This is a crop from a portrait I shot with a Fuji 56mm f1.2 at f2.8.
As you can see, the eye is in focus but the nose isn't.
Even with a 1.5 crop factor sensor at f2.8 (which equals a full frame
f4.2 depth of field) the dof is so shallow that parts of the face are not in focus.
So, what the fuck is the point of a f1.2 portrait lens when parts of the face are blurry?
What the fuck is the point of f1.4 full frame portrait lenses? Who shoots these wide open?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 144 dpi Vertical Resolution 144 dpi Image Width 1592 Image Height 1662
To have an out of focus background you fucking sperg
Plus nobody cares if the nose is out of focus, as long as the eyes and mouth are in focus, it will look fine
Also stop pixel peeping things nobody looks at in a portrait
>dof post
>doesn't include full shot or distance info
FF fans do make too big of a deal out of FF DoF. But it is actually useful in some shooting situations. It's probably most useful when using f/2.8 zooms at an event (i.e. wedding) and shooting further back than head or head+shoulders.
>>3116769
Sure you weren't too close, even for that FL?
>>3116769
The more far away from your subject, the less shallow the DOF of your subject towards its background is going to be at wider apertures.
>Who shoots these wide open?
Fags who can't into framing so they have to blur the background.
>>3116825
people love that blurred background look though, it is what post non-photogs see a what a "professional" photo looks like
most of them give no shits about composition
>>3116827
sad but true
>>3116769
ive always seen a bright lens as useful for lowlight and dof second. for well lit scene i shoot open 2.8 on apsc.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB
the whole face should probably be in focus
>>3116838
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Photographer National Portrait Gallery London Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 624 Image Height 800 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:04:02 15:32:06 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 624 Image Height 800
>>3116769
If it's so sharp then step back and then crop in the equiv as before... 2 or 3 steps back will make the whole face in the plane
Big lens is big and pretty. Bokeh makes up for incompetence. Or maybe it doesn't, but at least it can be had for cash morney.
>>3116827
Its just the popularization of fast lenses.
How much a 2.8 tele or a 1.4 prime costed in the day?
>>3116769
Use an 80 or 100 mm lens.
zoom lens master race
>>3116772
>nobody cares if the nose is out of focus
even amateurs notice it, so it's does stand out and isn't desirable in certain genres
>>3116769
>the 56mm is that soft wide open
top kek, fuji
top fucking kek
>>3116769
depth of field increases as the distance from the subject does
if your subject was a couple meters further away from you the entire face would be on the same plane of focus
lrn 2 basic photography my man
>>3117677
does it hurt to be this retarded or do you just feel constant bliss?
>>3117895
YOU SHOULD KNOW LOLOLOLOLOL
>>3117913
>>was merely pretending to be retarded
>>3116769
focus on the nose