# Aperture: Wide Open or Closed?



## DanOstergren (Apr 25, 2018)

For years I would purchase wide aperture lenses for the effect of getting the most shallow depth of field, with the creamiest possible render of the out of focus background being one of the major goals. As of late though, I find myself using my lenses in the f/8 range outdoors in natural light as well as in studio, and rather than caring about the way the background is rendered by the lens, I pay more attention to making sure the background is something interesting that harmonizes well with the rest of the image. I still get a background blur, especially on the longer lenses, but I've found that I prefer the sharp focus of the more closed aperture and how it gets more of a person and their clothes in focus. My main lens is a Canon 85mm f/1.8.

What do you prefer?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 25, 2018)

Background are my #1 consideration; I generally like them defocused enough to ensure they're not distracting, but even if they're going to be almost totally defocused, I still choose them carefully.  I shoot in the f5.6 - f8 range 80+ % of the time, usually on an 85 1.4.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 25, 2018)

I shoot both and I like both.  Composition and lines are even more important if I'm incorporating the background into my photos, while emotions take the lead if I'm shooing more wide open aperture.  A lot of people don't like too much negative space but when I shoot narrow aperture, it can be a great thing to make your subjects pop.  To each their own I guess...


----------



## Overread (Apr 25, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> I shoot both and I like both.



This. 
However I think it also comes down to what you shoot most often. If most of your work or hobby is portraits then there's a greater potential chance that blurry backgrounds and wider apertures might be the norm for you and the industry/styles of today. Meanwhile if you mostly shoot landscapes the standards can be totally the reverse.

Honestly I think that its good to try something different and to experiment. Both deep and thin depths of field have their upsides and their downsides and when you have the choice its great to play around with both. See what works try something different.


That's one bonus that wide aperture lenses give you as they give you greater potential range of quality choice. You can go all the way to the f1.8 end if you want or you can muck around in f16 or anywhere between.


----------



## zombiesniper (Apr 25, 2018)

It depends on what I'm shooting.

For wildlife I mostly shoot wide open in order to lessen the distractions. Portraits I shoot F8-10 in order to get the face in focus. 
I haven't really experimented a lot with reversing these roles yet but is something I should. Never know I may like it different.


----------



## texxter (Apr 25, 2018)

I like to use depth of field not so much as a preference but as a component of the creative process.  Isolating the subject from the environment is appropriate for certain subjects and purposes and being able to extend focus in front and/or behind the subject is critical in other cases.  As an oversimplification, if I am doing an environmental portrait at 35mm I will likely shoot f/8 or so.  For a headshot, I will nuke the background.  Other times I want to hint the location, but not make it dominant, and that would call for something in between.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 25, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> I shoot both and I like both.  Composition and lines are even more important if I'm incorporating the background into my photos, while emotions take the lead if I'm shooing more wide open aperture.  A lot of people don't like too much negative space but when I shoot narrow aperture, it can be a great thing to make your subjects pop.  To each their own I guess...


Totally feel you on this. A shallow depth of field can absolutely help create an atmosphere for an emotional photo, but the same can also be said for shots with a large depth of field. That said, sometimes a shallow depth of field is just what an image needs.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 25, 2018)

Aperture determines the "look" of many images to a great extent. I shoot at the aperture I think the particular image really needs, and that's usually between f/4 and f/8,for me, on most people pictures. I really dislike one-eye-in-focus-other-eye-out-of-focus shots,so I try to avoid those on people pictures. I like longer lenses much of the time, and so f/5.6 or f/6.3 or f/7.1 or f/8 are aperture values I tend to gravitate toward. With that said however, at times, I'll open the aperture up to the wider values, to create a strongly defocused backdrop, but I _usually_ do that with a longer focal length lens, like a 135 or 180 or 200 or 300mm focal length.

For close-up shots though, depth of field is so limited that even smallish apertures do not create "a lot" of DOF, since camera-to-subject distance is such a huge portion of DOF, and so if I want a lot of defocus on the background on close-range shots, I still get that with an f/stop like f/5.6 or even f/7.1.

As with so many things in photography, "It all depends!".


