Longer focal length for portraits?

<p>Hi, I would like to understand why lenses with longer focal length is preferred for portraits? Wouldn't this create less separation between the subject and the background? Thanks</p>

<p>It actually creates more because the same f stop on a shorter lens gives the appearance for more depth of field and keeps both subject and background sharper. With the longer lens, focused on the subjects eyes, will allow for the background to fall out of focus into a nice soft rendering.</p>

<p>The other reason is to avoid distortion of facial features for head shots.</p>

<p>If you use a normal or wide angle lens for a tight head shot, you will be so close that the nose will deform outward and the ears will recede in the image, giving a strange out of balance look to all the features. The ideal starting choice is a lens of at least twice the "normal" focal length for your format, for head shots. That way, when you fill the frame with the face, you are farther away and the relative distance of nose to ears is much less of the total distance, compressing them back into what is a normal appearance.</p>

Tim, what would be the minimum focal length for a FF camera? Will a 70-200mm zoom be a good portrait lens? Thanks

<p>mr;<br>

the perspective *ONLY* depends on how far the painters eye/camera/lens/cellphone/blackberry/iphone/video camera is to the person.</p>

<p>If one is 100 feet away one gets a FLAT perspective.</p>

<p>If one is 1 foot away one gets the GOOFY big nose perspective.</p>

<p>It is a PURE GEOMETRY problem; it real has *nothing* to do with lens focal length at all.</p>

<p>In the 100 foot case the nose is 100 foot from the camera; and ears are 100.4 feet away; the nose appears thus 100.4/100 larger; ie 0.4 percent.</p>

<p>In the 1 foot case the nose is 1 foot from the camera; and ears are 1.4 feet away; the nose appears thus 1.4/1 larger; ie 40 percent. On gets the classical cartoon BIG NOSE LOOK; due to a close vantage point.</p>

<p>In a 5 foot case the nose is 5 foot from the camera; and ears are 5.4 feet away; the nose appears thus 5.4/5 larger; ie 8 percent.</p>

<p>Cave man as hunters and painters understood perspective.</p>

<p>With portraits; most folks want a moderate distance; farther away than the BIG NOSE close distance; and closer than the FLAT LOOK 2D LOOK of far away. It is really a cultural thing; you have to find out what distance you like.</p>

<p>Once a "distance" is boxed in which DEFINES the perspective; one has to say what camera; that defines the plate/film/sensor. Then the subject(s) head size or if there are two folks; or wear BIG HATS comes into play; this boxes in the angular coverage; thus the focal length too.</p>

<p>Thus if YOU like a 5 foot distance and have an big guy with a giant hat; or a small child the angular coverage might be only 1/3 with the kids case.</p>

<p>For a FF camera; many take a 80 to 105mm as being a portrait lens; or even a 135mm; or 50mm if one uses it at "portriat distances". Thus If one has four folks hugging each other 5 feet away; a 105mm does not have enough angular coverage; and maybe a 50mm is required.</p>

<p>What you HAVE to tattoo on your arm is perspective ONLY depends on the viewing distance; and has nothing to do with focal length.</p>

<p> Thus to shoot a facebook page with a cellphone that has a 1.6 mm focal length; one might have the subject at 4 to 6 feet; an use the digital zoom to frame them; or shoot a high res image non zoomed; and crop out their image.</p>

<p>Again; focal length has nothing to do with perspective; it has to do where you are with your camera to the subject</p>

<p>The rule of thumb is for the focal length of a portrait lens to be approximately twice the film plane's (or sensor's) diagonal. This will require enough subject to camera distance, to minimize distortion, and to fill the frame with face. A FF 35mm's diagonal equals 43mm. So doubling this equals 85mm, which is a great focal length for portraits.</p>

<p>With my 4x5 Speed Graphic I use a 178mm F2.5; or a 203mm F7.7; or my 210mm F4.5 len to shoot portraits. With a 4x5" R.B.Graflex slr I use its #33 lens; ie 7.5 inches; about 190mm, I use on my C3 TLR a 105mm or my 18cm lens for portraits; the 18cm is too long in many cases. In 35mm I use a 85, or 105mm alot with FF stuff; and a 50mm or 80mm on my cropped Epson RD-1. With my 4x5 I have a 30mm F4.5 lens but tends to be too long; a 240mm might be better.</p>

 

