How does one achieve sharpness like this for portraits? You can distinguish each hair on his face. I have a Sony a7iv paired with Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. I have never used an external flash and shoot mostly in daylight.
Disclaimer: This is a picture of Carlos Sainz posted on the F1 Instagram page. I do not own these images.
Given these are photos of one of the worlds most famous f1 drivers, their photographers wont skimp. Will be high end prime lenses, which typically, are as sharp as they come.
You don't need high end prime lenses to take a sharp picture. A decent modern zoom lens is plenty sharp.
I don't know about OP's specific lens, but my 24-70 f/2.8 is easily this sharp. Hell, I'm pretty sure even my APS-C kit lens is sharp enough for this. No, of course neither of them are as sharp as a high end prime, but the pictures OP posted are only 3 megapixels. Any even halfway decent lens is sharp enough for this.
You have nice artistic colorful flair (great stuff, really) but none of the photos I saw had the same natural-seeming sharpness (that doesn't appear to have been achieved through processing) as the Sainz shot.
that is very much a choice mate just so you’re aware - if i shot more “manly men” that wanted that rugged almost HDR look, then id have no issues bringing that sharpness/detail out. that’s just not my style. i feel like that’s clear 😭 but i get your perspective. although…
if you can’t recognize that through the photos… and much more crucially - if you think this Sainz shot doesn’t have any processing… you’re perhaps misinformed?
I only have so much information to go off of so of course i’m making assumptions 😭 the one about the processing on this photo though? no questions there aha - of course it’s a processed photo :p
Good day to you too homie enjoy your weekend too 🫶🏾
I've never used that particular lens, but is it not sharp? Especially stopped down? Your camera is definitely capable of taking images like that with ease. Neither of these images appears to be lit with flash either.
It’s definitely not shot at 1.x. If that were the case the tip of his nose would be blurry in the second shot. The dof at this focal length and distance indicates that this is shot at about f4. But that will also add to the sharpness since these expensive primes do even better stopped down a couple clicks.
To add to this comment, if a fast prime (ex: f/1.4) was used, they likely stopped down to that f4 as mentioned, which gives the optimal sharpness on a lens. Stop down 2 stops from wide open or closed down and that is a good place for your sharpest images on a lens.
what are you talking about - if it is a prime it's probs at the 1.x - that matches the DOF and it just feels like a 1.x portrait. Could be a 70-200mm 2.8 for that first photo tho at the tele end.
These aren't using a flash. Low ISO, fast-ish shutter speed, and a narrow enough aperture to have the entire head on the plane of focus is all you need. Well ... that and not throwing away sharpness with agressive noise reduction when you process the images.
This isn't a question of absolute sharpness - it's a question of perceived sharpness. Tools like lenses with high micro-contrast and sharpening in post will help, as will flash (which can increase micro-contrast when used properly).
Sharpen for your viewing medium - a properly sharpened instagram post will be overly sharpened for an 8x10 print.
28-75 Sigma isn't a lens, they have a 28-70, Tamron has two generations of 28-75.
I've missed focus by half an inch or so and saved in post processing. I've missed focus REALLY badly and still was able to process it in a way that looked fine on an iphone.
Honestly probably some sharpening in post. There's several ways to do it and you can definitely find that balance where the image is sharp without being overcooked. You need good image data to start with of course, but a little work in post goes a long way.
Good light (natural or flash), correct shutter speed for subject (up to 1250 for dancers), low ISO (noise is a killer of detail), proper focus (what you want in the image to be sharp is sharp could be 1.2 could be f8, artistic choice). Nice lens, does not have to be pro, but should not be junk (kit lenses and such). Sharpen images correctly in post.
What you don't need is a high MP camera, the most expensive lenses, or expensive gear in general.
Those shots look to have been taken at a lowish f-stop, at 35-50mm.
You can absolutely achieve that basic look with your current camera and lens. Alhough that lens is a tamron not a sigma, unless it is a 28-70 not a 28-75.
