Fast focusing and portraiture

[gerrard2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That makes sense, but how do you overcome that with a rangefinder, or is this just a quirk that one doesn't overcome?

[mhoersch]

One does if one practises, as Jaap has pointed out. Making a number of head only portraits with a 75mm Summilux at 1.4 is difficult but possible. The results are worth all that practising...

 

Still, there will be occasional out of focus shots. But I find that I consistently get more well focused keepers with my M8 than I did get with an autofocus DSLR. That's one of the reasons why I sold all my Canon gear. Now I use only the M8 and R9/DMR. Just love making my own mistakes and not blame it on the camera!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pop]

how do you overcome that with a rangefinder, or is this just a quirk that one doesn't overcome?

 

Some time ago I read an article about different ways to focus, but I can't recall the source, alas.

 

The conclusion appeared to be that you have to find some 'heuristic' or 'rule of thumb' for each lens. One such rule was to turn the focussing ring of the lens by two stops on the DOF scale, if memory serves right.

[Jamie Roberts]

The key for getting eyes in focus reliably and quickly, or to successful focus and recompose, is literally lots of practice.

 

But it's important to understand what to practice.

 

For me, I practice understanding what is on the same plane as my subject's eyes. Eyes are impossible to focus on in low-light, or when they're far away (as in the focus and recompose example).

 

When DOF can't take care of things (as in shooting the Nocti at 1.0 ) then then you have to know what is likely to be in the plane of focus. So for me, it's often an earring, or a shirt collar (which is often high contrast too) or a brooch. I don't have time to rock back and forth achieving focus Do I miss some? Yes, but less than you'd think

 

The same goes for focus and recompose. Since you know your focal plane will shift, you need to understand how much it will shift and focus on something in the same plane. Sometimes when people are in groups that's an easy thing to do.

 

When you have the case of the blank wall and the subject far out of center, and you're wide open with a longer lux, then you have to focus bracket and that's that: take one "on the money" then adjust and shoot again.

 

Normally, of course, for distances like that, DOF takes care of any focus and recompose. If you're shooting, say, at f2 with a 50mm and 15 feet away, you've got over 3 feet of focus coverage! That's a lot. Even the Nocti at f1 at 10 feet has 6 inches of forgiveness; it's relatively easy to nail focus within 6 inches!

 

And if you're 6 feet away with a 50 @ f2 it's acting more like that Nocti: you only have 6 inches at f2--so for focus and recompose you should stop down or step back or focus bracket. OTH, I rarely run into this because closer up the angle of shift is decreased and so the shift isn't really that great.

 

So again, knowing your lenses and what article of clothing (high contrast) is likely to give you great results is the key here). Yes, you want the eyes in focus--no, you're not likely to focus on them quickly or accurately.

 

BTW--the same conditions are also true for AF cameras as well! Eyes are notoriously low contrast in normal POV portraits, and in low light you can spend your whole life waiting for your AF camera to achieve focus on someone's eyes Use something else.

 

Even with AF sensors off center, the eyes are so low contrast that focus and recompose can be a deal: using someone's eyes off-axis you risk getting a wonderfully totally OOF shot or having the wall get focused on by default (I've seen a lot of people complain about back-focus because they didn't understand that one!).

 

If the AF sensor doesn't "see" the focus point, it won't focus on it, even if you can see it quite plainly

 

So even for AF knowing how your lenses / camera acts and finding the right focal points (which are not necessarily the things you want in focus!) are excellent techniques for fast focusing.

[M'Ate]

BTW--the same conditions are also true for AF cameras as well! Eyes are notoriously low contrast in normal POV portraits, and in low light you can spend your whole life waiting for your AF camera to achieve focus on someone's eyes Use something else.

 

Jamie, that may be your experience, but generally I think it's bad advice. Dunno why you have this opinion, but I don't know anyone who would shy away from point an af system at an eye to focus.

 

I read you had the best af system on the planet. P'haps that's not the case.

 

Show some examples of where you think it's going wrong man, 'cos there's a lot of shooters on DWF et al getting it right with less than a Nikon D3, I can tell you.

 

Not saying your experience is false, but I am saying it's not typical and by a long way.

[tgray]

90% of the time, for me, focus and recompose is fine with a rangefinder. DOF is usually enough to take care of things. You can run into trouble wide open and at minimum focus distance, which on an RF is limited to .7m usually (which helps minimize this issue some), but for the most part, I don't worry about.

 

In addition to pre-focusing, it helps sometimes to always turn your lens to infinity when out and about. That way you always know where you are starting out from.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jamie' date=' that may be your experience, but generally I think it's bad advice. Dunno why you have this opinion, but I don't know anyone who would shy away from point an af system at an eye to focus.

 

I read you had the best af system on the planet. P'haps that's not the case.

