How To Use a 50mm Lens to Shoot Portrait?
narke
I by far got only one lens, a CZ 50mm. Using it to shoot portraits, is
it possible to get good results? I like to hear some advice on
anything around this case, about composition, subject distance, enlarge
and so on.
And, is there any free gallery about this kind works on-line? Maybe I
can learn by example.
For printed gallery, I heard the big man Cartier Bresson, which one of
his book is suit for my purpose?
Thanks in advance.
-
narke
Lewis Lang
>From: "narke" ste...@lczmsoft.com
>Date: Wed, Jan 19, 2005 1:47 AM
>Message-id: <1106113677.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>I by far got only one lens, a CZ 50mm. Using it to shoot portraits, is
>it possible to get good results?
No, its possible to get great or terrible or good results or anything inbetween
- it depends on the skill of the photographer... most 50mm lenses are
spectacularly sharp (yours may be one of the sharpest of all if its the
50/1.4mm CZ). For more "conventional" headshots for commercial clients (anybody
who pays you money for a headshot/etc.) you might want to consider also
buying/supplementing with a 100mm or longer lens to be able to stand back for
slightly more compressed facial features and a relatively tight crop, but for
general subject in environment work the 50mm you have should do you well.
The first question you need to ask yourself/answer is what kind of "portraits"
do you want to do? Will these be tight headshots, subject in environment or a
range from one to the other? Who are your subjects? What do they expect/want
from the pictures? Are the pictures merely to satisfy your own artistic
wants/needs or are you "styling"/marketing (damn how I hate that word(s) them
to a particular kind of audience?
"Portraits" is too vague a term without some specifics/qualifiers - tell us
exactly what you want to do and hope to accomplish so we can help you better.
I like to hear some advice on
>anything around this case, about composition, subject distance, enlarge
>and so on.
>
Enlarge? What do you mean by "enlarge"?
>And, is there any free gallery about this kind works on-line? Maybe I
>can learn by example.
>
You might want to type in search terms like "photo" and "critique" into search
engines to come up with some photo critiqueing websites that allow you to do
searches based on a particular criteria("s") such as "portrait" and/or "50mm"
(lens.
>For printed gallery, I heard the big man Cartier Bresson, which one of
>his book is suit for my purpose?
>
Virtually any of them, since he primarily used the 50mm lens for all his people
shots (photojournalistic and portraits). Also check into Ralph Gibson who did a
lot of work with the 50mm lens, though he now uses the 90mm lens focal length
on his Leica more. Ralph does a kind of minimalist surreal graphic formalism -
just find his work by searching on the web or in books (at the library or at
Amazon.com and you'll know what I mean alot better than just trying to explain
it to you).
>Thanks in advance.
>
>-
>narke
Your welcome in retrospect ;-)
Most of my people/portrait work nowadays... gasp... is done with a 50mm Series
E Nikon lens.
Some random thoughts...
Don't get fixated on the fixed 50mm lens (even if its the only lens you own
;-)). Don't think 50mm, think composition/design and how you want to place the
subject within the frame. Think in the abstract. Think shapes, colors, etc. The
best thing about a 50mm lens is that it forces you to forget about 50mm lenses
(or any other focal length) and since it has such a natural imprint (you don't
have the advantage/disadvantage of an overpowering "look" to the 50mm focal
length you'd get from the space expanding perspective you'd get from getting up
close to your subject with an ultra wide angle of a 15mm nor the spacial
compression you'd get from using a 500mm telephoto lens from faraway such as
the stacking two or more that are far away from each other seemingly on top of
each other (ie. buildings/streets scene from a great distance), your main point
of concern becomes the image/image questions such as content and composition
(subject's expression, posing of subject, amount of space around subject, how
that space is broken up into shapes/colors/tones and/or idea elements that
contrast or echo your subject to show relationships/make points about the
subject, etc.).
Head shots can work with a 50mm lens but straight onto the subject they become
more "character portraits" when your (too) close which can work for some
subjects and not others. You might want to try some profiles (when/where
appropriate) or even buy a 2x extender which allows you to be twice the
distance away and get the same image size/crop/still get a relatively close
crop on the person's face (the classic "headshot" cropping/perspective) but
without the "nose enlarged/ears receding" phenomenon you get when you try to
use you 50mm at headshot (read very near ie 1 1/2 to 2 feet away from your
subject's face) framing distances. Its a matter of both subject, shooting style
and appropriateness(/whether you can pull it off) for using the 50mm for close
headshots.
I can reccommend Carrie Branovan (in addition to my own more recent work which
is not on my website which has more surreal/PJ work from various focal
lengths). She's a portrait/fashion photographer who primarily (totally?) works
in 35mm with the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 lens wide open (for selective focus effects).
