PDA

View Full Version : Shooting at f/32 and I'm still frustrated with DOF/ Focus



kevs-2323668
14-Feb-2014, 14:05
I have a simple people fine art project. I'm shooting people seated in the studio against a white backdrop with a Sinar 4x5 and a 210 lens.

I was getting one part of their body in focus and the other part out.

So I went from TMY 100 to TMY 400 to increase the F stop from about 11 or 16 or so to f/32.

This last shoot was all shot at f/32, and while it did help in general, still MANY shots are screwed.

I have a subject holding a doll, the subject if tack sharp, yet the doll and even the subjects arm holding the doll (just 6 inches from the sharp subject) is way out of focus.

Or the subject is seated on the floor, and the subject if fully in focus head to toe, but the dolls in front of her are out of focus.

The camera set to zeros, no tilts and shifts. Real frustrated. Any ideas? f/ 32 is not enough?

BetterSense
14-Feb-2014, 14:14
Because fstop is a format-dependent unit, it's really meaningless by itself in terms of DOF. You need to consider what format you are using and approximate magnification (bust, head-shoulders etc.).

F32 on a 210mm lens is about 6.5mm. For a bust-type portrait this size aperture will give you a foor or so of DOF, regardless of film format or focal length. If you are seeing out of focus arms, you must be mis-focusing, your aperture scale is wrong, or something.

Bill_1856
14-Feb-2014, 14:17
http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html

vinny
14-Feb-2014, 14:23
Use tilt and/or swing. That's what view cameras are for.

kevs-2323668
14-Feb-2014, 14:36
Thanks Bill, I'm not a big fan of thread responses that send me to long, complex articles. Is there a point or two there I should look for?

Vinny: I never learned tilt/ swing. I assume the tilt/ swings are mostly to put something out of focus — or put a certain plane in focus?

Are you saying at f/32 or even better 6-8 inches should not all be in focus with the camera set to zeros?

BetterSense
14-Feb-2014, 14:44
What we are all saying is that if you want to know DOF, fstop is not enough information. You need to calculate it. F/32 on 4x5 sounds like a small enough aperture for most bust-size-ish portrait to me, so maybe you are focusing wrong, not telling us something, have film flatness issues, or something else.

David A. Goldfarb
14-Feb-2014, 14:48
What's your subject distance? There are many DOF tables and calculators out there on the net and in books, and to know your DOF, you need to know the format, focal length, subject distance (or the distance you're focused at), and the aperture. There's some subjectivity to the result, having to do with what you consider to be acceptible focus for the format you're shooting and amount of enlargment planned, but you can experiment, and if you think your table or calculator is giving you too soft a result at the edges of the DOF range, you can just decide to stop down one more stop than the recommended value.

If your subject is at 6 feet and you are shooting at f:32, you should have about 1'7" of DOF range. If your subject is at 4 feet, you've got about 7", but if you go to f:64, you'll get about 1'3" at the same distance. The calculator I just used to figure that is the one in pCam, an iPhone app with many useful photographic calculations. It also gives you a diagram to help estimate how much distance you have in front and behind the subject within the DOF range for the values supplied.

Ken Lee
14-Feb-2014, 14:56
A 210mm lens is superb for portraits - in terms of angle of view and subject distance - but it doesn't have much depth of field, especially of if you're used to making portraits with smaller format equipment and correspondingly shorter lenses.

When we double the focal length, we need 2 more stops smaller to get the same depth of field.

A 210mm lens at f/22 will have the same depth of field as a 105mm lens at f/11, which is the same as a 50mm lens at f/5.6.

Michael E
14-Feb-2014, 15:24
Let's face it, LF is not the best choice for large DOF at closer distances. You can make your life a lot easier by using a smaller format. Or you choose the points you want in focus and live with a (more or less) blurred rest. If you need face and doll in focus, place your plane of focus accordingly, using the Scheimpflug principle (the google will help you).

