DPH Photos wrote:
You are forgiven. Which do you find most pleasing?

from that list, I say 200mm, but in general its between 150mm and 180 where it kicks in for me as acceptable, I often shoot up to 350mm on a FF 35mm camera.  On a larger format like a DB (645) I go 200mm as the bare minimum and more often I go 300-350mm  The larger formats I went up to 800-1200mm on the 4x5's which is not fun, several 4800ws packs back then

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Monito -- Alan wrote:
85 mm is the classic focal length on 35 mm for head and shoulder portraits because the perspective approximates what we see when we are having a warm personal chat with a close friend, like a tete-a-tete over a small restaurant table.  It neither flattens the face or bulges features.  It also maintains a good rapport with the subject without requiring walky-talkies.

and in a 3D image that may be flattering, but next time at the 85mm distance that close so that you only see head and shoulder without moving your head or eyes up or down, close one eye, don't move your head or eyes around to account for anything, and see what the camera is seeing, and subsequently the viewer.  oh and also remember those reasonings are based on shooting a landscape shot since that is more how we see, so to get the same framing of the head you need to move your position as you lose some height.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Atrei wrote:
so these are images on a full frame? so for a cropped sensor you times your results by 1.6?

for a cropped sensor you would be seeing just the inner part of this cropping at the same distance, so to fill the frame the same you move back, or use a different lens.  Next time I am doing nothing I will see if I can get canon to drop off a 1.6 camera and add it to the mix and do it again so there is no guess work needed with that.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

StephenEastwood wrote:

It is true that we move our eyes around, which is why a 43 mm (50 mm closest) is considered "normal" for 35 mm still cameras.  However, in a friendly conversation, we are more intent, so the focal length for that is more like 85 mm.

Lighting makes the third dimension.

All rules are subject to exceptions.  For example if the subject has a large nose, then a longer focal length will help compress it, provided it is not turned sideways.

Atrei wrote:
so these are images on a full frame? so for a cropped sensor you times your results by 1.6?

StephenEastwood wrote:
for a cropped sensor you woudl be seeing just the inner part of this cropping at the same distance, so to fill the frame the same you move back, or use a different lens.  Next time I am doing nothing I will see if I can get canon to drop off a 1.6 camera and add it to the mix and do it again so there is no guess work needed with that.

You take the full frame focal length and divide it by 1.6 and then photograph at the same distance to get the identical perspective on a crop camera.

Trace the rays as if you had a pinhole.

The lens functions as a specialized pinhole.  The reason we don't use a pinhole is to gather much more light and avoid two minute long exposures and head clamps.

If you trace the rays at the same distance you get the same perspective.

It is the distance that makes the perspective.  This is why if you take a print made from an ultra wide angle and hold it three inches from your face and swivel your eye around, suddenly everything in the image has the right perspective and doesn't have "wide angle perspective".

The reason you use a longer focal length is because the smaller sensor size is magnified more to make the same 8x10 in. print.

Monito -- Alan wrote:

It is true that we move our eyes around, which is why a 43 mm (50 mm closest) is considered "normal" for 35 mm still cameras.  However, in a friendly conversation, we are more intent, so the focal length for that is more like 85 mm.

Lighting makes the third dimension.

All rules are subject to exceptions.  For example if the subject has a large nose, then a longer focal length will help compress it, provided it is not turned sideways.

I am not debating what we see from that distance, just how it looks when frozen solid in time at just one instant and from only one angle, we can manipulate the face by using lighting and even more so with angles and tilts of the head, tilt the forehead toward you and it becomes larger, away and it gets smaller, freeze it in either and it looks better or worse or just weird for the person 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Monito -- Alan wrote:

Atrei wrote:
so these are images on a full frame? so for a cropped sensor you times your results by 1.6?

You take the full frame focal length and divide it by 1.6 and then photograph at the same distance to get the identical perspective on a crop camera.

Trace the rays as if you had a pinhole.

The lens functions as a specialized pinhole.  The reason we don't use a pinhole is to gather much more light and avoid two minute long exposures and head clamps.

If you trace the rays at the same distance you get the same perspective.

The reason you use a longer focal length is because the smaller sensor size is magnified more to make the same 8x10 in. print.

what he said  ^^^^^^^ 



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

digital Artform wrote:
"I use them because the allow for a more comfortable working distance, and more importantly, they diminish distortion of the face and the compression allows for a more flattering perspective."

More than "allow" for distance they actually require distance, and it is the distance that flattens the perspective.

true but that makes people start yelling at me telling me how a 35mm is better for a close up face and so by saying it allows for more comfortable distance I don't have to point out to them that with a 35mm I am so close I should be enjoying things more than taking a picture 



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Monito -- Alan wrote:
if the subject has a large nose, then a longer focal length will help compress it

Backing up will help compress it. Once you are backed up you'll need a longer lens to reestablish the desired framing.

