rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I took a portrait of myself yesterday to do an illustration of a two-light set up and only had my X100S available (which is a fixed 35mm equiv camera) so that's what I used.

On another forum I made an off-the-cuff remark about how the X100S wasn't suitable for a head/shoulders portrait and someone said "it looks fine...I don't know why you'd say that..."

Well...that prompted me to dig through my flickr photos to find another shot of myself taken with a longer lens for comparison.

You might say that the 35mm is fine, if you didn't see a comparison shot so I've merged them together to illustrate what happens when you do.


Notice that in the shot on the left my ears are flattened against my head and almost not visible?

Notice how my face is sort of stretched and my nose looks more prominent in the shot on the left? (some people call this effect horse-face and that's what it looks like to me)

Even the basic shape of my face is different in each shot.

I hope you can see that the shot taken with the 85mm (while even this focal length is not optimum..I'd go longer if I was choosing a lens for this situation) is a much more pleasing look than the other one.

(Download)

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I see, but I wonder if both shots were in the same clothing and in color, if the differences would be as obvious. (Plus, nice hat and at least horse's face is better than the other end! ) LOL.

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

I'm looking and the only real thing that strikes me is that the left one is closer to the camera, so yes, there will be differences.

The only true was is to take them at the same time with same distance, lighting, clothes to really know the differences.

But yes, a telephoto lens probably does a better portrait compared to a close focal length.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Well...here is a more direct comparison then same lighting etc...this should make it more obvious as to the effect of distance on facial distortion.

(Download)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Well...I don't see why clothing would change anything...the distortion is there..see my post a few below yours for a direct comparison taken from the web.

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

The one that really stands out is the last one - it makes her face look thinner - maybe nose longer?

But in the end, looking at them for a while your mind goes numb!

I suppose it goes back to pixel peeping or just getting out there and taking the shots rather than worrying about minor things.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

It was just a thought to eliminate any obvious differences. Yes, great comparisons. Thanx much for your thoughts!!

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Well..I guess the issue of facial distortion in portraiture being minor would be a matter of opinion...I certainly wouldn't shoot anyone with a 35mm head/shoulders if that were how I made my living!

RJM Loc: Cardiff, S Wales, UK

It is down to opinion.

Non photographers wouldn't have a clue!

Of course a longer lens is better, and on my MFT system I'd go with the 75mm (150mm equiv) and then 45mm (90mm equiv).

If I was using my Fuji X100s I'd get further away - but then I wouldn't be selling them!

But, it isn't until you show the same photo shot at different focal lengths that most people would notice the difference.

Interesting point though. Thanks for bringing it up.

RmcBUDDY Loc: Morris County, NJ

In these comparisons I like the 100mm and the 135mm with the 100mm being my favorite.

Wendy2 Loc: California

There is a huge difference between the first photo and the last and if someone who knew the gal looked at the last photo in the series, they would say, that looks like you, but it is weird. They may not be able to explain why though.

A 35mm really distorts and I would never use it for portraiture either.

hb3 Loc: Texas

Thanks for this...very interesting...can you tell us which focal length best represents the true nature of the woman's face? thanks...

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Well..to be clear, this is the effect of DISTANCE on features, not focal length....focal length isn't the culprit here.

And to answer your question...I don't know.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You are correct in that distance is the only factor that controls the perspective of the facial features. That's why you should start with distance (7 to 15 feet or 2 to 4 meters) to get the optimal perspective for the face. The focal length then simply defines the crop - head shot, head and shoulders, upper body shot, etc.

Cropping the resulting image later in post-processing does the same thing as zooming, in effect changing the effective focal length, although you lose resolution. It is clear that cropping does not distort the facial features, so neither will focal length.

This is easy to demonstrate by setting the camera a fixed distance from the subject and zooming your lens. The shape of the face will not change, only the size of the crop.

When people think that focal length controls perspective they are getting the wrong end of the stick. When you select the focal length first, it may force you to select an appropriate distance and you get to the correct perspective without clearly understanding why.

If you err on the high side (distance or focal length) you are better off since flattening the facial features is less obvious or objectionable than ending up with a large nose.

hb3 Loc: Texas

Thanks....appreciate the clarification... :thumbup: