Shooting Portraits Wide Open vs Stopping Down: The Breakdown with Miguel Quiles

[@ivanmadethis]

why would you make a video about showing skin texture and then completely remove all the texture from all the pictures??

[@yme4me]

Thought exactly the same. LOL

[@cradle_n7515]

By exposing more texture, you'll be able to control the sharpness and softness of the entire skin and the entire picture

[@eusssm]

exactly ahahahaha

[@charlesazevedo4849]

That's the problem with everyone today wanting the sharpest lens then go out and decrease the texture in general.

[@jaylt5136]

lol rightt

[@momchilyordanov8190]

That "retouching" made her look plastic. I would take the out of the camera pictures any day.

[@gilph3]

Momchil Yordanov "I like to stop down to get more texture," then retouches to remove all of the texture. Funny way of doing things

[@betz8733]

@@gilph3 I was going to write the exact same thing

[@AlanChunPhotography]

@@gilph3 Yes, I thought the same. The only thing that it's achieved is bringing the background more into focus, which kind of defeats the whole point

[@one4allall4one91]

Too much time on his hands. Show texture then blur the skin. Next blur skin then show texture. Sounds like a musical 😀

[@prathmeshp7956]

"I like to show the texture of the skin." *turns airbrush to max*

[@Me-vl4qp]

my thoughts exactly!! lol

[@LynnTran]

i love f/5.6 too

[@CDFortsonIII]

Yeah I was like WTH on those final images. Turned her into a cartoon.

[@DanGilman]

💯

[@IndyVisuals]

Hahaha thats what i thought too

[@nitinkushwah346]

If you want to blur background , then you don't need to a good location :D

[@cubeedoo]

If shoot a portrait you might not need feet, but it's nice to have some. 😅

[@neneodonkor]

@@cubeedoo there is no correlation in what you just said and what he said

[@billtravers1900]

@@neneodonkor A man of logic here

[@MontellFishMusic]

This was my problem, big thanks man!

[@secretreleases]

She looks so beautiful in nature, why change it to something so artificial?

[@zt.cedric]

I'm sorry but the post-production looks super artificial really more a prime example of how to not post process any image ..

[@Beanboyproductions]

I agree

[@JeremyGalloway]

I think f/2.8 is perfect for portraits in most cases. It's a bit stopped down on most prime lenses, so you get good sharpness, but still lots of light and subject isolation.

[@johncantrell614]

That stone archway would have made a good backdrop too I think....

[@geritisdale-brock7247]

I assumed that's what he would have used. Sad get didn't.

[@itsjazlyn156]

John Cantrell looks very basic 😕

[@jamesdeak630]

I've been doing this lately, been shooting portraits around 6.3 and the skin texture looks so cool after! If your shooting far enough away from a background your gonna get natural blur anyway

[@thewhiskeycowboy-official]

I shoot portraits at F5 plus or minus that given the situation. And yes, skin is always fine. It is better to have all in proper focus to begin with and soften if you NEED to than to not have the proper focus for various facial aspects to begin with. And yes, if you want more background blur, move away from your background. Shallow depth of focus (wide open aperture) should be used when the shot NEEDS it, not as a lazy way to blow out backgrounds or impress the ignorant with how low an aperture your "expensive lens" has.

[@elr2141979]

I typically find that F4 or F 4.5 works the best for portraits

[@mrmagic3331]

elr2141979 f4, f4.5 is the sweet spot for most lenses

[@mirastudio4204]

Agree

[@mverick160]

If you nail focus on the eye. F1.2. Then the center of the lens of a 85mm f1.2 is perfect and the fall off of the glass on the edges add to the Bokeh. It's why the Canon 85mm f1.2 looks so amazing when done right. If you stop down the clarity of the edges is better. But that defeats the purpose of a portrait lens. Think old days when for portraits photographers put Vaseline on a uv filter around the outside edge. To soften the edges. The Canon 85mm f1.2 was designed to do that look. Bring F stop to f8 it's back to clear. I laugh when people brag on edge to edge clarity stopped down on portrait lenses.