Best,

Michael

Bill_1856
14-Feb-2014, 15:25
Thanks Bill, I'm not a big fan of thread responses that send me to long, complex articles. Is there a point or two there I should look for?

Vinny: I never learned tilt/ swing. I assume the tilt/ swings are mostly to put something out of focus — or put a certain plane in focus?

Are you saying at f/32 or even better 6-8 inches should not all be in focus with the camera set to zeros?

You don't have to read the article. Just scroll down to the bottom where the actual table is. Just click on the camera size (4x5), the lens focal length and aperture, and the distance to the subject, and it will give you the depth of field.
My guess is that you are either focusing wrong, have an incorectly registered ground glass, or somebody has taken your lens apart and put it back together wrong.
You're welcome.

mdarnton
14-Feb-2014, 15:29
How about an example, at a fair size--like BIG, not 600x800, so we can see the problem? Otherwise it's just a guessing contest.

jb7
14-Feb-2014, 17:00
f/ 32 is not enough?

i don't know, you haven't told us how big you want to enlarge it, and depth of field calculations are based on the final print size. Big enlargements require smaller apertures, but your f/32 setting is going to look very sharp when printed at the appropriate magnification. If you're checking your scan at 100%, then any deviance from the plane of focus will be accentuated.

Online depth of field calculators are pretty much meaningless unless you can define the circle of confusion parameter for your chosen enlargement. Movements will help, if you need to place the plane of focus anywhere other than parallel to the film, particularly front movements.

Jody_S
14-Feb-2014, 19:53
From the calculator posted earlier in this thread, using a 210mm lens at portrait distances (I used a 4' focus distance), you would get an acceptable range, at f32, of 3'7 to 4'5 from the camera, for a total of 10" of 'in focus*' depth of field.... So yes, it is very possible to have an elbow out of focus. You need to be more careful about positioning your subjects and making sure the critical elements of your portraits are on a plane. You can make that plane perpendicular to the camera if you don't want to bother with movements, of course.

* Your definition of what is 'in focus' may be different from the assumptions made by the calculator on that link. But unless you're enlarging to mural size, the value used (for 'circle of confusion') should be adequate.

RandyB
14-Feb-2014, 20:09
Use a shorter FL lens, such as a 150mm, don't change your camera to subject distance, yes your subject will be smaller on the film but we are talking 4x5 here, simply crop it up when you make the enlargment. If you don't have access to another lens then you will need to back up the camera and refocus to make your subject smaller on the film. DOF changes depending on the camera to subject distance. Backing up just a few feet can make a big change in the DOF.

ic-racer
14-Feb-2014, 20:21
Use a smaller format.

Ari
14-Feb-2014, 20:23
Get to know your front tilt and swing; for portraits, they are each invaluable tools.

Practice on a large sheet of newspaper, taped to the wall.
Place your camera at a slightly oblique angle to the newspaper, but with the camera back parallel to the wall.

Focus on a section near you, and apply tilt/swing to bring the other parts of the newspaper into focus, all the while focusing back and forth, until the whole sheet is sharp.

This video might help; the guy is using a cereal box, but the principle is exactly the same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR4m70xr9mE&feature=fvsr

Considering what you're shooting and your lens choice, you should be able to use f11 if the appropriate movements are used, and get everything sharp.

BetterSense
14-Feb-2014, 20:28
Use a shorter FL lens, such as a 150mm, don't change your camera to subject distance, yes your subject will be smaller on the film but we are talking 4x5 here, simply crop it up when you make the enlargment

That will make absolutely no difference. Final magnification is what matters; de-enlarging something with a shorter lens then enlarging it more when printing does not make the dof appear somehow.

Jac@stafford.net
14-Feb-2014, 20:29
We had a similar post some months ago and it turned out the problem was camera or subject motion.

vinny
14-Feb-2014, 20:48
You guys are funny. He's never use the movements on his camera and just listen to yourselves.....!