You can find her work in a back issue of the Spring 199 Photographer's Forum
magazine beginning on pg. 43 - perhaps her work is on the web too.
I believe alot of Elliott Erwitt's work (personal snapshots/art shots of
people) has been done with a 50mm dual range Summicron on a Leica (amongst
other focal lengths/camera systems). Check out his work too. Particularly check
out both the book and the series "Masters of Contemporary Photgraphy". This is
out of print, having been done in the 1970's but is still very relevant in
getting into the mind/reasons why of the photographer where the real picture
taking takes place, behind the lens in the mind not in front of the lens)
Read, photograph, critique and/or get critique, read and photograph some more.
Mastership comes from doing, studying and just plain old being aware. In
photography its the vision that counts more so than the lens or the focal
length.
Happy shooting and reading...
This post is...
Š 2005 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and wrongs) Reserved
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
DColucci
<p>
<a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/"> Antique & Classic Camera
Site</a></p>
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
like to hear some advice on anything around this case, about
composition, subject distance, enlarge
and so on."
No, it is not possible to get good results. The lens is too short. You
need a lens in the range 80mm-135mm focal length for portraits.
DColucci
its very possible to get good results - see a pic from a 55mm lens
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/m6.jpg
Alan Browne
> Hi Folks,
>
> I by far got only one lens, a CZ 50mm. Using it to shoot portraits, is
> it possible to get good results? I like to hear some advice on
> anything around this case, about composition, subject distance, enlarge
> and so on.
50mm is a bit wide for closeup portraits. Distorts features. But there is a
way around it:
Say you want to make a head and shoulders shot, compose it to fill the frame,
then increase your distance by 2/3 more to twice as far away. Crop the result.
The perspective will be correct, there will be no distortion. DOF will not be
as shallow as you might like.
If you're making a portrait of a small group, 3-5 people, it should work quite
well with the frame filled for the composition.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Alan Browne
>>>>>>No, it is not possible to get good results. The lens is too short<<<<
>
>
>
> its very possible to get good results - see a pic from a 55mm lens
>
>
> http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/m6.jpg
>
Excellent example. Did you crop that from a larger frame?
Ryadia
> 50mm is a bit wide for closeup portraits.
<snipped>
> The perspective will be correct, there will be no
> distortion. DOF will not be as shallow as you might like.
>
<Snipped here too>
>
Unbelievable...
The first day back on the job and here is Alan Browne stating that
"perspective will be correct" in the discussion of a defined focal
length lens after going on and on and on about perspective having
nothing to do with focal length in relation to a portrait...
As I Shake my head in wonderment.
According to the theory argued by Alan a few weeks ago, the focal length
of a lens has nothing to do with perspective. Now he's saying by using a
50mm lens and moving the camera, you can alter the perspective.
Any chance of consistency, Alan? If you're going to rant at me for
saying you get a better perspective with an 80 or 100 mm lens than you
do with a 50mm one, how about not arguing I'm wrong and then saying the
same thing yourself a few weeks later? Maybe you read some of the text
books I pointed to on the subject and changed your mind without telling
anyone?
Doug
narke
Thank You Very Much!!! You'v offer me a excellent start point. I need
some time to study what you said and I'v already saved the post. Now I
answer some questions you mentioned,
1, If I'm using the CZ 1.4/50mm?
Yes, and I mount it on a Contex Aria. You said that is one of the
sharpest of all, that encourge me to ask that Sharpness is a good news
or bad news for portrait?
2, What kind of "portraits" do I want to do?
Actually I want three kind of portraits. People in enviroment and
somewhat Head/Shoulder shots. You said, the Head shots is a little hard
and it depends, now I wanna know what about Head/Shoulder shots? In
further, I want to know what is the closest subject distance for a 50mm
lens without introducing unpleasing aberration (big noise and so on).
In fact I am looking for a maximized posibility.
-
narke
narke
my
favourite combination for portraits, too.)
But, IMO, a 50mm lens is not a really 50mm lens for DSLR, is it?
They're not same in perspective for the film/CCD size is different.
-
narke
narke
Can I answer your question?
Focal length has nothing to do perspective, that's right! But a
shorter focal lens force you to go closer to the subject than a long
lens do to get the same subject size on the film, this time, as you
noticed, the subject distance changed. It is the distancce that play
the magic.
I think this is what Alan means.
-
narke
Skip M
news:1106216736.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
FOV of an 85mm (approx) on a 35mm film camera. 85mm is in the range
considered appropriate for portraits, for those who worry about such things.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
David Dyer-Bennet
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> 50mm is a bit wide for closeup portraits.
> <snipped>
>
>> The perspective will be correct, there will be no distortion. DOF
>> will not be as shallow as you might like.