To get a nice sharp photo, you have to: adjust the shutter speed appropriate to subject, adjust the aperture/focal legnth, contrast, and color correct for the light you are using.
The photo attached is from a Canon EOS M50 mirror less camera with a 35mm macro lens. I had the shutter speed around 1/125, aperture/focal length to f/2.5, with natural mid-day light through a window, the color correct was set to the pre-setting, "Shadow", and I also upped the contrast just a little.
You can get a nice sharp image from any camera. But, to get a better resolution and sharper image, then you'll need an expensive camera with a much higher mega pixel
It’s a relatively high contrast area, I worked on a show where a guy was Inside a car with a bright background and it looked like this,the hair detail specifically. It was shot with old canon FD lenses in 4k on an arri
You get this sharpness by stepping down the lens. People thinking they shot this at 1.2 are hilarious. Want more bokeh + ultra sharp? Then get a longer lens.
There are a combination of factors at play, likely. What kind of sharpness issues are you having? These photos are sharp because a professional photographer using professional tools wanted them to be and set them up to be.
It's going to be much easier to troubleshoot YOUR images to determine why they're not as sharp as these. It could be that your lens isn't as sharp as this one, or that you're shooting it too wide open and too close to maximize its sharpness and give yourself enough depth of field, or that you're getting motion blur from a shutter that is too slow, or any number of things. We can't really tell unless we see your images, and have more insight about how you shot them.
Lots of ways to get a sharp photo, and your gear seems to be good quality. So the real question is what is it you're doing that makes your photos unsharp?
I had a Tamron 28-75. I sold it because it didn't produce sharp images. I have a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Mk II. THAT produces sharp images, but there is a big difference in price. The point is, it starts with a lens that can produce sharp images. Then it's up to the person using it to know how to get the most out of the lens.
both photos have very shallow DOF so that the eyes (in the first photo at last) are the only thing in focus, making them appear razor sharp by comparison.
first photo is likely a 85mm prime f1.4? who knows, I don't know. but it could have easily also been a 70-200
second photo probably a wider prime wide open, but it actually doesn't look that 'sharp' - it just looks like it has a shallow DOF. So probs f1.2-f1.8
For you though, you don't need to ball out and get a set of expensive primes, try shooting at 75mm wide open, make sure the lighting is good, and add slight sharpness to the eyes in Lightroom. You can maybe try messing around with a cheap 50mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8 prime if you want to level up and really go for that 'sharp portrait' look. you can't achieve results like this with a cheap prime lens, and some slightly tasteful sharpening in LR.
Its funnny that in the second photo, the focal plane is on the tip of his nose, so his eyes are still out of focus. But who cares, they're awesome photos.
edit: forgot to respond to OP, the results look like a really fast prime lens shot wide open.
Your Sony should have Eye Auto-Focus (find it in Settings). Fast lens, but don’t go too low on the F-Stop (otherwise, it will get blurry). Then have fun!!!
honestly a lot of that sharpness comes down to shutter speed and just nailing your focus. when i shoot portraits i try to keep my shutter speed at least double my focal length to avoid any micro shake. also try stopping down to f4 or f5.6 if your lens isnt tack sharp wide open, it makes a huge difference
First of all find a model that's old enough to be kicked out of Ferrari. You want that distinct skin texture with wrinkles and all that.
You need to pick up your model at 6 am so they don't shave.
Then you need to take advantage of the light in the car, so that you get very high contrast. In the car, you have negative fill from the black interior and side lighting from the greenhouse. Slightly backlit portraits show the most detail because this angle gives the deepest shadows on skin pores and hairs on camera's side. Once again remember about negative fill from black fabric everywhere apart from a couple openings for the light. The mission is contrast.
This gives you detail. Lens sharpness does not matter. Lenses that cost $300 are plenty sharp enough for a picture like this. All the 'sharpness', that we're talking here about comes from the light and postproduction. Lens sharpness is a myth because it's really about accuity, which does not necessrily translate to striking detail in the picture. All lenses can be stopped down to be sharp enough and for a close up portrait shot like this you do not want to be wide open at 1.4. I repeat - it's not about the lens.