Nathan Potter
14-Feb-2014, 21:07
The Depth Of Field is easy to estimate if you know the lens to subject distance and have chosen a Circle OF Confusion (COC), compatible with the degree of print enlargement as mentioned above. DOF = 2 X µ^2 X N X C/f^2 where:

µ = lens to object distance
N = f/no.
C = circle of confusion
f = lens focal length

You've not specified two important parameters; lens to object distance and a circle of confusion. For example let me specify them for you.

µ = 6 ft. = 182 cm.
N = f/32
C = 50 µm = .005 cm. (quite sharp for LF work)
f = 210 mm = 21 cm.

Computing all dimensions in cm. we get a DOF of 2.4 cm. Close to 1 inch. Ouch!. You can play with the numbers to increase the DOF. For instance increase the size of the COC to 100 or 200 µm or use a smaller f/no. Basically increasing anything in the numerator or decreasing anything in the denominator will give you more DOF.

But also realize that the transition from in focus region to out of focus region is gradual and in some instances can be pleasing, depending on the portrait lens design. Worth playing with a bit.

By the way at f/45 you'll be diffraction limited at your image plane at about 55 µm so if you want to gain DOF by choosing a larger COC then you'll be well out of a diffraction limited condition.

But also be aware that choosing a COC of around 100µm (4 mils) puts you in a contact print mode for the finest print quality where the human eye typically can resolve 3 to 4 mil lines at close viewing distances.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Lenny Eiger
14-Feb-2014, 21:16
I'm sorry, just close the thing down.

Every conversation we have had here about diffraction has ended with people saying that it is a very small factor.

I'm not particularly interested in the equations as much as I am in real world experience. I respect that there are engineers, we need 'em. But I've done the real world tests for myself. I found no real benefit shooting at f22 over f45. I did my tests with modern lenses, to be sure, but I just don't buy it.

Of course, don't trust me... do the test for yourself. It's easy enough to blow a sheet or two of film at the different apertures and see if there is any real difference in the size print you want to make.

Lenny

VictoriaPerelet
14-Feb-2014, 23:33
I have a simple people fine art project. I'm shooting people seated in the studio against a white backdrop with a Sinar 4x5 and a 210 lens.

....


I was doing that for past few decades with exception that I worked with emotional models who can't be still for more than one second.





.... I have a subject holding a doll, the subject if tack sharp, yet the doll and even the subjects arm holding the doll (just 6 inches from the sharp subject) *is way out of focus.

Or the subject is seated on the floor, and the subject if fully in focus head to toe, but the dolls in front of her are out of focus.

The camera set to zeros, no tilts and shifts. ..

That is your problem. Using view camera with no movements? Use iPhone instead :o

Have you read your camera manual? Sinar is perfect tool for what you are doing, but as with any tool - you need to know how to use it



https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52900356/LfPics/Photo%20Feb%2014%2C%2010%2010%2008%20PM.png

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52900356/LfPics/Photo%20Feb%2014%2C%2010%2010%2047%20PM.png

Here is answer to your question

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52900356/LfPics/Photo%20Feb%2014%2C%2010%2010%2056%20PM.png


Ps. Also if you are working with people - use flash

Sent from my iPad

Daniel Stone
15-Feb-2014, 01:06
Quick question:

Is your ground glass reversed?
"Reversed" = frosted side towards you, glossy side towards the lens

When I bought my Sinar F2 4x5 a few years ago, the person who sold it to me for some reason had the screen mounted BACKWARDS.

Have to ask, seeing my prior experience mentioned above ;)

-Dan

mdarnton
15-Feb-2014, 05:38
You guys are funny. He's never use the movements on his camera and just listen to yourselves.....!
Fantasy solutions for imagined problem. No one has actually seen what's wrong, but everyone knows the solution. This should be a sticky for the question "Something's wrong; what?" :-)

vinny
15-Feb-2014, 06:32
Is the image on the ground glass upside down.....and BACKWARDS? :)
I've been meaning to get that looked at.

alavergh
15-Feb-2014, 07:08
I would suggest searching YouTube for this "scheimpflug" principle. I found a nice video of a guy with a similar camera shooting a box of serial and it was very helpful.

