Depth of field

[joannembd]

In another forum, I posted:

Ah, this is interesting... Move this eleswhere if you like, it really doesn't apply to Ollie [though I noticed as well that Ollie's DR shots looked very grainy/noisy, but you've addressed that]. But that f2.8 is interesting

Is this the lens opening you shoot at all the time? Or is that just the lens max? I notice in a number of sets where the model is reclining away from you that you have the model's face in sharp focus and the rest of her is way out, or her legs or vulva is very sharp and her face is way out of focus. Do you do this deliberately? Do you ever stop down intentionally going after greater depth and get all of her in sharp focus? [Ah you're probably going to cite me shoots with good sharp depth]

and Abby replied

We shoot at 2.8 sometimes, but it depends on a lot of variables. Please have a read of the FAQ entry regarding this, then start a new thread about it if you still have queries - I'd be pleased to answer them.

"How come you keep focussing on the wrong part in image sets?!"
http://www.abbywinters.com/main.php...d=WhyFocuswrong

[joannembd]

So to reply...
I didn't think the focus was "wrong" or that you were focussing "on the wrong parts." The FAQ confirms both my impression of the shoots and my suspicion that you did this deliberately. I just didn't know why you did it, and now I do [from the FAQ].

Even so, and I do understand the fact that when everything in the frame is in focus, and it's a natural environment, then then the image can be just too busy, but still it seems to me that many images would benefit from getting more of the model from face to vulva in focus when she's in reclining position reclining away from you.

While I agree with the reasoning in the FAQ, it surprises me that you don't think you can keep more of her body in focus while just blurring the background. Although it's possible that you work so fast you just can't take the time to precisely position the field of focus.

I'm also surprised that you can't get a smaller aperature with a decent shutter speed at the speed ISO you're shooting [1600?]. I agree that you don't want to blast the model with studio lights, but you're not using just natural light anyway, are you? You do enhance the purely ambient lighting in most shoots, don't you, even when you're shooting in a girl's room or something. That seems pretty fast.

Just for the same of argument, I'd like to see a shot with a deeper field of focus and see what it looks like, i.e. whether it enhances the image of the model, as I think it might, and whether the overall image gets too cluttered.

Just ftr, in nature work I tend to use either an extremely shallow depth of field and nail an extremely thin plane in focus, OR the smallest lens opening I can get and still take the picture, so as to maximize both near and far focus. But then I'm not shooting naked girls in constrained and nonstudio environments.

Thanks!

Jo

[BeanTown_Man]

She's answered me elsewhere that short DoF is deliberate. The close ups are more so because comments indicate she uses screw on magnifying lenses. 2.8 is the max for that lens and its pretty good wide open. I agree this doesn't belong here.

Iso1600 explains everything! I shoot at 100 or 200 and hate going to 400! I'd rather go to 1/125 or even 1/60. I don't own a single IS lens, but my 10D with 85/1.8 is light. A Rebel XT- even better. I have hand-straps on all my bodies, 3rd party if Canon doesn't have one.

I'm not a fan of grain, digital or film. I like the way ISM.com images look much sharper in general.

[BeanTown_Man]

Jo, I agree its nice to see eyes and vulva in focus simultaneously. Canon's tilt-shift lenses do the trick, but are slow to work with - better for product shots. I suggested more light - with the speed of strobes, you really can't tell how bright the flash is, unlike modeling and video lights.

[artlover]

I was at first puzzled by the shallow DOF, but now like it, particularly on the breasts closeups. Since she/they always give each breast its due (my mission in life ) it's okay by me. Abby seems to go for minimal lighting equipment and a cozy, unobtrusive atmosphere. Kinda hard to do that with strobes, IMO. I was surprised to hear of ISO 1600. That must be a helluva lens. I hve always loved Canon ever since I got a little Stylus film camera for point and shoot work. Great optics. Some of my best pix have come out of it. I bought it cause it was the only point and shoot that had any protection for the lens, a shocking omission, IMO. I looked greedily at another Canon digital the other week, and sure enough, it had a lens cap. If I ever go digital, though, I figure I may as well spring for an SLR--I am not an autofocus guy.

[BeanTown_Man]

Abby, the best reason to use lower ISO is money! Those grainy bits compress poorly and increase your file size, perhaps 2x. Compare the sizes of ISM and your images along with quality.