[@antdx316]

@@mverick160 I mean I think they can launch lenses with an F/8 lens but due to marketing and manufacturing I think people would think to spend only $20 for it so they can't really milk the cost of say an f/4. Damn, before I thought when you buy the more expensive lenses with lower F it lets in More light but a Professional Photographer kept saying how a lower F is bad because of the Depth of Field. I mean why even get a lower F stop for Hundreds more if you aren't even doing Macro?? or is the reason is they shoot Macro but explaining the differences when doing it in Portrait? I was wondering why even shoot at F/36 at Best Buy with the a7 iii! The screen was so dark and I couldn't tell the difference but it's because that's for DOF!

[@jasonbodden8816]

@@mverick160 Stopping down in no way defeats the purpose of a portrait lens. What nonsense.

[@Needacreate]

Valid tip and awesome model. Still, keep wondering (and I don't seem to be alone in this) why you cite more skin texture as an advantage of stopping down to mid apertures and then end up retouching most of it away again. I'm pretty sure that Ashley's natural beauty would allow you to be a bit more daring in that respect, and it would bring out more of her individuality and humanity. At least I would prefer that for personal work, although I'm well aware that commericial clients will, alas, likely expect that photoshopped dehumanized look.

[@jasonbodden8816]

Agreed. And I'm not knocking Miguel here but those 2 images look pretty much exactly the same after retouching. You'd be hard pressed to see any real texture difference between the two. The retouching annihilated any texture in the image shot at 5.6 so much that it looks practically identical to the other comparison image. Comparing them to show the difference in skin texture retention was pointless as they both look pretty much the same.

[@manthony1921]

Exactly my thoughts.

[@lhd7105]

Sorry they look exactly the same. In fact side-by-side half the time there were more skin texture retained in the f/1.8 shot. Very confusing.

[@Ancorarte]

Yes. The stupid cliche retouching runs away from the goal of the video.

[@KarimHosein]

Maybe it is just my 39" monitor, but there is more detail in the skin in the f/5.6 shot; one of the reasons I hardly ever do portraiture completely open. I also viewed at the full 1080p resolution. Additionally, when retouching is done right, the large lines and wrinkles can be reduced, but the fine lines need to remain, so as to not make the skin look like a china doll. Large blemishes can be taken out, but fine lines give skin its unique texture which CGI artists find hard to match. So there is a point to keeping SHARP detail in the skin with an f/5.6 aperture then retouch later.

[@tansukoksi5623]

The way she smiles at the camera 😍😍😍😍

[@josephchan4198]

Good refresher course if working with a client or model. I will have to check your videos more often. Thanks.

[@OLuvin]

I have this exact combo and LOVE this video because of Miguel showing love to the crop camera and not just focusing on FF

[@CharlesLe-thephotographer]

In my experience, most female clients don't want to reveal their skin texture. They prefer the skin melting away naturally. Only photographers appreciate seeing every pore of the model's skin.

[@imagoodperson1450]

legend say that girl still smiling that way.

[@dilullr]

Obviously, stopped down or wide open is just a matter of taste. What's interesting is that you talk about stumbling on a nice spot for photos, and then completely blur the background with all aperture settings. Except for the smell, you could have taken the photo at a trash dump. I thought you would talk about stopping down to see more of a nice background rather than just skin texture. However, thanks for the video. It does show the basic differences that various aperture settings make to skin as well as the background, albeit minor in this case.

[@amanfromgreatbritain2348]

Ha, excellent point

[@mikecolletta7527]

Even with backgrounds completely OOF location choices are huge...colors, textures, "type" of bokeh. I shoot head shots wide open and am always scouting for locations.

[@jasonbodden8816]

@@mikecolletta7527 And it still makes no sense to me if nobody can see the background because it just ends up as colored soup. I have no problem with using wide apertures but using them to just get a soupy background with NO hint of the kind of location you're in is just pointless to me. But.....I guess to each their own *shrug*

[@LynnTran]

love the f/5.6 good amount of focus and clear i love it

[@cbphotovideotips]

Both photos look great.

[@Outlast1965]

Truly a valuable tip, simple and concise. Not to mention with just a handy reflector.

[@shakejones]

great video mate...well done! Thank you Adorama!

[@wolfiemedia]

2:15 straight out of the camera, do you shoot in JPEG?

[@beauharasti6511]

What kind of post production do you have to do to a stop'd photo?

[@SHERPAMANDU]

I do have sony a6000 and lens is Sony E-Mount - 24mm-240mm - F/3.5-6.3 what is best setting u suggest I would appreciate ur help

[@atreyuf]

Omg she is BEAUTIFUL!