Sometimes, people here can be a little bloated, wordy, or over-enthusiastic about sharing info. I try to look at that as a plus.

Now, my question for you...you say a person holding a doll is your subject in this case.

When you focus while viewing the ground glass, does the the doll look as sharp as the subjects face?

Are you tilting the camera down or up towards the subject like you would with a smaller, handheld format like 35mm?


I seem to recall that depth of field is going to be much shallower in front of the focus point than behind it.

Does anybody know if the plane of focus (for lack of a better term) is always flat or is it like a shallow bowl, extending similar in shape to the front lens element?

kevs-2323668
15-Feb-2014, 12:50
David, thanks.
The subject distance is about 5-6 feet. That said is some shots it seem the eyes are in focus but the arm is out, the arm being only 8 inches or a foot away.

Ken, I used the 90mm on a previous series, and did not have as much of an issue, shooting even at 100 iso. But in the studio, the portrait 210 does seem more appropriate than the 90, as with the 90mm, I get the apartment in the background, but that is an idea, going back to the 90mm. thanks.

Michael, thanks. I am shooting everything also with the Canon 5D2, as well, but I got the 4x5 to have the option to print really large if wanted later. I think prints with the 5D2 will collaspse in quality after about a 16x20. Also there is the allure and prestige of shooting fine art with large format!

Jac - camera or subject motion? could be for the arm, but not objects in front of the subject.

Randy, I would have to buy a news 3rd lens, a 150 which I can do I guess, that would be better than the 90 or the 210 I have?

Bill, well a lot of images looked focused just fine. and even with the ones with the problems, part of the image is great. I would think the a ground glass problem or lens being mounted wrong would show a flaw with all the images across the board, but I'm not an expert of either of those two hypothesis.

BTW, have any of you tested printing the TMY 400 vs the 100 large? I thought the 400 would print large fine, but even on the monitor in PS at 100% it "seems" to be grainier looking than the 100. I do need to test large prints.

But maybe going back to the 90mm for these tight in studio portraits is the best solution?

Daniel, don't even know about glass being reversed, will have to look, would that cause focusing issue?

The camera is often pointed downward to the model.

The image is reversed on the back as it should be, but really, it's very hard to see it everything is in focus, but I'll make an extra effort know to judge fully each part in the future to see if all is in focus. It's just hard to read that glass...

Do any of you think the solution is tilting and shifting as Victoria mentioned? I have not learned that yet, would have to have my assistant come by and test.

BrianShaw
15-Feb-2014, 13:33
Is the image on the ground glass upside down.....and BACKWARDS? :)
I've been meaning to get that looked at.

You have me laughing so hard that I threw my back out... again. :)

Ken Lee
15-Feb-2014, 13:42
If you are used to thinking in terms of 35mm film or "full-frame" digital, then a rule of thumb is that lenses for 4x5 are roughly 3x the length. To get the same depth of field, they require an aperture that is 3 f/stops smaller.

A 150mm lens on 4x5 film is like a 50mm lens on "full-frame", with respect to angle of view and shooting distance required (which taken together make up what we commonly refer to as "perspective").

A 90mm lens on 4x5 is like a 30mm lens on "full-frame", namely a wide-angle lens with greater depth of field but possibly unsuitable for portraits because of foreshortening (http://www.123rf.com/photo_8031005_the-calf-puts-out-the-tongue-in-a-comic-foreshortening.html).