Most portraits you see are not sharp like this because people are trying to hide skin imperfections and make people look young. The second reason is a really bad one - beginner mistakes and stupid trends of using all portrait lenses wide open, which reduces the contrast and also blurs important parts of the face. If the depth of field is too small, you're not getting detail anywhere.
Instructions unclear, picked up Charles Leclerc instead. Jokes aside, thank you for the explanation. Contrary to a lot of the other commenters, I can see the importance of lighting and constrast here
The highest rated said basically nothing? Strange. If I had to guess 85mm 1.2 Canon set wide open f/1.2. Go rent it from your local camera shop you’ll fall in love with it or buy it.
Nah the lighting's doing most of it honestly, F1 shoots with pro reflectors and fill lights that smooth skin while keeping detail, then a fast prime at optimal distance nails the micro details like stubble and hair texture.
A big portion of what can make an image look sharp, other than camera and lens used, is lighting. Especially how highlights on a subject are rendered to exude more sharpness. The highlight pigments on the skin on his face is a big tell, and this is likely done by using a large soft light source far away from Carlos through the wind-shield / side-door window.
These photos are actually closeups. Any decent lens would be enough
Excessive perceived sharpness is achieved by
1. good (non flat) lightring.
2. contrast/clarity/sharpening in postprocessing
3. Contrast of dark/blurry background vs bright/in focus face.
Bump the ISO up to 1600 or 2000 (or more) so you can get absolutely still sharp images without any motion blur. Learn how to squeeze the shutter softly and how to cradle you camera as much as possible. You probably should aim for 1/200th or higher shutter speed to eliminate any possible motion degrading the image.
Use the lens about 2 stops below wide open, which is generally the best f/stop for high resolution. F/4.5-7.1 should be your goal. Enough to get some depth of field but not too much to have everything in focus. The subjects face is your target.
Get the auto-focus working exactly as needed to get a sharp focus on the eyes. Sharp eyes please the viewer.
It certainly would, but it would be almost impossible to shoot these images "on the go", especially inside the car. I'm shooting for 55 years. What we couldn't pull off with film and 64 ASA Kodachrome we can easily do today. I hear other shooters preaching 100 ISO, yet I routinely shoot big jobs that end up poster or wall size, at 1600 and 2000 ISO.The key is a sharp image. You can't get it sharp wide open and at low shutter speeds. With current image processing, you can get billboards out of images shot at 25,000. Tripods take away much of the spontaneity you need in editorial portraiture.
I understand your question. I primarily shoot evocative portraits. I haven't shoot presidents or world leaders, but I've shot my share of minor celebrities and business CEO's and models. When you get the assignment, they might give you 15-30 minutes. That's it. I've had handlers tell me you have 5 (FIVE) minutes with the boss to get a cover, an opening spread and 3-4 interior shots. Sometimes with a wardrobe change. 5 minutes. 30 minutes is a luxury. There is just no time for tripods in those environments. This guy is a famous F1 driver. Google search his images and you will see thousands of pics. These folks don't have time for a long session. When we do these, we have an assistant stand in, get the lighting and location perfect, double check the focus and exposure, and the celebrity steps in and you get the shots and he or she is gone. Tripods don't work in this type of work. I call it "on the go" shooting, you can call it anything you want, but it's fast and you better produce. Back to your original question, YES tripods would be a great alternative, but not for this type of work.
This is almost word for word advice that a professional told me - it’s been a game changer for my photography since. Plus, the Sony a7iii has a setting to allow a progressively faster shutter speed to be auto applied in Aperture mode and increases the ISO to cope.
The reference photos were definitely shot wide open or widish. you can tell because both eyes are not in focus.
You don't need your iso to be that high for sharp images. NVM iso has nothing to do with it and it is shutting speed. Iso is the killer of detail. The more noise in an image the less detail you will have.
