Is there a difference between zooming in and walking in
Jul 21, 2014 08:19:53 #
Apaflo wrote:
That is an easy misperception to make. In fact th... (show quote)
We might be talking about the same thing. Taking a tele shot that includes a line of telephone poles will make the poles look closer together. While using a wide angle lens will make them look farther apart. Of course, position and perspective also change what you get in the final image.
As for DOF, it is more correctly called "apparent depth of field" because the actual DOF is the same for wide angle or tele. The same distance is in focus regardless of what lens is used. The compression of the tele makes it look as if the DOF is shallower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1jzYexYob4
Jul 21, 2014 08:44:48 #
jerryc41 wrote:
We might be talking about the same thing. Taking a tele shot that includes a line of telephone poles will make the poles look closer together. While using a wide angle lens will make them look farther apart. Of course, position and perspective also change what you get in the final image.
Perspective is a function of location, not focal length. Focal length changes the framing, not the perspective.
You can get the exact same shot of your line of telephone poles at any focal length.
jerryc41 wrote:
As for DOF, it is more correctly called "apparent depth of field" because the actual DOF is the same for wide angle or tele. The same distance is in focus regardless of what lens is used. The compression of the tele makes it look as if the DOF is shallower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1jzYexYob4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1jzYexYob4
The guy has a nice voice. He isn't very good with cause and effect. He moves and then claims the effects are from a different focal length. Not so. But then at some points he does emphasize the change in location is the cause for perspective change.
Jul 21, 2014 08:54:57 #
djenrette
Loc: Philadelphia
Plenty of good comments here --- for the difference between zooming and walking in has to do with changing perspective. When taking cousin Bob's photo at Yellowstone from a distance with the zoom lens set to a more telephoto setting, the bear in the background looks close. As I get nearer and changing the zoom setting that bear moves further into the background, making Bob less of the wild man he thinks he is.
Jul 21, 2014 08:59:09 #
I dare say it has already been said, but the main difference between zooming (ie using a long focal length lens) and walking closer is in perspective. Take a shot with a 50mm lens, and the same shot with a 200mm lens from the same point, and the perspective will be the same. Crop the 50mm shot to the same content as the 200mm shot, and they will be identical (allowing for dof etc), but move in with the 50mm lens and the result will be different. Because your viewpoint has changed.
Jul 21, 2014 09:19:26 #
It is easy to confuse two different concepts.
DOF, which is how much is in focus, depends on various factors, including quality of the lens and the aperture. Thus, for a particular lens, focused at 5' may mean that everything between 4.7' and 5.5' is in focus at f/4, while everything between 3' and 8' is in focus at f/22. You very well might want to use this fact in composing a portrait, using a wider aperture to "fuzz out" potentially annoying background.
The real issue with telephoto lenses is that they compress distance. Usually, that is why we use it. In your case, the best distance for taking a portrait with a 50mm lens might be 5' away ... or you could zoom in from 15' away ... but all distances are compressed when you zoom in. The lens compresses the apparent distance between you and the subject by a factor of 3, but unless s/he is looking straight at you (in which case you probably work for law enforcement taking mug shots or for the license bureau taking pictures for driver's licenses) it will also compress the length of her/his nose, the depth of her/his eye sockets, etc, by a factor of 3. I'm guessing that is not what you want.
DOF, which is how much is in focus, depends on various factors, including quality of the lens and the aperture. Thus, for a particular lens, focused at 5' may mean that everything between 4.7' and 5.5' is in focus at f/4, while everything between 3' and 8' is in focus at f/22. You very well might want to use this fact in composing a portrait, using a wider aperture to "fuzz out" potentially annoying background.
The real issue with telephoto lenses is that they compress distance. Usually, that is why we use it. In your case, the best distance for taking a portrait with a 50mm lens might be 5' away ... or you could zoom in from 15' away ... but all distances are compressed when you zoom in. The lens compresses the apparent distance between you and the subject by a factor of 3, but unless s/he is looking straight at you (in which case you probably work for law enforcement taking mug shots or for the license bureau taking pictures for driver's licenses) it will also compress the length of her/his nose, the depth of her/his eye sockets, etc, by a factor of 3. I'm guessing that is not what you want.
Jul 21, 2014 09:41:48 #
rpavich wrote:
Now where are those blood pressure pills!!!! :)
Roger,
Many people get confused with DOF and BOQUE. This article shows what happens when different sensor sizes are utilized. I thought it might help in this thread.