Art, I was sold on autofocus when it consistantly focused better than me! The ones with it don't have a good matte for manual focus, so I'm not all to blame. Still, when I scanned iso100 slides that I shot at a pride with 200/2.8L lens in portrait mode (F2.8-3.5). I focused on a shirt, if she was wearing one (sadly, nearly all are of late). At 3,200 dpi frayed bits of each thread in the shirt were visible, while the face a few inches closer to me was soft and slightly out of focus. I learned that: the slight increase in focus time to aim for the less contrasty face and recompose was worth it, my lens was amazing, and to trust autofocus.

Since then Canon got autofocus wrong with digital bodies that have smaller than full sized sensors (D30 and D60 were slow also). Its largely corrected in current bodies, but initially there were many complaints about the focus point being in front of or behind where the camera locked on to. Getting the shot meant going for a smaller apature than before.

Canon has great and not so great lenses. Abby uses a great one that is as good as a prime (non-zoom) lens - a difficult feat. The "L" lenses are the "luxury" ones, though some are better than others and non-L lenses like 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 100/2.0 are all excellent when 1 stop shy of wide open. I own three "L" lenses, but the 85/1.8 is still my favorite. The viewfinder is bright, it focuses lightning fast, and its pretty small and light. The anti-reflective coatings on L lenses are a bit nicer on skin tones, but seldom worth the extra size and weight to me to have mounted and intimidating the subject. Think cannon barrel ponting at you.

Finally, all of Canon's E-TTL flashes suck. The computer tries to be clever and seldom does what you want. I revert to manual mode or take it off most of the time. Nikon does better with flash.

Oh, and for a nickname, I would prefer beano to beanie. Rhymes with seppo (septic tank), yet still slang for beans and frank, Yank. Beano and Draino are also both products in the States.

[Abby]

Even so, and I do understand the fact that when everything in the frame is in focus, and it's a natural environment, then then the image can be just too busy, but still it seems to me that many images would benefit from getting more of the model from face to vulva in focus when she's in reclining position reclining away from you.

While I agree with the reasoning in the FAQ, it surprises me that you don't think you can keep more of her body in focus while just blurring the background.

Well, you have more of the subject in focus, you need to either (1) have a small aperture to increase DOF, or (2) increase the distance from the lens to the model (be further away from the subject).

(1) we have dealt with in the FAQ.

(2) the problem is, the rooms we generally shoot in are not big enough to acheive this.

Although it's possible that you work so fast you just can't take the time to precisely position the field of focus.

Nah, that's not a limitation - AF is real fast.

I'm also surprised that you can't get a smaller aperature with a decent shutter speed at the speed ISO you're shooting [1600?].

We shoot at the lowest ISO possible. We use 1600 for DR shoots and occasionally backstage, but never for the main shoots. We try to use 100, 200, or max 400 for the regular shoots.

We need to hand hold the camera, so at 1/lens length, that's 1/80th. OK if the model is still, but if she's active, we need to go up to 125 at least. Aperture is 2.8. If there't not enough light, we assess if the light is good, but not intense enough - then we'll consuder upping the ISO. If the light is average anyway, we'll end up using a flash head with a brolly, and possibly mixing in some daylight. or not using the daylight at all.

I agree that you don't want to blast the model with studio lights, but you're not using just natural light anyway, are you? You do enhance the purely ambient lighting in most shoots, don't you, even when you're shooting in a girl's room or something. That seems pretty fast.

Now it's not me shooting, yes, the girls do use flash heads for most shoots. As they get more confident, that will change. When i was shooting, i guess it was half/half all natch / some or all flash. That's a guess.

Just for the same of argument, I'd like to see a shot with a deeper field of focus and see what it looks like, i.e. whether it enhances the image of the model, as I think it might, and whether the overall image gets too cluttered.

Well, that's a creative decision we have to make. We def do not nail it all the time.

a

[joannembd]

Oh thanks for replying. I do find this real interesting.

See Jamie and Annabelle's GG3 shoot, image 179, annajam179. That has great depth of field. Now I realize that the camera's positioned slightly above the models here, perhaps a bit more than when you're shooting looking at a single model who's reclining away from you. But still this is a great shot that produces the kind of overall sharp focus that I think would be interesting if you got it more often. Definitely not all the time! But sometimes, getting the facial expression in focus at the same time as the rest of the action produces a very moving image, like this one.

