Why is a lens around 100mm called a "portrait" lens?
Q
I picked up a 135mm lens not too long ago...the clerk called it a portrait
lens. I already have a 55, which I would think is far more suitable for
that sort of thing, considering that with the 135 I need to get back about
25 feet to get an upper body shot.
Now I don't have a big enough room to stand back 25 feet to get a portrait.
I didn't buy the 135 for that reason of course, but I'm still puzzled about
the name. Any wisdom on this?
Thanks,
Q
Stefan Miltchev
* telephotos compress space usually offering a more pleasing perspective when you are shooting people. Try to take a head and shoulders of somebody with a 20mm and see how cartoon-like their features become. IMO you can usa a 55 for portraits but it is better for full length portraits.
* if you are shooting too close to your subject, he/she might become uncomfortable. Hence, the greater working distance of telephotos is usually appreciated.
Thus, lenses in the 85-135mm range are usually referred to as portrait
lenses. Of course, good portraits can be taken with any lens as long as
you have an original idea. If you take a look at MTV and the like you'll
see that most hip-hop videos are shot with ultra-wideangles. At the other
end of the spectrum many a fashion shot has been taken with a 300mm to
completely blur the background etc...
Stefan
-- ---------------------------------- Stefan Andreev Miltchev 3600 Chestnut Street, Box #1214 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6106
Art Begun
considered flattering. Also makes it a bit easier to put
background out of focus.
"Q" <Q...@Q.com> wrote in message
news:vRYD6.9878$f5.672446@news...
Mac Breck
A 100mm is about the right focal length on a 35mm camera to achieve a tight
headshot from 6 to 8 feet. An 85mm would be suitable for a head & shoulders
shot from the same distance. If the subject has a big nose, you can make it
a little less apparent by using the 135mm (or longer lens) from a longer
distance.
Portraits are most commonly taken from 6 to 8 feet away. If you do the same
with your 55mm, you'll just include more in the frame, and so you'll have to
enlarge more, and so the film grain will be more noticeable. The picture
will be just fine though. However, if you get closer, to increase the image
size with your 55mm, you'll get perspective distortion. Chances are, when
using your 55mm, the perspective distortion won't be *that* obvious but
people just won't like the photo (and likely won't know why). The nose of
the person in the shot will be too big. Just maintain 6 to 8 feet of
distance or a little more, with whatever lens you're using. People are used
to seeing other people from that distance, and not from the vantage point of
a 55mm that's been shoved in some poor soul's face.
Mac Breck
----------------
Vorlon Empire
Defender of Marcus and Lennier
Watch "CRUSADE"
8 PM on The Sci-Fi Channel
Mon-Thurs. in April 2001, beginning 4/9
Hassel Weems
looks the biggest in the picture. If I am standing 3 feet from my
subject to get a head and shoulders portrait with a 50mm lens, the
person's nose being closest to the camera is relatively large compared
to the rest of their face. If I stand 6 feet away with a 100mm lens,
their nose is still closer to the camera, but its size relative to the
rest of the face is much more balanced. If I back up another foot or two
for the same head and shoulders portrait with a 135, I am reducing the
"horse nose" effect even more.
I like using a 50mm for the upper body (waist up?) portraits you
mention, it gives a natural perspective from that working distance. You
have to step back a few feet as opposed to head and shoulders, so you
have reduced the horse nose effect by changing the relative size of the
nose to the rest of the face. I also usually use a 50mm with groups.
Hassel
--
Hassel Weems
Plugged In Design
Web Sites • Graphic Design • Photography
http://www.pluggedindesign.com
--
Tony Spadaro
subject. I consider 100 to be about perfect for a formal portrait, but if
room is a consideration an 85 will do the trick.
THe problem with a 50 is that by the time you are in close enough for a
portrait you are too close - and noses or cheeks get LARGE.
--
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro
Dark Alley Photography - a Java site
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
And the loooooong view of Franklin St.
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/ArtShow.html
"Q" <Q...@Q.com> wrote in message news:vRYD6.9878$f5.672446@news...