>>
> <Snipped here too>
>>
>
> Unbelievable...
> The first day back on the job and here is Alan Browne stating that
> "perspective will be correct" in the discussion of a defined focal
> length lens after going on and on and on about perspective having
> nothing to do with focal length in relation to a portrait...
>
> As I Shake my head in wonderment.
>
> According to the theory argued by Alan a few weeks ago, the focal
> length of a lens has nothing to do with perspective. Now he's saying
> by using a 50mm lens and moving the camera, you can alter the
> perspective.
Note the "and moving the camera". The lens doesn't change the
perspective. Moving the camera does.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> 50mm is a bit wide for closeup portraits.
>
> <snipped>
>
>> The perspective will be correct, there will be no distortion. DOF
>> will not be as shallow as you might like.
>>
> <Snipped here too>
>
>>
>
> Unbelievable...
> The first day back on the job and here is Alan Browne stating that
> "perspective will be correct" in the discussion of a defined focal
> length lens after going on and on and on about perspective having
> nothing to do with focal length in relation to a portrait...
>
> As I Shake my head in wonderment.
>
> According to the theory argued by Alan a few weeks ago, the focal length
> of a lens has nothing to do with perspective. Now he's saying by using a
> 50mm lens and moving the camera, you can alter the perspective.
Be careful with your snipping Doug. What I said in full was: "Say you want to
make a head and shoulders shot, compose it to fill the frame, then increase your
distance by 2/3 more to twice as far away. Crop the result. The perspective
will be correct, there will be no distortion. DOF will not be as shallow as you
might like. "
I'm saying precisiely what I've said from the beginning. With a wider lens,
just move further back and then crop the result. From a perspective POV a shot
taken at 2 meters from the subject with a 50mm is identical to a 100mm at 2
meters away.
> Any chance of consistency, Alan? If you're going to rant at me for
> saying you get a better perspective with an 80 or 100 mm lens than you
> do with a 50mm one, how about not arguing I'm wrong and then saying the
> same thing yourself a few weeks later? Maybe you read some of the text
> books I pointed to on the subject and changed your mind without telling
> anyone?
I have been perfectly consistent Doug. I have maintained that a shot taken at a
specific distance from the subject gives the same perspective. That happens to
be the truth, which is convenient as well.
The OP wants to take a portrait with a 50mm lens. He has nothing else. So,
just take the shot from further away and crop the result.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
For a 1.6x cropped sensor, you end up with a result similar to an 80mm lens.
That would produce very nice portraits without any distortion.
As I said earlier, cropping a 50mm shot that was taken further back is the same
as using a longer lens uncropped. A cropped sensor does the cropping for you.
me
Ahhhh! A secret is revealed! This question is about a film camera with a
50mm lens. Too bad that fact wasn't mentioned in the OP.
:-(
Sign,
me
me
> Lewis,
>
> Thank You Very Much!!! You'v offer me a excellent start point. I need
> some time to study what you said and I'v already saved the post. Now I
> answer some questions you mentioned,
>
> 1, If I'm using the CZ 1.4/50mm?
>
> Yes, and I mount it on a Contex Aria. You said that is one of the
> sharpest of all, that encourge me to ask that Sharpness is a good news
> or bad news for portrait?
Who knows? Depends on what you and or the subject wants. If softness is
desired use diffusion, in which case the sharpness of the lens is not a
factor.
> 2, What kind of "portraits" do I want to do?
>
> Actually I want three kind of portraits. People in enviroment and
> somewhat Head/Shoulder shots. You said, the Head shots is a little hard
> and it depends, now I wanna know what about Head/Shoulder shots? In
> further, I want to know what is the closest subject distance for a 50mm
> lens without introducing unpleasing aberration (big noise and so on).
> In fact I am looking for a maximized posibility.
Your distaste for distortion is unknown so this distance can only be
determined by you. Take some portraits, make note of the distance and see
for yourself.
> -
> narke
Sign,
me
Daniel ROCHA
Hello,
> I by far got only one lens, a CZ 50mm. Using it to shoot portraits, is
> it possible to get good results?
All 50mm are good lenses !
> I like to hear some advice on
> anything around this case, about composition, subject distance,
> enlarge and so on.
I really love taking portraits with a 50mm.
You can make portraits enough close and more general views.
90% of the portraits taken in this picture are made with a 50mm :
http:/:www.monochromatique.com/portrait/
--
<> Daniel Rocha - Photographie <>
http://www.monochromatique.com
Ryadia
>
> As I said earlier, cropping a 50mm shot that was taken further back is
> the same as using a longer lens uncropped. A cropped sensor does the
> cropping for you.
>
That's not true Alan.
