Behind Blue Eyes

[Armand]

Hi, here is a photo of a girlfriend of mine. I had comments it's too blury, what do you think?
5D Mark II, 85mm, F/1.8

[Donald]

I see, from the EXIF data, that you did shoot this at f1.8. I think most portrait photographers would suggest that that is too wide. We can see that one eye is in focus and the other is not. This illustrates how narrow the depth-of-field was. For a shot such as this, I would suggest that, at the very least, both eyes had to be sharp.

[Armand]

Hi. Thanx for the answer. I am aware of that " rule " so to say for portrait photography, but I wanted to make something different and the effect that you see is intended actually. The important thing for me was to make something nice looking, even if it's " out of the box " and I am interested to hear some opinions about it. But maybe you are right that most people won't like DOF THAT narrow.

[Donald]

Hi. Thanx for the answer. I am aware of that " rule " so to say for portrait photography, but I wanted to make something different and the effect that you see is intended actually. The important thing for me was to make something nice looking, even if it's " out of the box " and I am interested to hear some opinions about it. But maybe you are right that most people won't like DOF THAT narrow.

The crux of it is if that is what you sought to create and you like it, then it works perfectly. At the end of the day what matters is whether you like it.

Perceived wisdom about what needs to be in focus aside, I think we're so used to that notion of eyes needing to be in focus, that we're thrown off by one of them not being in focus.

It will be interesting to see the views of others.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Armand,

Firstly, welcome to the CiC forums from me.

OK, I'll bite Donald, and be an "other", but we both know Colin is the expert and will hopefully join us, along with (more) others.

What do I think?
I think there are several things going on in this that aren't helping Armand.
I would suggest a much tighter crop on her face to remove the verdant green grass and along with it, the bright and very unfocused arms and shoulders.

I would guess you didn't downsize from the full resolution version before uploading to TinyPic, that means TinyPic limited it to 1599 wide and didn't final sharpen it at that size - downsizing and (on a portrait, careful) final sharpening, can do a lot to even up DoF when viewed on the web.

This may/can help get the two eyes looking a bit more equally sharp.
That said, I think you focused on her eyebrow and even the eyelashes of her left eye aren't as sharp as her brow and fringe, which is means the right eye is even softer than it could have been.

Hope that helps,

[rpcrowe]

Hi Armand...

Welcome to CiC.

The portrait bothers me because I get the feeling (emotionally, not cognitively) that there is something wrong with the eye that is OOF. However, it could be that I get this feeling because the eye is looking in a slightly different direction than the eye which is in focus. Somehow, my eye is drawn to the OOF eye and not to both eyes or the eye that is in focus...

I tend to prefer portraits in which the entire front of the face (from nose tip to both eyes) is in focus. However I don't mind, and often shoot for, the ears being slghtly OOF...

BTW: your girlfriend is a lovely lady! I am anxious to see more of your portraits...

[lightdrunk]

I'm distracted by the in-focus face and the out of focus rest of her. Since it is a partial body shot, I'd prefer some depth of field and include the rest of her.

[blakemcguire]

A fisheye effect might accent the look you were going for, if I'm perceiving your intent correctly.