Matt Clara
image. I shot this with the new Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 super wide angle
lens. Specifically the lens was set at 18mm and f 3.5 and I was about 9
inches from the subject. Admittedly, her nose isn't big to begin with, nor
is it square on with the camera. Still, it's true that telephotos compress
an image and allow for greater background blur. I believe the 135 was the
preferred portrait lens for sometime, though now-a-days the 105 seems to be
favored by many photographers.
Here's the link http://the.Imagining.home.att.net/Cathleen.jpg It's about
50kb.
Matt
"Q" <Q...@Q.com> wrote in message news:vRYD6.9878$f5.672446@news...
MarkTuccillo
mcsalty
Stefan Miltchev <milt...@gradient.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message news:3AE05C72...@gradient.cis.upenn.edu...
Mac Breck
news:gZ%D6.28233$IJ1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Just to show that wide angle portraiture can be done, take a look at this
> image. I shot this with the new Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 super wide angle
> lens. Specifically the lens was set at 18mm and f 3.5 and I was about 9
> inches from the subject. Admittedly, her nose isn't big to begin with,
nor
> is it square on with the camera.
However, her left cheekbone is square on with the camera and looks a little
too pronounced. Also her right eye looks a little too much smaller than her
left eye. Ditto her lenses in her glasses, since we're getting perspective
distrotion of the eyeglass frames (similar to pointing upward at a tall
building). Still, for 9" at 18mm, not bad!
Gene Rhodes
Gene
Matt Clara
> However, her left cheekbone is square on with the camera and looks a
little
> too pronounced. Also her right eye looks a little too much smaller than
her
> left eye. Ditto her lenses in her glasses, since we're getting
perspective
> distrotion of the eyeglass frames (similar to pointing upward at a tall
> building).
>
Agreed. It is, however, my best picture of the subject yet! :^)
Lewis Lang
>From: "Q" Q...@Q.com
>Date: Fri, Apr 20, 2001 4:46 PM
>Message-id: <vRYD6.9878$f5.672446@news>
135mm lenses used to be quite popular for making portraits because they are at
the borderline of where you begin to see an obvious telephoto compression
effect. This perspective compression (a flattening of the features of the face
(nose/ears/etc.) ) is due to the distance (and angle) between the lens and the
subject and not the focal length itself, the lens merely acts as a
cropper/magnifier and in and of itself doesn't change perspective, however most
people use different focal lengths to crop a scene (and don't give a damn about
perspective effects) so when they frame up a portrait with a 135mm lens they
are usually much further away than when they would take their 50/55mm normal
lenses to get the same cropping. Focal lengths beyond 135mm usually have a
compressed look to them because of the greater distance between the lens and
the subject to get the same cropping which increases perspective compression.
Also telephotos enlarge the background by taking a smaller section of it and
this enlargement/blurring also gives lenses longer than 135mm a definite
telephoto "look" to them.
Years ago 135mm focal lengths used to be part of a trio of lenses that made up
an average single focal length lens kit. First a person would buy a 50-58mm
fast normal lens with their camera (cameras were usually packaged with normal
focal length lenses) then the next step would be to buy a 135mm for portrait
needs (as the "slightly" flattening perspective/cropping you could get by using
this lens from further away than your 50mm lens enabled you to get much more
pleasing looking portraits ie. no big noses/cheeks and no smaller ears as you'd
get from up close with a 50mm lens). The kit would usually be rounded out with
a 28mm or so to get in groups of people, architecture/etc.
Nowadays most cameras are packaged with slower aperture "normal zooms" which go
from about 28-80mm or so and fewer people buy fixed focal length lenses unless
they have a soecific need and want to get more serious about their photography,
as many zooms have more than enough quality for 4x6" prints which is the size
most amatures who are not into photography rarely go beyond anyways.
Actually, 25 feet is a bit too far back just for an upper body shot with a
135mm lens - you could probably do a full body shot at that distance. If you
are going to do a full body shot with a telephoto lens you are much better off
using an 85mm or a 105mm lens as you wont have to back up as much. For an upper
body shot, providing you don't get too close, you'd probably be better off with
an 85mm/90mm lens. A 50mm lens could be used in a pinch so long as you stayed
about at least 4-4 and a half feet or so away from the subject (to allow for a
flattering perspective).
