Portrait with Min. ISO setting, & Grey Filters?

[Guest BigSplash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With film I used to always use the slowest (ISO 25 or 64) I could get my hands as this would mean smallest grain size. It also allowed me to use lenses at large apertures which for portraits means razor sharp eyeballs, and slightly out of focus tip of nose / rear of head area and of course completely fuzzy backgrounds. In my view the 75mm (used at f1.4) or 90mm (used at f2) on a M6 or M8 is the way to go for perfect depth of field ...ie from nose tip to eyeball.

 

What I am seeing with the Leica M8 is that the minimum ISO speed of 160 is actually very fast compared to the films that I used to use. In sunlight I am seeing that this ISO setting with an aperure of f1.4 is driving shutter speeds of 1/1000 to 1/2000 as the norm and it can be faster.

 

I am wondering if people see this as an issue? Does anyone have any suggestions about using grey or neutral density filters and if so what level of density?

 

The older slow films of ISO 25 or 64 seemed as I remember it to offer better colour depth, contrast and better greyscale compared to the faster film stock. I am intrigued to know if I force the M8 towards say a 160 ISO or if I select ISO 640 or even 2500 will there be significant improvements in terms of depth of colour, grain size (OK pixels) Greyscale and contrast .....I know that camera shake will be less at the higher ISO values.

 

In Brian Bowers book ...he says that he likes to use the auto ISO setting of 1/125 and ISO 640 as a standard setting...He then says that this minimises camera shake and still provides decent quality files... ...I do not understand this comment ..Why not just use the slower ISO 160....does that yield a better file and better picture?

 

Any help or insight is most welcome.

[Ecar]

Why not just use the slower ISO 160....does that yield a better file and better picture?

 

Yes, if you like clean files AND have sufficient light and/or steady hands.

[giordano]

With film I used to always use the slowest (ISO 25 or 64) I could get my hands as this would mean smallest grain size. It also allowed me to use lenses at large apertures which for portraits means razor sharp eyeballs, and slightly out of focus tip of nose / rear of head area and of course completely fuzzy backgrounds. In my view the 75mm (used at f1.4) or 90mm (used at f2) on a M6 or M8 is the way to go for perfect depth of field ...ie from nose tip to eyeball.

 

The idea that a portrait ought to have the eyes razor sharp and every other feature out of focus is utter garbage - as is fetishising shallow depth of field generally. Sometimes it makes a nice pictorial effect, but mostly it just lets the photographer congratulate himself on the quality of his (seldom her) equipment and focusing skills. IMHO the only reason for going wider than f/2 for a portrait that there's not enough light for the ISO and shutter speed you need.

 

What I am seeing with the Leica M8 is that the minimum ISO speed of 160 is actually very fast compared to the films that I used to use. In sunlight I am seeing that this ISO setting with an aperure of f1.4 is driving shutter speeds of 1/1000 to 1/2000 as the norm and it can be faster.

 

I am wondering if people see this as an issue? Does anyone have any suggestions about using grey or neutral density filters and if so what level of density?

 

Some people do. An ND 1.0 filter gives just over three stops darkening, equivalent to reducing EI 160 to about EI 18. An ND 0.6 gives two stops (EI 40). Darker filters are available but only useful if you need long exposures and wide apertures in bright light - or for eclipses (typically ND 5.0).

 

The older slow films of ISO 25 or 64 seemed as I remember it to offer better colour depth, contrast and better greyscale compared to the faster film stock. I am intrigued to know if I force the M8 towards say a 160 ISO or if I select ISO 640 or even 2500 will there be significant improvements in terms of depth of colour, grain size (OK pixels) Greyscale and contrast .....I know that camera shake will be less at the higher ISO values.

 

If you used to prefer slow fine grain films, leave your M8 at ISO160, or 320 if the light demands it.

 

In Brian Bowers book ...he says that he likes to use the auto ISO setting of 1/125 and ISO 640 as a standard setting...He then says that this minimises camera shake and still provides decent quality files... ...I do not understand this comment ..Why not just use the slower ISO 160....does that yield a better file and better picture?