[@1741951]

Nice Photography hits the Streets again Thank You Miguel & Ashley

[@photomixmedia]

What is the percentage of not missed focus?

[@AminRahimi-1]

then I think f/1.8 has more realistic face structure than f/5.6 , right?

[@60shots]

Excellent work Miguel.

[@hurleygreen927]

Great video...I love shooting a classic 50mm 1.8 Nikon lens at wide open apertures on my Nikon D750! Keep up the great work...

[@donniedarko1345]

Grew up in Randolph, working now as a photographer in San Diego. Good to see some old familiar spots!

[@vimalneha]

Great explanation, learned something very useful. Thanks for sharing!!!

[@CloudedJudgements]

Watched this and preferred every 1.8 photo he showed

[@one4allall4one91]

Some photogs prefer wide open aperture but my tip is to go two stops down. Ex. Instead of 1.4 shoot at 2.0 or 2.2 that way you don't risk the eyes being out of focus and enough of the skin detail is shown. Also most lenses sweet spot is at this setting. By the way you don't have to stop at this location just to take a headshot😋

[@jasonbodden8816]

Well, considering that you never saw the background anyway, he could have been in a landfill and we wouldn't have known if we only had the photos to go on lol.

[@maxvain]

Hmm what if I shoot with face detect AF wide open instead of eye detect AF would that still cause loss of texture in the face?

[@stevenmeansphotography3861]

Is it possible to at f/11 iso 100 with alien bee strobe

[@rydaug79]

ISO 1/320th? @3:39

[@laurengenson7924]

mind blown...

[@lylestavast7652]

yeah he'd just said a shutter speed and it slipped out that way...

[@KarimHosein]

At least he said the exposure time (almost) right by saying “¹/200th of a second,” and not “two hundred.” (Of course he messed up and said, “shutter speed,” and not, “exposure time.).

[@bubbaw1234]

Someday you too may accidentally say something wrong. It happened to me once.

[@sugarfreedaddie5995]

I know never heard if it...

[@miguelangelfloresduarte7179]

THANKS VERY MUCH MIGUEL FOR SHARING , AND THE MODEL IS REALLY BEAUTIFUL GIRL, CONGRATULATIONS BOTH

[@Tarfyen2]

F 1.8 looks better throughout. If i can I use the lowest stop I have, at least for portraits. If I want to take a picture where the background plays an important role F4.-5 is great.

[@hmdz150]

Most lenses (expect for very expensive Zeiss/Sigma lenses) are at their maximum sharpness at f/5.6 ~ 8 - And that is not just the sharpness; the chromatic aberration and vignetting are at their lowest and the contrast is at maximum.

[@thewhiskeycowboy-official]

BINGO! And the better the lens, that sweeter that spot is.

[@patricialeonard9622]

Depends on the effect you are after. The effect can depend on the depth of field. Larger aperture (1.4) can give you shallower depth of field which can blur out the back ground more. What is the effect you are going for...it’s a matter of artistic choice.

[@kennethmills5470]

F-8 and be there, A little flash at 45% and behind subject adds POP

[@Joel4JC]

Miguel/Adorama, I for one enjoyed the video and actually learned something that I will use in my photography. I'd hire Miguel to take portraits of my wife and daughter any time. The results here is what I am willing to pay for. Great Job!

[@markymark6296]

I wish they would show what dial the camera is on for us that don't know, is it on M or A or S or Auto, what is the dial on, show us that.

[@amandalynnagain]

I liked the 1.8 better. ...?

[@coolhand67]

Did he bump up the ISO to allow for a faster shutter speed? I didn’t quite get that.

[@zHxIxPxPxIxEz]

Lord Dunhill yes i belive so, the lens is less open so it is taking in less light. So the sensor needs to be more sensetive. He increased the shutter speed to compensate for the higher volume of light comming in. Im not an expert but i belive thats how it works Cheers

[@RalfTenbrink]

I did not like the background in the 5.6 in the first example but I do see the difference in the skin texture. I will do some test with something between 1.8 and 5.6. Thanks for a great video.

[@RAINBOW75]

Thank you very much. It's very useful.

[@barruzza]

Miguel, thank you for the portrait lesson. Quick question, where did you get that jacket, I must have it!!

