The Lady has a fat face (Page 2): write out the 'guide-lines' 100 times and maybe you will have grasped the idea how you went wrong. Pablo8 Are you an exteacher?

HOHIMER

write out the 'guide-lines' 100 times and maybe you will have grasped the idea how you went wrong.
Pablo8

Are you an exteacher?

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

HOHIMER wrote:

write out the 'guide-lines' 100 times and maybe you will have grasped the idea how you went wrong.
Pablo8

Are you an exteacher?

NO.....But ran a Photographic business for over 40 years, and still give talks / demonstrations to clubs.

CO

Was that person close to the side of the frame? It could be volume deformation. It will stretch a person or other object horizontally. I have the DxO ViewPoint 3 software and have used it to correct volume deformation.

I took the lower photo with a 16mm focal length. The side buildings are stretched horizontally from volume deformation. I corrected it the DxO ViewPoint 3 (lower image in diptych).

(Download)

I photographed this building and used a 16mm focal length. The side buildings are stretched horizontally from volume deformation (upper image). I then corrected it with DxO ViewPoint 3 (lower image)

(Download)

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

CO wrote:

Was that person close to the side of the frame? It could be volume deformation. It will stretch a person or other object horizontally. I have the DxO Viewpoint 3 software and have used it to correct volume deformation.

Cannot see any picture examples.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

Ahhhhhhh Pictures have now arrived. But why did you place the lady looking out of the frame, rather than into the scene?

CO

Pablo8 wrote:

Ahhhhhhh Pictures have now arrived. But why did you place the lady looking out of the frame, rather than into the scene?

The upper photo is not mine. That's from DxO . The lower two photos are mine. I photographed the State Capital building in Richmond, VA. I used a 16mm focal length. You can see how the side buildings are stretched horizontally. I used DxO ViewPoint 3 to correct the volume deformation. I made a diptych of the two photos some time ago to send to a friend who does photography.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Apart from the perspective distortion, another possible cause is lifting the shadows too much, especially the shadow under the jawline. If you brighten that shadow too much it can make the person's neck look fat and it can give the impression that the person's face merges into their neck without any reduction in width. And the shadows round the sides of the face are what allow us to assess the width of the face. Without them the face will seem wider.

If your problem is purely down to perspective distortion, one possible fix may be to give the image a slight vertical stretch - and I do mean slight. The eye is surprisingly tolerant of ratio distortions (perhaps not so much where exact geometric shapes like circles are concerned). The chances are if you didn't mention it, nobody would notice (provided the stretch is slight).

Vincejr Loc: Northern Kentucky

Yes the lens caused that to happen.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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

Many things can be done in PP.
If you can't use PP then you need a much longer lens. When I had similar faces I used a longer lens, like a 135 to 200 mm. The wider the lens the more distortion you get, especially if you 3/4 filling the frame with the face.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

I would bet it was the wide angle that you used. Using in the 75-100mm range is usually much more flattering.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

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

Post an example. Too many variables to make any comment here nothing more than pure conjecture. Generally speaking, if the face is in the middle of the frame and you are pretty close where the face fills the frame, faces tend to look thinner with wider angles. This is not because of the focal length, but because as you get closer your perspective changes. You can use a wide angle lens at the same distance as you would a short tele lens and crop the result to match the same angle of view as the tele, and the face will look identical. Move in closer and everything changes.

https://steemit.com/photography/@sulev/about-photography-knowing-your-focal-length-what-is-it-what-does-it-do

CO hits the nail on the head in the event that the lady is near the edges of the frame when you are using a wide angle lens. Volume deformation is a real effect with wide and ultra wide lenses. To my knowledge, only two lenses corrected for this type of distortion - The Zeiss 38mm Biogon (used in the Hassleblad Superwide C), and the Zeiss 25mm F2 Distagon (the one I had was in a Contax mount).

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

newtoyou wrote:

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

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

sb wrote:

I would bet it was the wide angle that you used. Using in the 75-100mm range is usually much more flattering.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

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

There could be a number of things that went wrong. Wide angles can be distorting , poor or improper lighting can make the face lager or smaller depending on the shot. Even the wrong shutter speed with subject moving can distort the final catch. Did you employ the flash and if so was it properly synced.
What type of focus , or types of tracking were in play when you took the shot.

I too struggle with these considerations frequently and my camera is way more capable than it's owner.
So go back to your camera's manual and revisit it's functions and then actually test them out and practice your skills daily. I have found that this is the only way for me to learn....by actually doing it in repetition to where it becomes second-nature to me.

Apart from these few possibilities ,I have no other ideas without your not having posted the example you described above. The experts here of which I am Not are far better qualified to speak to your dilemma than I could ever be and they will probably need to see your mishap and it's data.

Good Luck Always.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

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

Wide angle lenses distort a face. If you want to lose a female friend, just photograph her with a wide angle! Portraits are always done with 85mm equiv. or longer - especially of women.