The depth of field of a 50 mm lens is greater than a 100mm lens. The
"crop factor" is just that. It is not, never will be and never can,
produce the same results as using a telephoto lens for a portrait.
You seem to be a past master at taking only those parts of an issue and
turning it into an argument that suit your point of view and focusing on
only the part you decipher differently than the poster intended.
Your suggestion that a 50 mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor dSLR will be the
same as using a telephoto lens is totally incorrect and has no basis
practical use. If you want a proper perspective to your portraits, just
relying on the 1.6 crop factor alone will not give you the same results
as using a telephoto lens designed for portraits.
In fact, your suggestion elsewhere that you can just move the camera and
obtain the correct perspective by cropping the picture, makes no
allowance for the fact you cannot enlarge a 35mm image to a traditional
portrait and keep the grain under control or retain any semblance of
detail if you have to crop it by 50% to obtain the correct perspective
in the first place. 35mm film simply does not have the latitude to
permit enlargements that big.
Somehow I get the notion that you soak up technical information like a
sponge. Wouldn't it be good if you also knew the implication of using it
without practical experience too?
Doug
Lourens Smak
Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> According to the theory argued by Alan a few weeks ago, the focal length
> of a lens has nothing to do with perspective. Now he's saying by using a
> 50mm lens and moving the camera, you can alter the perspective.
You are giving the answer yourself: *moving the camera* will correct the
perspective to match the 50mm to the 85mm. You just have to stand in the
same spot for both shots, that's all. Then crop the 50mm shot, and
(perspective-wise...) both shots will be identical. Try it with a 28mm
and a 300mm, you'll be surprised.
Lourens
ch...@go.com
> With a wider lens, just move further back and then crop the result.
If you move further back, you HAVE changed both your perspective and
DOF. But then you immediately go on to say:
> From a perspective POV a shot taken at 2 meters from the
> subject with a 50mm is identical to a 100mm at 2 meters away.
Which is exactly NOT what you just said to do. You kept the distances
the same!!
And in an earlier post, you said this:
>For a 1.6x cropped sensor, you end up with a result similar to an 80mm
lens.
>That would produce very nice portraits without any distortion.
NO. By cropping, you only end up with a similar FOV. Both perspective
and DOF will be different - ie `distortions`.
>As I said earlier, cropping a 50mm shot that was taken further back is
the same
>as using a longer lens uncropped.
NO. It is NOT the same in either perspective or DOF, only in field of
view.
Bob Hickey
the nodal point to film or sensor distance remains the same, and the nodal
point to subject distance also remains the same, then the perspective
remains the same. If the sensor or film is smaller than 35mm, then the
perspective will be the same, but the image will be smaller, or cropped.
IOW, if you want a flatter perspective, move back; an exaggerated
perspective, move closer. There's no law that says a portrait is a
headshot. Maybe it is, maybe it's full length, maybe it's a whole room with
someone standing around. Or not. Bob Hickey
Lewis Lang
>From: "me" anonymous@_.com
>Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2005 2:19 PM
>Message-id: <10uvtgi...@corp.supernews.com>
Why thank you, "Lewis". Didn't know I had a twin (other than the troll ;-)).
:-)
me
news:20050120215947...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Sorry Lewis, I was just trying to expedite things. Please continue with your
answer. ;-)
Film best,
me
Lewis Lang
>From: "me" anonymous@_.com
>Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2005 2:19 PM
>Message-id: <10uvtgi...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>news:1106216564.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Lewis,
>>
>> Thank You Very Much!!!
You're welcome very much! :-)
You'v offer me a excellent start point. I need
>> some time to study what you said and I'v already saved the post. Now I
>> answer some questions you mentioned,
>>
>> 1, If I'm using the CZ 1.4/50mm?
>>
>> Yes, and I mount it on a Contex Aria. You said that is one of the
>> sharpest of all, that encourge me to ask that Sharpness is a good news
>> or bad news for portrait?
>
At the risk of repeating almost verbatim what has already been answered by
someone else for a reply that was directed at yours truly... :-)
Depnds upon your taste. For more surreal people shots I prefer a sharp image
because I am doing "character studies" that are larger than life so I like a
sharp, bright colored in y our face approach. This means sharp lenses and
saturated color (slide or negative) films.
