# Shallow depth of field and Headshots



## DanOstergren (May 30, 2017)

The majority of my paid work is headshots, and it's also my favorite sector of portrait photography. I love appreciating the structure and shape of the face. Most of the time I shoot at an aperture that has a slightly shallow depth of field so I can get important things in focus, but often the ears get thrown out of focus. Rarely do I shoot wide open for headshots because often times other photographers read me for doing just that, even though it's a look that I like. For example, I love the look of a headshot done with a 50mm f/1.4 lens set wide open. To me the shallow depth of field renders a headshot or portrait in a way that's really reminiscent of classic portraits shot on medium format. I don't think it's appropriate in every situation (business headshots are something I would never shoot with a wide open aperture), but when it comes to models, actors, casual headshots and fashion, it's a look that I really love. 

What are your thoughts on shooting with a wide open aperture/super shallow depth of field for portraits and headshots?


----------



## DanOstergren (May 30, 2017)

This is a recent portrait I shot with a 50mm f/1.4 lens set to f/1.4. Normally I would have shot at a slower aperture setting, but light was low, ISO was already high, and I didn't want to go any slower with my shutter speed. I love the way it turned out with the shallow depth of field though, and it's making me really consider getting a 50mm f/1.4 for myself rather than continually borrowing my friend's lens.
http://orig03.deviantart.net/823f/f/2017/150/8/3/_mg_4077_by_danostergren-dbazlgl.jpg


----------



## smoke665 (May 30, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> To me the shallow depth of field renders a headshot or portrait in a way that's really reminiscent of classic portraits shot on medium format. I don't think it's appropriate in every situation (business headshots are something I would never shoot with a wide open aperture), but when it comes to models, actors, casual headshots and fashion, it's a look that I really love.



Seems to me it's more a matter of choice by the artist, but I would agree with you to a point. For me it's all about the eyes get them sharp and everything else is irrelevant. Having such a shallow DOF doesn't give you much room for focus error on up close and personal shots. With your settings if the subject turns their head slightly there goes the focus on one of the eyes.  In the B&W above the subjects left eye looks softer than his right. In the color shot you posted in another thread both eyes are sharp, so not sure if it was a little movement on this, missed focus, or the DOF.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 30, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > To me the shallow depth of field renders a headshot or portrait in a way that's really reminiscent of classic portraits shot on medium format. I don't think it's appropriate in every situation (business headshots are something I would never shoot with a wide open aperture), but when it comes to models, actors, casual headshots and fashion, it's a look that I really love.
> ...


When I'm shooting portraits I always direct the model's head placement, so if I'm shooting wide open I always try keeping the depth of field in mind. Having an eye slightly out of focus never bothers me though; the lighting and overall feeling/harmony are what trumps technical perfection in all cases for me. It's a different story if it's completely out of focus, but even in some cases it still works with the overall harmony of the portrait, in my opinion.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 30, 2017)

One photographer who in my opinion has mastered the shallow depth of field headshot is Emily Soto. She doesn't always get both eyes or the nose in focus, but her lighting is always on point and she has such a way of capturing an evocative feeling that you tend to overlook any technical imperfections. She often shoots at f/1.2 using an 85mm lens. 
EmilySoto's DeviantArt Gallery


----------



## smoke665 (May 30, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> Having an eye slightly out of focus never bothers me though



Obviously you don't know the dangers of OCD like I do!  It's a curse   That's why I prefaced my response with the "Artistic choice" comment.

Edit: checked out the site you posted and I'm afraid I'm not a fan of her work. Kind of reminds me of Tim Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas" and "Corpse Bride", but that's just me. It would be a boring world if everything was the same.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 30, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > Having an eye slightly out of focus never bothers me though
> ...


That can be both an asset and a hindrance. It was a difficult process for me to let go of imperfections like that, but in all honestly I think it's given me a lot more freedom to grow and improve as a photographer and retoucher.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 30, 2017)

That is a wonderful render of a young soul. You really should buy your own. You, may at times, have to force yourself to use it. However, this is what you have found.


----------



## fmw (Jun 1, 2017)

I like your approach on that shot.  It makes the face pop out from the clothing, background and so forth.


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 1, 2017)

I love shallow DoF portraits.  