 

Please read this carefully: Settings of 1/125 and ISO 640 means that the camera will use ISO 160 as long as the exposure time is 1/125 or less. If the exposure time at ISO 160 would be longer than 1/125, the camera starts to increase the ISO in order to maintain the shutter speed. But once it gets to ISO 640 it doesn't increase ISO any further but starts to lengthen the exposure again.

 

So this is good advice from Bowers if you use A mode and are worried about camera shake. If you set your exposure manually, auto ISO is counterproductive.

[lars_bergquist]

Because I often use manual exposure, I do never use auto ISO. Also, I want to know what the camera is doing. An atavistic reaction, no doubt ...

 

The old man from the Age of the Leicameter

[Guest BigSplash]

The idea that a portrait ought to have the eyes razor sharp and every other feature out of focus is utter garbage - as is fetishising shallow depth of field generally. Sometimes it makes a nice pictorial effect, but mostly it just lets the photographer congratulate himself on the quality of his (seldom her) equipment and focusing skills. IMHO the only reason for going wider than f/2 for a portrait that there's not enough light for the ISO and shutter speed you need.

 

 

 

Some people do. An ND 1.0 filter gives just over three stops darkening, equivalent to reducing EI 160 to about EI 18. An ND 0.6 gives two stops (EI 40). Darker filters are available but only useful if you need long exposures and wide apertures in bright light - or for eclipses (typically ND 5.0).

 

 

 

 

 

If you used to prefer slow fine grain films, leave your M8 at ISO160, or 320 if the light demands it.

 

 

 

Please read this carefully: Settings of 1/125 and ISO 640 means that the camera will use ISO 160 as long as the exposure time is 1/125 or less. If the exposure time at ISO 160 would be longer than 1/125, the camera starts to increase the ISO in order to maintain the shutter speed. But once it gets to ISO 640 it doesn't increase ISO any further but starts to lengthen the exposure again.

 

So this is good advice from Bowers if you use A mode and are worried about camera shake. If you set your exposure manually, auto ISO is counterproductive.

 

 

Giordano, many thanks you have provided a great deal of clarity for me on this issue. I do tend to keep ISO at 160 except for nightime available light situations. I also find 160 as a very fast "film" speed so I might get some ND filters.

 

Personally I do not agree about what constitutes an excellent portrait however and I do believe that the best portrait photos that have that "Leica" quality do have razor sharp eyeballs and fuzzi nose tip...but that I guess is an artistic thing. What do you think makes a great portrait?

 

I have set up the camera as follows:

> White balance: 5800K

> Compression: JPEG fine

> Resolution: 10MP

> Sharpening: std.

> Colour Saturation: std.

> Contrast: std.

 

I like to use Photoshop directly for any level changes rather than the software that came with the M8. Is the above a reasonable setup for portrait work? Any suggestions?

[andybarton]

Why don't you use RAW? You are wasting so much potential in your files by shooting jpg where you are letting the camera process your files for you

 

When you have spent so much on your equipment, not to strive to get the best out of the images seems to ne to be counter-intuitive

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why don't you use RAW? You are wasting so much potential in your files by shooting jpg where you are letting the camera process your files for you

 

When you have spent so much on your equipment, not to strive to get the best out of the images seems to ne to be counter-intuitive

Ditto.

 

Pete.

[andybarton]

Further, you need to set the white balance for each individual scenario if you are only going to shoot jpg. Setting it at one temperature is like using daylight film for every situation.

[giordano]

What Pete and Andy say.

 

As for what makes a great portrait: it's pointless to imagine a checklist, but if there was one, shallow depth of field - let alone unsharp ears and nose - would most certainly not be on it.

 

In fact I can't think of a single great portrait photograph that relies on ultra-shallow depth of field. The "portraits" that do are generally better described as "studies of faces" or some such because they emphasise the photographer's technique and the subject's features over the actual characteristics and personality of the sitter.

[Guest BigSplash]

Further, you need to set the white balance for each individual scenario if you are only going to shoot jpg. Setting it at one temperature is like using daylight film for every situation.

 

I take your point about using DNG (RAW) ...makes a lot of sense and I plan to do this in future as I have huge memory space available on my PC, and I would as you say prefer to have maximum detail stored.

