50mm is NOT a portrait lens ??
- Thread starter LudwigVB
- Start date
Normally everyone does choose telephoto or wide angle, simply due to the place they have to stand. And we might even imagine the lens changed the perspective then, but it did not. It merely allowed us to stand where we stood. Where we stand is all that changes the perspective.
Here is a "typical" presentation, changing where we stand, and then crediting perspective to the lens (standing different places to achieve the same view):
Focal length and Perspective
EDIT TO BE CLEAR: It is simply wrong to say the lens causes this perspective change (as so many do say or imply). But it could be correct if it says the lens focal length causes us to choose to stand in a different place to get the picture we want, and then that distance causes the perspective changes. Perspective is ONLY about the distance where we stand. The lens only sees what it can see from that one place, and the lens cannot change anything except magnification and cropping.
Hippie likely intends to show something like that, but there are plenty already available.
And then here is a presentation showing the truth of the situation (standing in same place, different views):
PixelPix Photography Help by Russell Stewart: The Focal Length and Perspective Myth
Perspective is where the white and gray cars appear next to the near pole. Perspective shifts the angle and size of far things relative to near things. If we stood closer to the pole, the cars may not even be visible in the picture (probably smaller and hidden behind pole). But as is now, the length of the white car is more or less same as the pole width in both pictures. The long lens enlarged both, but perspective did not change, because we stood in same place,
The best picture there (IMO) is the first graphic showing the angular view of the subject, but showing why the perspective is obviously the same, if standing in the same place. Where we stand determines perspective... Not the lens. The lens merely allows us to stand there, and decides where the outer frame edges are.
And if we want to stand too close for a portrait, the ladies won't like the way the perspective portrays them. Always stand back six or eight feet, and use the lens necessary to get the view you want (head/shoulders, or full length, groups, etc). Some like it farther.
Here is a "typical" presentation, changing where we stand, and then crediting perspective to the lens (standing different places to achieve the same view):
Focal length and Perspective
EDIT TO BE CLEAR: It is simply wrong to say the lens causes this perspective change (as so many do say or imply). But it could be correct if it says the lens focal length causes us to choose to stand in a different place to get the picture we want, and then that distance causes the perspective changes. Perspective is ONLY about the distance where we stand. The lens only sees what it can see from that one place, and the lens cannot change anything except magnification and cropping.
Hippie likely intends to show something like that, but there are plenty already available.
And then here is a presentation showing the truth of the situation (standing in same place, different views):
PixelPix Photography Help by Russell Stewart: The Focal Length and Perspective Myth
Perspective is where the white and gray cars appear next to the near pole. Perspective shifts the angle and size of far things relative to near things. If we stood closer to the pole, the cars may not even be visible in the picture (probably smaller and hidden behind pole). But as is now, the length of the white car is more or less same as the pole width in both pictures. The long lens enlarged both, but perspective did not change, because we stood in same place,
The best picture there (IMO) is the first graphic showing the angular view of the subject, but showing why the perspective is obviously the same, if standing in the same place. Where we stand determines perspective... Not the lens. The lens merely allows us to stand there, and decides where the outer frame edges are.
And if we want to stand too close for a portrait, the ladies won't like the way the perspective portrays them. Always stand back six or eight feet, and use the lens necessary to get the view you want (head/shoulders, or full length, groups, etc). Some like it farther.
Last edited:
I'm going with Hippie on this one. The best example I can think of is a macro lens vs. a normal lens. The normal lens will distort a portrait where as a macro lens, both of the same focal length and distance from the subject, will not produce such distortion. Thus in my mind it is lens specific and not distance specific. So I'll be keenly interested in your results Marcel.
I would like to see your example of that. Assuming you meant actually meant perspective. You instead said distortion, which is something entirely different. I don't need to see distortion.
I believe it is the curvature of the lens creating the unpleasant distortions, moving further back simply minimizes the optical curvature effect on the subject. If all the elements of a lens were perfectly flat, a 20mm lens would be fine and there would be no distortion, even up close, so distance would not matter either (in my opinion).
