Is this shallow DoF real?

[john_gallino1]

<p><a href="http://www.renaldi.com/photographs/touching/">http://www.renaldi.com/photographs/touching/</a></p>

<p>I think these portraits are beautiful, but I've often tried to replicate this shallow depth of field and can't get it quite this shallow. For one, these images do not look like they were shot with a particularly telephoto lens. In fact some of them seem quite wide, but I've shot things with a 17mm f/2.8 and the depth of field is much deeper than these images.<br>

So is this just photoshopped, or using a very specific lens?</p>

[rick_dorn]

<p>They are indeed lovely photographs. the depth of field does not seem all that shallow to my eye. It looks typical of what you might achieve with a normal-to-short-tele lens using a large aperture, such as 50/f1.4 or 90/f2.<br>

If you've ever shot with a super fast lens like the 50mm f1.2 or f1, you know that there isn't even enough depth of field to keep your subject's face in full focus. Shooting in close, if the near eye is sharp, the ear will be noticeably unsharp. Using the widest aperture is probably the key in these photos as well. The nice bokeh of the portraits would lead me to think that a high quality lens was used, something like a Canon 85/1.4 L or equivalent.</p>

[blake_schwalbe]

<p>They look like large format photographs (a view camera), so he would be using a much longer focal length for the same angle of view, and would apply tilt and swing movements of the front standard to control the plane of focus--if you notice in some images he altered the plane of focus diagonally. He could also be using a medium format or 35 mm, but my guess is still with a tilt/shift lens, but the angle of view and subject distance would favor a larger format with longer lens.</p>

[norman_valentine]

<p>If you read his introduction you will see that he used an 8 x 10 view camera.</p>

[john_gallino1]

<p>D'oh! Should've caught that. Anyway, this definitely isn't the first time I've seen portraits with that look. What would be the best way to reproduce it in-camera with standard SLRs?</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>""What would be the best way to reproduce it in-camera with standard SLRs?""</p>

<p>Summilux .</p>

[nathan_b]

<p>Summilux! Geez.<br>

In the real world, where people need to afford things, a 50 f/1.4 is plenty of glass to get a similar effect. I find that when I shoot in good natural light with wide open prime glass I can get pretty good separation with well saturated bokeh.<br>

Also, to really boost the effect, look up <a href="http://blog.buiphotography.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/">The Brenizer Method</a>.</p>

[felix_mizioznikov]

<p>I would say large format as mentioned before. you could get close with canon 85 1.2L but not quite.<br>

could also be a tiltshift 90mm to get the lensbaby effect.</p>

[robert_gantt]

<p>Hey John,<br>

Tilt shifts and the bellows involved in large format can be reproduced via 35mm with the use of a tilt shift lens like these: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=156. I've used the 45mm with relative success, but the reply just before mine also indicated the 90mm would be closer. You'll need to be extra critical of your focus and having your subjects aligned in such a way that the focus point doesn't miss someone.<br>

Before you go out and tried to buy a new or used one, I'd suggest renting for a week. These guys tend to become cliche pretty quick.</p>

[mike51664877339]

<p>Here is a shot with a digital P & S, notorious for having very long depths of field. The sharp background would not do, so Photoshop's layers and blur came to the rescue. Without looking too hard, you can see how I forgot to erase the mask between the tripod legs. Would software allow the gradual transition between sharp and unsharp that we see in the ground on Richard's shots? I don't know.</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>If the format is not known all one has is the shallow DOF of the images,</p>

<p>By the look ie prospective one can guess at the distance.</p>

<p>For 35mm camera work a 50mm shot at f2 or F1.4 gives images like many of these. 50/2=25mm .</p>

<p>they could also be shot with a TLR with a 80mm lens F2.8 or say F4.</p>

<p>They might also be shot with a 4x5 graflex slr with a 7.5 inch lens at F6.3 or maybe F8</p>

<p>With a small image it is really impossible to say whether it was 35mm or MF or 4x5</p>

<p> here is a shot with a 50mm lens at F1.0<br>

and a 150mm shot on a 4x5 at about F11<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Noct/_EPS7542hpgeneratorfull.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Noct/_EPS7542hpgeneratorfullcrop.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmFull.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>here is a 178mm at F2.5 on a 4x5 camera<br>

<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/SpeedGraphicF25AEsmall.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/SpeedGraphicF25AEmed.jpg" alt="" /></p>