<p>Yes, for general portraits and other such use 70-200 will do fine. When you work with more single lenses like I do each tends to have it's own "personality" so I will fine tune based on that. For example on a crop body, I might use a 50, 85, 180 or even 300, if there's room. Remember the 50 on the crop is more like a 70 on 35mm or FX body. I tend not to use zoom lenses because I like the individual "look" or "personality" of each lens and I also don't like geometrical distortion, which many zooms have. The one zoom I do use, an old Tamron SP 28-80 has an excellent painter like quality that I like, plus superb macro, but it has the typical pincussion and barrel distortion on each end, so that has to be taken into consideration. So if you use a zoom, just learn how it behaves at the different focal lengths.</p>

<p>I think the original question comes at it from the wrong direction.</p>

<p>It's not that we typically prefer longer focal lengths for portraits. It's that we generally prefer portraits taken at a certain distance between camera and subject. Once your camera<->subject distance is chosen, you then choose an appropriate lens to cover the angle of view you desire.</p>

<p>Choose your camera position first, then choose the lens. Not the other way 'round.</p>

<p>Mr. Marks,</p>

<p>Full frame digital is basically the same focal length choices as regular 35mm and for as long as I have been shooting (since the 1960's), the HEAD SHOT recommended focal length has been 85mm to 105mm. Shorter lengths are fine for half length and full body and longer lengths still work quite well for head shots (as well as full length if you have the space) and do well on subject background separation issues. A good 70-200 zoom lens would give you excellent service for head shots and many other types of subjects.</p>

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>I am trying to understand your rationale of basing lens choice only on the available camera to subject distance. I accept that what you say has practical meaning in terms of existing spacial distances in the room wherever you are working. But keep in mind that there are also extremely important reasons to use longer lenses, reasons that are having to do with facial distortions caused by being too close with a too short of a lens, which must be taken into account as well. </p>

<p>Longer lenses, starting at twice the so called "normal" focal length for the format, avoid this problem. Of course, if there is a reason to want the distortions, like the very old Alka Seltzer adds from decades ago which forced this distortion to an extreme as a means of illustrating the agony of heart burn; then a short lens is chosen for effect, not with the expectation that a normal looking facial portrait would result.</p>

<p>If you are also referring to the comfort zone that we all have, where we pretty much like to keep people a few feet away, you certainly have a valid point there as well. Putting a camera within a foot or two of someones face is very intimidating.</p>

<p>Tim;</p>

<p>It is *NOT* the focal length that causes the distortions; it is only the basic fundamental geometry problem related to viewing distance; ie camera/lens to subject.</p>

<p>It is the ratio of the distances to the nose and ears that makes a close shot 2 feet away "give folks big noses".</p>

<p>One gets this effect with a cellphone and a lens of only 1.5mm focal length.</p>

<p>If a 15mm lens on my Zorki is 2 feet away one gets the same EXACT same perspective.</p>

<p>If I place my 6" F6.8 Metrogon 2 foot from a persons one gets the EXACT same perspective; with a 150mm lens no less.</p>

<p>That is why what matters is the distance; and NOT the focal length. This is basic stuff; fully known 150 years ago no less.</p>

<p>Using a 200mm lens on a Nikon F is not what makes flat perspective; it is the distance to the subject. Thus a 200mm Medical Nikkor 5 feet from a Heart Valve operation; is going to have the same perspective as a 105mm 5 feet from the same Heart Valve.</p>

<p>Focal length has *nothing* to do with perspective at all; it is ALL about the WHERE YOU WITH RESPECT TO SUBJECT.</p>

<p>That is why is is terribly misleading to preach that distortion comes from telephotos; when it really is ONLY about camera/lens placement with respect to the object.</p>

<p>If one is 2 feet away from a person; the perspective is firmly already defined; no matter what focal length is used.</p>

<p>What is really fun is with a cellphone folks do not even know the focal length; thus there is no useless focal length thing to worry about; ie perspective just varies with the vantage point.<br>

Tying perspective to focal length is like tying perspective to megapixels; haircolor; moon phase; abit wonky</p>

<p>What needs to happen is folks learn perspective only varies with vantage point.<br>

Then once afixes ones camera(s); you just select the focal length to cover the angle you want for that format. Thats how movie/cine folks do it.</p>

<p>All this is in photo books from 1890! for a still shots with glass plates!</p>

<p><b>Moderator: Images removed. Images MUST be relevant to the forum. </b></p>

Kelly, what would be a typical camera-subject distance for an "accurate" perspective in portraits?