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 25, 2018)

Overread said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot both and I like both.
> ...


As someone who shoots portraits though, I find that the change has absolutely elevated my work to a higher level. It's not to say that I dislike a shallow dof though.


----------



## photoflyer (Apr 25, 2018)

I continue to learn and one thing I have become aware of is that lenses are not as sharp wide open.  

I think the apature setting really depends on the specific scene and distance from the object of interest.   If it is 20 feet away f4 or f5.6 (DOF of 5.5 ft on full frame with 85mm) may still provide acceptable bokeh while rendering a sharper image. 

I too have the 85 mm 1.8 (great lens) and find I rarely shoot it wide open.


----------



## SquarePeg (Apr 25, 2018)

I’m not a fan of super shallow dof for portraits, but for flowers...that’s where I live.


----------



## SquarePeg (Apr 25, 2018)

for full length portraits from a distance like Vtec’s stuff, shallow works.


----------



## Overread (Apr 26, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> As someone who shoots portraits though, I find that the change has absolutely elevated my work to a higher level. It's not to say that I dislike a shallow dof though.



I don't think the depth of field change has moved your work to a higher level, or at least I don't think its helpful to think of it in those terms. Instead what its done is it has broadened your horizons and given you a wider degree of creative skills and creative thinking to work with. That's not to say that the smaller aperture stuff is better, nor it is worse - what it is is simply different. 
There is a trap that we can all fall into which is that when we start out we ask "what settings should I use for *insert subject/situation*". And by and large most situations will have rough to very specific guidelines which will be commonly used to achieve what the majority consider a pleasing photo. The trap is that once we learn that we don't expand our horizons outside of it (esp since often as not having learned the standard method, we see an improvement in our photography in general). 

Macro is a fine example where most people advise and use a small aperture - many often get to a point where small apertures are not just desirable, but a defining requirement (I've even seen a few people defining macro photography as not just close up or highly magnified, but where the use of a small aperture is part of their definition for it). It closes their mind to experimenting outside of those guidelines that they built for themselves.
Furthermore experimenting outside can often be harder; the standard method is not only often a pleasing result, but also the most practical and easier to master. Moving outside things can get harder in ways that they weren't before. Eg dealing with the wider apertures in macro the razor thin depth of field gets even thinner and more critical to place - meanwhile in portraits (as you are doing) using a smaller aperture is now bringing the background more into focus than ever before so now you've really got to pay attention to things which, in the past, you might have totally ignored.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 26, 2018)

I still believe the camera is a tool in the hands of the craftsman behind the lens. Any good craftsman knows the capabilities of his tools and the appropriate settings for the job at hand. There are some really great photographers who be it out of habit, fear of the unknown or laziness have developed a specific "look" to their images, such that every one takes on a sameness. Sometimes it's good to move outside the norm and try something different, to experience the full capabilities of the tool in your hand.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 26, 2018)

After I pre visualize the image, I first think in terms of available light and the range I have at my disposal. Almost always, I pre set the focus using the focus scale on the lens, prior to bringing the viewfinder to my eye . I almost always have the aperture set to wide open prior to bringing the viewfinder to my eye. Shooting in aperture priority mode, in viewfinder, I adjust aperture to achieve the look I'm after. Looking at the scene, I have never been able to say, oh that's a 5.6 shot but I assume it's my lack of experience and skills.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 26, 2018)

I use the Nikon 105mm f/1.4
I typically do my portraits at f/2.0 - f/3.2
I see what you mean about the background but I do headshots...basically product shots of people.


----------



## mrca (Apr 28, 2018)

The photographer is responsible for everything within the frame.  Background is one of the elements. All elements  and their arrangement, camera controls, lenses, lighting should support the purpose of the shot.   Hopefully, the photographer has a purpose.  It helps to have equipment to achieve that vision.    As Ansel said, there is nothing worse than a  sharp image of a fuzzy idea.  A camera will help give you a sharp, well exposed image (my harshest critique of an image since a camera can do that alone on a tripod) but a photographer creates the image.   You know you need to up grade when your gear won't allow you to meet your vision.