Mfrankfort
Senior Member
http://i.imgur.com/sKoeYy5.jpg
I'm impartial to this one... just remember seeing this picture. I've used 50mm on my FX with good results, and also used my 70-300 with good results. lol. But this picture is pretty funny.
I'm impartial to this one... just remember seeing this picture. I've used 50mm on my FX with good results, and also used my 70-300 with good results. lol. But this picture is pretty funny.
That is a great shot you shared. Thanks
Mfrankfort
Senior Member
I found it a while ago, looking at diff lenses for portrait. Then I realized I'm a poor college student, and can't really afford anything. lol. I was watching one of Mark Wallace's new video's (love that guy), and he did a quick little thing about using his 70-200 as supposed to 24-70. He was showing that wide angle lenses, you have to get really close to the subject, and sometimes that makes people (if you don't know them) a little uncomfortable, and does cause a little "distortion" in their body. But that image kind of stuck with me. No one wants to take head shots 2 feet from your subject. lol
But these pictures say nothing about the distance from the camera to the subject. Again, Field of view is NOT the same as perspective.
Perspective will change with distance from lens to subject. Field of view will change using the same lens but using different film (sensor) size, but the perspective will stay the same.
Right. They all show (almost) the same subject size, so with different lenses, the distance obviously had to change a lot on each one.
The top 3 or 4 sure look better. This is why the 105mm lens was considered the classic head and shoulders lens (for 35 mm film).. Simply because its field of view forced us to stand back the necessary distance for perspective. For DX, that would be 70 mm. And of course a wider view than head and shoulders could be a shorter lrens, but we should still stand back.
Last edited:
Start with thread #1 by OP. He offered an opinion, and he also got the theory right.
Then others piped up incorrectly saying that theory was wrong. Life is like that.
Mfrankfort
Senior Member
Let's just stick to the 600mm for portraits and get along.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
My Dad, who would have been 79 today, told me lots of things in my life. One of them was, "Don't get in an argument with someone when you're already angry at something else." Another was, "You're never too much of a man to admit when you're wrong." He said a lot of other things, and most of them he never applied much in his own life, but I loved him anyway. His favorite saying, both to repeat and to ignore, was, "Engage the brain before releasing the clutch on your mouth", and I stand guilty under it, either by sheer ignorance or by over-application (I guess it depends on your perspective ).
The truth is that I am thinking about something else, which I will get to, but when you told me to "just think about it" it was the absolute worst advice you could give to someone whose job it is to (over)analyze and solve things. So, when I got in the car 30 minutes after my last post and turned right off my street and onto a long, tree-lined country road, my mind shut off and my eyes opened ... and I felt stupid as hell. Visualizing what you're trying to say when you speak of "perspective" while you stare at a white wall, and then seeing it from a single spot behind the wheel immediately brought into sharp focus (NPI) the point I was missing. Being, that there's only one way things can possibly look in relation with each other when you're standing somewhere and staring at it, and there very little (not nothing ... I'll get to that) you can do to altar that when your field of view doesn't change. I even pulled over, grabbed my D600 from the seat next to me and bounced between FX & DX modes, twisting the zoom dial to prove my stupidity.
So, my apologies for my utter pigheadedness, Wayne. I should have stepped away and looked instead of dug in and typed. Without moving the camera/eye there can be no change in perspective. None.
That said, in the waning daylight yesterday I attempted to show what I believe to be the one aspect that I believe would change but every changing shadows thanks to the clouds wouldn't allow me to capture it - if it is capturable. I do believe that something within the change of focal length and size of projection (i.e. sensor size) optics will make for very subtle changes in the feel, if not perspective, of the photo. Mild, almost immeasurable distortions between the two, which would ultimately be fully correctable, in post processing, if the optics don't their job perfectly in the first place. Not worth more than a footnote mention, and there more in a theoretical way than as a statement of fact. Perhaps it's analogous to, or even the same thing as, the depth of field differences when speaking of focal length equivalents - where the change in projection angle on the back end of the lens due to the small sensor removes about 1 stop of DoF when compared to the FX equivalent? That's likely the aspect of the physics of the situation that my brain latched onto like the proverbial dog with a bone. :distracted:
Any way, mea culpa, Wayne.
