Portrait focal lengths
Dec 11, 2022 10:14:39 #
Got this in e-mail this AM, similar to one done many years ago in a photo mag, probably Pop Photo at that time, shows effects of different focal lengths on a persons features, thought you might be interested.
Dec 11, 2022 10:26:24 #
it's often been said that the best focal lengths, and most flattering for portrait photography was between 75mm and 125mm. It's obvious what distortion you'd get using wide angles lenses or settings, but I have also found that longer lenses also distort features by flattening the look of the subject's face. Coincidentally, I happen to own this very lens used here in the tests, and found it to be an excellent 3rd party lens...got a good example I suppose.
Dec 11, 2022 10:26:52 #
Dec 11, 2022 10:34:38 #
Lighting and processing compensate for the "flattening the look" aspect of your comment.
--Bob
--Bob
autofocus wrote:
it's often been said that the best focal lengths, and most flattering for portrait photography was between 75mm and 125mm. It's obvious what distortion you'd get using wide angles lenses or settings, but I have also found that longer lenses also distort features by flattening the look of the subject's face. Coincidentally, I happen to own this very lens used here in the tests, and found it to be an excellent 3rd party lens...got a good example I suppose.
Dec 11, 2022 10:53:17 #
rmalarz wrote:
Lighting and processing compensate for the "flattening the look" aspect of your comment.
--Bob
--Bob
that's probably true today, especially how the portrait is lit, but I remember shooting my wife's face closeup years ago on a Minolta SRT102 with a prime 200mm lens on it, available light, and the photo almost didn't even look like her. It not only flattened the look of her face, but it also made it appear wider than what it was.
Dec 11, 2022 11:40:44 #
It looks to me like he got the tags mixed up. The face says 28 and 75mm swapped, but the background says the tag is correct. My brain is confused.
Dec 11, 2022 11:52:48 #
Wallen wrote:
It looks to me like he got the tags mixed up. The face says 28 and 75mm swapped, but the background says the tag is correct. My brain is confused.
The tag is correct. Proof is in the size of the background.
Dec 11, 2022 19:36:46 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
A more useful and demonstrative comparison would be to move the camera each time to maintain equal framing. That's when the ratios of distances to various facial features (ears, nose, eyes, lips) would change, introducing various distortions. These images maintain the same camera location, avoiding the distortion problem.
Dec 11, 2022 20:52:12 #
—Bob
larryepage wrote:
A more useful and demonstrative comparison would be to move the camera each time to maintain equal framing. That's when the ratios of distances to various facial features (ears, nose, eyes, lips) would change, introducing various distortions. These images maintain the same camera location, avoiding the distortion problem.
Dec 11, 2022 22:01:28 #
Dec 12, 2022 05:38:11 #
rmalarz wrote:
—Bob
—Bob
I believe that is exactly how these were taken... Otherwise the model would have had different sizes.
Dec 12, 2022 05:56:55 #
This applies to Nikon, it could apply to other brands also. When using film the most popular portrait lens was the 105mm f2.5. The most famous portrait of this planet, "The Afghan Girl" of Steve McCurry, shot in 1984, was made with this lens.
Today a majority of portrait photographers, including Steve McCurry use the 85mm f1.8 or 1.4. Many photographers also use the 70-200 f2.8.
For a 3/4 view of the body the 50mm works very nicely.
Today a majority of portrait photographers, including Steve McCurry use the 85mm f1.8 or 1.4. Many photographers also use the 70-200 f2.8.
For a 3/4 view of the body the 50mm works very nicely.
Dec 12, 2022 08:29:22 #
Dec 12, 2022 09:02:49 #
Wallen wrote:
It looks to me like he got the tags mixed up. The face says 28 and 75mm swapped, but the background says the tag is correct. My brain is confused.
I felt something was wrong also. I would expect a wide-angle lens to round out the face adding pounds to the person being photographed. This is evident in the 35mm image. The face looks thinner in the 28 and that doesn't make sense to me.
Dec 12, 2022 09:54:36 #
bobmcculloch wrote:
Got this in e-mail this AM, similar to one done many years ago in a photo mag, probably Pop Photo at that time, shows effects of different focal lengths on a persons features, thought you might be interested.
This is a good alternative view, and one that I like: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/portrait-lenses.htm
I personally like his reasoning and the evidence he provides to support his stance.
So, whether or not you agree or disagree . . . .
Best Wishes and Happy Holidays To All,
JimmyT Sends
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.