<p>Depends what you mean by "accurate".</p>

<p>Here in America, we normally stand 5-6 feet apart when in conversation, so that seems like a comfortable distance for photographs too.</p>

<p>But it really depends on the print size and viewing distance, too. If you're viewing a headshot photo on a business card, it takes only a very narrow angle of view from your eye at a typical two foot distance. To have normal perspective, you'd want to stand further away and use a long lens.</p>

<p>Similarly, if the print will be huge and viewed up close, then you'd want to shoot up close using a very wide angle lens.</p>

<p>In the "normal" case of something like an 11x14" print viewed at arm's length, then you'd stand at 5-6 feet and use a typical short telephoto.</p>

<p >What Kelly says is absolutely right: perspective depends on distance ALONE. But if you want to fill your frame with a head & shoulders, the distance between you and your model depends of the frame size AND the focal length. Assuming that you use a “35-mm equivalent” the distance (for the full frame head & shoulders) depends on the focal length. Thus, the perspective (on the full frame head & shoulders shot) depends on the focal length, because the focal length determines the distance needed to fill the frame.</p>

<p >So if someone ask you what is a good focal length to get a satisfactory perpective in portraits you should ask back for more info: With what do you want to fill the frame? What is a “satisfactory perspective” for you? For a full frame front head & shoulders, the % difference between nose and ears may be a good indication. In that case there is still a lot of subjective judgement. Some may say 85 mm, some may say 135 mm or more (“35-mm equivalents”). Which is the same of saying that you must stand 1.5 to 2.5 m (5 to 8 ft) away from the model. But if you have a bunch of guys hugging together filling the frame you may very well get away with anything but a fisheye. Of course, in all cases you be at the distance that fills the frame with your subject. You choose the lens so that distance is the “correct” distance for the perspective effect you wish to obtain. Because perspective depends on distance and distance alone.</p>

<p>I always felt that the best focal length for portraits varied with the subject. Because features are minimized with longer focal lengths, they alway seem more forgiving on one hand, but make the subject more remote on the other. On full frame (F3HP) I always liked Nikon's 105/2.5 and 85/2. I've yet to find a really good DX portrait lens - still looking.</p>

<p><em>You choose the lens so that distance is the “correct” distance for the perspective effect you wish to obtain. Because perspective depends on distance and distance alone.</em></p>

<p>Perspective isn't the only consideration. Each lens has its own "look" in how they render detail, out of focus areas, colour etc. and this needs to be factored in. Also, when going into wide angles, the visual impression of looking at a picture taken with a wide angle lens can be very different from what is experienced first hand looking at the scene. While you can just go to your favorite spot and zoom to frame your shot the way you like it, it's not going to look like what you'd draw when you are there. Having experience with different lenses and their rendering characteristics and "look" is invaluable in choosing which lens to use for a shot.</p>

<p>To the OP's question: you can use any lens you like for a portrait. 85-105mm are good for a classical head or head and shoulders portrait - if that's what you want. These lenses tend to be excellent in how they render skin and out of focus areas as well.</p>

<p>Mr Marks<br /> <em> RE "Kelly, what would be a typical camera-subject distance for an "accurate" perspective in portraits?'</em><br /> <em> </em><br /> <br /><br />There is really NO exact/correct distance to photograph a person/car/camera/etc; more like a rough trend.</p>

<p>If one shoots from far far away one gets a flattened perspective; if real close features get look bigger with respect to another. <br /> Thus one should do some experimenting. How the final print; movie or wall mural is viewed also matters too.</p>

<p>With my camera images I posted the one shot 5 inches away made the one side be twice the size of the other. This is the same as the classical big nose effect one gets with portraits. It is all due to basic geometry. Having the camera/phone too close is quite common with folks with cellphones; they are shot alot closer than the typical portrait shooters say 4 to 7 foot range; more like only 18" to 24". Thus common teenage cellphone shots have that big nose look; abit cartoonish.</p>

<p>With a zoom lens and say a 5 or say 6 foot portrait distance; one can very the zoom to capture a persons BIG hat, BIGGER head; or capture the persons work environment; or zoom in and crop out this this is consider clutter.<br /> <br /> IN the USA folks stand farther apart than in Asia; thus what is considered correct as far as distance is only a guess at best.<br /> Besides distance one has the physical size of the persons head; wether they have a hat on etc.<br /> <br /> As mentioned already; many of us use lenses in the 85 to 135mm range for full frame 35mm for portraits.</p>