 

I take it that the work flow you are suggesting is:

> Store RAW on the memory card,

> Download to a folder on the computer as RAW files

> Convert to TIFF (as this is a lossless format) using Photoshop for the conversion and selecting 16 bit TIFF.

> Use Photoshop for any level correction

> Convert to JPEG to view the material in a slide show or for printing

 

.......... Is this the flow that you would recommend?

 

The issue on colour temperature is something I am not sure about. The idea of using 5800K was something I discussed with Brett and his arguments (if I understood correctly made sense).

> If you select 5800K it is indeed equivalent to choosing a daylight film and all pictures will have the same look and feel (clour rendering)

> The alternative is to select daylight in white balance but this would give the same result would it not.

> The other alternative is to use auto white balance which would be effectively equivalent to changing to a new film type for every individual picture taken. This would mean using various photos in a sequence at for example a wedding would yield very different colour warmth for each shot making batch colour correction if needed impossible.

 

 

.......What would you suggest for white balance?

 

Thanks for any feedback....using the M8 to its full potential is quite fascinating, compared to years of using film....I recognise I have still a lot to learn and this is making photography really exciting again for me

[Mark Pope]

Frank,

 

to get the best out of the raw files, you will need to use either the Capture One software that came with the M8 or adobe's Lightroom.

 

I prefer Lightroom - not least because it has a complete Digital Asset Management system, so you can keyword your images and find them really quickly. The develop module is quite intuitive and allows you to make most, if not all of the adjustments you need to make to a raw file to make them ready for printing or sharing on the web. In fact I rarely use photoshop at all now, preferring to use Lightroom for the whole workflow (Importing, cataloguing, developing and printing / web output).

 

If I were you I would download a copy of Lightroom from adobe and give it a go. You can try the software free for 30 days.

 

Cheers

 

 

Mark

[Guest BigSplash]

Frank,

 

to get the best out of the raw files, you will need to use either the Capture One software that came with the M8 or adobe's Lightroom.

 

I prefer Lightroom - not least because it has a complete Digital Asset Management system, so you can keyword your images and find them really quickly. The develop module is quite intuitive and allows you to make most, if not all of the adjustments you need to make to a raw file to make them ready for printing or sharing on the web. In fact I rarely use photoshop at all now, preferring to use Lightroom for the whole workflow (Importing, cataloguing, developing and printing / web output).

 

If I were you I would download a copy of Lightroom from adobe and give it a go. You can try the software free for 30 days.

 

Cheers

 

 

Mark

 

Mark thanks...Several people have now suggested to me that Lightroom as the way to go and as I have just about everything Adobe offers for Media EXCEPT Lightroom I guess I need to become a late adopter. I have never used Capture One that came with the camera as I am an Adobe fan on a PC (ie not a Mac).

 

On the subject of software do you or anyone else have a software to recommend that allows still "captured" photos to be used as a slide show such that I can fade in / out photos...move them from left to right and zoom in /out.....with or without a sound track

 

I do this today using Premier Pro from Adobe but it is software really intended for video editing with sound, a job where it excells It can be used for importing still photos but it is hard work.

[andybarton]

 

.......... Is this the flow that you would recommend?

 

 

 

It's one that would work, certainly

 

 

 

.......What would you suggest for white balance?

 

 

Take a manual white balance from a sheet of white paper, or an 18% grey card and stick with that during your shoot.

[Nicoleica]

 

On the subject of software do you or anyone else have a software to recommend that allows still "captured" photos to be used as a slide show such that I can fade in / out photos...move them from left to right and zoom in /out.....with or without a sound track

 

.

 

Frank, I don't use this myself, but if you are using a PC, have you tried Microsoft Powerpoint?

[farnz]

Lightroom has a Slideshow module that will let you do this, or as Nicole point out, Powerpoint can do it.

 

Pete.

[Guest BigSplash]

It's one that would work, certainly

 

 

 

 

Take a manual white balance from a sheet of white paper, or an 18% grey card and stick with that during your shoot.

 

My understanding is that the white card method is the way that you should do it in a fixed environment such as a studio setup, or in the garden.

 

Here you do the white balance for the sunlight or studio lighting conditions that are available at the time....and you should get perfect results. If it is a wedding you need to modify the settings I believe at lunch time, afternoon and evening dinner as the light is likely to be changeable.

 

What I am seeing currently is that the range of lighting conditions is high everytime I am shooting outside in mid summer. Intense sunlight, shaded areas under trees with reflected light, and evening reflected light from garden halogens etc. I am trying to see if there is a clever way of avoiding doing white balance at regular intervals. I was hoping that forcing a particular colour temp. was a way of doing this.

 

Comments?

[Guest BigSplash]

Frank, I don't use this myself, but if you are using a PC, have you tried Microsoft Powerpoint?

 

Yes but you cannot get movement of the image...right to left, and zoom. Premier Pro does a great job in doing what I want, but you need to size each picture before placing it on the screen where you want it.....Maybe Premier Pro is the way to go.

[SJP]

What I am seeing currently is that the range of lighting conditions is high everytime I am shooting outside in mid summer. Intense sunlight, shaded areas under trees with reflected light, and evening reflected light from garden halogens etc. I am trying to see if there is a clever way of avoiding doing white balance at regular intervals. I was hoping that forcing a particular colour temp. was a way of doing this.

 

Comments?

I think that in fact you are right to set a particular color temperature for "daytime", "dusk" , "incandescent" & "fluorescent". I shoot DNG only and use auto-WB as it does not interfere with the content of the DNG file, it only modifies the embedded preview & this can act as a post-processing guideline.

 

I have detemined a couple of preferred WB settings that I tend to use for a whole series of pictures. For instance outside in grassland and in forest I would prefer to keep the same WB over the whole set (unless the light changes dramatically due to a thunder cloud or whatever). Nature changes color depending on where you are, shadows are blue on a sunny day, faces are green if you stand under a tree. This is my preferred approach where WB accuracy is completely irrelevant.

 

The other extreme is to use the auto-WB setting willy-nilly - I don't like this approach but some photographers prefer their pictures not to have an color cast. Then it is time to get your sheet of white paper out of the bag. Although I guess in 99% of cases there is something in a (series of) picture(s) that can act as a WB reference, otherwise just use the Kelvin slider in PP.

[Guest BigSplash]

I think that in fact you are right to set a particular color temperature for "daytime", "dusk" , "incandescent" & "fluorescent". I shoot DNG only and use auto-WB as it does not interfere with the content of the DNG file, it only modifies the embedded preview & this can act as a post-processing guideline.

 

I have detemined a couple of preferred WB settings that I tend to use for a whole series of pictures. For instance outside in grassland and in forest I would prefer to keep the same WB over the whole set (unless the light changes dramatically due to a thunder cloud or whatever). Nature changes color depending on where you are, shadows are blue on a sunny day, faces are green if you stand under a tree. This is my preferred approach where WB accuracy is completely irrelevant.

 

The other extreme is to use the auto-WB setting willy-nilly - I don't like this approach but some photographers prefer their pictures not to have an color cast. Then it is time to get your sheet of white paper out of the bag. Although I guess in 99% of cases there is something in a (series of) picture(s) that can act as a WB reference, otherwise just use the Kelvin slider in PP.

 

 

Thanks for this...it makes sense to me and is effectively what Brett recommended. I believe proper white balance is OK for a studio controlled environment...in fact TV studios always set up all of the cameras on one white card prior to starting the program and going on air, they also used to balance against skin tones (not sure that they still need to do this).

In still photography within a changing environment I do not believe that setting white balance is desirable or practical.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[blakley]

What Pete and Andy say.

 

As for what makes a great portrait: it's pointless to imagine a checklist, but if there was one, shallow depth of field - let alone unsharp ears and nose - would most certainly not be on it.

 

In fact I can't think of a single great portrait photograph that relies on ultra-shallow depth of field. The "portraits" that do are generally better described as "studies of faces" or some such because they emphasise the photographer's technique and the subject's features over the actual characteristics and personality of the sitter.

 

De gustibus non est disputandum.