Portraiture

>>2892444
I typically like to use 85 primes. But then again its subjective. All based on how you want to shape a person's face etc.

>>2892460
Oh, okay.
Let's say that I use a prime 85 mm. What should be the optimal f-ratio? Something about f/5.6? I know it depends on different parameters, but let's also say that the shutter speed is 1/80. Does a f/5.6 aperture fit these parameters?

>>2892461
Typically if you're shooting portraits then you're gonna need to separate your object in the foreground from the background, using depth of field. Most times, you should use a smaller f-stop number, such as f/1.8 to get the shallowest depth of field as well as a nice blur and bokeh going on in the background.

>>2892527
Oh shit, of course. Thanks.
And I suppose that the shutter speed just depends on the aperture and focal lenght? What would be the optimal speed though: 1/80, 1/150 or even 1/300?

>>2892444
I've shot portraits at every focal length from 35mm (environmental) to 200mm, and apertures from f/1.2 bokeh explosion to f/11.
A fast 85mm prime is just the traditional tool for portraiture, as that's where most of the action will happen, but you can really use anything as long as fits the look and composition you want.

just basic tips, mikes accent is a really good listen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQg4FYD-vs

>>2892444
24mm 1.8. Do it, faggot.

File: B0126355-y720px.jpg (98KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 480x720px

If you want ot be a puerile.. er, purist: use a fast 50 or 80mm prime.
If you want shoot portraits in a wider variety of situations and get more candid expressions then get a sharp 70-200mm/2.8

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	darktable 1.4
Photographer	Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	157 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2015:12:05 21:18:29
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	480
Image Height	720
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>2892576
It depends on the lighting, m8. Theres no magical reciepe. If youre getting as low as 1.8 youll need to compensate for all the light youre getting.

Also depending on the distance between you and the subject, dont stick to 1.8 unless the rest of her/his body is equaly visible. You dont want her face cristal clear but her hears blurry.

>>2892791
This. If you're on a budget, get a 70-200 f/4. The difference in depth of field is minimal, but they are a lot cheaper, smaller and lighter, Really, the only practical reason to get a 2.8 is to shoot fast moving shit in low light.

OP is evidently missing the very basic, meaning most advice given here is way over his head

Start with the exposure triangle and how shutter speed and aperture affect your photographs

Mike Brown's channel (as linked here >>2892586 ) is super comfy and great for learning

To answer your question, portraiture involving posing people etc. usually employs long lenses with wide apertures, because the length lets you get further away, letting the subject relax better and giving a flattering flattening of facial features (the nose), and the wide aperture lets you take in a lot of light and blur out the background. These lenses start at around 1500$

For portraits on a budget, get a cheap bottom-end telephoto zoom like the Nikon 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 for outdoors shooting at a distance (it will be next to useless indoors) and/or a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 for indoors use at a much closer distance

>>2892444
I've shot sessions with the 16-80. It's fine, just remember to not go too wide with it, or you'll fuck up the proportions.

Don't listen to the people saying portraits need to be shot at 1.8 - that's ridiculous - most studio portraiture is done at like f/10. Sure outdoors is different, but it's f/4 at worst, which is fine. The 16-80 is a very high quality lens for dx.

>>2896452
>f/4
this. They are inherently easier to use and will always give sharper images that are more likely to be in focus.
>2.8 is to shoot fast moving shit in low light.
Only if its a long way away and the required DOF is several metres in depth. Shooting people the way I do (at <10m and usually walking towards me) isn't much fun at f/2.8, the DOF is simply too thin and it's much too easy to fail focus.
That said: f/2.8 is mostly useful for really low light and relatively immobile subjects, but in that situation it also gives really nice bacvkground separation and all the shit boke whores love to spooge over.
a f/2.8 is also more likely to autofocus in light the f/4 will balk in....and the internal focusing aspect ...the basic construction focus/zoom ring smoothness and build geometry... of most 70-200mm/2.8 lenses is a lot nicer to deal with in general, even if they are somewhat heavier.
I think of my 50-300mm/5.6 as a travel lens becasue its lighter and broader zoom range. But I definitely prefer to use my 70-200mm/2.8 in every case where size and weight aren't a major factor.

If you are truly doing studio portraiture, you need to learn how lighting is used to sculpt facial appearance. Head and facial contours vary a great deal. A light set up that flatters one will render another unpleasantly.