We shoot at the lowest ISO possible. We use 1600 for DR shoots and occasionally backstage, but never for the main shoots. We try to use 100, 200, or max 400 for the regular shoots.

Oh that makes much more sense. Those main shoots sure didn't look like ISO 1600, I couldn't see how you could be shooting at that. Not sure where that misapperception got started.

And now I agree...

We need to hand hold the camera, so at 1/lens length, that's 1/80th. OK if the model is still, but if she's active, we need to go up to 125 at least. Aperture is 2.8.

If you're shooting at ISO 100, and handholding with a minimum of artificial light added, you probably can't get any smaller than 2.8 and get usable images.

Artlover posted

Abby seems to go for minimal lighting equipment and a cozy, unobtrusive atmosphere. Kinda hard to do that with strobes, IMO

I guess I agree that your shoots do have a distinctive feel about them. Even though on most indoor shoots, it looks like some lighting must have been added, the lighting is very soft and natural. There are rarely any shadows, yet even without shadows and a shallow depth of field, the shoots still have a 3d quality [possibly enhanced, I'm willing to admit, by the selective regions in and out of focus]. I wouldn't want to gain depth of field or more focus if it means harsher lighting.

Thanks.

Jo

[stoneyyy]

Part of what I find the main attractions to Abbys pics are the way she shoots them naturally and none of this touch up crap you find elsewhere
The pictures are of high quality and yes the out of focus is part of the limitations of the area its done in
however i believe this adds to the natural look of the site

If you were sitting in front of the model, you would not have all of her in your eye sight in focus

Keep up the great work Abby

[BeanTown_Man]

Abby, one last technical nit: frosted/matte protective glass on the Bron heads are a tad softer and warmer than the stock clear ones. Profoto, for example fits them by default and they are better for people shots.

[Abby]

Abby, one last technical nit: frosted/matte protective glass on the Bron heads are a tad softer and warmer than the stock clear ones. Profoto, for example fits them by default and they are better for people shots.

Interesting you say that. Penelope just shatterred two of those last week so we had to buy newies.

When I bought the gear initially, I commented on the "yellowness" of those glass domes, and I was assured that cos the flash tubes are cooler than daylight (like, 7400 or something?), these domes need to be a little yellow to convert it to 5600.

I have always wanted to buy a colour temp meter to test this theory, but I cannot really justify the expense. It's good to hear your feedback on this, I might see if I can get one of the domes you mention. Lately, we have been shooting with the cameras on 5300 (Emma R and Miranda, was 5000), in an effort to make put pics less yellow, and it seems to be working well.

I wish I could get the fair skin to look pinker, but I never seem to be able to. Simon from simonscans does alla time, pisses me off!

a

[Luxman]

I wish I could get the fair skin to look pinker, but I never seem to be able to. Simon from simonscans does alla time, pisses me off!

Perhaps he plays a bit with Photoshop's colour correction tools.

Lxm

[Penelope]

Interesting you say that. Penelope just shatterred two of those last week so we had to buy newies.

First I've heard of it. Must have been Nico


I've done several shoots recently at 5000K which I'm pretty happy with.

p

[Abby]

Perhaps he plays a bit with Photoshop's colour correction tools.

he says not (more than I), and he says he uses the same setting on the cameras as me, he uses the same camera and lens. He uses diff flash heads... and diff models.

So, I dunno. it's the models or the heads, I guess.

a

[BeanTown_Man]

The yellow ones, I think are the UV filter ones. Flash tubes up to 1600J can have the coating on them (or not). 3200J get too hot and the filtering has to be done on the dome. The coating reportedly lowers the temp from 5900K to 5500K, and a UV coated matte 5400K. There ends up being many to choose from. I misplaced my catalog to look them all up, but your seller should get one for you. Yeah, the domes crack and the modeling bulbs go too.

Isn't your Grafit supposed to be able to let you dial in the color temp - or does that cut down on your stops of brightness available?

I set my monitor at 6000K (5000-9300 range), but most people's are 7000K or more by default. For them, some sites make the images really yellow.

I see used Bron color meters often on ebay. Fewer shooting chromes these days ...

[artlover]

Heavens, and I thought I was hot shit when I bought a polarizing filter...