Photographing Groups
David
Would it be a solution to arrange the group in an arc, of constant
radius from the lens. Or would it look odd ? No experience myself.
David W.
bucky3
smaller aperture?
bugbear
Lensed focus on a plane, and have non zero depth of field.
BugBear
Neil Ellwood
It was done that way for some early panoramic cameras.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
tmo...@wildblue.net
Smaller aperture, wider angle lens. I used to photograph minor league
baseball teams, the traditional set up is line them up in 3 rows on
progressive risers. Set the lens, generally 60mm on mf, 24-35 on
digital or 35mm, at f5.6 or f8 and you have it. If you need strobe
have or rent a studio strobe with a couple of heads. Two high power
small strobes (top end Canon or Nikon units) may work. On the baseball
shots we used open shade and didn't need strobe. Bracket with your
aperture and work from there, certainly you can't use f2 or f2.8 and
expect to get every one in focus.
Tom
Bowser
"David" <david_t...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a2a44952-a696-42df...@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
It depends on the situation, but when I've shot sports teams, and they're
seated on the stands, I try to elevate to the height of the center row, use
at least a 50mm lens (on a 35mm camera or FF digital), and use a smaler
aperture, like f11. Avoid the use of a wide angle lens since it will distort
the group somewhat and cause "big head syndrome" where the people in front
have huge heads and the people in the back are shrunen. Using a longer lens
will compress the group keeping everyone at about the same size.
Wide groups, like panoramics, are an alternative, and don't look odd at all.
The only problem is printing and framing the final pic. Thnik about print
sized before you arrange the group and frame the shot.
Don Stauffer
I wouldn't go too wide. If you do, the center people look bigger than
the people on the ends, due to unavoidable geometry. Better to back off
to a longer distance and use a longer focal length. This does two
things. First, it reduces the "wide angle" distortion geometry. Second,
it means the depth of the group is a smaller fraction of the object
distance, and hence easier to keep in focus.
Pat
I didn't know there was a problem of getting everyone in focus.
If it is "a group" of ~4 or more, by the time you get far enough away
to get everyone in the frame, then you have enough DOF to get everyone
in focus.
Just remember to keep the group square-ish so it will print well. 2
rows of 10 people is long, narrow and prints badly. 4 rows of 5
people is MUCH better. 5 rows of 4 people is freakish.
George Kerby
On 6/5/09 9:16 AM, in article 4a2928d5$0$87074$815e...@news.qwest.net, "Don
Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
Correct. And the distortion of the faces at the edge is not as bad. There is
a reason that most portrait lenses are slightly telephoto.
Ray Fischer
I'd be surprised if there's an issue with focus. More important is
the fact that if the group is spread out in a line then those at the
ends will be farther away and thus smaller in the resulting image.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
No, those at the ends will appear "fatter" if the lens has the standard
"planar" projection. The effect is most noticeable with wide-angle
lenses. You are right if a spherical projection (fisheye) lens were used.
David