Portrait sharpness vs.soft focus

[AlphaBjerke]

I was hoping the group could help educate me on the subject of portraits, specifically, the idea that you don't necessarily want a portrait to be tack sharp.

This is a foreign idea to me because unless we are talking about intentional blur of a background or to show motion, I am obessed with sharpness. Images are rarely sharp enough for me so I am going to have to save for some better glass.

Could someone explain to me what kind of softness is desirable in portraiture? I understand that we don't necessarily want to see a person's every pore, but how much less sharp than that are we talking?

I just ordered a new (used) lens from Adorama that I intend to use for portraits. It is the Sigma 90mm 2.8 Macro.

It is reportedly very sharp at all but the most extreme ends of the aperature scale. A lot of people have said it is nice for portraits as well as macro, so I got myself a two-for-one kind of deal. (yes, I know that it comes with an adapter to make it 1:1).

From what I have been reading about portrait shots not requiring the tack sharpness, it seems like this one is ideal to use at 2.8 where it is softer and I can throw the background out of focus too.

Does anyone out there have any examples of soft-in-a-good-way portraits and even examples that are too sharp? I mean, I know that older actresses often are shot through gauze (spelling?) to take the edge off their aged look, but how do I judge what is too much and what is too little?

[wulf]

You judge by looking and comparing with every other portrait shot you have seen. Because that is a matter of taste it is impossible to give you a solid rule. However, the fact that a little softness avoids revealing every pore, hair and blemish is a good starting point. Most people will feel more flattered if they don't see those things in your shots of them.

The difficulty of doing this in camera rather than with post-processing is that you have to be careful not to draw attention away from what you want the viewer to focus on (normally the face in a portrait) because the sharpest point is elsewhere in the image. Of course, even that is negotiable. Here is a recent self portrait where I was trying to convey the sense of smell via the phrase "smell the roses" so I left myself out of the sharpest zone of focus while using post processing to bump up the detail in the flowers:



Wulf

[AlphaBjerke]

Wulf, thanks for trying to explain what must be a tough topic to nail down: I have received just your response here on DPS and one on flickr. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject and will take them into account.

[LoveDSLR]

Sharp and soft focus can be use to express your creative control. For male, teens and active-wear shoots, sharp images are preferred. Soft focus can be useful for portraits of adult female to get that romantic look and smooth skins.

In the past, I use Nikon 105 f/2.5 & B+W Softar Soft Focus filters for many of my portraits. Now I use Canon 85 f/1.2 L II (even better than the Nikon 85 f/1.4-the 'cream machine') and I love to get the Nikon 200 f/2.

If you're looking for a portrait lens then you should look beyond the focal length and sharpness. Check out the unique properties (contrasts, color, bokeh etc.) of that lens as well.

[AlphaBjerke]

Originally Posted by LoveDSLR

Sharp and soft focus can be use to express your creative control. For male, teens and active-wear shoots, sharp images are preferred. Soft focus can be useful for portraits of adult female to get that romantic look and smooth skins.

In the past, I use Nikon 105 f/2.5 & B+W Softar Soft Focus filters for many of my portraits. Now I use Canon 85 f/1.2 L II (even better than the Nikon 85 f/1.4-the 'cream machine') and I love to get the Nikon 200 f/2.

If you're looking for a portrait lens then you should look beyond the focal length and sharpness. Check out the unique properties (contrasts, color, bokeh etc.) of that lens as well.

Thanks, Love!

I am pretty excited about the lens that I am getting. I can't come close to affording the quality of lens that you mentioned (yet), but feel I have taken a big step and killed two birds with one stone with the Sigma 90mm 2.8 Macro. It is reportedly very sharp, I like the focal length so I can give my subject some space (I have a 50mm 1.4 if there is no space), and some reviewers have mentioned the bokeh too.

There is one comment I read somewhere that an "expert" said the one downside to using a macro lens for portraits had something to do with the focal plane (?). I haven't been able to find that anywhere again, but am hoping IF THERE IS SUCH A PROBLEM that is won't be as bad with this lens because it is actually only 1:2 and needs the accompanying attachment to reach 1:1 magnification.