<p>If one shoots a portrait at say 6 feet of a person with a zoom lens; the perspective will be the same no matter what focal length is used.</p>

<p>Ilkka, I completely agree. Exactly. It's not just the measurements, it's the aesthetic result that a lens can convey. It's that "look" or "personality" that a 180mm 2.8 produces opposed to the 85mm 1.8 or whatever. I love the color and rendering of tones with my 300mm 4.5 Ais, it's so flattering wide open.</p>

<p>On a 5x7 camera like a Graflex SLR or a 5x7 view camera; about a 200mm is normal lens; and a 300mm is often used for Portraits. Here a 300mm F4.5 Xenar here has been used on an old Graflex 5x7 SLR for portraits</p>

<p>It's true..all of it....."if you know the outcome you want"..prior to exposing a portrait.<br /> A good way to understand the effect of your lens, is to look through the viewfinder.<br /> Camera on tripod. Then simply look. After a while you will notice that the proportion of a face changes, as you move the focal point, left and right and up and down. It's a visual choice. Once you "see" the effect in perspective..you will have tamed the beast a little more...and have a lot more fun.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7470534-lg.jpg" alt="" width="372" height="505" /></p>

<p >The human perspective can be demonstrated by standing before a glass window and tracing the outline of objects on the glass with wax pencil. To duplicate with the camera, we must view the photograph from a distance that matches the focal length of the taking lens. If we do this, the image we make, will always appear correct as to perspective. The pitfall is modern cameras with miniature formats yield tiny images. Likely, it will be impossible or impractical to view the image in this way. An exception is a transparency viewed using a hand magnifier viewer. The magnifier's focal length and the taking lens nearly match, making the view of the transparency appear correct as to perspective. </p>

<p >We usually view an enlarged print or display. The degree of enlargement to yield the final results must be taken into account when considering taking focal length and perspective. Thus, the taking focal length to yield the correct perspective is intertwined, format size and magnification. At this point, allow me to add that viewing an image with correct perspective is normally not critical. Errors as great as 50% are hardly noticeable. </p>

<p >Now the "normal" focal length for any format will be a lens that about matches the diagonal of the chip or film frame. For the full frame, that is 43mm. For the compact (APS-C) that is 30mm. Such a lash-up delivers a field of view of 53° considered the human experience as explained above. </p>

<p >Therefore, if we desire to make a 16 x 24 for display over-the- mantel print. Likely, the viewing distance will be the diagonal of the print. This works out to about 30 inches or 760mm. To make this enlargement from a full frame we must magnify (enlarge) 17x and from a compact 26x. Makes no difference if you are viewing a print, a projected image, or a computer display. All are enlargements. </p>

<p >The focal length needed for correct perspective is thus computed: 760 ÷ 17 = 48mm</p>

<p >The focal length needed for the compact is thus: 760 ÷ 26 = 30mm</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now all this gobbledygook explains why "normal" for any format is a lens that matches the diagonal of the frame. For the portrait lens, we must take into account:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >People have a preconceived impression of their appearance. This stems from their view of themselves in the make-up or shaving mirror. If you duplicate this perspective you mitigate expressions like "I don't photograph well" and your work likely will sell better. </p>

<p >When you deliver the prints, during the selling stage of the transaction, the print will be viewed at normal reading distance 12 inches 30cm. This close distance changes the ground rules. If a normal lens is used, in portraiture, the perspective perceived in the finished prints will appear too strong i.e. the nose is rendered too large the ears too small, as compared to the view as seen in the make-up/shaving mirror. The solution is to back off or use a longer focal length. The idea is to flatten the perspective but not too much. The convention is to use a lens that is about 2.5x time diagonal measure of the film/chip format. Hollywood uses 3x for close-up views. For the full frame that is 105mm for the compact, that’s 75mm. </p>

<p >Again, these are rules-of-thumb and not set in concrete. There are no norms in art. </p>

<p>Before mr goes and tattoos on his arm that "perspective ONLY depends on . . . distance," let's elaborate it further. Perspective isn't only <em>how</em> we see something, it's also <em>what</em> we see. It depends on one's <em>relative position</em>, of which distance is one component. If both you and I are exactly 10 feet in front of a subject, with me standing next to you, my image will have a slightly different pespective from yours. If I'm 10 feet behind the subject, I'll get quite a different perspective. Kelly alluded to this when he mentioned "vantage point," but its emphasis was somehow lost in this thread. So, folks, it's not just distance; think vectors. And as far as relative positions go, no two are alike.</p>