which lens aperture is best here?

[matt_mitchell]

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.as</p>

<p>halfway down you can roll the mouse over the aperture to see what the photo looks like. WHat do you think works best? To me around f4 or f2.8 perhaps.<br>

Also when do photographers prefer f1:1.2 ?</p>

[parv]

I get 404 error page, Matt.

 

As for your second question, besides the obvious I would speculate that when a style of the photographer is to have only some part of face in focus (when close by).

[wade_thompson]

<p>fail</p>

[matt_mitchell]

<p>sorry link here<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>He left two characters off of the web address involved, which is this:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

[Former P.N Member]

<p>This is the correct link:<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx"><br /></a><br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.2-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

[Former P.N Member]

<p>Wow - a three way tie. ;-)</p>

[htarragon]

<p>f/4 seem to be the most pleasing to me - in focus foreground, out of focus background. Smaller than f/4 too much distraction, wider than f/4 looks strange although f/1.2 looks dreamlike. Depends on what you want.</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>The best aperture for that shot is the one that produces the look the photographer (or art director) is looking for. Pros and cons for all of them.</p>

[matt_mitchell]

<p>Matt humour us, what do <em>you</em> like or think works best in this photo, (you are not always gonna know what the photographer/director has in mind? "death of the author" and all that)</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Matt M.......it is part of the photographers job to <em><strong>know</strong></em> what the art director has in mind. I thought Matt L's answer says it all....Regards..Robert</p>

[matt_mitchell]

<p>I was not asking what the photographers job was, in this case anyway the photographer was just testing the lens. The question was simple, what do you like, what has that go to do with what the art director has in mind..... sheeessh!</p>

[matt_mitchell]

<p>anyway, looking at it again I think maybe f1.8 o f2 would be the best if just the trees were in the background and not the harsh fence</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>OK, MM....Just as a picture, I am not keen on it at all anyway....no matter what the f/stop.....BUT If it was to be used as an illustrative piece, and the girl was known to the viewer, then I might think the blurrier background might be better if text was to go there.....otherwise I would crop it and use any of them from 2.8-5.6. Robert</p>

[matt_mitchell]

<p>:)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what it's worth, I like anything <i>except</i> f/2.8-f/4. At smaller apertures you get the background, which is quite pleasant in this case - I wouldn't feel bad about shooting in this scenario at f/11. I'd also be happy with anything from f/2 or larger - mostly chosen by the vignetting and pixel peeping to see whether the eyes are in focus; these apertures, to me, make the trees in the background go away completely. At around f/2.8-f/4 (possibly f/5.6) the background contains enough detail that I'd try to work out what it is, but not enough to give you something in the background to look at - it's the line between distracting and contributing.<br />

<br />

Not that I'm a professional portraitist. I suspect anyone's opinion on this subject is going to be no more than that, although I'm prepared to accept that there will be people whose opinion is more likely to concur with the majority than mine is.<br />

<br />

For portraits, f/1.2 is a very narrow depth of field - although sometimes blurring some skin or hair detail might be flattering. Having the ability to make the background go away is laudable, but I tend to do it from farther away with a longer lens (200 f/2) to give me a bit more depth of field while still losing the background.</p>

[arthur_cargill]

<p>It certainly does depend on the photo. I prefer F1.2, and F4 as my favorite in there, but partly because I like a vignette effect and at F1.2 her face is the brightest (drawing attention to it) while also darkening/vignetting the edges & background. At F1.2, I feel the focus is strictly and soley on the person.</p>

<p>F2 the background fence starts to cause some funky stuff with the lens, where the background fence begins to sort of cause a mirror lens bokeh effect... distracting and bizarre which is most pronounced at F2.8 (which I hate the most). Then F4 is a totally different picture than F1.2 I can see and make out the background and the fence no longer causes the weird effect seen in F2 and F2.8. The background assists the portrait at F4, which tells more of a story. But it's practically an entirely different feeling between F1.2 and F4.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>This is actually a pretty interesting example where it probably would pay to bracket different f-stops. f/5.6 is definitely the best-looking to me. f/8-11 are pretty good too, with f/16 the background starts to feel busier. The larger apertures are still attractive but look less natural/real to me. The other apertures may be better for different backgrounds & subject/background distance though. </p>

[wogears]

<p>I'd say f4, because the blurry left hand (mostly) goes away, and the bg still has sufficient blur without the fence doing Evil 'Bokeh' Stuff.</p>

[parv]

<p><dl><p><dt>f/1.2 to f/2</dt>

<dd> all are on the same level for me in terms for background;

</dd><dd>prefer f/1.8 or f/2 due to less blurriness of her left hand;

 

</dd><p><dt>f/2.8</dt>

<dd> don't care as the tree(s) on top left is(are) very intrusive yet rest of the background, namely the fence, is still too out of focus;

 

</dd><p><dt>f/4</dt>

<dd> a good compromise if there is a need to show some identifiable background;

 

</dd><p><dt>f/5.6-f/16</dt>

<dd> don't care as the fence in background (along with trees) starts to be too obvious and giving the feeling of "going through the head".

</dd>

</dl>

[denniswms]

<p>It is a poorly framed image for a number of reasons- the hand is a disaster- if I had to pick, 5.6.</p>

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>Dear Matt,<br>

The link seems to have closed so can't comment but am impressed with your 'death of the author' comment - the first time I have seen Barthes refered to on P.Net.</p>

[studio460]

<p>At first glance, I chose f/2.8. But I love wide-open also. Certainly, it depends on the shot. If I can maintain my subject's eyes, parallel to my image plane, then I really like the effect of shooting wide-open. However, most of my casual portraiture is probably shot at around f/2.0-2.8. If shooting for someone else, I'll generally shoot at about f/4.0. I asked a staff shooter at a large media company (he shoots promos for TV shows) how much depth-of-field is typically required by his photo director, and he told me that, "they like to see everything from the eyes to the ears, in-focus,"</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>On this shot I like 1.8 the most, which makes the background soft enough to be pleasing, but not so mushy it looks like "special effects," which itself is distracting. 2.0 and up seem to bring out too much of the detail of the background, and again is distracting.</p>