 

Show some examples of where you think it's going wrong man, 'cos there's a lot of shooters on DWF et al getting it right with less than a Nikon D3, I can tell you.

 

Not saying your experience is false, but I am saying it's not typical and by a long way.[/quote']

 

Um, unless my 5d, 1d2, 1ds2, and d3 were all off, I don't think I'm saying anything wrong... or even untypical. But I never said the way I shoot or deal with these problems is typical... I don't use AF assist, I don't run around with a video light on a stick, I don't shoot with a wide zoom--all of which are typical ways of getting wedding coverage.

 

And while saying the Nikon D3's AF is the best on the planet is obviously open to interpretation, it's still very, very good by any measure.

 

But you have to read carefully what I said and you have to understand the context:

 

• we're obviously talking about wide® open and longer here... anything is gonna look fine with a reasonable lens length at f4 (or 3.2 for that matter--or even f2.8--if you shoot wide with one of those Nikkor 14s). I realize many people don't shoot faster *and* longer, but I do all the time.
  
• we're talking dark. Really dark, as in, my M8 focuses faster than my D3 (in fact, it can't achieve focus at all with the Sigma 50 ASPH I use or even with the Nikkor 35 f2 ) You need contrast, and you need some horizontal detail / contrast, or you're totally beat--and the D3 is way better in this regard than anything I used previously from Canon (unless you stop down, or shoot wider or something. They're all good solutions, btw--they're just not what I was talking about).
  
• As for DWF, (a wedding photography forum) there are scores and scores of posts about the same thing, and about bad AF in general. But AF in very low light, and peripheral focus points lacking, is a well known "frontier"... Since you're evidently a member, you can also read this about the limits of the Nikon focusing (again, Canon's is generally worse--and that's in broad daylight!) Make sure to scroll down: http://www.digitalweddingforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=323009&highlight=d3+focus+point
  
• I don't use AF assist (I don't like sending out pre-flashes or red flashes in a dark room). Maybe I should, but I don't.
  
• I don't machine gun shoot and throw out 5 shots to get 1. Not that there's anything wrong with that
  
• Finally, when I started with AF, no fewer than three pros at the top of their game (who don't post on DWF, or don't any longer, and I'm not gonna name-drop, but I'll be happy to tell you privately) have confirmed to me that this is also the way they focus (mostly with Canon ). Every year at WPPI I hear the same thing from others who are known to nail the shot wide open.
  
• So I think I'm "getting it right," thanks. I'll stand by what I said: eyes are low-contrast objects and can trick you with a MF or with an AF camera. Even in good light, with a bride and groom walking down the aisle, if you're shooting at f2.8 or wider with a long(er) lens, well, you're taking a huge chance of missing the moment you want.
  

If you have some better advice, I'd love to hear it Truly.

 

Better yet--if you have some 50 or 85 1.4 shots shot wide open in the dark (with the above conditions--no AF assist) focused on someone's eyes (especially if they're off-center!), I'd love to see them (though honestly that doesn't prove much. You can eventually get focus in any conditions with all sorts of tricks. But eventually isn't "when I want it" !)

Edited August 19, 2009 by Jamie Roberts

[M'Ate]

[*]So I think I'm "getting it right," thanks. I'll stand by what I said: eyes are low-contrast objects and can trick you with a MF or with an AF camera. Even in good light, with a bride and groom walking down the aisle, if you're shooting at f2.8 or wider with a long(er) lens, well, you're taking a huge chance of missing the moment you want.

If you have some better advice, I'd love to hear it Truly.

 

Better yet--if you have some 50 or 85 1.4 shots shot wide open in the dark (with the above conditions--no AF assist) focused on someone's eyes (especially if they're off-center!), I'd love to see them!

 

I'm not trying to knock you down Jamie, it's not my experience and from the many guys I know and have read about, your's is not typical. Lots of shooters struggle with focus with all sorts of gear, but saying good af don't work is not what I think.

 

I presume we're talking about regular low light pics here and not black cat in a coal hole stuff? I'm generally using f2.8, but have others and can switch to Leica M Lux if I need.

 

You post a pic or two that demonstrate what you think RF handles that a good af system won't and I'll see if I can counter it with some convincing images. Maybe we not talking the same stuff, but I'm happy to try.

 

I first posted because you were writing about your experience as if it was 'the standard' as in the Commandments ..... af don't do this. If what you do works, then share. My experience is mine only and I can't and don't put a line through everybody else's.

Edited August 19, 2009 by M'Ate

[JE]

Practice. A lot. walk around and just quickly pick an inanimate object nearby try to focus approximately while lifting the camera to your eye, adjust as needed when you can see. Do this a lot without actually taking the photo...once you've got it down switch to people moving...it can get pretty frustrating, but that's what I've done and now I'm pretty fast at it. I tried staying at f2 for an afternoon and I think I got like 17 shots where it was crisp, maybe 5 where it was just ok and the rest what I tell myself if artistically rendered. Practice and you'll find what works for you pretty fast.

