Napa Family Shoot

I did a combo anniversary/family shoot for a friend here in the Bay area. Here are some shots taken last Sunday.

I like these. They look 3-Dimensional. I've got to start shooting wide open more often! I usually stop it down to f2-2.2, but these look great! Do you have the Canon 1.2 or the Sigma 85?

Not digging the blur in the first shot, but other than that they look great. Great use of DoF.

Thanks S-Man, I used an 85L. I have a Sigma 1.4, but rented an 85L for the weekend to try it out. I like both lenses, the Sigma is very capable, but the bokeh just seems creamier on the 85L at similar apertures. The focus is slower on the 85L but no biggie, I seem to nail focus more consistently too.

Thanks Tiberius, I used a 45 ts-e on the first.

Tiberius47 wrote in post #13416521
Not digging the blur in the first shot, but other than that they look great. Great use of DoF.

same thing here. i love how you used such a small ap. very three dimensional on the wide shots.

I don't care for the 1st one, it looks fake, like you blurred it in PS. That's amazing that that's the 85L. The bokeh looks so buzzy? Not creamy at all?? I have the Siggy, and personally, I think that it would have been more pleasing in that situation. Maybe it was something that you did in post? Great composition though, except the last 3 are all kinda the same composition.
I'll bet they loved them! Great set.

Very nicely done! Very well done. I would probably clean up the road in front of the little boy in post, but love the depth and richness of these shots. Great location, and worthy of a wall portrait for sure. They're not terribly creative, funky or wild out, but they work. Really well. They accomplish what they set out to do, and I'm appreciative of that.

What aperture were you shooting at if you don't mind me asking?

rsieminski wrote in post #13417388
I don't care for the 1st one, it looks fake, like you blurred it in PS. That's amazing that that's the 85L. The bokeh looks so buzzy? Not creamy at all?? I have the Siggy, and personally, I think that it would have been more pleasing in that situation. Maybe it was something that you did in post? Great composition though, except the last 3 are all kinda the same composition.
I'll bet they loved them! Great set.

Thanks Rick, it depends on your distance to subject. Since most of these were taken from a distance the bokeh will not look as creamy, even with the Sigma. I like the 85L bokeh better. The blur is fake on all of these, but, none of it is photoshop.

collierportraits wrote in post #13417414
Very nicely done! Very well done. I would probably clean up the road in front of the little boy in post, but love the depth and richness of these shots. Great location, and worthy of a wall portrait for sure. They're not terribly creative, funky or wild out, but they work. Really well. They accomplish what they set out to do, and I'm appreciative of that.

What aperture were you shooting at if you don't mind me asking?

Thank u Sir, for #1 (45mm ts-e) f2.8, #2 f1.4, #3 f1.6, #4 f1.8.

If you wouldn't have told us, I would have guessed the 50mm 1.8

Sorry, I did not mean that you created the bokeh with PS. I just thought the buzziness might be due to some sharpening.

I thought the 1st one might have bee a ts-e, but you had said that they were shot with the 85L, so I thought you guass-ed it and used a gradient on it.

How about instead of blurring the background to separate the subjects, underexpose the background instead? Use flash to bring the subject back to proper exposure. Otherwise what's the point of shooting at a location.

I disagree, ironchef. The OP has used large apertures to put the background pleasingly out of focus. You can still tell what it is. You still get the beauty of the fall leaves. You still see the distance shown in the image. But it's not distracting. I think the background is exposed beautifully. He HAS popped a little bit of fill light on the subjects, but not so much that it's eminently noticeable.

ironchef31 wrote in post #13418799
How about instead of blurring the background to separate the subjects, underexpose the background instead? Use flash to bring the subject back to proper exposure. Otherwise what's the point of shooting at a location.

Haha, you're right, what's the point of shooting at a location if I blur everything out anyways.

collierportraits wrote in post #13418969
I disagree, ironchef. The OP has used large apertures to put the background pleasingly out of focus. You can still tell what it is. You still get the beauty of the fall leaves. You still see the distance shown in the image. But it's not distracting. I think the background is exposed beautifully. He HAS popped a little bit of fill light on the subjects, but not so much that it's eminently noticeable.

Thank you Sir.

The blur looks a little too artificial and distracting in my opinion.