pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shooting models for tack-sharp images  (Read 14440 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 27, 2010, 08:58 »
0
A number of photography books I've read (including Scott Kelby's), recommend the use of a tripod + remote/cable release for getting tack sharp images.

For those of you that photograph models, I'm interested in hearing what you do to create tack-sharp images. When photographing models, it's just not practical to use a tripod - sometimes you need to get on the ground with your camera, crouched down, etc. Curious to hear your thoughts...thanks so much.


« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2010, 08:59 »
+1
I've never used a tripod with models.  Shutterspeed above 1/125 and a good lens works for me.

« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2010, 09:01 »
0
There is no need for tripods to get tack sharp images. Take a sharp lens, like good primes and have a reasonable shutterspeed and you get tack sharp images. I get them all the time without a tripod :-)

« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2010, 09:30 »
0
See expanded thoughts below.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 10:23 by dgilder »

« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2010, 09:47 »
+1
Longer focal length primes help, because you don't need as small of an aperture to cover the DOF needed to get their whole body in the area of focus.

???

I would disagree.
DOF depends upon aperture, focal length and distance to the object.
If you use a longer focal length, then the DOF reduces with the same distance to the object.
If you increase the distance to the object, the DOF increases.

If you want to have the whole body in the frame, these two facts will work in different directions (taking a longer focal length lense will a) reduce DOF but b) force you to move away from the model and therefore increase DOF again). I don't know which of these effects is stronger, but I assume they cancel each other out pretty much (who knows better?).

So the only result is a longer focal lenght which is more likely to lead to camera shake (or rather, camera shake is more visible with the same shutter speed).

Am I overlooking anything?

« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2010, 10:20 »
0
Sorry, I was posting earlier in a hurry, and that didn't quite come out the way I intended.  You are right, they do essentially balance out, but the other nice thing you get with longer lenses is a more natural perspective and less distortion of facial features, etc.  Obviously this all depends on circumstances, because if you want to shoot full length on a long lens you need lots of room to back up.

Yes, you have more camera shake, but even 1/125 should be hand holdable on a 100mm, especially if it has IS.  A prime will be sharper at lower apertures than a zoom, which means if you don't need a huge DOF you can use a wider aperture without having to worry as much about lens distortion, vignetting, and corner sharpness issues.

« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2010, 10:30 »
0
That does make a lot of sense, and I agree, using a good prime is always an advantage in regards of image quality.

« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2010, 14:18 »
0
Thanks everyone - I really appreciate hearing your thoughts on the subject. Are there any Nikon-made lenses you would recommend that would deliver what I'm looking for? I recently purchased a Nikkor 18-200mm and a Nikkor 50mm/1.8, probably not going to accomplish what I'm after.

« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2010, 15:15 »
+3
I'm surprised that none of you guys seem to depend on flash for your shots, which gives an effective exposure time of perhaps 1/8000s. Not much chance of camera shake at those speeds and relying on a tripod to try to prevent it would be ridiculous.

Of course, for natural light portraits the considerations would be different.

In any case, a wide aperture AF lens will grab the focus more quickly than one with a smaller maximum aperture. So fast glass helps you to keep in focus if you are relying on AF.  I don't know what aperture the Nikkor 18-200 works at but the 50mm prime will almost certainly handle auto-focus better. If you are shooting on a cropped sensor that is not a bad focal length for portrait perspective.

You should be perfectly well able to achieve your aim with the equipment you've already got.

« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2010, 15:42 »
0
If you use a longer focal length, then the DOF reduces with the same distance to the object.

Wrong. DOF does NOT change if you change focal length and focus in the same distance. Only changing the shooting distance, focus distance or aperture changes DOF.

« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2010, 16:09 »
+1
If you use a longer focal length, then the DOF reduces with the same distance to the object.


Wrong. DOF does NOT change if you change focal length and focus in the same distance. Only changing the shooting distance, focus distance or aperture changes DOF.