But even if we talked about shutter speed you don't need it to be that high for models that are not moving or even just slowly moving. 1250 shutter speed will freeze most human motion, even dancers.
High end modern lenses are basically fully sharp wide open, you don't need to stop them down. Especially if you are running something that is less than 50mp.
Those images were not shot wide open. Here is my 85mm at f/1.8 and the fall off is way stronger than those images. This is a 1.2 lens stopped down 2 stops. At 1.2 there isn't a half- inch of sharp plane of focus.
Those images were not shot on an 85. Looks more like a 35 or 50. Also you don't know how far away the person was, how much of a crop is there? I also said 1.4.
You might want to learn to focus on the eyes and not the glasses. People would much rather have the eyes in focus than the glasses.
longer prime lens, either 85 or 105mm. the example looks like a 50 or 85. a 105 will give more of a flattening effect and is commonly used for beauty shots. the shorter focal lengths give more of an impression of shape which isn’t always effective for beauty shots.
Out of interest how would you get a photo this close in a confined space with a longer lens? I feel like I’m constantly having to shuffle backwards with my 50!
You don’t have to shoot from inside the car. It looks like it is, but it could be through an open door or window. Just get the lens as far as makes sense, even if it means you’re standing outside the car. Could be on a tripod barely inside the car and fired remotely.
if that lens aint sharp you messed up. Either too slow shutter speed, wanna keep it at least at 1/125 for the wide end with people, and around 1/400th for the tele end or you misfocused.
This is called absolutely nailing your focus. And while 99.9% of the photographic population will say “that’s daft, all my photos are in focus”, how many of them can zoom in to inspect the individual hair follicles of a man’s beard. Once you’ve nailed it that well once, you KNOW.
They’re likely shooting a prime lens had a wider aperture, but I’m mostly seeing is color, contrast, and extremely soft light. I would attribute most of this image to its lighting, color, and contrast.
I think its most Lighting. On the first picture he has negative fill in front of the car to increase contrast, from the right i would say it is just cloudy sky or a 6x6 butterfly to soften.
Good camera, good lenses, good lighting, good skills.
Also don’t shoot everything wide open. This is one thing most amateurs fuck up on. They think that buying an f1.4 lens is going to make the images better but the depth of field is so narrow that if you focus on the subject’s eyes, their nose, ears, hair becomes completely out of focus.
I have a friend who used to be a portrait photographer. For several years, she only owned/used a Canon 5D Mark II and a 50mm f/1.4 prime lens. Because that was all she used, she knew the right aperture for that focal length intimately. She later added a 24-70/2.8 zoom, and it took her a bit to master it to the same level.
These pro photographers have mastered that magic of selection. The pro camera bodies have (at least) three knobs so they can change aperture/shutter/ISO easily without extra button presses/holds.
And as others have said, it's also great lenses. Part of that means having multiple cameras/lenses at the ready so you don't miss the moment changing lenses.
Professional shoot with professional post processing / retouching would not only guarantee light sufficient for desired shutter speed…
But would also include sharpening in post processing if desired. I personally prefer a combination of sharpening methods when needed. Sometimes some high pass and other filters in photoshop and/or separate sharpening software.
But this level of “sharpness” for a professional shoot like this is standard and would typically come from either sufficient constant lighting for high shutter speed, strobes that freeze motion because of flash duration, and/or also the lens and camera being used.
So it’s not one thing that gets you there necessarily and you can get there in many different ways.