For more "classic" portraits which aim more at flattery than self-expression
(or even surrealism) any even averagely sharp lens may be too sharp. Though I
myself am not a fan of diffusion filters (I prefer to use softer films (like
Ilford XP-2 Super in black and white (a monchromatic C-41 process 'color'
negative film) and Portra 400UC (or their lower saturation 160/400 Kodak and
Fuji professional portrait film variants) or Agfa VIsta 400 (though this ilk of
400 speed films now seems to have both lower contrast and quite saturated
tones, just not as in your face saturation as some of the slower slide/color
neg films like Velvias or E100VS) or its equivalent in color films) rather than
softening up a lens w/ a filter in front of the camera or after the fact by
scanning a film image and then softening it in some Photoshop-like digital
image manipulation program), some people use the diffusion filters to good
effect, but beware, too much of a good thing, can well, be too much. Experiment
and see for yourself how much if any diffusion works with the types of subjects
and style of people photography you prefer. "When in doubt... test it out" -the
only good piece of advice I got in photography school :-(...
>
>> 2, What kind of "portraits" do I want to do?
>>
>> Actually I want three kind of portraits. People in enviroment and
>> somewhat Head/Shoulder shots.
That's two types, not three types. What's the third type beyond "People in
enviroment and somewhat Head/Shoulder shots"?
Anyways, the 50mm (and even wider focal lengths - I have even used down to 16mm
fisheye for some "environemental" portraits - see "RENNAISSANCE COUPLE WITH
DOG", "CHARLIE AND ME #1" AND "YOUNG AMERICANS #1" on my website) will do you
fine for people in environments. For the somewhat head/shoulders variety any
fixed focal length lens or zoom that covers the 70-210mm range (with the 85mm
through 135mm being the most popular/often used focal lengths for "classic"
headshots) should be more than adequare. I use a Tamron 70-150mm/3.5 on my
Contax SLR because its small, solid (made of metal), cheap, incredibly sharp,
has a reasonably bright (for easy manual focusing in the viewfinder) f/3.5
aperture and should I ever neeed/want to carry it over to another system all I
have to get is another Adaptall mount in the next system's mount and I can use
the lens on it w/o any problems. But I also have/use a Maxxum 70-210mm f/4 and
have rented out the fixed focal length old style manual focus Tamron 90mm/2.5
macro lens to do head shots. I have also owned and used the Nikon Series E
75-150/3.5 and 105/2.5 AIS Nikkor lenses as well as various 90mm (f/2.8) Leica
R lenses and their 100/2.8 macro for head shots (the last I took more "nostril
shots" to test the close focusing ability/sharpness ;-)). But as I've said
before, almost any focal length within the 70-210mm range and beyond from any
brand will do you well for head shots.
You said, the Head shots is a little hard
>> and it depends, now I wanna know what about Head/Shoulder shots? In
>> further, I want to know what is the closest subject distance for a 50mm
>> lens without introducing unpleasing aberration (big noise and so on).
What is and is not distortion with any focal length lens or at any distance
from any subject is purely a matter of taste and visual style and the purpose
of (and audience for/"who you are trying to please, if anyone of) your shot.
Whatis the closest subject distance? It totally depends upon you and your
tastes/needs/style of photography. But read on for both _my preferences_ (which
may or may not aply to you and your preferences/style of photography) and
suggestions as to how to find out what your "distortion"
preferences/tolerability is at what distance(s).
Having said that, I prefer a flatter perspective than most for (tight)
flattering/"classic" portrait/fashion headshots so the further back (regardless
of whether you end up cropping in-camera with the lens's focal length or after
the fact by cropping under an enlarger's easel's masking blades or in
Photoshop, digitally) the better.
For me, and this only applies to _me_ and _my_ tastes, and consider the fact
that I like (to do) very _tightly_ cropped headshots whilst still having a
flattering/slightly flattening perspective for headshots, my guess would be
somewhere's in the 4 1/2 feet to 5 1/2 feet range. But this is only a guess,
_my_ guess, according to _my_ preferences/tastes/mood and depends on the
subject's features (a childs face can have both a flatter nose and a shorter
nose to ears distance than an adult so you can get closer to a child, at least
in theory, with your camera/lens and still have a pleasing perspective on their
faces since their noses usually don't stick out that much to begin with) and
whether the shots style is going after "personality/character" more (where I
can go closer and perspective "distortion" which is a relative term in terms of
taste preference as my normal perspective may be your distortion and vice
versa), or more or a "flattery" type shot (where the farther away I am from the
subject the better as distance flattens apparent/subjective perspective/facial
features - for this type of photogrpahy might I suggest photographing from the
moon or Mars with an astronaughts suit and a very long lens with a tripod or
image stabilization ;-) LOL) or somewhere's inbetween.
SO what this boils down to _for me only_ is that I usually find myself
prefering focal lengths of between 85-135mm at roughly 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 feet for
tight to semi-tight headshots. With a 50mm lens you'd get a 2/3/above the knees
to somewhere in the above the waist range for these distances which would
include more of the environment and be more of a partial body shot than a tight
or even loose headshot. If you have similar leanings in distance/perspective
and need tight(er) head shots then the 50mm won't do it for you and you'll need
a longer focal length lens (either a or several fixed focal length telephoto or
telephoto zoom that covers the 85-135mm focal lengths and a bit more on either
end for flexibility in cropping, or you'll need to get a 2x teleconverter, or
1.4x teleconverter if you prefer, to get the equivalent of a 100mm lens (from
the 2x) or a 75mm lens (from the 1.4 times converter).