Monito -- Alan wrote:
if the subject has a large nose, then a longer focal length will help compress it

digital Artform wrote:
Backing up will help compress it. Once you are backed up you'll need a longer lens to reestablish the desired framing.

Exactly right, and a more instructive way of stating it.

Atrei wrote:
I think my brain just exploded

while it is cropped in, when you take the shot you move back to factor in the crop therefore a 28mm times by the crop factor is closer in appearance to the 50mm on a full frame.

Thats why there are misconceptions that a 300mm is equivalent to a 480mm lens, and I think salesmen like to tell people this too, so people think they are getting more bang for their buck.

Mine too, I'm picking up my pieces right now ... but I'm going to take the pain and read it again

Atrei wrote:
I think my brain just exploded

while it is cropped in, when you take the shot you move back to factor in the crop therefore a 28mm times by the crop factor is closer in appearance to the 50mm on a full frame.

Thats why there are misconceptions that a 300mm is equivalent to a 480mm lens, and I think salesmen like to tell people this too, so people think they are getting more bang for their buck.

its only closer in appearance because the perspective is near that of a 50 simply cause you physically moved back, but yes to an extent that works for a general answer on this subject.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
Well its like the old term glamour which was once hurrell style shots of Bogart, Dietrich, Garland, Harlow, Crawford, and its now associated with Maxim, and playboy style sexy girl shots. 

Time changes and terms get skewed/bastardized.

Portrait once meant more than many today consider it, it had character, some portraits had full body, and scenery, some had half body in chair, some standing, some in action, so the camera industry used the term portrait lens for a lens that allowed less in distortion as it was a mild telephoto at a given distance to capture those shots, but they were not designed to shoot a half a face or even three quarters of a head from 2 1/2 feet way, for that a longer lens would be more comfortable for everyone so you can stay a good 6-8 feet, have a light in between and everyone has a good comfortable working distance and the face does not look like she is Pinocchio telling you her age and weight for the 5th time


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

so that was in a disucussion of the face and when you are in this close and closer I use beauty rather than portrait which can be a 3/4rd shot or a full body next to a horse all in frame, similar to karsh and http://www.pdngallery.com/legends/newman/  my favorite at the moment.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

digital Artform wrote:
Artists call the line through the eyes 'the 5-eye line' because the head is considered to be 5 eyes wide there. One next to an eye. Two, the eye itself. Three, the space between the eyes. Four, the other eye. And five, next to the other eye.

The thing about skulls is they are widest in the back. So when you look at the face from far away (and so with a long lens) you actually see on the sides the place in back where the skull flares out.

Push in (and thereby use a short lens) and you loose that effect, and the 5-eye line becomes more of a 3-eye line: 2 eyes and the space between them, with a little eye socket bone on either side.

Great! Now I am going to start seeing models with 5 eyes the next time I shoot.

Personally, I sometimes shoot at 200 or above however normally I like to be in the same zip code as the model. Currently shoot the D300, maybe with the D700 I will move back to normal focal lengths.

digital Artform wrote:
Artists call the line through the eyes 'the 5-eye line' because the head is considered to be 5 eyes wide there. One next to an eye. Two, the eye itself. Three, the space between the eyes. Four, the other eye. And five, next to the other eye.

The thing about skulls is they are widest in the back. So when you look at the face from far away (and so with a long lens) you actually see on the sides the place in back where the skull flares out.

Push in (and thereby use a short lens) and you loose that effect, and the 5-eye line becomes more of a 3-eye line: 2 eyes and the space between them, with a little eye socket bone on either side.

did I tell you when I decide to become president I am going to appoint you secretary of information, since you seem to have more than anyone in the government currently, or combined, not only that but you can find it and often send me a youtube clip to explain it, I am lazy like that, I need it 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

StephenEastwood wrote:
did I tell you when I decide to become president I am going to appoint you secretary of information, since you seem to have more than anyone in the government currently, or combined, not only that but you can find it and often send me a youtube clip to explain it, I am lazy like that, I need it 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/ … n_WIP5.jpg

http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/ … etch02.jpg

http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/ … ctice1.jpg

I'm trying to teach myself anatomy for drawing

Quinten Powell wrote:
Very informative! This makes a lot more sense now. In return I'll leave you with some helpful info Mr. Eastwood:

On the pages you linked to, the links at the bottom of the page are linked to www.yoursite.com so since they don't start with the http:// clicking them goes to http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/le … /Tutorials

Great post!

thanks, I will fix that when I get to my other system tomorrow night.  Thanks 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Digitallure Photography wrote:
Thanks for the info. Very much needed.

hope its helpful in someway.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com