Wrong. Try it yourself or you can check this dof calculator:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

It's very easy to understand why this happens if you look at how the optics are built. The dof doesn't change when you change focal lengths only if the field of view is the same. That means you have to walk back with the longer focal lenght.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 16:11 by LostOne »

« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2010, 16:19 »
0
I'm surprised that none of you guys seem to depend on flash for your shots, which gives an effective exposure time of perhaps 1/8000s. Not much chance of camera shake at those speeds and relying on a tripod to try to prevent it would be ridiculous.
The problem are sync speeds. They only go up to 250th or 200th. Even then you can sometimes see the shutter. I usually stay at 1/160th with my 5d II.

I'd like sync speed of 1/1000th, then I wouldn't have to use nd filters when shooting open wide.

« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2010, 16:44 »
0
Yuri says he uses a monopod when shooting models because he can't guarantee to get the focus spot on if he hand holds the camera.

« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2010, 16:46 »
0
Hes getting old and shaky.... :P

« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2010, 17:03 »
+1
Wrong. Try it yourself or you can check this dof calculator:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


You are right, I have no idea why I wrote the things I wrote, my brain must be short-circuited in some way.... I shoud sleep more and drink less coffee...

(I was propably thinking about how the perspective doesn't change depending on the focal length, even if the field-of-view does)

« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2010, 04:52 »
0
I'm surprised that none of you guys seem to depend on flash for your shots, which gives an effective exposure time of perhaps 1/8000s. Not much chance of camera shake at those speeds and relying on a tripod to try to prevent it would be ridiculous.
The problem are sync speeds. They only go up to 250th or 200th. Even then you can sometimes see the shutter. I usually stay at 1/160th with my 5d II.

I'd like sync speed of 1/1000th, then I wouldn't have to use nd filters when shooting open wide.

Sync's  a different issue, though. I also find that 1/160 is as high as it is reasonably safe to go with the 5D MkII.  For high synch speeds you need a camera with a leaf shutter which either means going to film or spending an awful lot of money.

« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2010, 05:03 »
0
Yuri says he uses a monopod when shooting models because he can't guarantee to get the focus spot on if he hand holds the camera.

It's a shame he can't keep still, he's lucky to have models who can :)

I suppose if your focus is absolutely critical to within less than an inch, then using a tripod would halve the risk of error (only the model is swaying too and fro, not both the model and the photographer). However, a monopod doesn't reduce that problem, it still moves from side to side and back and forth with the photographer, so it would seem that Yuri is talking nonsense. Monopods are great for sports if you have a heavy set-up that you want to swivel too and fro, they are not for model shoots. Perhaps Yuri just wants to hamper all his potential rivals by persuading them to fix a stick to the bottom of their cameras.


« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2010, 06:40 »
0
Yuri says he uses a monopod when shooting models because he can't guarantee to get the focus spot on if he hand holds the camera.

It's a shame he can't keep still, he's lucky to have models who can :)

I suppose if your focus is absolutely critical to within less than an inch, then using a tripod would halve the risk of error (only the model is swaying too and fro, not both the model and the photographer). However, a monopod doesn't reduce that problem, it still moves from side to side and back and forth with the photographer, so it would seem that Yuri is talking nonsense. Monopods are great for sports if you have a heavy set-up that you want to swivel too and fro, they are not for model shoots. Perhaps Yuri just wants to hamper all his potential rivals by persuading them to fix a stick to the bottom of their cameras.

I disagree, Monopods definately help to take sharper images with a slower shutterspeed. I know, because I have a monopod. Of course you still can move, but movement is less than hand holding. However if you are shooting reasonable wide open with a good prime or lets take the excellent Nikon 24-70 2,8 you usally do not need a tripod or a monopod if you have resonable light. Of course tripods and monopods help if you shoot at f8 at iso 100... All depends what you want to do.

« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2010, 08:31 »
0
Yuri says he uses a monopod when shooting models because he can't guarantee to get the focus spot on if he hand holds the camera.

he shoots medium format so I believe more prone to shake and lower sync speeds (but I could be wrong :))

personally for people lighting so I can be 1/160 or 1/200 and handheld

« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2010, 09:58 »
0
I agree that in studio shoots with strobes the problem is not hand-shake but finding and maintaining focus.  But I'm not sure that a monopod is the best answer.  It may be if other factors are well controlled.  For example a good camera with a top-quality lens - not so much optical quality but speed and accuracy of focus.  Also I suspect that possibly a pro model is good at holding a pose yet still appearing spontaneous and natural.  If all these other factors are controlled, then maybe a monopod will help prevent one's hands from jiggling the camera enough to throw off focus in the split second between focus lock and exposure.  DOF is also a factor, shallow isolates the subject better and may be in the lens's "sweet spot" but deeper results in better sharpness of the subject.  A large studio probably helps so you can keep the subject well away from the background.  In other words while skill is important, $$$ makes the world go round.  You can see how an image factory has an advantage in this area because of better equipment, more space and better models.