Although large format capture has many attractions, depth of field is not one of them - except when we deal with the classic "near-far" compositions like this one by John Sexton (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/like/index.php#sexton). The subject is not moving appreciably (so long exposures and small apertures are possible) and with view camera movements a few simple adjustments can give us extreme depth of field even with a normal or longer lens. (That photo was made with a 150mm lens, a normal length on 4x5). There is no foreshortening: the foreground feels normal and the sense of distance is not exaggerated or phoney.

So if 4x5 is a necessity it may be a good idea to stick with 210 for portraits, but arrange lighting and subjects accordingly. it can be a nice length: here's a portrait (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/larger/3.jpg) made with an old 210mm Heliar on 4x5 at around f/8. Note that as predicted, the depth of field is only enough to keep the main subject in focus.

Just be glad you're not using 8x10, where you'd need a 450mm lens and f/64 or smaller :cool:

VictoriaPerelet
15-Feb-2014, 13:49
Here are 2 examples of this lens with Sinar F2, F16. I rarely use 210mm. It was pretty dim lit location room, I used single Canon EX flash triggered by radio slave.

1st uses rather ample front tilt, you can see plane of focus going from feet to eyes, pillow on the left and window curtains on the right pretty defocused.

http://www.victoriasphoto.com/models/Texas_Timebomb/big/TT13-16-2s.jpg


Here I use movements to defocus part of image.

http://www.victoriasphoto.com/models/Texas_Timebomb/big/TT17-18-1s.jpg

Sent from my iPad

vinny
15-Feb-2014, 13:55
as I said earlier and victoria showed above, using the movements god gave your camera is a really good idea. How many times do you need to hear it?:)
if you posted an example as others asked, it would take a lot of guess work out of it, don't you think?

John Koehrer
15-Feb-2014, 14:32
He's tilting the camera down. What effect will this have on DOF and would he be better off aligning the standards to vertical?

IDK just a question

Bill_1856
15-Feb-2014, 14:34
4x5, 210mm, f:32, focus=5 1/2', DOF is 4'8 to 6'6 (approx 1'9.6). Less than 2'. (Using coc of 150 micron, which is pretty small).

Nathan Potter
15-Feb-2014, 15:21
Bill, that's about right. In my example somewhere above I assumed a COC of 50 µm and I think lens to subject distance of 72 in. but I made a math error. (Shouldn't do these estimate fast and sloppy). That should have been DOF of about 9.5 in., not about 1.0 in.

Using a COC of 150 µm yields about enough DOF (about 2 ft. as you point out) so that camera movements should not be required.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Gary Sommer
15-Feb-2014, 17:22
The camera is often pointed downward to the model.

I think this is your problem. If your camera is neutral, or zero movements when it is horizontal and you tilt the whole camera down, the plane of focus is parallel to the standards. If you tilt the camera down say 45 degrees the plane of focus would run through your scene at 45 degrees. If you make the standards parallel after you tilt the camera down, then f32 would probably be enough.

kevs-2323668
15-Feb-2014, 21:05
Thanks Ken, nice shot of the father/ son. But question: what if the father was sitting on the ground and the son was sitting right in front of him, and you are pointing a bit downwards. If you focused on the father, then the son would be very out of focus right?. I don't know. I have recent shot where one eye is in focus, the other is out at f/32, so I'm still puzzled.

Victoria, nice, you are shooting with 150 or 90?

Thanks Nathan. So you think 150 would help?

Gary, are you saying then to try to get the camera lower to the ground so as not to point it down?

What does getting the standards parallel mean? I have everything zeroed out tilts/ shifts wise is that not having everything parallel? Is being at d/32 good? I think it is but I have to say, the Tmax 100 looks better on skin to me than the TMY 400.

Gary Sommer
15-Feb-2014, 23:15
Kevs, if you zero out movements when the camera is level, then tilt it down, the camera movement are no longer at zero. If you tilt the camera down 45 degrees, you need to tilt back the standards 45 degrees so that they are vertical. Then the plane of focus is vertical in the scene. Then the movements are now zeroed again. I really don't think that you can do what you are trying, with out some knowledge and use of at least the tilt on the camera. I believe that on the first or home page of this site is an article about view camera movements.

