Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 371674" data-attributes="member: 12496">IMO (experience shooting portraits),&nbsp; 35mm is simply too short to plan upper body shots.&nbsp; The concern is that you will have stand too close to the subject to crop the view.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; One consideration is that better portrait perspective (about relative size of noses enlarged by too-close distances, etc) is best if you always stand back, say at least six feet. More if you can.&nbsp; Zoom in all you want, but stand back a little for perspective.Plus, not only perspective, but 35mm f/1.8 depth of field is not all that shallow.&nbsp; The Depth of Field chart implies acceptably sharp limits, not nearly blurred out of focus.&nbsp;&nbsp; So always best to prepare a featureless background, but a background is more out of focus (and a more narrow horizontal view hiding more of the view) with a longer lens standing back a little farther.Field of view:35mm lens at six feet, DX field of view is 4' 1.4&quot;&nbsp; x 2' 8.9&quot;50mm lens at six feet, DX field of view is 2' 10.6&quot; x 1' 11&quot;50mm lens at eight feet, DX field of view is 3' 10&quot; x 2' 6.7&quot;70mm lens at six feet, DX field of view is 2' 0.7&quot; x 1' 4.5&quot;Now true, I am considering portrait orientation, where your video is landscape, which swaps the numbers, and requires greater distance.&nbsp; The 35mm 2' 8.9&quot; at six feet should frame the body view of the subject.&nbsp;&nbsp; But &quot;fully separate&quot; will need some distance behind the subject.&nbsp; I'm thinking you instead need more focal length to blur any close background.Still, the 2 1/2 foot&nbsp; frame height&nbsp; is about a waist up body view.Regarding DOF, here is a 50mm DX at f/1.8,&nbsp; grapes at 7 feet, wall at 13 feet.&nbsp; That is NOT separated.The flowers visible are 24 inches above table.<img src="http://www.scantips.com/g2/dsf_4626.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 371674, member: 12496"] IMO (experience shooting portraits), 35mm is simply too short to plan upper body shots. The concern is that you will have stand too close to the subject to crop the view. One consideration is that better portrait perspective (about relative size of noses enlarged by too-close distances, etc) is best if you always stand back, say at least six feet. More if you can. Zoom in all you want, but stand back a little for perspective. Plus, not only perspective, but 35mm f/1.8 depth of field is not all that shallow. The Depth of Field chart implies acceptably sharp limits, not nearly blurred out of focus. So always best to prepare a featureless background, but a background is more out of focus (and a more narrow horizontal view hiding more of the view) [B]with a longer lens standing back a little farther. [/B] Field of view: 35mm lens at six feet, DX field of view is 4' 1.4" x 2' 8.9" 50mm lens at six feet, DX field of view is 2' 10.6" x 1' 11" 50mm lens at eight feet, DX field of view is 3' 10" x 2' 6.7" 70mm lens at six feet, DX field of view is 2' 0.7" x 1' 4.5" Now true, I am considering portrait orientation, where your video is landscape, which swaps the numbers, and requires greater distance. The 35mm 2' 8.9" at six feet should frame the body view of the subject. But "fully separate" will need some distance behind the subject. I'm thinking you instead need more focal length to blur any close background. Still, the 2 1/2 foot frame height is about a waist up body view. Regarding DOF, here is a 50mm DX at f/1.8, grapes at 7 feet, wall at 13 feet. That is NOT separated. The flowers visible are 24 inches above table. [IMG]http://www.scantips.com/g2/dsf_4626.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE]

Verification