I like to use the 135mm portion of my zoom for tight head shots (I used to use
a fixed 135mm lens for fashion) as I can stay about 5 feet away from my subject
(for pleasing perspective) yet still crop in very close for an ultra tight head
shot with a lot of impact. If you want to do a looser cropped head and
shoulders shot an 85/90/105mm lens will do you fine or just stand further away
with your 135mm lens.
But don't let someone else's calling a lens a portrait lens (or an architecture
lens or any other type of designation) throw you. Portraits, as someone else
said, can be made by any focal length lens so long as you have a good
idea/reason as to why you are using that focal length lens. Some examples...
16mm fisheye
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st5.htm">"RENAISSANCE COUPLE WITH
DOG"</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll9.htm">"CHARLIE AND ME #1"</A>
24mm
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn3/we4.htm">"JUST ANOTHER DAY"</A>
28mm
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn3/we5.htm">"THE GOLDEN CHILD"</A>
50mm
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn3/we2.htm">"JAMES JUGGLING IN THE
WAVES"</A>
90mm
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn3/we6.htm">"GRADUATION BOREDOM"</A>
105mm
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn3/we8.htm">"WESTERN MAN"</A>
I even have a 300mm portrait but it isn't scanned/up on the web, but these
should give you an idea of some possibilities...
Lewis
I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
annqlee
A portrait lens is a convention that people make up due to focal length
vs format size. In general this is around 2 to even 3 times the normal
lens or the length of the diagonal of the film.
Ann
"Q" <Q...@Q.com> wrote in message news:vRYD6.9878$f5.672446@news...
Mark Morgan
"Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote in message
news:EV0E6.3875$uf.18...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
#1 Tiger Fan
induhvidual wrote:
>Is your subject pleased with this shot?
>
>"Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote in message
>news:EV0E6.3875$uf.18...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
>> "Matt Clara" <NOSPAM--...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:gZ%D6.28233$IJ1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > Just to show that wide angle portraiture can be done, take a look at
>this
>> > image. I shot this with the new Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 super wide angle
>> > lens. Specifically the lens was set at 18mm and f 3.5 and I was about 9
>> > inches from the subject. Admittedly, her nose isn't big to begin with,
>> nor
>> > is it square on with the camera.
>> > Here's the link http://the.Imagining.home.att.net/Cathleen.jpg It's
>> about
>> > 50kb.
>> > Matt
I'm sure she's nice and all but are those red bolts in her neck, right
at the edge of the collar?
#1 Tiger Fan
**************
--
"belive me I am nothing to bragg about so dont waste all your time.®"
"it seems like every boddy trys to be politicly incorect these days®"
- grapetastebasted
"Jefferies sucks!"
- Public Domain
" It is just as pertinent as Fat Albert or other aspects of our
culture.®"
-None
Winner of the "Name the Little Fool" contest!!!®
- OMF
Matt Clara
"Mark Morgan" <mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:SY1E6.195731$GV2.43...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
> Is your subject pleased with this shot?
>
Yes, she says its the best picture of her she's seen yet.
David Kieltyka
> Just to show that wide angle portraiture can be done, take a
> look at this image. I shot this with the new Nikon 18-35mm
> f3.5-4.5 super wide angle lens.
> Here's the link: http://the.Imagining.home.att.net/Cathleen.jpg
I like it. Here's one of my dad taken last month with a 15mm lens. It's not
a "portrait" per se but shows you can take people pics with extreme wide
angle lenses without obvious distortion. Of course playing with distortion
can be fun too!
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dkieltyka/birthdayboy.htm
-Dave-
Mark Morgan
:-)
"Matt Clara" <NOSPAM--...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:dc4E6.28471$RF1.2...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Mac Breck
news:SY1E6.195731$GV2.43...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
I didn't take the shot.
