[BigMackCam]

In a recent thread (and several others over the years), the benefits of Eye AF in mirrorless cameras were discussed, comparing the potential inaccuracies of focus and recompose technique with a DSLR through the optical viewfinder.

This has me wondering just how many of us consider absolute accuracy of focus on a subject's eye to be essential or even necessary.

When I review the work of my favourite portrait photographers from a purely technical perspective (as opposed to appreciating the aesthetic value of the photographs as a whole), it's clear that the leading eye wasn't always in perfect focus. Jane Bown's work contains numerous examples... in her captivating portrait of Björk, the leading eye is just out of perfect focus, whilst in her best-known Orson Welles headshot, the focus is considerably behind the leading eye. This takes nothing away from the photos, in my opinion... in fact, it arguably adds to the character of them. Certainly, Bown's clients and publishers found no fault with her images.

In my own photography (which, admittedly, includes very little portraiture) I of course strive for accurate focus, but I don't obsess over it. Minor discrepancies on fast aperture shots really aren't a big deal for me. I realise, though, this is my own personal tolerance, and clearly there are other folks for whom absolute accuracy seems to be of great importance.

How about you good folks - is critical eye focus essential to you, or are you less stringent about such things? Please share your thoughts and vote in the poll

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-20-2021 at 07:34 AM.

[35mmfilmfan]

I too do very little human portraiture, but with wildlife images I do aim for focus on the eye which is visible, if possible. Subject movement is a problem, of course, and very few animals or birds can understand even simple posing instructions.

[aaacb]

I'm wondering if this requirement is coming from hobbyists excited to use new f1.2 lenses or from clients that want that look.

I'm not at all a portrait photographer, and what i take of my family is at f2.8 to f4 because I want more of the face in focus, posed portraits included. I'm also a lame pixel peeper so I'm not really demanding with eye focus accuracy

[pschlute]

How about you good folks - is critical eye focus essential to you, or are you less stringent about such things?

All my portraits are of the canine variety. I do strive for perfect focus on the eyes, or leading eye in a profile. When viewing a head shot in full screen or printed large, if the eyes (eye) are not the sharpest part of the image it generally looks odd. The eyes are how we make contact with people/pets and viewing a portrait allows us to do the same, especially when the subject is looking at the viewer. Sure there are many ways to make an interesting portrait without both eyes in focus or even none visible at all, but I would say these are the exception.

As far as technique, I have never had a problem with getting correct focus. I will sometimes use 9 AF points (watching carefully which ones the camera is using); sometimes use centre AF point and recompose; and sometimes use single point placed where I want it. I cannot say one method works best all the time over the others. I have never tried Eye-AF or Animal Eye-AF. I am sure it works well, but I have no need for it.

As an aside, photographing dog portraits presents a specific problem..... the length of their nose ! I generally use a 85mm lens on FF. For a head on shot you need to be using at least f5.6 and probably f8 to get the nose in acceptable focus too, if that is what you want. Perhaps I should start another thread on the importance of having both eyes and nose in acceptable focus

[BarryE]

On balance I'd say it is, normally. However, there are many iconic portraits that don't have pin sharp focus on the leading eye and nobody complains.

I've been doing more 'studio' portraits and like Peter above, it can look a little odd when the trailing eye is more in focus. Looks even odder if the nose is spot on - maybe different with dogs as they are rather keener on their noses ;-)

Around f5.6 a head shot using 77mm has, for me, gives sharp focus on the eye and a nice fall off. Getting the camera to lock on to the eye with the 9pt AF is easy enough. Below f2.8 it's a bit more of lottery - nail it and it can be lovely, however, when nailed the number of times the expression is off, means it is just not worth risking it. So I suppose I'd say it's important and will vote accordingly.

[stevebrot]

I am not a fan of razor thin DOF for portraits, but do prefer focus to the leading eye. Whether that focus is critically sharp is hard to determine, just what am I critically focusing on and will I be providing the subject with a prop to help them keep still? Of course, I am talking manual focus because PDAF performs famously poor on curved surfaces.


Steve

[house]

I'm usually surprised how much missed focus affects a portrait even at small reproductions. I usually think I'll get away with it but then find out its to distracting.

If the image itself is good, beyond describing a face, I can accept any amount of missed focus and blur.

[35mmfilmfan]

<snip> will I be providing the subject with a prop to help them keep still?

Steve

How about one of those Victorian studio head clamps ? Probably available from any supplier of 'Adult Items' !

[normhead]

I expect both eyes and the face to be in focus. My preference and those who's work I admire, don't fool around with narrow DoF on portraits, in fact, narrow DoF is not to my liking. I want both eyes in focus, and strive to achieve the max. DoF possible. I also don't augment my portraits with filters and other gadget tricks.