Jon

[M'Ate]

Here's a starter. Focussed on the eye through the veil.

 

85mm at f1.8, 1000 ISO.

 

Should be able to see the red veins in the crop image here.

 

This is one of seven images taken in two minutes, all different, each one sharp. That's a pretty low contrast focus spot, IMO, and to get the af working through the veil material demonstrates very capable af, IMO.

 

And ... just to confirm that I can focus an M, I've added the B&W and a colour image under time pressure. B&W is M8, colour is Portra 160. The Portra reminds me how much I like the film colours.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 19, 2009 by M'Ate

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

 

I first posted because you were writing about your experience as if it was 'the standard' as in the Commandments ..... af don't do this. If what you do works' date=' then share. My experience is mine only and I can't and don't put a line through everybody else's.[/quote']

 

Sorry to offend with my writing style.

 

When I write

 

"For me, I practice understanding what is on the same plane as my subject's eyes. Eyes are impossible to focus on in low-light, or when they're far away (as in the focus and recompose example)."

 

It's implicit that it's my opinion. And you asked specifically why I have that opinion (as in "I dunno why you think this...")

 

So I'm just trying to help people who are having trouble, with my opinion. Heck--all my posts are my opinion

 

You have a different opinion and I'm actually happy for you that tracking someone's eyes (with an RF or AF camera) works for you!

 

But it doesn't work for me.

 

Truthfully, I'd love to be wrong on this. Maybe I should hire someone from DWF to show me how to shoot the way they do instead of the people I've hired to mentor me But I honestly don't think that would help.

 

And yes--we are talking much different stuff than your static, close-in portrait posted with the 85 Heck, I can do that on the ground-glass with the DMR; I don't need AF for that at all.

 

So unless you tell me it was extremely dark (dance floor dark) and that she was moving, I'm going to, once more, stand by what I said for:

 

• very dark environments (yes, cat-in-a-coal mine / dark church / dark hall--that's the worst case, after all)
  
• no AF assist
  
• moving subjects
  

If you can focus on the eyes under those circumstances, please be happy and go ahead.

 

But in truth I meant no offense, though it does sound, honestly, like you are trying to "knock me down."

 

I'd honestly like nothing more for than any of the AF cameras I've used in the past or present to hang in with my once it gets dark and the action is relatively fast. They don't (yet), though they are getting much better.

 

PS--this sounds much harsher than I'd like; I don't even know your name Sorry about that. If you're happy with your cameras, great. If you're ever in Toronto, you can come by and show me how I'm mis-focusing my D3 and I'll buy you a beer or three.

 

PPS--those are lovely shots, and I love the colour too.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Jamie Roberts

[Jamie Roberts]

Here's a pic or two from last week's wedding when it so very dark that my D3 could NOT achieve auto focus even with the center AF sensor (the ambient exposure levels on the D3 were all at f2 @ ISO 3200+... so much darker than your ISO 1000 shot).

 

I've added light, because this is the M8 we're talking about

 

And hey--once more--I'd love it if my D3 was broken or something, but it isn't according to Nikon

 

These are straight out of the RAW converter; no sharpening:

 

All Nocti shots at f1.2:

 

Focused on the hairline:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Focused on the collar:

 

Focused on the earring:

 

They are all "one shot only" with the M8.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Jamie Roberts

[Jamie Roberts]

And the 100% crops (I raised the levels so you could see more of the last, backlit, one). Again, all unsharpened:

 

Hairline:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Collar:

 

Earring:

 

If I had tried to "grab their eyes" while they were moving, there's no way I could have RF'd them at 1.2 (don't forget, I could barely even see them!).

 

Again, the Nikon had totally quit at that point. Since I had a PW in its hot shoe, even Focus Assist wasn't an option.

 

It's worth pointing out once again that if this works with the Nocti at f1.2 in the dark, it will also work with my Nikkor 85 at 2.0 on AF in good light, and gives me a better chance of keepers with less time

 

All that said, I don't do much "eye through the veil" work; I suppose you'd have to attain focus on the eye for that shot by focusing on the eye, since you'd have no other option...

Edited August 19, 2009 by Jamie Roberts

[Jamie Roberts]

And one more quick thing... I never said "don't ever focus on someone's eyes" LOL!!

 

But I did say that in low light, or when you're in a real hurry (as in subject is moving) or when the eyes are far away, it's difficult to use them to provide consistent results, and when you need to get consistent results, you need another quick-focusing strategy, which, after all, is the point of the thread

[M'Ate]

Not dissecting past sentences for the sake of debate, Jamie. There's different ways of doing everything in this business and that's what puts our signature on the product.