LINK:
http://www.creativephotography.gg/how-much-camera-do-you-need/
Notice what happens to the background as different camera sensors are used in the same scene. Really good illustration and it makes
Jul 21, 2014 09:41:48 #
rpavich wrote:
Now where are those blood pressure pills!!!! :)
Roger,
Many people get confused with DOF and BOQUE. This article shows what happens when different sensor sizes are utilized. I thought it might help in this thread.
LINK:
http://www.creativephotography.gg/how-much-camera-do-you-need/
Notice what happens to the background as different camera sensors are used in the same scene. Really good illustration and it makes this subject quite clear to newbies.
Jul 21, 2014 09:51:36 #
rehess wrote:
br The real issue with telephoto lenses is that ... (show quote)
Just to be clear, the lens is not compressing the image.
It's the fact that you have to be farther away to get the same subject size with a longer lens that makes it appear to be compressed.
As stated above in Apaflo's post above, if you shoot with a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens from the same position, then crop the w/a shot to match the tele image, the so-called compression will be identical.
This link explains it with photos.
Another plus with a tele lens for portraits is that because of the narrower angle of view, it includes less background area, possibly helping you choose a less distracting background.
Jul 21, 2014 10:12:30 #
Here is my opinion. The most important thing is how comfortable the subject is with the photographer being close, or not. the problem is easily solved with a constant apature zoom such as the Sigma 50-150. Then apature is taken out of the equation and Dof is only a matter of focal length, which can be changed at will and so can distance to subject. Problem solved.
Jul 21, 2014 10:19:10 #
boberic wrote:
Here is my opinion. The most important thing is how comfortable the subject is with the photographer being close, or not. the problem is easily solved with a constant apature zoom such as the Sigma 50-150.
The Sigma 50-150 is a fantastic portrait lens for APS-C sensor cameras.
I have the older, non OS model.
It rarely comes off of my Fuji S5.
Jul 21, 2014 10:54:43 #
Interesting discussion.
Someone explain this to me...DOF...or ???
The osprey wings look out of focus.
But f 5.6 (reasonable DOF)
ISO 100
SS 1/400 ( should have stopped the wings)
300 mm
has all the makings of a DOF problem
Just an example...don't want to hijack the thread
Someone explain this to me...DOF...or ???
The osprey wings look out of focus.
But f 5.6 (reasonable DOF)
ISO 100
SS 1/400 ( should have stopped the wings)
300 mm
has all the makings of a DOF problem
Just an example...don't want to hijack the thread
Jul 21, 2014 11:02:47 #
You got a lot of good detailed answers. You asked if getting closer was the same as zooming. NO, unless shooting a flat object and you are within no-distortion range.
What is best for your situation? I say use a medium zoom. If on a crop sensor digital camera (e.g. Nikon DX) then something like an 18-55, 16-85, 18-200, 18-70. Or try a fixed lens like the Nikon 35mm f1.8. That lens has great reviews and is like the normal 50mm on a full frame DSLR or film camera. I think learning the non-equipment principle of portraiture are just as important, including how to position and composer your subject. Later on, you can get into more exotic lens like the 300mm I used for one shown.
In the samples show which were taken with Nikon DX (crop) format DSLRs using the 16-85 zoom for the first two; the graduation picture was taken at 85mm, them man's photo at 31mm, and the girl's portrait with a 300mm f4 lens.
What is best for your situation? I say use a medium zoom. If on a crop sensor digital camera (e.g. Nikon DX) then something like an 18-55, 16-85, 18-200, 18-70. Or try a fixed lens like the Nikon 35mm f1.8. That lens has great reviews and is like the normal 50mm on a full frame DSLR or film camera. I think learning the non-equipment principle of portraiture are just as important, including how to position and composer your subject. Later on, you can get into more exotic lens like the 300mm I used for one shown.
In the samples show which were taken with Nikon DX (crop) format DSLRs using the 16-85 zoom for the first two; the graduation picture was taken at 85mm, them man's photo at 31mm, and the girl's portrait with a 300mm f4 lens.
Jul 21, 2014 11:16:50 #
I didn't read all the answers, but I saw that most of the answers dealt with DOF. But there's another very important consideration - much more important than DOF in some cases.