In my shooting it seems that around 1/2 of the studio shots have to be discarded because the model's eyes are not "tack sharp" due to focus not being spot on.  I take a lot of shots of course but frequently a pose that I really like hasn't a single sharp image.  If I manage to stick in this industry and thrive, I will have to eventually move up to better equipment, bigger studio and then maybe a really good monopod.

« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2010, 23:49 »
0
Yuri says he uses a monopod when shooting models because he can't guarantee to get the focus spot on if he hand holds the camera.

the correct answer.

« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2010, 00:32 »
+1
Usually it is making your exposure at about double focal lenght of your lens. For example if you are shooting with 100mm (not crop), you'd need to make exposure at about 1/200s - lights and aperture are dependable here.

If you need slower shutter speeds then you'd need lens with lower focal lengths.

If you need to do some trick with making your exposure closer to lens focal length number then you'd surely need tripod or monopod to assure you get it all sharp as you wish.

Techniques of shooting with tripod/monopod are all similar and what is crucial is to minimize movement of shutter while exposing or to be more on spot: to minimize vibration.

I hope this helps.

« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2010, 03:32 »
0
 Hi Garrinh,

 Good equipment always helps. I shoot people at 1/30th hand held in available light and have no trouble if it isn't an action shot. but when shooting indoors with strobes and no ambient light I crank, it up to 200 just because you can, all depends on the lights you use and how fast the strobe fires.

Hope this helps

« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2010, 07:48 »
+1
The problem are sync speeds. They only go up to 250th or 200th. Even then you can sometimes see the shutter. I usually stay at 1/160th with my 5d II.
Correct. Even at 1/160, you can see a slight curtain effect, easily solved by a PS gradient. I would never go higher with the 5DII.
Flash might be only a few microseconds but the few studios I saw have "false" daylight. Your highlights might still have slight motion blur. A tripod is very awkward in studio but a monopod is as good. I have the carbon fiber Manfrotto which is very light to travel with. Press it firmly against your eye to exploit the inertia of your head in avoiding the click vibration.

« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2010, 08:18 »
0
Monopods are great for sports if you have a heavy set-up that you want to swivel too and fro, they are not for model shoots. Perhaps Yuri just wants to hamper all his potential rivals by persuading them to fix a stick to the bottom of their cameras.

It's just a habit and with a fast Manfrotto and a very good ballhead, I find it easier than to shoot handheld, especially for the framing of the model's gestures and the exact position under the feet and above the head with full-bodies. You can easily follow swaying in the lateral field with a monopod, and with handheld, you can have cut-off feet or too much space on top. I like to have my full 21MP usable and not sell extra white space to the buyer.

The first lesson models get is not to sway back and forth, and that goes for handheld too. They can expand gestures sideways, but never movements of the eyes in the front to back plane.

It all boils down on how you direct your models, especially for dynamic shots and expressions. I found out-of-balance poses to be good sellers but you have to be very fast to catch them or the model gets easily tired after a few takes. This is an example of last weekend's shoot and it was right after the first take.

rubyroo

« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2010, 11:56 »
+1
I shoot people at 1/30th hand held in available light and have no trouble if it isn't an action shot.

Seriously?  Either you're a statue that can type, or I have St. Vitus Dance...  ;)

I can't go below a 60th handheld without a bit of shake.  I don't get on with monopods at all - I much prefer a tripod (I use a very lightweight Slik).

« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2010, 13:30 »
0
i had shooting session yesterday - i used remote trigger for studio strobes, and yes -of course - the camera was on the tripod almost all the time. for some 10 shots i used monopod, and for some 10 shots -while i was lying on the floor i hold my camera in hand (and these are also sharp) - but when you lie down shaking is quite reduced. (similar like differences when you shoot in standing position using handgun vs gun). i used 70-200lens.
so -my advice is - to use tripod/monopod whenever you can.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 13:35 by Dr Bouz »


« Reply #27 on: October 06, 2010, 18:21 »
0
I never use a tripod either, I find it restrictive. Its difficult to adjust to the model when you're tethered. If you use the right newbielink:http://promodelposes.com [nonactive] then its less of an issue.

Just using the right aperture will make the difference.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2010, 18:27 by bimbo8723 »

« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2010, 04:50 »
0
what is connection in between model poses, and using tripod for shooting. (my question would be - what do model pose has to do with hand shaking? how can model pose reduce handshaking on 70/200@200mm when you shoot some closeup?

« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2015, 16:58 »
0
Thanks everyone - I really appreciate hearing your thoughts on the subject. Are there any Nikon-made lenses you would recommend that would deliver what I'm looking for? I recently purchased a Nikkor 18-200mm and a Nikkor 50mm/1.8, probably not going to accomplish what I'm after.

The Nikon 50mm 1.8G is a stellar lens.

« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2015, 03:05 »
0
I rarely use a tripod. Compare to others seems i have extremely steady hands - many of my low light photos are taken with 1/15, 1/30 and even with 1/8(if longer - of course, something supported my camera :-)). Anyway i try to use max speed when it is possible. In such conditions it is more important that subject does not move, not hands of a photographer. In studio with models usually it is 1/200-400 for me. BTW - for low light i try to use less heavy lens of course and not my favorite 24-70
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 04:06 by skyfish »

« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2015, 06:35 »
0
I do photograph human models in the studio, but I also photograph macros of natural things such as flowers and caterpillars.

And yes  I use a tripod, so I can be sure to place dof where it is relevant. My hands wobble to much to get fx a hair from an eyelash or a mosquito wing placed correctly in focus.
Then Ill qoute myself: sharpness is an illusion based on focus and the quality of light.
Because when first you  have the basics right, like shutterspeed and you have timed the strobes glimse, its all about putting contrasts into your picture, so you have something to draw sharpness out of.

I do that by basically creating a soft light environment 45 degrees to 45 degrees, Rembrant light and THEN add a strong light from the side that can produce shadows.
That means that fx the eyelashes of a blueeyed blonde has a dark shadow on the back of each on them, and such they can be processed into extreme sharpness, or into something else if you want to. The point is, I have created pixels, by adding graduated shadows, so I have something to work with in photoshop in any way I choose, sharpness is one of them.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 06:38 by JPSDK »

« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2015, 06:51 »
0
Thanks everyone - I really appreciate hearing your thoughts on the subject. Are there any Nikon-made lenses you would recommend that would deliver what I'm looking for? I recently purchased a Nikkor 18-200mm and a Nikkor 50mm/1.8, probably not going to accomplish what I'm after.

For a long time I used a nikon d 200 and an 18 - 200 mm nikor to produce stock.
The lens was a bit soft, but that could be manipulated, and the cameras range was not great, so I used HDR.

BUT... I could handhold, with VR, a person or ar butterfly in low light conditions, such as 1/30 on 200 mm, and get it (reasonably) sharp.
A splendid combination, that d 200 and that 18-200. Perfect for stock. But now its outdated.

« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2015, 07:02 »
0
BTW. I have all kinds of fancy old  lenses: 50 mm a 1,2. 85 mm 1,8, both famous primes, and some fancy teles also: like 500 mm and 400 mm.
They are all useless for stock. I never use them.
For stock  I use my trusty macros  or wide angles (sigma 150 and 14mm) and the newest nikor 20-85.

« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2015, 15:54 »
0
shutterspeed+lights.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2840 Views
Last post October 17, 2008, 10:00
by News Feed
35 Replies
12976 Views
Last post August 04, 2009, 03:41
by gostwyck
31 Replies
8029 Views
Last post February 12, 2014, 10:52
by Jo Ann Snover
7 Replies
3849 Views
Last post June 18, 2017, 21:24
by Yay Images Billionaire
189 Replies
48721 Views
Last post October 09, 2017, 15:38
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors