Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Search | Login | Register | Help
Canon vs Nikon: Which is better?
One camera setting that ruins your pictures
(and more, keep reading):
 

Among our users, we have some of the most talented photographers in the world share advice that you won't find even in the most expensive subscription magazines. That's because some of them only post on our website, so you won't find this information anywhere else! Some of them post under an alias, others disclose their studio name, it's up to them. But in either case you get to read and discover photography techniques that will make you very good at taking pictures.

Unlike other websites, we don't try to pitch DSLRs, lenses, and other gear, while collecting sales commission. We don't sell photography tutorials, books, DVDs and courses, while promising that your photography will improve only if you buy what's being promoted.

Instead, we have other people, who are either professional photographers or serious amateurs, some with decades of experience, share with you what they learned, what gear they use, which products really work and which are useless, which techniques work and which don't.

It's all completely unbiased. Our users simply have no reason to lie to you. They are people just like you.

And we provide a free platform for you and them to communicate. So you get to discover this information straight from the source, from people just like you, not from editors of some magazine or sales reps of some company.

This is what makes us different from other photography websites out there that try to sell you something while claiming they are trying to help you.

If you are a beginner, intermediate, advanced, or a professional photographer, then the benefits of signing up for our free daily photography forum digest are:

• We cover both film and digital photography.

• We talk about professional (D)SLR cameras, mirrorless cameras, mid-range/prosumer models, point-and-shoot, and camera phones.

• We cover all types of photography from portraits to landscapes to action shots to macro photography. (Which one interests you the most? Stop and ask yourself right now. You'll need to be able to answer that in just a minute. No matter what you shoot, you'll get better at just that. Read below to find out why.)

• We cover all aspects of photography from picking gear to composition to working with models, and everything in between.

• Each week you'll be receiving new tips and techniques on how to take the kind of pictures that will make your friends, relatives and peers just stare in amazement, speechless, when they see your work. Yep! That's how good your photography will become.

• Daily, you'll be receiving a photography forum digest with the latest photography tips, tricks, reviews and discussions.

• If you ever have a question or need help, you can always ask, and we'll cover your question in the following newsletter issue.

• And of course, it's all completely FREE!

• Let me repeat that. Since for some reason a lot of people contact us asking if the membership is really free: we are a social website for photographers, so we don't sell anything, and we don't charge any fees. It's as simple as that.

Here is how to proceed and what to expect:

Enter your name and e-mail address below, and you'll be instantly added to our photography mailing list distribution. You'll receive a one-time confirmation e-mail. Right after that, the first e-mail with today's digest will be forwarded to you. The signup process is completely automated, so you are just a few minutes away from discovering what our existing users already received earlier today. You'll get up to speed right away on what's the latest on our website, without any long introductions or other delays.

First name:

E-mail address:

Going forward, the next digest will be released in just a few hours. So if you don't sign up now, you'll also miss everything covered in it too.

 
Photo Analysis
Puzzled by distortion in this photo
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Sep 22, 2016 20:39:47   #
LiamRowan
 
This is my wife. I snapped this photo of her in a stairwell that had cool glass showing the outside light and trees yesterday.

Note her right hand, which looks enormous compared to how it looks in reality. What baffles me is that it is right up against her leg, not held out significantly closer to the camera. The window bars are square in reality, but in the image they taper at the bottom and widen to the top. Is that a hint as to what is causing the distortion in the size of the hand? My thinking is that the window bars appear to be getting closer together because they are progressively farther from the lens, so why would the hand do the opposite? Sure am confused . . .

6D, ISO 640, f5, 1/125


(Download)
 
Sep 22, 2016 20:48:28   #
BassmanBruce
 
My thought is you used a wide angle lense fairly close to her when shot.
Sep 22, 2016 20:53:20   #
LiamRowan
 
BassmanBruce wrote:
My thought is you used a wide angle lense fairly close to her when shot.


I used a 24-105mm lens at 45mm.
Sep 22, 2016 20:56:41   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
There is no distortion other than the optical miscue due to the dark background on the right side and the light on left side. Also one hand is flat and the other a profile...

I compared the 'real' thumb sizes and proportions.

