David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

The OP did say that the right hand was resting on her thigh, not extended toward the camera. I think the answer is simply that a wide-angle lens was used and therefore the camera was too close to the subject--this causes a severe exaggeration of depth in the picture, with items closer to the camera looking much larger than one would expect. The subject was standing with the right hip angled toward the camera, bringing that hand much closer to the lens than the left hand. Use a longer lens or have the subject stand square to the camera.

LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

Thank you all for the insight and opinions. I play to return to the stairwell and take a few shots with different focal lengths and different angles to see what happens.

Al Freeedman

There is no way that this is an optical illusion. The only problem is that the lens used was too short, period.
Try the shot again with a 85 or 105 mm lens and you will see that I am correct. The "experts" on this site don't know what they are talking about.

Captain Al

TBPJr Loc: South Carolina

I suspect you are somewhat taller than your wife; her pose puts her right hand closer to the camera than the rest of her (your sensor plane is tilted--angled to frame the picture) in the plane of focus. Also, her right forearm, because of the shape and the lighting, ends up looking skinnier than it is. If you leaned over so that you can frame the picture with the plane of the sensor parallel to the walls behind her or simply framed her where she falls in the viewfinder with the sensor parallel, both distortions would be less noticeable; if she turns herself more squarely to the camera, her hands would look more the same. You will always get perspective distortions (or effects) when your sensor plane is not vertical (or parallel to the plane that determines positioning).

You can always crop the picture--I am sure you like the smile you captured.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I think Rongnongno is correct that this is more of an illusion. Even though 45 is not very wide, it appears that there is not a lot of distance between you and your wife. With the slightly wide angle plus the relative short distance it is still going to distort perspective from what one normally sees. It also looks like she might be just slightly leaning back against the railing. But the hand being held flat and tight on the hip, spread relatively wide, and fairly perpendicular to the camera is going to exacerbate the illusion.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

If you can't figure it out study anatomy, drawing and perspective.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Strictly speaking it is only a matter of perspective. Directly that has nothing to do with the lens focal length, though indirectly it is a side effect.

Perspective is directly the result of distances. Two things at the same distance have the same relative size, two things separated by different distance from the camera are relatively different in size. That means if two object are physically exactly the same size the one that is twice as close to the camera will appear to be twice as large in the image.

That condition is the result of where you locate the camera to take the picture. Two objects two feet apart look very different when the camera is two feet from the nearest and four feet from the distance object, as compared to when the camera is 100 feet from the nearest and 102 feet from the other.

All that the lens focal length does is frame the image. You could use different lenses, one very short and one very long, to shoot the objects at 100 feet distance. The short focal length shot would need to be cropped, but the perspective would be exactly the same as the image shot with the longer focal length.

Al Freeedman

I have no idea why this problem has to be micro managed. It also can not be an illusion because illusions can not be photographed.
Again, the problem could be corrected by using a longer focal length lens and moving back to get the correct perspective.
All you have to do is try it and you will see that I right.

Captain Al

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

No, it actually will not.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Moving back is what would fix the distortion. That is true whether he chooses to use a longer focal lens or not.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Crop to the same size and see what happens.

RealBohemian Loc: Toronto

I believe the picture is true,and her hand is one of most visible object. i corrected background and there are no changes to hand,when i measure thumbs on left and right hand difference is approx.3milimeters in length which is not significant.
BTW nice portrait anyway, it have character
what was the lens you used?


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[/quote]

Al Freeedman

You did not mention the focal length of the lens. Do the picture over and have her
put her right hand in her pocket. Better yet, send her here to South Carolina and I'll re-do the picture for you.

Captain Al

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

Another factor in the hand looking large is the lighting on the arm makes it look very thin.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

love is blind tell, the camera shows the truth