Everyone is shooting all portraits wide open? Really?

I've been watching a YouTube video by commercial photographer Miguel Quiles.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=3lgAtPmTUMc

He's saying some good stuff, pretty accurate.

But what keeps amazing me is that his audience seems to be people who have never ever considered shooting portraits (by which I think he means solely commercial headshots) at anything but very wide apertures--f/1.4 in particular.

It's the way he keeps saying, "But if we stop down, something crazy happens!" Then he goes on to describe depth of field as though it were something nobody had heard of before.

Then he proceeds to spend a great deal of time demonstrating that at f/1.4, the eye is in focus but the tip of the nose is out of focus. And if you stop down to f/5.6, now the tip of the nose is also in focus.

All of that is correct, and it's good to see it demonstrated.

But who is this audience that's going to be mystified by the effect of stopping down to f/5.6? Are there people out there who've never tried to get both eyes in focus, or ever photographed two people in the same shot and tried to get both of them in focus?

And maybe there are, because he says that people have actually asked him why he would shoot at f/5.6 when his lens has f/1.4.

I'm thinking, "Seriously? Somebody asked that?"

I am chuckling here - your post could be an analogy applied to so many different areas! Such as "faster is better" My car has a theoretical top speed of 150mph - doesn't mean I can legally drive this fast but likewise doesn't stop others from attempting to do so! And just because somebody is a "fast" driver doesn't equate to a better ability/understanding of how a gearbox or engine actually works.

Yes, I do believe that people will buy an F1.4 lens and ONLY use it wide open for portraits (and possibly to other photos too) - to me it's an element of copy-cat nature and such people not fully understanding what they are doing. Yet, whilst they spend thousands on camera gear and deem themselves "experts" at how to use the equipment, they then get stumped when somebody says "I took that portrait at F5.6"!

I watched the first few minutes of Miguel Quiles Youtube video that you linked and whilst I did not watch it all - it seems that he is trying to educate those who may not be technically proficient with using a camera. And I am sure he has had many queries directed at him about why you would shoot at f5.6 when your lens has f1.4 max aperture!

It does make me wonder how many photographers have school training. Aperture, shooting distance, exposure triangle...these are all topics covered in photo 101. I also have wondered why some like really shallow DOF for headshots. I like having more than just the eyes in focus, and even f4.5 keeps background pretty blurry, while keeping the nose in focus. This includes even old folks with wrinkles. If they are concerned about wrinkles, it's better to post process out then not have details to begin with. Having OOF areas also diminishes the point of having higher resolutions. Another example of this is when I watch movies on my fairly new 4K OLED TV. With the added resolution and details, it's easier for me to see scenes that were shot with particular anamorphic lenses that makes the top and bottom of the frame soft.

shocolite wrote in post #18845289
I watched the first few minutes of Miguel Quiles Youtube video that you linked and whilst I did not watch it all - it seems that he is trying to educate those who may not be technically proficient with using a camera. And I am sure he has had many queries directed at him about why you would shoot at f5.6 when your lens has f1.4 max aperture!

i didn't watch any of it, and feel the same partly because davesrose post ...

davesrose wrote in post #18845563
It does make me wonder how many photographers have school training.

which almost made me spit my coffee out.


an actual live photgraphy teacher who sticks with students for a semester or more should make students experiment and through the experiment gain an understanding of their options, even through failure. In today's world, if a video has half a million views it must be the right way to do it so why try something else? That's where we are in photography and many other subjects, academic or otherwise. It's less likely than ever to have someone suggest going against the norm.

I've been shooting for over 40 years since I got my first SLR at at 14. Since then I took photo in High School - was on the newspaper staph (EDIT: aka staff)- went on to college - took classes there and was on the college news paper staff - got married - and was on the staff of the San Jose Mercury News and SF Chronicle. Because of pay and family, I then got a real job, but 20 years ago got back shooting sports and events for college and pro teams.

You know what - I still learn stuff from youtube videos. I am always trying to increase my creative abilities. I'm still looking for tips and tricks to improve my catalog of what I can do. I sometimes need a refresher to remind me why I do the things I do the way I do it. The most recent is image scything and stacking to create massively detailed images. Recently built a 300 mpx image of the NY skyline built from 10 43 mpx images.

I think its the constant learning and creative process that keeps me doing this. We are all a different points on the learning curve. My son for example doesn't understand the technical side much at all.... but the creative side... blows me away. He probably couldn't tell you how much difference f1.8 to F2.8 will be... but sees things as a true artist and helps me see things in different ways.

So anyways..... I wouldn't criticize the YouTube generation. They are creating some fantastically creative work.

What does bug me though is this idea that any snap shot of a stranger doing nothing interesting turned to b/w is art..... that will make me pull my heir out and i can't afford any hair pulling at all... thats just me though.... still think a photo needs a subject or a story.

Croasdail wrote in post #18845880
Since then I took photo in High School - was on the newspaper staph

they make antibiotics for that.

Nope, far from everyone really shoots portraits WO. What confused and concerned you is finding yourself watching a basic instructional video and reading comments from those seeking basic instruction. Good vid but you are not the right audience.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18845905
they make antibiotics for that.

Now that is really funny...... love it.

the list of things you can catch in high school is probably about as long as the list of auto correct jokes out there.

shocolite wrote in post #18845289
Yes, I do believe that people will buy an F1.4 lens and ONLY use it wide open for portraits (and possibly to other photos too) - to me it's an element of copy-cat nature and such people not fully understanding what they are doing. Yet, whilst they spend thousands on camera gear and deem themselves "experts" at how to use the equipment, they then get stumped when somebody says "I took that portrait at F5.6"!

I think you nailed it.

Largely because of social media, I see photographers doing this:

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=YwwF6hok68E

Those sandpipers made me laugh!

Of course not everyone is preaching this

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=3lgAtPmTUMc

I shoot at wide apertures all the time, I am guilty! f1.4, f1.2, etc. Okay not all the time, but probably more than I should.

Wait. Stop down!! What do you mean, stop down?

I shot at f/4 yesterday, please don't ban me!