----------



## espresso2x (Apr 28, 2018)

I'm pleased you posted this; i thought your f8 ISO800 pictures from the other day looked excellent. IMO wide open is very often problematic, with less than desirable DOF.



DanOstergren said:


> For years I would purchase wide aperture lenses for the effect of getting the most shallow depth of field, with the creamiest possible render of the out of focus background being one of the major goals. As of late though, I find myself using my lenses in the f/8 range outdoors in natural light as well as in studio, and rather than caring about the way the background is rendered by the lens, I pay more attention to making sure the background is something interesting that harmonizes well with the rest of the image. I still get a background blur, especially on the longer lenses, but I've found that I prefer the sharp focus of the more closed aperture and how it gets more of a person and their clothes in focus. My main lens is a Canon 85mm f/1.8.
> 
> What do you prefer?


----------



## AlanKlein (Apr 28, 2018)

I think portraits should have the entire head in focus from the tip of the nose to the back of the head.  Overly doing shallow DOF on portraits so that the ears are out of focus for example hurt the portraiture.  Beyond that, blur or don't blur the background depending on your preference and the shot.
Example: 


Janet fence by Alan Klein, on Flickr


----------



## mrca (Apr 28, 2018)

I like the eyes in, ears out narrow dof.  It really drives the viewer to the subjects eyes and frontal plane including lips, eyes and eye brows that show emotion.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 28, 2018)

AlanKlein said:


> I think portraits should have the entire head in focus from the tip of the nose to the back of the head.  Overly doing shallow DOF on portraits so that the ears are out of focus for example hurt the portraiture.  Beyond that, blur or don't blur the background depending on your preference and the shot.
> Example:
> 
> 
> Janet fence by Alan Klein, on Flickr


It's absolutely up to personal preference. I don't mind if the ears are a bit out of focus, but it really bugs me to have the nose out of focus.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 28, 2018)

mrca said:


> The photographer is responsible for everything within the frame.  Background is one of the elements. All elements  and their arrangement, camera controls, lenses, lighting should support the purpose of the shot.   Hopefully, the photographer has a purpose.  It helps to have equipment to achieve that vision.    As Ansel said, there is nothing worse than a  sharp image of a fuzzy idea.  A camera will help give you a sharp, well exposed image (my harshest critique of an image since a camera can do that alone on a tripod) but a photographer creates the image.   You know you need to up grade when your gear won't allow you to meet your vision.


I absolutely agree it all comes down to the photographer. I was just saying how the narrow aperture has improved my photos and caused me to put more focus on improving more elements to the photograph rather than just blurring everything but the person out.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 28, 2018)

Overread said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > As someone who shoots portraits though, I find that the change has absolutely elevated my work to a higher level. It's not to say that I dislike a shallow dof though.
> ...


We can definitely have different opinions on this. I absolutely believe the change in depth of field (as a singular element to the shot) has significantly elevated my portrait and fashion work.


----------



## weepete (Apr 29, 2018)

Is that because you're paying more attention to the background though?

But to answer the original question I have a very slight bias towards smaller apertures. I tend to like complex images with quite a lot going on compositionally, though it can be harder to get to balance. Both small and large apertures have their place though, and as long as it works with the shot they can both be a valid choice.


----------



## mrca (Apr 29, 2018)

Dan, I often shoot nothing but black and white as an exercise to highten my awareness of light and shadow.   Keeping the background sharp adds more elements inside the frame that the photographer must compose.  It's why my 8mm fisheye is the most difficult lens in the bag.  I even have to be careful not to get my feet in the shot since it is a 180 degree angle of view.  On the other hand, my 400mm 2.8 has a narrow angle of view that simplifies the image and the razor thin dof makes it even smaller.   For me, the dof depends on the purpose of the shot and whether the background contributes to or detracts from my message.  In my portrait work, the frontal face plane is often what I want to emphasize with the expression contained in it.  Ears and nose tip don't contribute to expression so to maximize the frontal plane, shallow dof helps maximize my vision.  Totally different from a location shot where the location explains or contributes to the meaning of the shot and needs to be sharp as well as the subject.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 3, 2018)

mrca said:


