ISO Settings

<p>I a wondering what other people consider the maximum ISO setting for good clear portraits. I am wanting to expand my portfolio to portraits.<br>

Also, bought an EF Canon 100 f2.8 lens. Right now I am using it on a Canon 5Ti and I know that it is meant to work on a full frame camera, which I am going to upgrade soon. Will using that lense on a full frame camera give sharper images than a 5Ti, or are they the same?</p>

<p>How high you can go with ISO depends on the camera. I consider 400 normal for most subjects but if I'm in the studio shooting with flash I usually turn the ISO down as low as it goes for portraits. The lower the ISO the lower the digital noise and the smoother the skintones. But that may be more theoretical than practical -- on most cameras today you aren't going to see any digital noise until you get above 800. <br /><br />Your 100mm won't be any sharper on a full frame camera than a crop sensor camera. But the bigger chip yields a higher resolution image, all else being equal. <br /><br />Keep in mind that extreme sharpness is not necessarily a plus in portraits if it means you're showing every pore and wrinkle and defect. From Hollywood to portrait photographers, it has been common for years to use soft-focus filters, pieces of nylon stocking, etc. to take the edge off of sharp lenses to make more flattering portraits.</p>

<p>How far you can push your ISO, depends on the camera and also your own view on what is acceptable. Your camera is relatively modern and I would not hesitate to push it to ISO 3200 if the situation required.</p>

<p>It is important to understand that nailing the EXPOSURE correctly and good Post Production technique will have a great impact on the final product when using an higher ISO such as ISO1600 or ISO3200: what can be 'acceptable' is NOT just defined by an ISO number. </p>

<p>I do a lot of Portraiture and I also use ISO 400 as my starting-point ISO for my cameras. Then it depends upon the lighting scenario. In a Studio or a Controlled Setting for example the Family's Home and when I am using Studio Flash, I tend to move to ISO200 ~ ISO100, but not all the time because ISO400, even with a lot of Flash Power available, allows for a larger DoF (smaller Aperture) which might be required for Family or Group Portraiture. On the other hand, for Available Light Portraiture, which comprises a lot of my work - I can be working at ISO: 1600, 3200 or sometimes 6400. <a href="/photo/10738709&size=lg">This is the EF 100 F/2.8 Macro used on a 5D at ISO1600 </a></p>

<p>Your new 100/2.8 Macro will work fine on your 700D. I think that one point that you will find out quickly with that combination of an APS-C Camera and a 100mm Lens is: once you FRAME the Portrait wider than about an HALF SHOT, you will be moving to a distance farther than about 18ft (5mtrs) away from the Subject and that can present difficulties if the situation is more like a controlled Portrait Shoot, where direction is required or expected from the Photographer, especially if you are outside.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Your Canon T5i has a 1.6x crop factor, turning your 100mm macro into a 160mm full-frame equivalent. So-called "portrait-length" lenses for the 135mm format have traditionally been deemed anywhere from 85mm-200mm, and in my opinion, anything in the 135mm-180mm range is just about right for most subjects. My favorite lens on a full-frame body for shooting head-and-shoulder portraits is the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro (which is very close to the 35mm-equivalent focal length you'll be getting with your T5i):</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/portrait-nancy-1C.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br /> Nikon D800E + Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO macro</p>

<p>At 150mm, I get just about the right amount of compression, which tends to be more flattering to most subjects than say, an 85mm, which shows more visible foreshortening. I also like shooting people at 180mm and 200mm, but I dropped my 180mm f/2.8 a while back, and my 70-200mm f/2.8 is just too darned heavy for handheld portraiture. In any case, my Sigma 150mm offers a good balance between speed, weight, and subject-to-camera distance, plus it consistently produces razor-sharp images (I don't feel that macro lenses are "too sharp" for portraiture, since I can always attenuate sharpness in post).</p>

<p>As for preferred ISO, even at a minimum power setting of only 7-Watt seconds, my complement of studio strobes pack a lot of punch, so I'm often shooting below base-ISO (e.g., ISO 50-100). But since I'm shooting full-frame bodies, although ISO 800 would still be acceptable, I think I would limit my ISO to 400 or under. If I were shooting a crop-frame body, I would halve that number to 200 as a personal "limit." If I had to push it, likely my top-end for full-frame, in-studio would be ISO 800, and for crop-frame, ISO 400. Realize that when shooting at your camera's true base ISO, in addition to a low noise-floor, this is also where the camera's dynamic range and color bandwidth are at their best.</p>

<p>I sometimes play with ISO to make expressive choices that may utilize digital noise to my own desires and vision. In this photo, I was shooting in low light and purposely did not raise the ISO, wanting a kind of home-made or rough-hewn texture. I felt that the almost monochrome color and the lack of technical clarity fit the subjects and situation and more so my own vision for the photo. For me, the decisions around color and clarity helped make this feel less "contemporary" in terms of time frame and seemed to go with the degree of intimacy I was feeling in the moment. I am well aware many will simply see this as a "technically-flawed" photo but I like experimenting with the notion of photographic flaw on occasion and find there's no universal sense of either perfection or flaw. I like fiddling with those ideas.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10591391-lg.jpg" alt="" width="530" height="690" /></p>

<p>It occurs to me that Fred's response directly addresses this sentence: "<em>I am wanting to expand my portfolio to portraits.</em>"</p>

<p>I agree with Fred's message - that you should not necessarily define your Portrait Portfolio only by (technically) "<em>good clear portraits</em>", it is always good to think beyond the nine dots.</p>

<p>WW <br>

</p>