 

Here's some movement pics and some do have a little added light to avoid forced contrast, but the focussing is done using the ambient light. No sharpening.

 

I'll get Andy B to remove these in a few days to preserve disk space. Apologies to any disinterested spectators.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 19, 2009 by M'Ate

[Jamie Roberts]

OK--I give up.... I'll never give anyone a focusing tip again. Rock back and forth; rely on your AF, and don't practice! LOL--oh, and the D3 or 5d2 has no focus limitations!

 

I never said auto focus doesn't work. I never said I don't use it. I never said you can't get beautiful shots with it. And I like many of the ones you've just posted, and a couple of them are outstanding!

 

But I'm also completely sure you didn't focus on "the eyes" for all those shots (or if you did the camera didn't)! So why are you showing them again?! And a few of them don't look all that wide open to me either BTW.

 

And many of them are pretty darned wide (which I mentioned would also work) and some don't look all that sharp round the heads, either, but on the wider angle shots it wouldn't surprise me that's just the Web. Many of them are also still pretty darned static, too.

 

And really, I don't rehash stuff for the sake of debate. I like helping people with rangefinders get the most out of them, and I've been helped along the way by some of the very, very best in the wedding business. One of them actually said to me "but you never follow focus on the eyes when you're wide open and far away!"

 

But if you're going to take a swipe at my method I'd really appreciate it if you first read--and understand--what I wrote first.

 

I'm out The beer offer still stands, and I wish you good light and good luck.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Jamie Roberts

[wattsy]

Jamie, your earring focussed shot is interesting. I'm not sure if I'm particularly fussy but I'd personally classify this one as having missed focus (by some way) and would probably only use it if it had a strong mood or moment to compensate.

[M'Ate]

And really, I don't rehash stuff for the sake of debate.

 

But if you're going to take a swipe at my method I'd really appreciate it if you first read--and understand--what I wrote first.

 

Jamie, you got both of those wrong !

 

I didn't suggest you were rehashing anything. I wrote that I wasn't going back to reiterate and reemphasise what had already been said and that was for the sake of keeping it a positive thread.

 

I haven't taken a swipe at your methods anywhere. I've been absolutely clear that it's the way I work and what I've found. Never criticised what you do, nor would I.

 

I have read your posts carefully, in the serious hope of learning something I'm missing. With respect, your use of "you" comes across as you telling others what will work and won't, rather than using "I".

 

My pics were selected to show that I can shoot very low light shots with movement using my methods that are sharp enough to make an album proof. Perhaps, not exactly what you were expecting in terms of focus spot and DoF. But dark and mobile nevertheless and limited to 1000 ISO.

 

I, with others, remain eager to see some of yours that show a sharp rendition in low light taken with the M. I can pull many sharp, low light M shots out of my files, but whether they are dark enough, or mobile and sharp enough to meet your criteria I can't tell because, again with respect, you seem to be applying higher standards to me than yourself.

 

May you never need 6400 ISO.

Edited August 20, 2009 by M'Ate

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

I' date=' with others, remain eager to see some of yours that show a sharp rendition in low light taken with the M. I can pull many sharp, low light M shots out of my files, but whether they are dark enough, or mobile and sharp enough to meet your criteria I can't tell because, again with respect, you seem to be applying higher standards to me than yourself.

 

May you never need 6400 ISO. [/quote']

 

I use 6400 ISO all the time on the D3, but I don't like using it. It's one reason I love the D3

 

But I can't use ISO 6400 on the M8, obviously (though there's some weirdness between the way my D3 measures light and ISO and my M8 does, but that's another thread)

 

So did you see the shots I posted above?

 

I know they look like they're bright and would be easy to focus, but they were all taken with my M8 and my Noctilux in near total darkness.

 

The ambient was very, very dark: closed in dance floor with candles around the corner at 11 PM or so Eastern; DJ had not set up any lights for the floor.

 

They were all shot at f 1.2 and at 1/30s and ISO 640--and all the people are dancing--not slow dancing either--don't be fooled by the flash.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[M'Ate]

So did you see the shots I posted above?

 

I did Jamie, and hoped you had something more convincing to illustrate your points.

 

On the ones you posted, I agree with Wattsy. The only image of value, IMO, is the third which is clearly out of focus. I, personally, would only present that in desperation.

 

Please show some more images as I genuinely want you to make your point clear.

 

end.

 

As a photographer, I capture light on film and paint with black on paper. If the result of having 6400 ISO available is that one (not you) captures dark flat scenes and turns them into uninteresting daylight looking scenes, then I'm not sure I need anything above a good 1250 ISO, (which I currently don't have). LOL