue a portrait when the focus is just a tiny bit off (in this case, though, it's more than just a little off, so it's tough, but it looks a little sharper)

And yes...I know there are some nasty artifacts. But this was a 5-minute job on a low-res web image. If I had the original file or more time I would have upped the clarity in Camera RAW first, instead of applying the sharpening in Photoshop.


----------



## Jack56 (Jan 29, 2014)

Once again, thank you all very much for all the comments. I am very happy with it. Not only with the advices, but also with the fact that you people do response on a question so enthusiastic. Very kind of you all.
Practice, yes that will help. I am a beginner (since a year) and did some all-round work, some pictures of children too. But never made such a close-up of two children. 
@ Unfocused: Thank you for the time to make a better image. You really did a good job. But you will understand that I have to improve my skills. I will bring my camera with me to school tomorrow and hopefully the two ladies are willing to work together again spontaneously.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jan 29, 2014)

I think the photo would have look sharper had you focused on the closer of the two girls. It appears more natural if the subject in the background, rather than the one in front, appears a bit soft. (Due to haze and other aerial disturbance, our eyes are used to accepting things in the distance as being less distinct.)

That and stopping down to maybe f:5.6 or 8 should do the trick. You don't want to go so slow that the girls' movement spoils the shot.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 29, 2014)

jhpeterson said:


> I think the photo would have look sharper had you focused on the closer of the two girls. It appears more natural if the subject in the background, rather than the one in front, appears a bit soft.



Agreed.



Jack56 said:


> But you will understand that I have to improve my skills. I will bring my camera with me to school tomorrow and hopefully the two ladies are willing to work together again spontaneously.



Photoshop is never a substitute for getting it right in camera. I was just trying to illustrate that some pretty simple adjustments in Photoshop can sometimes salvage a photo that you think is lost. More importantly though, is that basic Photoshop skills are just as much of photography today as shooting skill.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 29, 2014)

jhpeterson said:


> I think the photo would have look sharper had you focused on the closer of the two girls. It appears more natural if the subject in the background, rather than the one in front, appears a bit soft. (Due to haze and other aerial disturbance, our eyes are used to accepting things in the distance as being less distinct.)
> 
> That and stopping down to maybe f:5.6 or 8 should do the trick. You don't want to go so slow that the girls' movement spoils the shot.



good advice, plus, the ol' rule of thumb (although disputed by many), 1/3 of the focal plane in front and 2/3 of the focal plane will be in focus, depending on what aperture you use, so you have the better chance of of the back subject falling in focus than the front one jumping in focus.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> ...the ol' rule of thumb (although disputed by many), 1/3 of the focal plane in front and 2/3 of the focal plane will be in focus



Disputed by 'many'.  In this case, the 'many' would include the field of optical physics. 

In the scenario under consideration (100mm, f/2.8, reasonably close focus), the distribution of the DoF is 49% in front of the focal point, and 51% behind it. 

Maybe some people have really weird, asymmetrical thumbs.


----------



## PureShot (Jan 30, 2014)

In my screen your picture is not too bad


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 30, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> jhpeterson said:
> 
> 
> > I think the photo would have look sharper had you focused on the closer of the two girls. It appears more natural if the subject in the background, rather than the one in front, appears a bit soft. (Due to haze and other aerial disturbance, our eyes are used to accepting things in the distance as being less distinct.)
> ...



Along with Neuro's answer I'd add this very helpful site link. Take a look at the tables in the "CLARIFICATION: FOCAL LENGTH AND DEPTH OF FIELD" section and don't forget that, generally, lens focal length gets shorter as you focus closer, no disputes, just physics.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 30, 2014)

Badger said:


> My key learning here? There are DOF calculators for smart phones!
> 
> Just checked, I found 44 on iOS. Awesome! I am not one of those people that can do the math in my head and I sometimes panic or worry when taking group shots as to what to set the aperture to.
> 
> Thanks guys!



These DOF calculators are a great reference. When I get a new lens I consult them frequently and do as well if trying to set-up a specific shallow DOF shot. 

As you gain experience, you will develop a pretty good feel for what your DOF will be in a given situation and can select an appropriate aperture without having to look it up. I'm in my forth year of photography as a serious hobby and selecting aperture settings now is pretty easy in most situations.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jhpeterson said:
> ...



And when all else fails, http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html. DOF and parameters vary based on the focal length of the lens, aperture, and focal distance... Some combinations are narrower as neuro suggests, however other combinations are quite in the favor of 1/3 in front 2/3 in back... the common characteristic is however no matter how narrow the front/back focus is, there typically is more latitude in the back focus than front focus of the acceptable focus range.


----------

