Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-21-2015, 02:34 PM   #1
Veteran Member
slip's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,535
focus stacking with Portraits?

I was wondering if anyone does or has tried focus stacking when taking portraits with shallow DOF?
If so how well does it work and is it worth it?

Thanks

Randy


Last edited by slip; 08-21-2015 at 02:43 PM.
08-21-2015, 08:42 PM   #2
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
Botox...lots of botox...


Steve
08-22-2015, 04:39 AM - 1 Like   #3
Veteran Member
dakight's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,216
The problem would be getting the subject to remain absolutely still while you take multiple exposures. It would be very difficult as even a slight movement would disrupt the image stack I'm afraid. It works great with stationary, inanimate objects but with a live subject I have my doubts.
08-22-2015, 03:12 PM   #4
DAZ
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
DAZ's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Everett, WA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 744
When referring to portraits most people are referring to portrait head shots. This is not necessarily the case as it could be a total head to foot portrait of a person or even a group of people. But for the moment let’s stay with the standard portrait headshot. When taking these shots normally people are looking for a certain cluster of qualities to the photo. The 1st would be a certain perspective distortion. This would require that they stand a certain distance from the subject, approximately 10 to 15 feet. To get the framing for a headshot this would require a certain lens length. For a headshot at that distance somewhere between 75 and 85 mm in the APS–C format. The next thing that they usually are looking for is a shallow depth of field. What they are looking for is the eyes to be sharp and the front to the back of the head just becoming unsharp. For this they require a relatively fast lens. What they’re really looking for here is that the eyes are in focus and as you get further away it becomes less focused. An additional quality is that at the center of the lens it is the sharpest and the edges can be a little soft. This is especially desirable when you’re using the lens wide open. Although all these properties may be desirable in a portrait they can obviously be (and quite often are) overdone. All of these qualities are well represented in the Pentax 77 mm lens. This is one of the reasons why it’s considered a good “portrait” lens.

The primary goal of photo stacking, as it relates to depth of field, is to increase the depth of field. Aside from all the difficulties of using photo stacking on a person it would seem to be working counter to what most people are trying to achieve in a portrait. If one really has too little depth of field in a portrait it is just much easier to close the lens down some, use a slower shutter speed and/or add more light.

DAZ

08-22-2015, 04:44 PM   #5
Veteran Member
slip's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,535
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by DAZ Quote
When referring to portraits most people are referring to portrait head shots. This is not necessarily the case as it could be a total head to foot portrait of a person or even a group of people. But for the moment let’s stay with the standard portrait headshot. When taking these shots normally people are looking for a certain cluster of qualities to the photo. The 1st would be a certain perspective distortion. This would require that they stand a certain distance from the subject, approximately 10 to 15 feet. To get the framing for a headshot this would require a certain lens length. For a headshot at that distance somewhere between 75 and 85 mm in the APS–C format. The next thing that they usually are looking for is a shallow depth of field. What they are looking for is the eyes to be sharp and the front to the back of the head just becoming unsharp. For this they require a relatively fast lens. What they’re really looking for here is that the eyes are in focus and as you get further away it becomes less focused. An additional quality is that at the center of the lens it is the sharpest and the edges can be a little soft. This is especially desirable when you’re using the lens wide open. Although all these properties may be desirable in a portrait they can obviously be (and quite often are) overdone. All of these qualities are well represented in the Pentax 77 mm lens. This is one of the reasons why it’s considered a good “portrait” lens.

The primary goal of photo stacking, as it relates to depth of field, is to increase the depth of field. Aside from all the difficulties of using photo stacking on a person it would seem to be working counter to what most people are trying to achieve in a portrait. If one really has too little depth of field in a portrait it is just much easier to close the lens down some, use a slower shutter speed and/or add more light.

DAZ
Thanks

I think I should have explained myself better on why I thought it might be a good idea...By taking a few shots with micro changes in focus would decrease the chances of missing focus on the eyes (and other important parts of the face)


Cheers

Randy
08-22-2015, 05:48 PM   #6
DAZ
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
DAZ's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Everett, WA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 744
QuoteOriginally posted by slip Quote
Thanks

I think I should have explained myself better on why I thought it might be a good idea...By taking a few shots with micro changes in focus would decrease the chances of missing focus on the eyes (and other important parts of the face)


Cheers

Randy
That does explain it better although that is not focused stacking. Most of the time I have seen focused stacking used on macro shots. When used on macro shots you usually have a relatively inanimate object and have to manually change the focus in between. You could in theory still do this with a portrait but you would have the problem of holding the person still. You could hold their head still using a method like the use to use in the old daguerreotype photos. They would have a brace behind the subject that they would rest their head against. They would do this because of the longer exposure times. These longer exposure times also resulted in what we would now perceive as unusual facial expressions. If you look at some of these old photos you see that they are not smiling and have various “serious expressions”. This would not be in the style of the more modern portrait.

In my opinion trying to obtain a very narrow depth of field is much overrated. Not only is it often over done but can distract from the goals of the photo and can more often than not lead to losing the entire photo. Most of the time in things like portraits you’re trying to capture a very elusive fleeting moment. Even 2 photos taken just a second apart can have very different expressions. One expression could be golden in the very next it could be lead.

A narrow depth of field is a flaw in the syntax of the photographic systems we generally use. This flaw can be used artistically and thus can have an advantage. It is essentially nothing more than the destruction of information. The destruction of this information can be done at any time in the photographic process. If the destruction of this information takes place in the early part of the photographic process as in when the image is captured, then this information is forever lost. This loss of fleeting information is one of the biggest drawbacks to using an extremely narrow depth of field in something like portraits.

If the destruction of the information takes place late in the entire photographic process it is then much more controllable. A narrow depth of field is one of those things that is relatively easy to simulate in the modern post processing system. Simulating a narrow depth of field in prose processing gives you much more control with essentially no permanent loss of information. Usually what works best is a combination of the 2. A moderate amount of narrow depth of field at the time the photo was taken followed by a small addition in post processing. This can mostly eliminate the potential of losing the best photo out of the bunch.

DAZ
08-22-2015, 06:03 PM   #7
Veteran Member
hks_kansei's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 834
If you focus stacked (like macro images etc) on a portrait, as said above the subject would need to be stationary for a good amount of time.
You could do it, but you'd likely end up with images that have a rather rigid look to them, not unlike very early photographs (you'll notice a lot of them the subjects are seated, or leaning upon something, this was to allow them to be still for the long exposures more comfortably)


The idea about just shooting with a few different focus points could work though, not unlike exposure bracketing, only with focus.
And obviously if you only use one frame you don't need to worry about the subject moving slightly between each.

Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, focus, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
In camera focus stacking beachgardener General Photography 3 05-25-2014 03:46 AM
Focus stacking flyer Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 15 04-06-2014 06:23 PM
Focus stacking with special hw Stack Shot and sw Zerene Sten Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 50 11-28-2013 09:53 AM
Focus Stacking C41 Negs with Pentax Bellows M wombat2go Do-It-Yourself 5 03-21-2013 03:42 PM
Share portraits with eye focus sany Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 08-11-2011 08:23 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:12 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top