Now bear in mind that the above paragraph refers to more flattering (read
"flattening") perspective for classic style portraiture. For more surreal
and/or character studies there is no such thing as too close or too far away,
its only what works that counts - persopectivewise and lens/focal lengthwise
:-).
(Asking another photographer) What is the right perspective for a shot(s) is
like asking a cook how much salt, sugar or butter is needed ina recipe to get
the "perfect" cake. Ask 12 different chefs and you'll get 12 different right
answers that will most likely only apply to those 12 different chefs
and not to you since their tastes are not your taste and vice versa. Experiment
with distances and focal lengths of lenses and see which (distances and focal
lengths) applies best for your particular subject matter and tastes.
Personally, I would rent or borrow a telephoto fixed focal length or zoom lens
from a friend and (if he/she is simialr to the type of subjects you'd be
shooting), without camera in hand, just using your eyes (preferably just
closing one eye since stereoscopic vision might interfere with your judgement,
but either way, 3D or 2D vision, this technique should work) and walking right
up to their face then walking backwards until you get to a point where you find
_to your tastes_ "the big nose/small ears problem" is no longer
relevant/affecting the shot. You can also try it the other way around and start
from a distance of 10-15 feet and _slowly_ start walking in towards your
subject's face and see at which point the nose to face to ears proportions
become disturbing to you then walk back/away from the subject again to see at
what point/distance this "irritation" disappears. That (give or take) is
probably the best distance for that particular subject and your particular
tastes for a flattery/"classic head shot". As someone else said, then make note
of that distance (as a rough guide) and use the zoom's focal length to crop
in/magnify the image _without_ changing your distance to see which focal
length(s) work best for you, this particular subject and this particular kind
of shot. You may find that you prefer 75mm or 105mm or 127mm or even 50mm. But
remember, its the distance and the angle your camera is from the subject that
determine perspective (size relationships between planes with your subject and
between your subject plane and other planes/object in the shot) - the lens's
focal length, whether 50mm or 50mm is merely an in-camera cropping device, so
be sensitive to perspective _without_ the lens (through your distance and angle
to the subject) and then use the lens after the fact for final cropping. As the
old saying _mistakenly_ says they "zoom with your feet" - but in reality this
doesn't work as moving further towards or away from your subject not only
changes image size but changes perspective (size/shape/spatial) relationships
both within your subject and between your subject and other objects/planes in
your shot. You can only "perspective with your feet" (clumsy English but this
gets my point across) and then use the lens (zoom or fixed) to crop after the
fact. Zooming doesn't change perspective, moving in/out from your subject with
your feet does. So think feet first (relative to the perspective you want on
their faces/bodies for people) then lens after.
Don't get hung up on focal lengths (those focal length lenses you own and those
you don't own yet), get hung up on perspective. Photography is image making,
and in image making, perspective has priority over lens (most of the time) when
you want a certain look/feel to the picture. Each subject has its own best
perspective based on your taste and what you think is best. Many people get it
backwards and focus on the technology and equipment of lenses/etc first (by
choosing the focal length then considering the perspective after or not at all)
instead of considering a photograph as just another way/medium for making an
image. Perspective before lens. SPace/emotion before numbers (mm or feet... or
legs ;-)). First develop _your_ taste/style/preferences for certain
perspectives on certain (your types of) subjects). :-)
>> In fact I am looking for a maximized posibility.
>
Aren't we all... ;-)
>> -
>> narke
>
>Sign,
>me
This post is...
Š 2005 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and left turns) Reserved
narke
> 90% of the portraits taken in this picture are made with a 50mm :
> http:/:www.monochromatique.com/portrait/
I like these pics, acturally I'v visited your site serveral days
before! Would you tell me all of the following are shot by a 50mm
normal lens?
1, http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_107.html
2, http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_097.html
3, http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_079.html
4, http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_120.html
5, http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_024.html
Thanks.
-
narke
Lewis Lang
>> >Sign,
>> >me
>>
>> Why thank you, "Lewis". Didn't know I had a twin (other than the troll
>;-)).
>> :-)
>
>Sorry Lewis, I was just trying to expedite things. Please continue with
>your
>answer. ;-)
>Film best,
>me
No, problem. I already gave my answer/reply - but being me, you already knew
that didn't you ;-).