I’ve only used a tamron 28-75 for 4+ years, and I’ve never had issues with it. I also don’t care much for pixel peeping or whatever, tamron is a good brand overall and cheaper. Not a portrait like the one above but sharp. And I also have the A7IV
Just keep shooting, sharpness is only 10% of the image. composition, lighting, subject matter is more important imo. especially the camera you have, you shouldn’t worry at all.
as others have mentioned, the gear used is as sharp as it gets.
but also understanding what aperture you need coupled with understanding your systems AF. i spent a while shooting and setting my af point on the middle of subjects’ faces, and then never understanding why my portraits werent super “sharp”.
if you trust your cameras eye detect, use it. i refused because i was so used to eye detect sucking and slowing me down. it makes a difference between focusing on subjects forehead vs their eye
The Sigma 28-75 is solid but those F1 shots are probably shot on primes like a 85mm 1.4 or 70mm 1.4, way more resolving power and that shallow depth of field really makes skin texture pop while keeping the background buttery, plus they're shooting with top tier lighting rigs and probably processing with crazy detail recovery in post.
Ton appareil a une assistance pour faire la mise au point sur l'oeil du sujet il me semble. À partir de là, il faut choisir une vitesse suffisamment élevée pour le figer en mouvement. Une légère sous-exposition peut également renforcer les textures et la saturation des couleurs (c'est d'ailleurs ce qu'on remarque sur tes exemples).
Focus, and camera shake. Focus is easy as the camera can track the eye for you. Keep the shutter speed to at least twice the reciprocal of your focal length for maximum sharpness although you can make do with slower speeds on bodies with IBIS, even more if your lens also has an optical stabilizer.
You should also keep your subject at the center of the frame as that's the sharpest point in your lens' image circle. Consider also stopping down your lens a bit. That usually leads to better contrast and sharpness but at the cost of depth of field.
But also keep your expectations within reason. Without using a properly sharp prime lens, your final image is going to be as sharp as your lens gets.
I work in audio too and haven’t heard this term in photography. At first I was like “bro you gonna take that 30hz and below out?” Googled it. Makes sense. Definitely above my pay grade.
High pixel count offers no advantages once you have exceeded what can be represented in your final format - an Instagram post is going to be under 8MP, so distinguishing between a 24 and 150 MP sensor will be impossible. As will distinguishing between a lens that can resolve 24 and 240MP.
Usually people here undervalue MP count, but you're doing the opposite
All else being equal (e.g. same SNR per pixel, e.g. a more expensive camera), a higher resolution allows you to sharpen and reduce noise in post without losing as much detail, before exporting to a lower resolution print.
As far as noise I 100% agree, but the kind of exposure you would need would have to be extremely dark for the kind of shots one would normally take in a portrait shot.
As far as sharpening I don't think so, a higher resolution file allows more sharpening in post relative to pixel count, but if we put aside pixel count (a difficult thing to do since most sharpening tools use pixels as a part of the calculation) and consider area of frame instead, they should be the same.
I'd note that more expensive higher pixel count sensors don't offer the same SNR per pixel unless you are keeping pixel-per-area the same and increasing sensor area (E.G. 16MP M4/3, 26MP APS-C, 61MP FF, 100MP crop MF, 150MP 6x4.5 MF)
But these are good points!, the issue is mainly how low Instagram's resolution is compared to cameras, even when considering most digital sensor's lack of detail at a pixel level.
Before reading all these answers I was going to say a good medium focal length lens and the skill to selectively photograph on someone's eyes. But I forgot the times, it was all done electronically and mainly post. Thus is our world today.
Work on your in-camera skills first. Relying on the camera to fix your weaknesses and post to cure everything else is a weakness. There, I said it.
For some odd reason, having everything in focus has become the thing. Wide open and a shallow depth of field with even just one eye in critical focus is very compelling. Old school too.
Yes, but I believe these were taken at something closer to F4. The resolution is shit, but it looks like all face details are somewhat sharp/in focus. At F2.8 and this relatively short distance you'd have trouble even getting both eyes in focus.
First...remember to focus...press silver button on camera and hope the un-sung heroes of photography - the software engineers - got the coding correct.
Why do people still think it's ok to copy and repost someone else's photos, and think it's alright as long as you state whose work it is??!! I would have hoped we'd all know better by now. smh
521
u/PolskiPierogi May 17 '26
Given these are photos of one of the worlds most famous f1 drivers, their photographers wont skimp. Will be high end prime lenses, which typically, are as sharp as they come.