Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
The effect of distance on a face and my X100S.
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Feb 21, 2014 14:35:02   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
georgevedwards wrote:
...After all, what really causes the horse face effect, and I didn't see it mentioned in a quick skimming of answers, is the distance between the subject and the camera, NOT the lens itself?....

Isn't that what I said in my first post (page 1, second from the bottom)? Maybe I was not clear.

Focal length does not control perspective, camera to subject distance does. There is no such thing as a correct focal length for portraits.

However, there is a preferred range of distances to avoid distorting the features. Focal length merely defines the crop.

Reply
Feb 21, 2014 16:09:41   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
rpavich wrote:
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!


Rpavich, yesterday I didn't have time to make a comment(don't now either), and when I got on my computer late last night, the tome of the discussion was not even close to CC, so it was better to not say anything at all.
But it was apparent to me at first glance that it was shot close and fairly wide and the compression just wasn't there. But that didn't make it a bad shot, and it was about lighting, not the technical aspect of the shot. But yes, the distortion was pretty obvious, but that in no way takes away from the shot and the example for which it was used for. ;-)
SS

Edit: but my original comment still stands!! :lol:

Reply
Feb 21, 2014 16:26:44   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
SharpShooter wrote:
Rpavich, yesterday I didn't have time to make a comment(don't now either), and when I got on my computer late last night, the tome of the discussion was not even close to CC, so it was better to not say anything at all.
But it was apparent to me at first glance that it was shot close and fairly wide and the compression just wasn't there. But that didn't make it a bad shot, and it was about lighting, not the technical aspect of the shot. But yes, the distortion was pretty obvious, but that in no way takes away from the shot and the example for which it was used for. ;-)
SS

Edit: but my original comment still stands!! :lol:
Rpavich, yesterday I didn't have time to make a co... (show quote)


I understand...no shame in that...you recognized something that was wrong with my shot...I don't have a problem with that...truth is truth :)

It's good that we all talked about this and got some good info out there.

Reply
 
 
Feb 21, 2014 18:49:20   #
bunuweld Loc: Arizona
 
rpavich wrote:
I understand...no shame in that...you recognized something that was wrong with my shot...I don't have a problem with that...truth is truth :)

It's good that we all talked about this and got some good info out there.


But playing with changing lenses may bring unexpected consequences :)





Reply
Feb 21, 2014 18:58:49   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
bunuweld wrote:
But playing with changing lenses may bring unexpected consequences :)


OH that caught me by surprise...very good....(and obviously you were too close in the second shot) :)

Reply
Feb 21, 2014 19:07:10   #
Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.
 
bunuweld wrote:
But playing with changing lenses may bring unexpected consequences :)


Now THAT's a quite noticeable difference, even for my old eyes!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.