Good Luck
Gary

Ken Lee
16-Feb-2014, 04:44
Thanks Ken, nice shot of the father/ son. But question: what if the father was sitting on the ground and the son was sitting right in front of him, and you are pointing a bit downwards. If you focused on the father, then the son would be very out of focus right?.

Right.

Also note that some lenses exhibit focus-shift: if you focus them wide-open and then stop down before shooting, your subject will be out of focus.

Perhaps more importantly, human subjects move around, even when you ask them not to. To them, a few inches may seem inconsequential but will be enough to spoil a close shot.

If you want to find out for yourself, take the people out of the equation and shoot some stationary subjects at different f/stops.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/shallowdof.jpg

Drew Bedo
16-Feb-2014, 07:56
There is a lot of good technical information posted to this thread.

I have little experience in portrait photography, but do work with still-life compositions in both 4x5 and 8x10. My approach would be to treat the portrait session as a "real-life still-life"


One of the things I have done to get the focus right is to put a target into the composition and move it around to check on how sharp an area of the image will be. Usually tjhis is a bar code panel from some retail purchase. The bars on the tag snap in and out of focus. A rolled up piece of tape on the back of the tag helps hold it in place temporarily. Unless the background detail is important, the back edge of acceptable focus will be just at the back of the subject . . .with most of the in-focus space to the front.

For a full-face head shot, the sharp area can stop just behind the ears. for a head and shoulders composition, the sharp area can end behind the shoulders. If ithe sitter ts at an angle to the camera, the area of sharp focus may end behind the far shoulder. Moving the target around will help with setting the rear limit to maximize the area in sharp focus in the space visible to the camera.

Before you burn up any more film, why don't you do a dry-run with a dummy. large doll or mannequin?

kevs-2323668
16-Feb-2014, 13:01
Ken, another question I forgot, so you don't think getting the 150 or using the 90 is the answer. The only problem is I'm shooting at f/32 and I have a shot of a guy 1/2 body profile and his right eye is tack sharp and his chest is out of focus, which is only a few inches away. That was the worst of the bunch, but real frustrating. On some others shots I see different part both in focus up to a foot away from each other. I do focus wide open and then stop down. We have to do that because at f/32 you can't see anything. Why Ken do you say this results in bad focus? What does this mean? "Also note that some lenses exhibit focus-shift: if you focus them wide-open and then stop down before shooting, your subject will be out of focus. " That is always why I guess, I can't really know if everything is in focus corner to corner, because at f/32 one cannot judge anything at all.

Thanks Gary, ok got it. Will look into that. But as I stated above, I have a shot that is pretty straight on and the guys chest is blurry and his eye is sharp and the camera is on a heavy tripod, and his is not moving really!

thanks Drew, the testing and dummy is a good idea, but I just remembered, that yeah, I can't see anything really at f/32 or even f/22. I have to focus wide open, and then trust at those f stops.

Jim Andrada
16-Feb-2014, 13:16
To put it very simply

1) If the camera is pointed down and the face is in focus, then the subjects waist (or elbows if the subject's upper arms are more or less straight up and down) will likely be less well in focus. As an example, if the subject is sitting down and the camera is tipped down 30 degrees, the the nose and knees might be in sharp focus and the hips out of focus.

2) If this is what you are seeing, the answer as has been said above, but in really simple terms, would be to leave the camera tilted down, but tilt the back of the camera so it is straight up and down. Then do the same thing to the front of the camera. Check the manual for how to do this, but there is always a locking knob or lever you can loosen to permit you to re-align the front and back. They should now be parallel to each other and at 90 degrees to the floor.

3) Now the position of the image on the ground glass will probably have moved down. You can raise the lens to bring the image back up.

Now play with the aperture (f-stop) until the depth of field gets as good as possible.