[@RamaSivamani]

If you're shooting a closeup portrait there is still enough distance behind her to blur the background even at f5.6. However if you want to shoot a full body image with a blurred background shooting at f5.6 is not going to do that, you do need to shoot wide open for that. MY personal style is to shoot images that are full body or three quarter images. A head and shoulders or tighter face and head only type shot you definitely can shoot more stopped down and still have the background drop off so if I am shooting a tighter portrait like that then I do stop down.

[@jasonbodden8816]

it depends on how far the background is from your subject. You can get a blurry background even at f/8 with full body shots if the background is far enough away.

[@kathleendolan1842]

Hi Michael. Love the video. I understand the camera settings. My question is what is your distance from the model and does it vary for you depending on the lens you use?

[@omegaman1409]

The length of the lens comes into play too. A 50mm 1.8 would be considered a 1.4 in a 85mm. Remember that the wider the lens the more everything will be in focus. Even a FF vs a crop sensor comes into play. I now shoot FF full time and have more leverage when it comes to bokeh.

[@DRMegaone]

Great tut! Good tips! I have a 1.4 so I usually shoot at 1.8 2.0 or 2.2. But I don't shoot fashion or skin texture like this. I shoot military persons in uniformed ceremonies.

[@Johnnycoretv]

Is there an in-between area where you get lovely Bokeh yet nice details?

[@jonathanRodriguez-vq4tb]

Hello, you always shoot with the automatic focus .. ??

[@reoflex]

I like both looks. Cool.

[@rahulkr123]

Good info. I think the shutter speed of 1/200s is not necessary as the sony a6500 has 5 axis image stabilization

[@tommyjacobi2054]

and the stabilization can stabilize hair ?

[@WyvernApalis]

I kinda like to stop down to 2.8 to 3.5 sometimes to get sharper image and more focus, also sometimes it's too blurred

[@michaeleliseev]

Omfg. “Shooting on 1.8 you loose texture of the skin. I prefer blur skin to hell in post”

[@hariomtatsat108]

Can do f5.6 for portraits and after make blur background in Photoshop

[@lrrprangerglenn]

Both of you are awesome!

[@eagleone493]

I am just wondering , having read many comments about the retouching issue mentioned towards the end of this video, why one would make a video talking about a method of increasing detail in a model's photo and then so retouch them that the details are then lost? At least that's what the "retouched" photos look to me.

[@TheMetalButcher]

I think the most important aspect of portrait photography is to have a good model. And Miguel succeeded in that.

[@shakalgeria2786]

Hi, i work in aesthetics and we take pictures before and after the sessions of treaments of our patients, so i am wondering what type of camera and camera lens would you recommand to capture the skin problems clearly (scars, acne, wrinkles...). thank you in advance

Muy buen video Miguel, un gran saludo desde Costa Rica.

[@GeroLubovnik]

I'm curious as too why the shape of the face changed with only and aperture change? Also, it's curious that there is more specularity in the 5.6 examples. Personally I prefer the wide open shots better.

[@MrEmm]

I think the video is a bit misleading. 85 on crop sensor is really 127.5mm also who cares what the background looks like when your shooting a headshot at 127.5mm the perspective compression is going to blur the background at F1.8 or 5.6. Full frame you would need to use a different lens if you want similar results at F5.6.

[@anthonycook2325]

focal length does not change with respect to sensor size only FIELD OF VIEW changes. the focal length of a lens still has all of the same characteristics regardless of the sensor size. A crop is just that, a snippet of a larger image. 16mm on a crop sensor should equate to 24mm on a full frame sensor however there are some visual differences but not many.

[@kurtlindner]

You might want to check out a recent video FStoppers did on lens compression and how most people don't understand it correctly. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYW3iYxniMpjm8k

[@jasonbodden8816]

Then the focal length does technically change for crop sensor cameras lol. 85 is no longer 85.

[@WhitefirePL]

Say what you will, for me background always matters.

[@lijinping]

Rad Matt maybe he means background is nice for shooting the video.

[@anarey9608]

hi can you give me some advice on a camera like this one with full frame and flip screen.

[@barrycohen311]

As a former New Jersey resident, who hated the weather with a passion ( I am now safely ensconced in Florida), it is great photography weather. I much prefer shooting outdoors in cloudy and overcast conditions.