As to veins size (a bigger problem in opinion) there is a simple solution of keeping her arms above her shoulder a few seconds before you capture the scene. That is a minor flaw so... Disregard if you like.
Sep 22, 2016 21:00:17   #
usken65
 
Are we just supposed to take your word for it that she doesn't have 1 huge hand.
Sep 22, 2016 21:01:03   #
LiamRowan
 
Perhaps "distortion" is the wrong word. It appears disproportionate to how it looks in real life, by perhaps as much as 30%. I do not know what an "optical miscue" is. Thanks.
 
Sep 22, 2016 21:02:03   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
Your eyes get fooled, nothing more.
Sep 22, 2016 21:02:06   #
LiamRowan
 
usken65 wrote:
Are we just supposed to take your word for it that she doesn't have 1 huge hand.


Yes, please take my word for it. I would not be wasting everyone's time on the forum. Here's an image with her hands looking like they normally do.


Sep 23, 2016 06:06:43   #
Al Freeedman
 
Should have used a longer lens, 85 MM or 105 MM
Sep 23, 2016 10:08:43   #
ole sarg
 
Could be swelling from after she clipped ya!

Try reproducing the shot using various focal lengths.
Sep 23, 2016 10:57:34   #
wmurnahan
 
One thing, a sharp lens is not the best lens for portraiture unless you are 20 with perfect skin.
 
Sep 23, 2016 11:16:32   #
Armadillo
 
LiamRowan wrote:
This is my wife. I snapped this photo of her in a stairwell that had cool glass showing the outside light and trees yesterday.

Note her right hand, which looks enormous compared to how it looks in reality. What baffles me is that it is right up against her leg, not held out significantly closer to the camera. The window bars are square in reality, but in the image they taper at the bottom and widen to the top. Is that a hint as to what is causing the distortion in the size of the hand? My thinking is that the window bars appear to be getting closer together because they are progressively farther from the lens, so why would the hand do the opposite? Sure am confused . . .

6D, ISO 640, f5, 1/125
This is my wife. I snapped this photo of her in a... (show quote)


Liam,

It appears you suffered with a few optical distortion problems with this image.
Notice the glass panels are not vertical, and have a perspective distortion as we look from top to bottom. This is caused by a wide angle lens and the camera not being perpendicular with the glass background.

The size of her hand on her hip vs on railing is caused by the wide angle lens and the camera too close to the subject.

Both errors can be corrected by selecting a lens with a longer focal length (80 – 100mm), and backing up to frame the subject in the viewfinder.

Any remaining perspective errors can be corrected in PP.

Michael G
Sep 23, 2016 12:26:40   #
Architect1776 (a regular here)
 
LiamRowan wrote:
This is my wife. I snapped this photo of her in a stairwell that had cool glass showing the outside light and trees yesterday.

Note her right hand, which looks enormous compared to how it looks in reality. What baffles me is that it is right up against her leg, not held out significantly closer to the camera. The window bars are square in reality, but in the image they taper at the bottom and widen to the top. Is that a hint as to what is causing the distortion in the size of the hand? My thinking is that the window bars appear to be getting closer together because they are progressively farther from the lens, so why would the hand do the opposite? Sure am confused . . .

6D, ISO 640, f5, 1/125
This is my wife. I snapped this photo of her in a... (show quote)


Optical illusion.
The hand is projecting straight at you with the arm receding into the background. The are is also extremely skinny accentuating the perspective distortion.
The second shot the hand and arm are in the same plane and there is not the perspective distortion.
Lens choice cannot do much about this unless it is 400mm or more.
Sep 23, 2016 14:59:42   #
cambriaman
 
I agree with the others. The focal length chosen was the source of the "distortion". The posing does contribute a bit.
Sep 23, 2016 15:26:54   #
R.G. (a regular here)
 
The lack of squareness for the windows is easily explained. If you look at where the centre of the picture is, it's well below eye level, so the camera was pointing down at a significant angle, generating the convergence that you see. The size of the hand is probably an optical illusion, caused by the arm receding into the distance and the fact that the fingers are splayed and the wrist is so thin.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
          
Photo Analysis
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2016 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.