BetterSense
16-Feb-2014, 13:36
Are you getting sharp grain even in the oof areas of the scan?

I thought I had a sharpness problem once and it turned out the negative was buckling in the enlarger.

Joe O'Hara
16-Feb-2014, 15:04
Now you know why they gave you this assignment.

Ken Lee
16-Feb-2014, 18:35
Ken, another question I forgot, so you don't think getting the 150 or using the 90 is the answer. The only problem is I'm shooting at f/32 and I have a shot of a guy 1/2 body profile and his right eye is tack sharp and his chest is out of focus, which is only a few inches away. That was the worst of the bunch, but real frustrating. On some others shots I see different part both in focus up to a foot away from each other. I do focus wide open and then stop down. We have to do that because at f/32 you can't see anything. Why Ken do you say this results in bad focus? What does this mean? "Also note that some lenses exhibit focus-shift: if you focus them wide-open and then stop down before shooting, your subject will be out of focus. " That is always why I guess, I can't really know if everything is in focus corner to corner, because at f/32 one cannot judge anything at all.

You'll have to find out if your lens exhibits focus shift. Some do, some don't.

If you can't see what you're doing, you may be wasting time and materials by insisting on using 4x5 and a 210mm lens. After all, who cares what you use ?

I don't make portraits for a living, but if I did and needed to shoot the subject you're shooting, I'd use smaller format equipment if I wanted a lot of depth of field. A cheap point-and-shoot digital camera with small sensor will give plenty of depth of field even when zoomed out to portrait length, because the lens might be as short as 25mm.

VictoriaPerelet
16-Feb-2014, 19:32
......
I have recent shot where one eye is in focus, the other is out at f/32, so I'm still puzzled.
.....


why don't you post scan here?! :confused: Also, exactly what lens you have? I'ts not magnifying glass glued in to less board I presume. Many respectable people tried to help you, but your input is very vague.

Recently one person complained here about his frensel quality, but 3 weeks later he found out that he had no fresnel in his camera:rolleyes:

Working vith view camera can be overhelming to begin with - way too many steps and variables involved. Too many things can go wrong.

Also is your assignment from school? Is View Camera required? iPhone maybe much more convinient in most situations.






Victoria, nice, you are shooting with 150 or 90?
....


72mm most of the time, 47mm often, 150mm, 210mm, 360mm on very rare ocasion.

john borrelli
24-Feb-2014, 12:54
Very nice portraits Victoria.

I agree the OP needs practice with the camera and movements. I would suggest a good dark cloth and a brighter area to practice. You could flood a studio with light I suppose(hand out sunglasses to the models?!), focus, then reduce the light to an appropriate level and take the picture. Or go out side on a bright day set up a scene at the same distances and watch how the dof changes when you do things like tilt the camera down and then use movements.

If you are using a 210mm plasmat you have some room to play with as far as image circle. You should also be able to increase the fstop to about f8, f11 and still see a little even at f16, at least enough to practice focus technique.

If this type of practice doesn't help, you could try renting a tilt and shift lens for your digital camera and practice your technique with that, never tried a tilt and shift lens myself but you could shoot a large number of images while you are practicing and see the effects in actual prints.

Remember also, as others have said with longer exposures an arm could easily move and appear unsharp. If you practice, you may be able to get away with a lower fstop which will allow you to use a faster shutter speed. Best of luck

Andrew Plume
24-Feb-2014, 14:40
Dear OP

plenty of experienced people have helped you, I'm concerned for you that with all of this info around, you run the risk of tying yourself up in knots and becoming over cautious

either post some of your images on here, no one will criticise or alternatively say where you're living and attempt to meet face to face with one or more members on here who will be able to help you further. It's damn difficult trying to resolve this in a forum discussion - btw, why the need to shoot at f32? - it has to be far harder than shooting wide open and a VC's movements can take sometime to fully understand and appreciate - also are you perhaps making life too difficult for yourself?

good luck

andrew