Large DOF in low light for portrait in front of a landscape?

Question

I am using a Nikon D610 and mostly I can get nice landscape shots with long exposure (with f/8-f/11) range using a 35mm f/1.4 lens. However now my issue is, I want to take pictures of a person in front with a nice landscape as the background on the 35mm lens. If I open up to f/1.4 I can get nice shots but then background is blurred out.

On the other hand, even with tripod if I go with f/8+, there is not enough light, and the long exposure will blur the person.

I want to find a compromise for best possible results in such conditions that I can capture the background along with the person.

I am wondering is there anything I can do with camera technique?
Or perhaps something with software like take two shots at f/1.4 with the subject in focus and then the background in focus and somehow blend them together?
Or perhaps take under exposed and over exposed shots and try blending them; unfortunately what I know it makes a fake HDR look, how can I achieve natural looking shots with tack sharp pictures of both subject and background for evening shots in the Alps?

@NickM, depending upon situation i can take clean shots upto 6400 ISO, but still the background just not tends to be sharp enough unless i remove the subject in front, then all is okay — Rizwan, Feb 20 '15 at 13:00
Actually if it is just the landscape, i alwasy keep the ISO lowest possible and compensate light with long exposure and it seems to work perfectly well — Rizwan, Feb 20 '15 at 13:06
If you don't want to use flash you can always try focusing at the hyperfocal distance, this could allow you to keep everything in focus without stopping down too much. If you can stop down to f5.6 then your hyperfocal distance will be at about 24ft with a 35mm lens. The DOF will extend from about 11ft in front of you to infinity. Crop to your liking. — moorej, Feb 21 '15 at 00:40
@moorej Cropping changes the magnification factor from sensor to display and thus changes the depth of field for the same focal length/aperture combination. To put it simply, you are magnifying blur that was too small to be seen by your eyes before and making it larger. Now your eyes can tell the difference. http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/39273/15871 — Michael C, Feb 21 '15 at 21:01
@MichaelClark I'm assuming environmental portraiture and a small amount of cropping. If the OP plans to print small, it might not matter either way. Correct? — moorej, Feb 21 '15 at 23:46
@moorej If the OP plans to print small, then the DoF calculations you quote are not correct. They are based on the assumption of an 8x10 print viewed at 10 inches by a person with 20/20 vision. Changing any one variable changes the entire DoF calculation to one degree or another. — Michael C, Feb 22 '15 at 18:34
@MichaelClark thanks for the clarification. Yes, I read the DOF calculator notes (assumed 8x10 size) sometime ago. Given the OP's camera and an assumed print resolution of 360ppi, 8x10 would already be "cropped" or at least downsampled. A print smaller than 8x10 would in general benefit in terms of increasing DOF (unless the viewer is using a loupe :-). But really the point of my comment was just to give the OP another tool they might consider, in this case focusing to infinity. If that doesn't give acceptable sharpness they can try something else, which is pretty easy with digital. — moorej, Feb 23 '15 at 02:36
Focusing at the hyperfocal distance (your first comment) is not the same thing as focusing at infinity (your most recent comment). Far from it. The point is that if the OP is printing smaller than 8x10, then the allowable CoC will be larger and the hyperfocal distance would be even closer to the camera than when using a CoC needed for an 8x10 print. — Michael C, Feb 23 '15 at 03:52
@MichaelClark you're right, I don't know why wrote "infinity." — moorej, Feb 23 '15 at 06:28

score 6 · Accepted Answer · answered Feb 20 '15 at 12:13

6

You can either use a flash to expose the subject (you won't be able to see them walking into or out of the frame), or you can, as you suggest, take two shots and blend them in Photoshop - a matter of a few minutes work.

Making an exposure blended shot would require the subject to stand preternaturally still between shots for a decent effect.

answered Feb 20 '15 at 12:13

ElendilTheTall

17,891
2
46
78

thanks, i don't want to use flash but have not yet tried the blending techniques, i will invest some effort in this direction and see how it goes. – Rizwan Feb 20 '15 at 12:59
Make sure the person doesn't walk out of the frame after the flash has gone off or the background will show through them. They don't have to be perfectly still but any large movements could cause a black outline in the final image, or the background bleeding through. – Matt Grum Feb 20 '15 at 14:08
Walk in or out before or after the flash — it doesn't matter which. – mattdm Feb 20 '15 at 19:05
+1 good answer. I have a question: Why does the blend of exposures require the person to stand still? Does that mean you suggest having the person in the image that exposes the landscape, too? Why not photograph the landscape on it's own, without a wrong exposed person that's removed in post processing anyway? Then have single shots of the person exposed well. I guess that would make post processing a lot easier. (this assumes use of the tripod mentioned in the question) I probably missunderstood you, please elaborate. – null Feb 20 '15 at 19:41
@null I think the point was that using existing light to make a single exposure with small aperture would require the subject to stand impossibly still. – Caleb Feb 20 '15 at 19:44

user95069 · Answer 2 · 2020-10-05T15:14:52.353

Use a long exposure (with the subject sitting still) and a flash. Inevitable subject movement will cause blurring, but the flash fixes at least one sharp image in place. The light balance will be better if the natural light puts the subject in the dark: in that case giving it a -0.3EV flash (or even a bit more) will not give it overexposure.

Use second-curtain flash: you don't want to capture the subject while getting startled by the flash. Red-eye will be a concern; using off-camera flash might be a good idea.

Here is an image using flash and 30s exposure. It's not exactly the primordial portrait, but you see the combination of long-term exposure with use of a flash.

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Feb 20 '15 at 18:54

If done right, these kind shots can look amazing. One technique is to have your subject stay perfectly still for the 25 - 35 seconds you need for the exposure. Some photographers do this really well; Paul Zizka comes to mind. The other common technique is taking several exposures and masking in Photoshop. Depends on how skilled you are with masking, this can produce very realistic but on the other end of the spectrum very unrealistic results.

Large DOF in low light for portrait in front of a landscape?

3 Answers3