Chris Brown
Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Alan Browne wrote:
[stuff]
>Your suggestion that a 50 mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor dSLR will be the
>same as using a telephoto lens is totally incorrect
Er, actually it is totally correct, as a 50mm lens *is* a telephoto lens on
those cameras, just as an 80mm lens is a telephoto lens on a 35mm camera,
but a standard lens on a 6*6.
HTH.
>and has no basis
>practical use. If you want a proper perspective to your portraits, just
>relying on the 1.6 crop factor alone will not give you the same results
>as using a telephoto lens designed for portraits.
Here we go again... Perspective in an image is determined soley by the
distance from the camera to the subjects in the image, and has nothing to do
with the choice of focal length.
If you want to create a pleasing perspective on a portrait, you need to
stand several metres away, as a rule of thumb. In order to fill the frame
with your subject, you want to chose a lens which gives you the appropriate
field of view. On a 35mm camera, this could well be a lens with a focal
length of around 80mm. On a digital SLR with a 24*16mm sensor, that same
lens will give a picture with a smaller field of view, removing part of the
subject, so you need to use a lens with a shorter focal length. 50mm is
generally ideal.
Now take it the other way, and imagine you're taking someones portrait on a
4*5 camera. An 80mm lens is wide-angle there. If you use an 80mm lens to
fill the frame, you'll practically have to shove the camera ip your
subject's nose, and they'll look ridiculous. If you use that same 80mm lens
and stand where you do with a 35mm camera, you'll get the pleasing
perspective, but have to crop your negative/slide to 36*24mm or thereabouts
to get your subject filling the frame. The right thing to do is to stand in
the same place and use the appropriate focal length to fill the frame.
Jeremy
"Bob Hickey" <Hicks...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in
> IOW, if you want a flatter perspective, move back; an exaggerated
> perspective, move closer. There's no law that says a portrait is a
> headshot.
You're correct, but it the photographer DOES want a head shot, and he wants
to avoid the "pulling out" of the nose and ears that would result from
moving closer to the subject, then the normal lens is going to produce
unacceptable results.
One other factor that should be considered is that the normal lens is
typically very sharp, whereas a lens optimized for portraits will have a
shallower DOF (and corresponding wide apertures), making the skin features
look less harsh.
I use my normal lens for easily 80-90% of what I shoot, but it is not the
ideal choice for portrait work--especially when filling the frame with only
the head and shoulders.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>
>> As I said earlier, cropping a 50mm shot that was taken further back is
>> the same as using a longer lens uncropped. A cropped sensor does the
>> cropping for you.
>>
>
> That's not true Alan.
> The depth of field of a 50 mm lens is greater than a 100mm lens. The
> "crop factor" is just that. It is not, never will be and never can,
> produce the same results as using a telephoto lens for a portrait.
>
> You seem to be a past master at taking only those parts of an issue and
> turning it into an argument that suit your point of view and focusing on
> only the part you decipher differently than the poster intended.
This has been your pattern not mine. Since the beginning of the great
perspective debate I named the issues clearly:
-perspective is distance
-DOF will be deeper with a wider lens
As to the OP of the current thread, he has only the one lens to work with, so
given that limitation we can only advise him how to get the best possible result
from that lens. That is what this thread is about.
Lastly, it is not graven in stone that a portrait must have a shallow DOF. It
may be desirable in many cases but it is not the only way. For the OP in this
thread it is a limitation he clearly has to live with if he doesn't buy another
lens.
Cheers,
Alan.
Jeremy
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
A thought just occurred to me. Might a teleconverter used with a normal
lens give a more pleasing result? Even if it degraded the resolution
somewhat, that might not be all that bad for portraiture.
Alan Browne
>
> A thought just occurred to me. Might a teleconverter used with a normal
> lens give a more pleasing result? Even if it degraded the resolution
> somewhat, that might not be all that bad for portraiture.
It would be nice if the thought to snip your posts would occur to you.
TC's sometimes don't work with shorter lenses. The system you have might limit
this. I can't use my TC's with my 50 or my 100.
me
news:zG9Id.26428$P93.9...@wagner.videotron.net...
> Jeremy wrote:
> >
> > A thought just occurred to me. Might a teleconverter used with a normal
> > lens give a more pleasing result? Even if it degraded the resolution
> > somewhat, that might not be all that bad for portraiture.
>
> It would be nice if the thought to snip your posts would occur to you.
>
> TC's sometimes don't work with shorter lenses. The system you have might
limit
> this. I can't use my TC's with my 50 or my 100.
I'm just being nosey here Alan but why can't you use your TC with those
lenses?
Film best,
me
me
news:po9Id.2986$cZ1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> A thought just occurred to me. Might a teleconverter used with a normal
> lens give a more pleasing result? Even if it degraded the resolution
> somewhat, that might not be all that bad for portraiture.