).The truth is that I am thinking about something else, which I will get to, but when you told me to "just think about it" it was the absolute worst advice you could give to someone whose job it is to (over)analyze and solve things. So, when I got in the car 30 minutes after my last post and turned right off my street and onto a long, tree-lined country road, my mind shut off and my eyes opened ... and I felt stupid as hell. Visualizing what you're trying to say when you speak of "perspective" while you stare at a white wall, and then seeing it from a single spot behind the wheel immediately brought into sharp focus (NPI) the point I was missing. Being, that there's only one way things can possibly look in relation with each other when you're standing somewhere and staring at it, and there very little (not nothing ... I'll get to that) you can do to altar that when your field of view doesn't change. I even pulled over, grabbed my D600 from the seat next to me and bounced between FX & DX modes, twisting the zoom dial to prove my stupidity.
So, my apologies for my utter pigheadedness, Wayne. I should have stepped away and looked instead of dug in and typed. Without moving the camera/eye there can be no change in perspective. None.
That said, in the waning daylight yesterday I attempted to show what I believe to be the one aspect that I believe would change but every changing shadows thanks to the clouds wouldn't allow me to capture it - if it is capturable. I do believe that something within the change of focal length and size of projection (i.e. sensor size) optics will make for very subtle changes in the feel, if not perspective, of the photo. Mild, almost immeasurable distortions between the two, which would ultimately be fully correctable, in post processing, if the optics don't their job perfectly in the first place. Not worth more than a footnote mention, and there more in a theoretical way than as a statement of fact. Perhaps it's analogous to, or even the same thing as, the depth of field differences when speaking of focal length equivalents - where the change in projection angle on the back end of the lens due to the small sensor removes about 1 stop of DoF when compared to the FX equivalent? That's likely the aspect of the physics of the situation that my brain latched onto like the proverbial dog with a bone. :distracted:
Any way, mea culpa, Wayne.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I know, Glenn, but discussion involves listening as well as speaking, and was doing a pretty poor job of it yesterday morning. If this place was a pub the next round would be on me.
I know, Glenn, but discussion involves listening as well as speaking, and was doing a pretty poor job of it yesterday morning. If this place was a pub the next round would be on me.
I'll drink to that, coffee that is. Kudos to you Jake for putting away your pride and saying that it is OK to be wrong sometimes. It doesn't hurt that much and keeps our egos at bay.
There is no problem here Jake. We are all guilty at times, and I'm glad if we agree now about the facts of "how things work". We will likely take turns at this in the future, but the good thing is that we both care enough about the details to even think about it, so few do anymore.
I certainly understand about over-analyzing and solving things. I'm retired now, but I had a similar job, to solve things, and to prevent any conceivable problem from ever occurring in the first place. So I'm always looking for things not quite right, which drives my wife crazy. She says "it looks like rain", and I offer all the reasons it may not rain. I call it a discussion of rain, but she sees it as criticism of her opinion. So with her, I wince, and try to agree it might rain.
Internet is different and harder though. Many unseen people involved, some of whom may actually want to know "how things work". Many could not care less, but there are a few who think the facts matter. I'm not tolerant enough to let many wrong things stand. But there are areas I know, and those I don't, and it is good when I can distinguish them
Mfrankfort
Senior Member
Oh,... I knew we all loved each other! :love-struck::love-struck::love-struck::love-struck::love-struck:
I certainly understand about over-analyzing and solving things. I'm retired now, but I had a similar job, to solve things, and to prevent any conceivable problem from ever occurring in the first place. So I'm always looking for things not quite right, which drives my wife crazy. She says "it looks like rain", and I offer all the reasons it may not rain. I call it a discussion of rain, but she sees it as criticism of her opinion. So with her, I wince, and try to agree it might rain.
I hear you on that,lol. I was a deep problem solver/preventer too. It drives my wife crazy when I start over-analyzing everyday stuff and finding problems. Its hard for me to look at anything without thinking about how it could break or go wrong. My wife calls me her little black cloud.
Anyway, back on topic... I enjoyed this thread. With two guys that I've learned a lot from so passionately disagreeing about this, I spent a lot of time thinking about this. Eventually it all made sense. So thanks to everybody here for taking the time to explain the technical side of things.