[@antoniomattana6706]

Thank you guys

[@agoodjoe6910]

If you want a sharp subject (your sharpest aperture) then put the camera on a tripod, shoot the subject at full open, then do it again at your sharpest aperture, then use photoshop to overlay the shots (so then you have a super sharp subject, and a blown-out background) only works on a tripod though and is obviously a lot easier with a non-moving subject

[@KaReEdCa]

Downtown Denville is awesome. Loved that town.

[@johnleighdesigns]

its great to see your approach on headshots - i still havent found my perfect setup and find myself on shoots hopping and testing between a 50mm 1.8 and a 200mm 4.5 Compression on the 200mm lens works well to make background appear to be right behind the subject with nice bokeh and u keep a decent distance from model compared to 50mm where you need to be closer in to model to get that blurred background - however I do like the model having a shallow focus too from eye to back of head can look cinematic on 50mm (more like 80mm on my canon700d APSC)

[@3COI]

I could see the difference straight out of the camera, but after the retouching I preferred the 1.8 shot.

[@tabban21]

Thanks for the tips

[@jaykingsun7093]

Nice simple explanations. Also I don't think I heard one "in going to go ahead and take this shot"!😆

[@Pwn3dbyth3n00b]

Whats the point of shooting higher aperture if youre going to edit out all the detail with photoshop.

[@chargingbuffalo6037]

Great job as always sir!

[@Jhova_teran]

Why buy a lens with 1.8 or 1.4 aperture if you shoot at 5.6 or more ???

[@madtonesbr]

Hey, maybe (crazy idea I know) you change apertures depending on different situations, like, you know, if you don't only shoot headshots all the time. Just an idea.

[@sean_mc]

Because aperture is about the amount of light being let in, not just depth of field? Go into a more shaded area and you are going to have to open the aperture to reduce the reliance on a slower shutter or higher ISO. They also more than likely use the lens for a range of situations (not just brightly lit portraits). I don't think he only uses for this video.

[@jba3005]

Una lente f1.4 o f1.8 es mucho más nítida a f5.6 que otra lente menos luminosa, generalmente más económica o lente de kit a la misma apertura f5.6

[@stephenmason5682]

Actually your'e wrong! Apertures control how much light comes through, but is part of the exposure mix. There are three components to exposure, and choosing one is misleading. Changing one component requires a compensation of one or both of the others? And yes, I do know what I'm talking about! LBIPP and LMPA, UK!

[@oriomenoni7651]

Good video it will be useful for beginners.

[@asifmatin1]

If you wanted more texture in the skin by using f 5.6, why would you wax out the skin so much in PP? i mean thats really conflicting!

[@chinhvannguyen1685]

Your mind f/5.6 same f/1.8?

[@chakwong]

So should I shoot wide open or stopped down? I'm still not sure...

[@lylestavast7652]

Try f4. If it's too much depth of field, open up - if it's not enough depth of field stop down another stop and a half and adjust from there.

[@PeteTaylorPTI]

You stop to what's appropriate for your photo. Some people want blurry noses and ears with sharp eyes. I personally really hate that. Shooting really wide open for a head shot als means your subject must be looking head on to the camera. If they are not directly facing the camera, odds are one eye will be sharp and the other will not, and 98% of the time, that's a bad photograph. You will need to stop down in that case. If you're shooting multiple people or groups wide open, it's asking for trouble. The #1 reason for apertures such as 1.2 and 1.4 or even 1.8 isn't the 'bokeh', it's to be able to shoot in low light situations and freeze action w/o going to extreme ISO's. And bokeh is the side effect. I resolved a long time ago that I'd never shoot a portrait below 2.8 when need be and never below f/4 if I can otherwise help it.

[@roobaba5415]

Is it just me or did the pics SOOC look better than the post processed ones?

[@shafiq1122]

So, what is your advice to us 1.8 or 5.6 which is better

[@2ifbysea]

I shoot almost exclusively with a 135mm f2.0 OR the 85mm f1.8 for portraits. Both of these are fantastic lenses at 2.2 and 1.8. The issue for me, shooting outdoor at sunset, (2 hours prior and up to sunset or so), with an aperture of 5.6 (with these two lenses), is just too dark at the same ISO compared to shooting open, unless you increase your iSO and so that's why I don't shoot portraits at 5.6. I mean perhaps Nikon's new D850 eliminates the higher ISO concern (grainy images) but that's not the case with my (aging) Nikon D700 ISO capability. That said, shooting in raw and then brightening your images in post production can compensate pretty well if you like the look of a 5.6 image. Not sure if that helps but my two cents.