Mac Breck
news:Qw4E6.34135$aq5.6...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
Yes, nice shot, but that's more of an environmental portrait, and you
weren't 9 inches away.
:-)
Joseph S. Wisniewski
>
> "Matt Clara" <NOSPAM--...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:gZ%D6.28233$IJ1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Just to show that wide angle portraiture can be done, take a look at this
> too pronounced.
Agreed. Looks a little like a "jowl".
> Also her right eye looks a little too much smaller than her
> left eye. Ditto her lenses in her glasses, since we're getting perspective
> distrotion of the eyeglass frames (similar to pointing upward at a tall
> building).
That's the best part, the perspective. The eyes, the glasses frames, the
dimples, and the mouth all point the eye at a "vanishing point" just off
the left side of the picture. If something else in the picture shared
this line, it would really be killer.
> Still, for 9" at 18mm, not bad!
Here, here!
Ciao!
Joe
Matt Clara
"Joseph S. Wisniewski" <w...@netfrog.net> wrote in message
news:3AE19328...@netfrog.net...
> Mac Breck wrote:
> >
> > "Matt Clara" <NOSPAM--...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:gZ%D6.28233$IJ1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > Just to show that wide angle portraiture can be done, take a look at
this
>
> > However, her left cheekbone is square on with the camera and looks a
little
> > too pronounced.
>
> Agreed. Looks a little like a "jowl".
She has chipmunk cheeks! (Really!) (Ok, not "really": you know what I
mean!)
>
> > Also her right eye looks a little too much smaller than her
> > left eye. Ditto her lenses in her glasses, since we're getting
perspective
> > distrotion of the eyeglass frames (similar to pointing upward at a tall
> > building).
>
> That's the best part, the perspective. The eyes, the glasses frames, the
> dimples, and the mouth all point the eye at a "vanishing point" just off
> the left side of the picture. If something else in the picture shared
> this line, it would really be killer.
That's a neat way of putting it, and something to think about in future
shoots.
>
> > Still, for 9" at 18mm, not bad!
>
> Here, here!
Thank you, sir!
dingbat
This focal length has the right amount of distance compression to make
people's heads look natural. Most important in that matter is the
size if the ears relative to the face.
Longer focal lengths will make the ears too big and shorter lenses
will make the nose too big
The 135 is a bit too long to be used in one on one portait work. An
80 to 100 mm lens is what is normally considered a portrait lens.
There are other considerations such as having a suitable working
distance from the subject, but the issue of natural appearance is the
overriding one here.
Mark Morgan
-I just had to write that...since I've never agreed with someone, and then
still called them a dingbat...
:-)
"dingbat" <not.a...@address.com> wrote in message
news:t695et8d67i9qaes8...@4ax.com...
mcsalty
is visible.... however his face is a little lost. i wouldn't usually
recommend fill flash, but i'm afraid i must.....
David Kieltyka <dav...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Qw4E6.34135$aq5.6...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
mcsalty
job, that this was closed-minded thinking. I also thought of the 80-120mm
range as something of a "zoom" range; the lengths that are there on a tele
zoom but you never use. That was all until I bought a 90mm Tamron.... the
world looks a nicer place with it......
damn good "bokeh" too.
(sorry, just discovered the meaning of the word, and I find it's a
particularly nice one)
Q
Q
Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010420170113...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
Lewis Lang
>From: "Q" Q...@Q.com
>Date: Tue, Apr 24, 2001 3:19 PM
>Message-id: <NXfF6.10456$f5.804171@news>
>
>Thanks for a very informative reply!
>Q
Your welcome and thanks for the complement.
>> "RENAISSANCE COUPLE
>WITH
>> DOG"
>>
>> "CHARLIE AND ME #1"
>>
>> 24mm
>>
>> "JUST ANOTHER DAY"
>>
>> 28mm
>>
>> "THE GOLDEN CHILD"
>>
>> 50mm
>>
>> "JAMES JUGGLING IN THE
>> WAVES"
>>
>> 90mm
>>
>> "GRADUATION
>BOREDOM"
>>
>> 105mm
>>
>> "WESTERN MAN"