I've come across photographers who get critical of all sorts of things... cropping is another area "Oh, you cropped out part of their hair.  Bad bad bad!"  I find these criticisms to often be inappropriate and based largely on formula (I've got a rule that says "you must always do this....").  We all know what hair looks like... if the subject element was meant to be a tight face shot, I'm totally good with cropping out part of the head & hair... I'm also totally good with blurring out of the same.  (I see similar criticisms in food photography "you cropped out part of the plate" - yes, we all know what a plate looks like, we were actually trying to sell the "food" and not the "plate" -- hence my willingness to crop it this way.)

I came across a portrait shot with a tilt-shift that I thought was really well executed.  One side of the face was sharp, the other blurred.  I think they used a long focal length tilt-shift - probably 90mm.   It prompted me to go searching for more examples ... and not all tilt-shift portraits look good, but a few really look great.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 2, 2017)

2 words: hell yes

I typically use my 105mm lens from f/1.4 to f/2.8 (tops)
paid for a f/1.4 damn jolly well gonna use it at f/1.4


----------



## DanOstergren (Jun 4, 2017)

chuasam said:


> 2 words: hell yes
> 
> I typically use my 105mm lens from f/1.4 to f/2.8 (tops)
> paid for a f/1.4 damn jolly well gonna use it at f/1.4


I totally agree with this. It's always mind boggling to me when someone buys a lens with a super fast aperture like f/1.2, and then someone else reads the photographer for shooting wide open. Come on, if they didn't want to shoot at f/1.2, I like to think they would have gotten a lens that stops at f/1.8.


----------



## CdTSnap (Jun 4, 2017)

I usually always shoot wide open even in the studio. But this question is 100% subjective. That's the style I like. 





Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## chuasam (Jun 4, 2017)

Business Headshots I typcially stop down to f/5.6 to f/8
Just because some people can't nail the focus down at f/1.4 does not mean that someone else can't.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jun 4, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Business Headshots I typcially stop down to f/5.6 to f/8
> Just because some people can't nail the focus down at f/1.4 does not mean that someone else can't.
> View attachment 141021


The perspective I often see isn't about nailing the focus in the right spot, it's usually about having enough in focus, such as the ears, nose and clothing. I've been read on that sort of thing, especially for headshots, being told that my photos are a failure for only the thin depth of field. I've actually had actors ask me to do this for their headshots though, and they even linked me to a number of succesful celebrity headshot photographers who do mind blowingly good work and use a razor thin depth of field. The fact that many of the succesful high-end pros in the industry shoot with a shallow depth of field like this leads me to feel their work speaks volumes more than the photographers who decide an image is a complete failure if you don't have EVERY detail in complete, perfect focus. To me, ears aren't really important in a headshot, so theres no reason to have sharp focus on them. I want the viewer to focus on the eyes and the expression, or the overall feeling, not the ears. At the end of the day it really is subjective though. Just a shame that someone would be blind to good work because they can't see past the fact that the ears are out of focus lol. 

Great headshot by the way.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jun 4, 2017)

CdTSnap said:


> I usually always shoot wide open even in the studio. But this question is 100% subjective. That's the style I like. View attachment 141020
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


Nice work! I would have guessed you had used window lighting if it weren't for the catchlights (proving that light source doesn't matter, it's all about how you use the light).


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 5, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> . At the end of the day it really is subjective though.



I think you need to put things in perspective. Mom & Dad taking snapshots of the kids are creating memories. There's little regard for artistic expression because the only purpose that image has is to record a slice of time that when viewed at a later time, will bring back memories of the day. The more data it includes the more memories it invokes.

Photographers and artists that (paint, draw, sculpt, carve) aren't recording the scene verbatim, they're creating the scene. What they choose to show/not show is always subjective. And that is why you have those who would be blind to one vision and love another. Add to that changing tastes, styles, fads, processes, technology, etc. and you have an area always ripe for discussion.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 5, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Business Headshots I typcially stop down to f/5.6 to f/8
> ...


Part of it is a matter of pride.
The student or mom&pop doing headshots is unlikely able to afford the really fast glass or have the skill required to get those razor thin DOF shots. High End Pros something do it because 1. they can 2. they like the aesthetic 3. headshots for actors are really about whether they can engage you with the eyes - everything else is a distraction.


----------

