The Lady has a fat face: I took some photos on Saturday and one of the ladies face looks too fat. I know her and she doesn't really look that way. I have a Canon T5, used an EF 28-80...

elf

I took some photos on Saturday and one of the ladies face looks too fat. I know her and she doesn't really look that way.
I have a Canon T5, used an EF 28-80 at 28mm. ISO 400 5.6 100th sec. Do you folks think that it was the 28mm setting that made her look so fat or what else could it be?
tks Ed

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

elf wrote:

I took some photos on Saturday and one of the ladies face looks too fat. I know her and she doesn't really look that way.
I have a Canon T5, used an EF 28-80 at 28mm. ISO 400 5.6 100th sec. Do you folks think that it was the 28mm setting that made her look so fat or what else could it be?
tks Ed

Might have been her time of the month.
What was her age?
Bill

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

elf wrote:

I took some photos on Saturday and one of the ladies face looks too fat. I know her and she doesn't really look that way.
I have a Canon T5, used an EF 28-80 at 28mm. ISO 400 5.6 100th sec. Do you folks think that it was the 28mm setting that made her look so fat or what else could it be?
tks Ed

Need the picture to analyze it.

Bill_de Loc: US

A wide angle lens, depending on distance to subject, can have unpleasant effects. That's why portrait lenses are usually in the moderate telephoto range.

--

bleirer

newtoyou wrote:

Might have been her time of the month.
What was her age?
Bill

That remark is inappropriate.

BB4A

elf wrote:

I took some photos on Saturday and one of the ladies face looks too fat. I know her and she doesn't really look that way.
I have a Canon T5, used an EF 28-80 at 28mm. ISO 400 5.6 100th sec. Do you folks think that it was the 28mm setting that made her look so fat or what else could it be?
tks Ed

With that camera body, I'd recommend shooting a human portrait at a minimum of 35-40mm. Otherwise you could find that the lens has produced a less than flattering portrait.

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

newtoyou wrote:

Might have been her time of the month.
What was her age?
Bill

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

elf wrote:

I took some photos on Saturday and one of the ladies face looks too fat. I know her and she doesn't really look that way.
I have a Canon T5, used an EF 28-80 at 28mm. ISO 400 5.6 100th sec. Do you folks think that it was the 28mm setting that made her look so fat or what else could it be?
tks Ed

Yep.
That’s what happens when you’re too close and why the recommended portrait lens length is twice that if the “normal” lens for a given camera. With yours, normal is about 35mm, so a 75 (or 85) would be ideal. The long end of your zoom would have been better.

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Yep.
That’s what happens when you’re too close and why the recommended portrait lens length is twice that if the “normal” lens for a given camera. With yours, normal is about 35mm, so a 75 (or 85) would be ideal. The long end of your zoom would have been better.

A wide angle lens is not what you want for portraits!

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Was it a high angle shot? Everyone's face looks larger when shot from slightly above.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

elf wrote:

I took some photos on Saturday and one of the ladies face looks too fat. I know her and she doesn't really look that way.
I have a Canon T5, used an EF 28-80 at 28mm. ISO 400 5.6 100th sec. Do you folks think that it was the 28mm setting that made her look so fat or what else could it be?
tks Ed

Yes. Its called "perspective distortion".

newtoyou Loc: Eastport

jdubu wrote:

Now I re-read the comment,I agree, it was.
My apologies to all.
Bill

jayluber Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Shoot her again with an 80mm lens and then compliment her on her weight loss.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

Technically, it's not the 28mm lens itself but the place you stood when you used it that makes for the unpleasant look. Set your zoom lens to the longest focal length and take the portrait you want. Then, without moving either your feet or the subject, set the lens to 28mm and take another shot. Blow both of 'em up so the subject is the same size and you will find they look exactly the same, except for whatever image quality loss you may get from the extra enlargement of the 28mm shot.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

Seems like you have been looking-in on UHH for seven years, and you still have not learned anything about focal lengths regarding portraiture. Many earlier posters have pointed out the error of using a wide-angle setting. write out the 'guide-lines' 100 times and maybe you will have grasped the idea how you went wrong.