Distorting reality even in a portrait is just gimmicky. And narrow DoF is a distortion, not present on the real world. Clipping the normal DoF and altering the image so information normally available to the human eye is clipped. I've always thought the photograph should the best possible representation of what my eye sees. I've never experience narrow DoF in nature.

[photoptimist]

Isn't the answer: "It Depends"?

Isn't this leading-eye-in-focus rule like all the other rules in photography? The rules are compositional tendencies that are often, but not always, associated with good photography. As such, the rules can often help new pupils of photography create a good photograph but cannot guarantee a great one.

The eyes of the subject are clearly important for reasons already covered in this thread. And yet one of the important meta-rules of photography is the use of broken rules to create some dissonance and intentionally modulate an emotional reaction. Yes, having the eyes in focus gives us an emotional connection and a feeling that we know the subject. But what if the photographer wants to create a bit of distance or mystery or aloofness? Then slightly defocusing the eyes might be much better.

Breaking the rules is a bit dangerous, though. Such rules also give small-minded, brow-beaten judges of other people's photography a quick-and-easy nitpick score that lets them abdicate their responsibility to judge the more subjective emotional-impact quality of the image. Eyes-in-focus? Check! Rule-of-thirds? Check! Leading lines? Check! Next photo!

P.S. For those mucking about with tight head shots and fast lenses, the notion of focusing on the eye is fraught. The reflective catchlights that appear on the corneas are at a different distance than the front of the eyeball and eyelashes. The cornea surface acts like a -130 diopter reflective optical element that displaces the focal plane of the objects in the catchlights some millimeters behind the front of the eye. Who knows that the PDAF or CDAF systems lock onto during eye-AF but I'd bet they often lock on to the high-contrast catchlights more so than the lower-contrast anatomical features.

[house]

By the way it's obvious that even the recent milc "stick like glue" typ eye detect fail. Most sample galleries have missed focus shots.

[normhead]

Isn't the answer: "It Depends"?

I'll vote for that.

If I'm so close I can't get the whole face in focus, I'd definitely focus on the lead eye, and it's always a great hyperlocal point. But I've seen way to many of these narrow DoF images where the nose is out focus, and that's just wrong, IMHO.

[beholder3]

This has me wondering just how many of us consider absolute accuracy of focus on a subject's eye to be essential or even necessary.

It is important to note that "portraits" include a wide variety of images.

Only a very tiny subset creates photos with such a small DoF that the polled question even comes up.
Look here: DOF simulator - Camera depth of field calculator with visual background blur and bokeh simulation.
85mm F1.2 portrait has 8.4cm DoF.
You have to select extreme ends of both subject distance and aperture to make it relevant.

[vector]

Good question and I have often wondered about just how much difference all this eye tracking af makes. I don't do a lot of portraits, but when they are intentional and planned I can take my time, take lots of shots and end up with nice sharp critical focus on the eye even at 1.4-1.8. But that's a very small percentage of my shooting and candid portraits are more common which means a moving subject and no do overs, in this case it is far more difficult to nail eye focus but also less critical in my opinion. Sudden subject movement or a slight shift by me and af can't accommodate fast enough. I tried to look up on other forums just how well these new mlc cameras do tracking and of course the commentors swear it never misses but looking through samples it clearly still does. My opinion is that the slight body movements of subject and photographer still require multiple shots to make sure you got it. While no doubt eye tracking af makes it all much easier it's certainly not a never misses vs never hits comparison. So how important is nailing the leading eye...depends on the type of photograph I guess so one of the middle ground answers seems best to me and all the hype around eye tracking af is mostly lost on me where most of my subjects don't have eyes...

[biz-engineer]

I usually shoot portrait between 70 and 135mm , aperture f4, so that the face, nose to ears are reasonably in focus, eyes are normally located in the plane between nose and ears. Usually, if a shoot missed focus, the problem isn't only with the eyes. Now, if I shoot half body or full body or more than one person, I use 50mm and in that case DoF is large enough to have the whole depth of a person in focus. Focusing the eye is critical with thin depth of field (long lenses or wide aperture), but then it's not technically for conventional style portraits. Official portraits require enough depth of field, the person must be fully in focus, which includes the tie , face, arms, that's why we stop down lenses (even down to f10) and use strobes to produce the light necessary to compensate for aperture. I've never seen portraits of VIP with a shallow depth of field. It have a lot of portraits shot 70mm f10, flash 60GN at half power, subject about 3 meters away from the camera (studio setting).