[@muffemod]

You can lower your shutter speed alternately and keep ISO the same.

[@DustyCowdog]

What really matters is having Ashley as your subject. 🙂

[@liliam9889]

I live in New Jersey. Where is that place?

[@Jimmy_Cavallo]

Great work as always. Where in Jersey is that.??

[@nkaloyanov]

I think, shooting at f5.6 and further is not a good idea when it comes to portraits. These are my two cents. I try to keep it simple - around 3.2-3.5 is perfect for me for a person and 4.0-4.5 for group photos.

[@antdx316]

What camera and mm though? Also are you shooting flash?

[@chadforeman225]

So you shoot at 5.6 because you LIKE the, as you said, high definition of the skin texture, but then blurred it out in post? Does that really make sense to anyone?

[@thomaskaarup5461]

Sorry besides the good tips the retouch makes her beautiful face look plastic-ly

[@saleemrishah]

it would be perfect if you tried to shot your Model in half or full body in the frame to see how the 5.6 effect the BG.

[@willene3240]

I've got a question, Adorama, what is the focal length and what impact would it have additionally on the background when different focal lengths where used?

[@PraveenKumar-fs6of]

I like 1.8 !!!

[@davehenderson9105]

Good info! I like the results on both but Obviously the background is way more attractive at low f stops

[@knots9119]

Damn her skin is flawless out of camera.

[@Rajupkd]

Yes I felt same many times. As the experts say, it's the hands behind camera is important. Another thing the final pos production was unnecessary. Still I loved your video thanks.

[@MontyVideo969]

I suppose another way of getting more DOF with f/1.8 (you only need 0.75ft) is to step back a couple of feet and crop in a little in Post - that would give the same look as with a closer shot at f/5.6.

[@stephenmason5682]

You have confused viewpoint with depth! The depth of focus would be the same in your example! Depth is controlled by circles of confusion, not viewpoint and cropping.

[@jasonbodden8816]

You can't get extra depth of field in post lol.

[@iamBcox]

wow nice video... we need more like these lol. I would like to see an outdoor and indoor photo shoot with 1 flashpoint 600 and the westcott rapid box octa xxl. I've seen so many people with that set up on youtube. however those tutorials are not as detail.

[@lescobrandon3047]

My long time tactic with portraits is f/4 for almost all of them. A small group of fellow photographers were sitting at an outdoor cafe. I had my 85mm f/1.4 and one guy asked me why I never shoot at f/1.4 having spent so much for my glass. I turned around and shot a picture at f/1.4 of the girl across the table. I showed him that her near eye was razor sharp while her nose was blurry and her ears were an out of focus blur. Another shot at f/4 resulted in a fully sharp image with good bokeh. Although he is a professional photographer working for NYC schools, I didn’t convince him. And he shoots senior portraits.

[@thewhiskeycowboy-official]

Shallow depth of focus is a style and IMO a gimmick now days. People see it and think "wow, what a great lens!" but they SHOULD say "wow, what a great portrait". And that shallow depth of focus is used as a selling point, even though IMO the results are less ideal than using somewhere around F5 (give or take depending on the situation). Also for most lenses wide open is NOT the sharpest the lens can produce. So when you START with a lens that is capable of wider open apertures, when stopped down to your USE apertures you get a higher quality image. And THAT is why "we" pay for the wider aperture glass even if we don't SHOOT at those apertures. It just makes me do a face palm when I see the wide open shots. Then again we see too much vignette ADDED to shots as well.... because it looks so "professional", right? No. Those who KNOW realize that vignette is a FLAW not a "quality" in a lens and the shooting process. If used, it should be minimal and not noticeable, as to draw the eye to the subject, not be a "part" of the picture. But I also realize most of us overused vignette in processing when we started out and still cringe when viewing our older work. ;)

[@stephenmason5682]

Yeh, right, like it happened! Dream on.

[@w1p30ut3r]

1.8 or 2.8 for the win! 4 if you using a zoom lens!