mleuck

You have to be kidding!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The 28mm lens is very much at fault.
--Bob

cygone Loc: Boston

I took this photo of one of my daughters with her iPhone. The details say it was a 4.25 mm focal length, f1.8. I was maybe 3 feet away from her when I took it. I know it's not the sharpest photo of course. But she loved the picture. I believe the focal length is equivalent to a 26 mm focal length on a full frame camera.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I was your harshest critic here in this thread but I had no intention of pushing you off the forum. I usually enjoy helping folks who are having difficulty with aspects of photography that I am very familiar with and never tend to admonish folks for what they don't know. I think that the best photographers of wildlife, nature and landscape LOVE and RESPECT the animals, specimens, and scenery that they photograh. To be a good portraitist, you gotta love, honor, and respect PEOPLE. You are photographing human beings with feelings, egos, perhaps a little vanity and sometimes some self-consciousness. You need to cut through it all and manage to come up with a good likeness and personality. It takes skill and compassion!

Sometimes LEARNING involves taking some knocks and criticisms so why no hang in here and throw some punches and take a few and continue learning?

joegim Loc: Long Island, NY

.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

"fixing in Photoshop" should never be a substitute for using good photographic technique.
--Bob

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Did you take the shot of her head or head & shoulders? If so, this would explain the distortion. Your effective focal length is 44mm which is close to 50mm and at that focal length it is known that distortion will occur where taking close ups.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I don't believe you were chastised for asking a question. You were chastised for the way you expressed incidental information. E.J. is very experienced and a wealth of information which he freely shares with those willing to ask. His criticism was your choice of wording and apparent lack of respect for your photographic subject. That being, a lady who entrusted you to take her photograph and you lack of respect in presenting your issue.
--Bob

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

The lens Canon sells as a portrait lens for that series is the 60mm prime (which is also macro)--much finer than the kit lenses, but not the L series. I have one and find it very useful for many things. (It is sharp--not a portrait lens in the soft focus sense.)

Of course, the perspective issue is due to distance, not focal length--ideal portrait distance (classical) is 8 ft, regardless of lens or format. If you get too close (perhaps with a wide angle lens), proportions seem wrong, such as too big a nose, or bending if the sensor is at an angle. For a group, however, a wider lens has no distortion if you stay 8 ft. You alter the subject's face by tilting or swinging the back (sensor) as with a view camera. Portrait photographers routinely made people thinner or rounder that way--good for business. Of course, with the Canon the lens and the back swing together, but that still swings the back, making the person's breadth change.

For full figure I use a normal lens, for waist up I use a lens 1.5 x normal (the classical portrait lens). For a family of 4 to 6, I would use 35mm lens equivalent to 35mm camera, about 24mm (Canon has a nice pancake prime lens for this at a modest price, f2.8).

So anyway, for normal depth perspective, use 8 ft, regardless of format or lens. For normal proportions for fat or thin, make the sensor plane parallel to the subject plane. If you look you can see the effect in the live view, and adjust the shape of the person accordingly.

One of the Deardorff boys (Merle I think) published a formula that surprised me, but it works. The trick is that so-called perspective distortion with wide angle lenses (caused by being too close to the subject) is fully corrected by calculating the size of enlargement and the distance of the viewer. I am not making this up. If you shoot a closeup of a person with a wide angle, print it very large and look at it from a close distance (for instance, hang it in the hallway where people are close to it)--then it looks quite normal. If you make an 8x10 of it, and look at it from 3 or 4 inches, perspective again is normal, but you may need magnifier glasses. Alas, we can't always plan the enlargement size and the viewing distance for a shot, but there you are, anyway.

The formula is based on the standard that a 12" lens (305mm) will produce a normal perspective picture printed on 12" paper, seen at 12" from the eye. It makes no difference the format. A 6" lens for the same effect must be enlarged by 2 times more--so wide angle lenses look normal if enlarged more and seen at the same distance.
Divide focal length by viewing distance and you get degree of enlargement for the right perspective--12/12=1 (contact print with 12" paper amd 12 inch negative) 12/6=2 (print 2 times enlargement of the negative).

With minature negatives or sensors used today, the degree of enlargement is way bigger, but the formula still holds regardless. To correct perspective distortion, enlarge more and stand closer. You could hang a picture behind a sofa or piano to make people stand farther back, making the long lenses look more normal in print perspective.

Note--all the textbook samples of perspective effects are correct, but they fail to take into account viewing distance and degree of enlargement--their comparisons assume normal viewing held in the hand as "all else being the same."

Of course it all requires controlled conditions and knowing how the picture will be used. Sometimes we may know that.

The lovely portrait by cygone above using wide angle ipod for camera works fine because of the enormous degree of englargement, seen at reading distance, negates perspective distortion.

jayluber Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Wow. She’s beautiful. You sure she’s yours? Is she available????

Just kidding. I see what you mean about the focal length.

suminblacky Loc: Mercer Pa.

Yeah, but it was funny.

Artcameraman Loc: Springfield NH

Yes, time to take a course in portraiture.

hj Loc: Florida

I'm really quite tired of everyone being so concerned about "political or social correctness". It's okay to reference "facial structure" but not "fat face".. The term was not used in a condescending way but for brevity of explanation. Several said the photographer needs to respect the client. I'm sure he/she would not say "your fat face" to the client. Also, It's okay to say "bloating" but not "her time of month". Our world has become too nasty with word critics everywhere. It's not about the actual words uses, but about the attitude or intent in what one says. I don't think those using the two examples given had evil intent but boy did the critics come out of the woodwork. Nice to know they are the best judges of other's word choices.

Stephan G

There "mus' be a law" against being adult.

no12mo

Agree. Another's comment: "time of month." Come on! Really? I hope that comment doesn't make it back to the subject. That's terrible.

We need the original picture. Pixalize/blur the face if you want to observe privacy. But what we really need is the EXIF info. My guess is you took it in an extreme close up going into wide angle mode which will make a face look rounder than reality. Was this a selfie? I hate selfies 'cause it almost always distorts people's faces

That's why in 35mm format the portrait lens is around 85mm focal length. That focal length compliments faces.

Let's have the picture or at least the EXIF info.