That's something to think about. Inexpensive TC's are available used. Good
thinking Jeremy!
Film best,
me
Alan Browne
>
> I'm just being nosey here Alan but why can't you use your TC with those
> lenses?
Minolta won't let me. The Maxxum TC's only 'fit' certain Primes beginning at
135mm. It's due to the design of the TC's. I believe that Kenko TC's (for
Maxxum) will fit almost all the lenses.
Beyond that, I seem to recall somebody here mentioning that the optical path
characteristics make TC's useless below about 100mm or so. I don't really know
if it is feasible. (IIRC I suggested that a 50+2.0 TC would be a reasonable
attempt at a 100mm lens, but somebody retorted that it could not be done for
some optical reason.... what the truth is, I simply don't know).
Cheers,
Alan
Lewis Lang
>or you'll need to get a 2x teleconverter,
>or
>> 1.4x teleconverter if you prefer, to get the equivalent of a 100mm lens
>(from
>> the 2x) or a 75mm lens (from the 1.4 times converter).
>A thought just occurred to me. Might a teleconverter used with a normal
>lens give a more pleasing result? Even if it degraded the resolution
>somewhat, that might not be all that bad for portraiture.
Already mentioned above as one of the possibilities but it would be up to the
OP to determine which works best formhim.
Bart van der Wolf
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> me wrote:
>>
>> I'm just being nosey here Alan but why can't you use your TC with
>> those
>> lenses?
>
> Minolta won't let me. The Maxxum TC's only 'fit' certain Primes
> beginning at 135mm. It's due to the design of the TC's. I believe
> that Kenko TC's (for Maxxum) will fit almost all the lenses.
Yes, there may be a limitation due to protruding rear elements of the
lens hitting the front elements of the converter. Besides,
converters/extenders are optimized for longer focal lenses. I haven't
tried my Kenko on shorter lenses, but on a good 200mm lens I saw
significant chromatic aberration in the extreme corners. I can only
imagine what it would do on wider angle lenses which are much harder
to design anyway.
Bart
Daniel ROCHA
http:/:www.monochromatique.com/portrait/
> I like these pics, acturally I'v visited your site serveral days
> before!
Thanks ! :)
> Would you tell me all of the following are shot by a 50mm
> normal lens?
>
> 1, http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_107.html
> 2, http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_097.html
> 3, http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_079.html
> 4, http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_120.html
> 5, http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_024.html
> Thanks.
Only the 97, the others are too close ! ;)
Some 50mm pictures :
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_198.html
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_077.html
The gallery will be updated with new scans and new pictures in
february.
Regards,
Bandicoot
news:20050119092556...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >>>>>No, it is not possible to get good results. The lens is too
> short<<<<
>
>
> its very possible to get good results - see a pic from a 55mm lens
>
>
> http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/m6.jpg
>
Here's another 50mm portrait:
http://www.bard-hill.co.uk/temp/Corinna_50mm_f1-2.jpg
This, I think, is where the 50mm length does work for people: not
going in too close, and including some 'environment' in the shot. This
one was taken during the interval of a rock concert, in a bar lit only
by flourescent tubes, with a Pentax 50mm f1.2 wide open on
TMax3200 rated at 1600.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:41f1b2a7$0$6214$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Pentax seems to have addressed this issue specifically: their 2x and 1.4x
versions both come in 'L' and 'S' versions.
The L versions are optimised for longer lenses and both have projecting
front elements that would prevent them from fitting a lot of shorter lenses.
The S versions are designed specifically for shorter lengths. Pentax
literature says specifically which lenses work best with which TC - in
general the cutoff from S to L is around the 200mm mark, though there are a
couple of lenses longer than that that they state work better with the S
type.
The Ls are more expensive - but this approach seems to work since they are
very good - the 1.4xL in particular seems to have hardly any detrimental
effect on the image with my 600mm f4.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:35ava4F...@individual.net...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
> >
> > As I said earlier, cropping a 50mm shot that was taken further > > back
is the same as using a longer lens uncropped. A
> > cropped sensor does the cropping for you.
> >
>
> That's not true Alan. The depth of field of a 50 mm lens is
> greater than a 100mm lens. The "crop factor" is just that. It is
> not, never will be and never can, produce the same results as
> using a telephoto lens for a portrait.
>
Wrong. DoF is dependent on magnification, not on focal length. Thus you
get the same DoF with a 200mm lens used at forty feet as you do with a 100mm
used at twenty or a 50mm used at ten. And you get the same DoF _on the
final print_ with the 200mm at forty feet as you do by using the 50mm at
forty feet and (cropping and) enlarging the image four times. Why? Because
you've enlarged the circles of confusion four times as well.
Peter