> Dan, I often shoot nothing but black and white as an exercise to highten my awareness of light and shadow.   Keeping the background sharp adds more elements inside the frame that the photographer must compose.  It's why my 8mm fisheye is the most difficult lens in the bag.  I even have to be careful not to get my feet in the shot since it is a 180 degree angle of view.  On the other hand, my 400mm 2.8 has a narrow angle of view that simplifies the image and the razor thin dof makes it even smaller.   For me, the dof depends on the purpose of the shot and whether the background contributes to or detracts from my message.  In my portrait work, the frontal face plane is often what I want to emphasize with the expression contained in it.  Ears and nose tip don't contribute to expression so to maximize the frontal plane, shallow dof helps maximize my vision.  Totally different from a location shot where the location explains or contributes to the meaning of the shot and needs to be sharp as well as the subject.


To each their own, I'm simply explaining how it has improved my own portrait and fashion work. We all do things differently, and I prefer not to shoot wide open.


----------



## DanOstergren (May 3, 2018)

weepete said:


> Is that because you're paying more attention to the background though?
> 
> But to answer the original question I have a very slight bias towards smaller apertures. I tend to like complex images with quite a lot going on compositionally, though it can be harder to get to balance. Both small and large apertures have their place though, and as long as it works with the shot they can both be a valid choice.


I'm absolutely paying more attention to the background, rather than letting it melt away.


----------



## mrca (May 3, 2018)

Dan, there is no right or wrong. As McNally said, they aren't rules they are sort of guidelines.  However, leaving in a cluttered, distracting background is usually not desirable.  Fashion needs the clothing to be emphasized and is often shot on white or gray seamless to eliminate anything from competing with the product.  Shallow dof places the attention on the subject or face in portraiture. But we all have our preferences and that is what develops our style.


----------



## keen.observer (Jun 18, 2018)

For myself-family snaps, vacation photos, etc-I like sharp backgrounds. For other people-clients, family members wanting portraits, etc-I go for Bokeh.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jun 18, 2018)

keen.observer said:


> For myself-family snaps, vacation photos, etc-I like sharp backgrounds. For other people-clients, family members wanting portraits, etc-I go for Bokeh.



Me too.  One of the advantages of P&S's and my 1 inch Sony beside how handy they are to carry on vacation.


----------



## mrca (Jun 18, 2018)

Keen, certainly, if the background gives context and isn't cluttered or distracting, by all means include it with the subject.  Contrast of sharpness between subject and bg  with good bokeh makes the subject stand out.


----------



## KmH (Jun 19, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> Aperture: Wide Open or Closed?


Middle apertures - _f_/4 to _f_/11 - stopping down from _f_/1.8, _f_/2, or _f_/2.8.
Fast lenses that delivers their sharpest focus at their widest aperture are rare.


----------



## petrochemist (Jun 20, 2018)

If circumstances permit I'll try to chose an aperture that gives the DOF required, but lighting, movement, lens & time to make adjustments all force compromises.

Several of my lenses have no aperture adjustment, currently they all just get used at whatever they give but I have plans to add control for a few of them such as my 40mm/2.8 shift lens, 85mm/2.8  and my 50mm/1.2. The mirror lenses & microscope objectives have less to gain from bolt on modifications.

In portraits I often want the background to be slightly softened but still quite recognizable, other times loosing the background completely is more important than keeping the ear lobes sharp.
Much the same can be said for wildlife, but with this there can be foreground elements to get rid of too.
For motorsports shutter speed is usually king, wanting as fast as possible for some shots & the maximum I can smoothly pan with for others. In many locations there is crash netting to be blurred out of shot too.
With macro & micro it's usually difficult to get enough DOF, on one occasion I found even with focus stacking I couldn't get the whole of my subject's foot joint sharp (is it an ankle still with a fly?). Smaller focusing movements than used to get 5 shots were unfortunately not practical with the hardware in use.

To date I've tried apertures from f/1.2 to f/128+. In time this range will no doubt be increased a little further, but still MOST of my shots are between f4 & f11.


----------