Think of the person's features in terms of >>percentage of the distance<< from the lens. Let's go to the extreme... when the camera is very close to someone, their closest features are distorted to look larger than the features only slightly farther away. The nose will look larger and the ears will seem smaller in relationship because the ears are, say, twice as far from the lens as the nose (like I say, an extreme case). But the exaggerated differences gets less and less with distance because the >>percentage of the distance<< between the person's features gets less and less.
Therefore, if the person sitting for a portrait has, say, a huge, honker of a nose, the closer you get to them, the more gigantic it will look in the final picture. Back away. If the person has, say, huge elephantine ears, you want to get closer so that the face, being closer to the camera percentage-wise, will be exaggerated to make the ears look more normal.
So, the answer to your question is not so much a depth of field answer, but a "pay attention to your subject" answer. Everyone wants their portrait to look as good as possible, and as a general rule, they do not want their differences to show. Again, as a general rule - they want their picture to make them look "normal". While they follow your directions and expect and will accept a standard straight-on view of their face, they will generally find ways to subtly indicate that they want their "good side" towards the camera, or that they want a mood picture instead of a standard, or that they think they look better when their head is tilted upwards or downwards (they've tested this in their mirrors). They will indicate that they are proud of their hair, or their chin, or their button nose, or whatever.
Paying attention to the subtleties and the sometimes almost imperceptible cues they give, and then knowing how to give them what they want is much more important than depth of field. You can get short DOF at a distance, and large DOF up close. But understanding things like distance-from-subject-to-lens and how to use those to your benefit is just one of the ways to give them what they want. And that's really the bottom line to portrait photography. It's simply part of knowing the mechanics of your trade and using what you know to make the customer look at the final result and say, "Man! You sure have a nice camera!".
Think of the person's features in terms of >>percentage of the distance<< from the lens. Let's go to the extreme... when the camera is very close to someone, their closest features are distorted to look larger than the features only slightly farther away. The nose will look larger and the ears will seem smaller in relationship because the ears are, say, twice as far from the lens as the nose (like I say, an extreme case). But the exaggerated differences gets less and less with distance because the >>percentage of the distance<< between the person's features gets less and less.
Therefore, if the person sitting for a portrait has, say, a huge, honker of a nose, the closer you get to them, the more gigantic it will look in the final picture. Back away. If the person has, say, huge elephantine ears, you want to get closer so that the face, being closer to the camera percentage-wise, will be exaggerated to make the ears look more normal.
So, the answer to your question is not so much a depth of field answer, but a "pay attention to your subject" answer. Everyone wants their portrait to look as good as possible, and as a general rule, they do not want their differences to show. Again, as a general rule - they want their picture to make them look "normal". While they follow your directions and expect and will accept a standard straight-on view of their face, they will generally find ways to subtly indicate that they want their "good side" towards the camera, or that they want a mood picture instead of a standard, or that they think they look better when their head is tilted upwards or downwards (they've tested this in their mirrors). They will indicate that they are proud of their hair, or their chin, or their button nose, or whatever.
Paying attention to the subtleties and the sometimes almost imperceptible cues they give, and then knowing how to give them what they want is much more important than depth of field. You can get short DOF at a distance, and large DOF up close. But understanding things like distance-from-subject-to-lens and how to use those to your benefit is just one of the ways to give them what they want. And that's really the bottom line to portrait photography. It's simply part of knowing the mechanics of your trade and using what you know to make the customer look at the final result and say, "Man! You sure have a nice camera!".
Jul 21, 2014 11:17:41 #
Those cute pictures of dogs where their noses seem really huge are taken with a short focal length lens and the camera very near the subject. This is an extreme example of the distortion a short camera to subject distance can cause. The "in your subjects face" factor is probably even more important.
Jul 21, 2014 11:23:51 #
ricardo7
Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile
rpavich wrote:
Wrong.
Aperture and distance.
focal length doesn't change DOF.
See previous link (or any other multitudes of links to be had)
Aperture and distance.
focal length doesn't change DOF.
See previous link (or any other multitudes of links to be had)
DOF vs. focal length
{DOF} = 2 N c ( m + 1 )
____________
m^2 - (Nc/ f)^2
Where f=focal length, N=f number, c=circle of confusion, m=magnification
If the f-number and circle of confusion are constant, decreasing the focal length f increases the second term in the denominator, decreasing the denominator and increasing the value of the right-hand side, so that a shorter focal length gives greater DOF.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.