I love my 50mm Summicron but...

BTW, I have a strange envy shoot portrait with a CV 21mm or a Rokkor 17mm...

"This one was a bit too cold IMHO... But the lens is not the question..."

 

Cold? Really Eric . . .

Frankly, I fail to see anything silly with a more flattering portrait image being produced at say 5 ft. vs. 3 ft. If we take it to an extreme, why not shoot a portrait at 2 ft with a 28 mm lens? Maybe someone can post a comparison between a portrait shot at 5 ft. vs. 3 ft. to demonstrate the change in perspective.

It's silly to suggest that anyone shooting portraits from a close distance is ignorant about portrait photography. It's silly to suggest that shooting from 5 ft. is always better than shooting from 3 ft. (or 2 ft.). <P>

<i>If we take it to an extreme, why not shoot a portrait at 2 ft with a 28 mm lens?</i><P>

Why not indeed.<P>

<center><img src="http://mikedixonphotography.net/kormariel02.jpg"><br>

<i>28mm, full frame, closest subject at about 2 ft.</i></center>

Here's an older shot with a DR Summicron at minimum focusing distance:<P>

<center><img src="http://mikedixonphotography.net/reneecloseface.jpg"></center>

The top and bottom have been cropped, but the full width of the slide is shown. Backing up four feet would have resulted in a much less intimate feel for the shot.

I guess I'm defining portraiture in a sense that directs the attention to mostly the head and upper body and in that circumstance, a greater working distance flattens perspective so as not to exaggerate body features closer to the camera. A wide angle lens to include other people and the setting tells an interesting story and is just fine if that's what you want to convey in your image but that wasn't my idea of a portrait.

<i>I guess I'm defining portraiture in a sense that directs the attention to mostly the head and upper body </i><P>

Visit some national portrait galleries and museums, or browse through collections of portraits by Avedon,

Steichen, Cartier-Bresson, and many others, and you'll see that there's a lot more to portraiture than headshots

and portrait-mill head & shoulder shots. To quote someone from earlier in this thread, "you need to learn more

about portrait photography."

The main point that I was trying to make in some of my responses is simply that there is less exaggeration of facial features at a longer working distance due to established rules of perspective. The original question dealt with limited minimum focus with a Leica and my observation on the relationship of perspective with close focus for portraiture. In advising someone that they need to "learn more about portrait photography", I was inartfully trying to make the point that perspective plays an important role portrait photography and closer focusing is not the end all be all. I'd be the last person to dictate how to take a portrait as there are many ways to accomplish this depending on what the maker has in their creative mind.

An even longer lens -- 200, say -- squashes facial features. Really nice portraits Eric and Mike. The 50 remains a totally underrated lens.

Despite today's whizzbang zooms, it is a highly capable performer. I wonder though - how do shots wide open compare at 1.4 (Summilux)

and 2.0 ('cron)?

I disagree with the notion that for portraits you need a short tele. It all depends on what the photographer wants to create and sometimes a normal or even a wide offers the best perspective. Rules in photography are really only suggestions, they are meant to be mastered and then locked up in the attic. To take good pictures, one needs imagination more than a certain focal length.

 

I like shooting with the 50, because 1. its the lens I learned the ropes on and 2. It's normal, doesn't exaggerate or diminish anything - just presents the subject as we normally (no pun) see it. I'm talking about film btw. On crop bodies, the 50 falls in the "portrait zone"

Perspective is boxed in by the distance; NOT the focal length. This was well known a ten thousand years ago. <BR><BR>There is no exact answer to what is the "best" distance to shoot a portrait at. <BR><BR>(1). A subject with BIG EARS and a small nose might like their photo shot a closer distance to make their ears look smaller.<BR><BR>(2) A person with a GIANT NOSE and small ears might NOT want the image to be shot at the same close distance as example (1); because it makes the nose appear even bigger.<BR><BR>If folks are confused about the distance; one might also be confused and want about some exact ratio/amount to make coffee; koolaid; home much ketchup to place on fries too.:)<BR><BR>

In cine work folks are radically less confused over matters of perspective and lighting compared to still shooters.<BR><BR> The camera's location is moved/chosen for the perspective; then the focal length is chosen to capture the required angular coverage. This maybe too complicated for some to grasp? <BR><BR>Part of the peanut gallery on photo.net seems to think that perspective varies with focal length; and doesnt depend on the distance. If one utters such nonsense around an editor or your boss you will appear as a total duffus; a newbie; one who lacks the basics; stuff understood by painters a thousand years ago.

"Cold? Really Eric . . ."

 

Rob the colors are a bit to cold IMO ;-)

"Perspective is boxed in by the distance; NOT the focal length."

 

OK but but when yo shoot there's an obvious relation between focal and distance... If you want to fill the frame

with the head of your model you have to be closer if you use a 28mm than if you use a 100mm...

Getting closer with a 28 to fill the frame completely changes the perspective. Instead, cropping the slide/neg. in the darkroom keeps the perspective intact but of course increases grain and reduces sharpness, hence the need for a longer lens if you don't want to get closer or can't to manipulate in the darkroom.

A 50 is good for head & shoulders, but better at even more distance. A 90 is the way to go. An Elmar f4 LTM shouldn't cost more than $130 w/ an M adapter. You won't have to worry about parallax issues. Makes a really fine portrait lens, and even though it is just f4 you'll be working at a distance and the background will blur nicely.

Steve,

 

Thank you.

Tom,

 

It may be inferior to your Nikkor...

...but as long as you have faith.

This worked for me for the first few years, when a 50mm Summicron was all I could afford: the rules about portraiture are about "good" drawing. See the face, or frame the shot with arms or hands or hats or other things, or adopt something more like a profile view, high or low -- and now you have stepped out of the frame of "a good drawing". Work with the shapes you have in the finder, and focus on catching the moment that's alive, and let the shapes within the frame move the viewer's eye to the subject's eye -- surprise! There are infinite ways to make a good portrait! As far as intimidating the subject--the way to enter a subject's space and either not intrude or, better, make good chemistry: that is the great missing photo book...

I love my 50 DR.. drives me nuts for close focus, but I find for portraits, that if I use a good low speed film (in this case, Fomapan 100 in Rodina), that I have more room to play with a crop to give the illusion that I was closer. I'm not a fan of snapping on the goggles.. and in this case.. I had 1 minute to get the shot.. and as fate would have it, I only had the M3 w/ the 50DR with me last Friday to get this...and no goggles.

 

<a href=" title="alex by mrhollygolightly, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3187/2767636312_8445114be7.jpg" width="491" height="500" alt="alex" /></a>

Anyone who says you shouldn't shoot portraits with a 50 has a serious lack of imagination. Yes, if you want your photos to look as

homogenized as possible, shoot portraits with only a 90 or 135. Waist up and environmental portraits are why I use a 50 for most of my

work. One meter close focus is the week point of a lot of great vintage Leica glass.