Why do their heads look too big for their body?

<p>Hi All, I remember a few months back thinking one of the formal shots someone took and submitted for photo of the week that the heads looked too big for the body, kinda like bobble heads. Then I'm reviewing some shots from my most recent wedding and BAM there it is in my own shots (not quite as obvious, but still). Same type of strange effect. Keep in mind I'm TOTALLY aware the lighting here is NOT ideal. We had about 30 seconds to get a shot of just the two of them before about 350 family members descended upon them and it was as the sun was going down, so I didn't get time to get the flash perfectly balanced. But maybe it was the flash that created the effect? I don't know. So here are the stats on the shot: 5dmkII, taken on my 24-70 2.8 L, ISO 400, 2.8, 1/200, shot at 34mm, 580 EXII flash on a demb bracket and a demb PJ flip it modifier, and flash in ETTL. I don't remember if at this point if it was SO dark that I had to point the flash head forward. I don't think so. I think I just tilted the modifier at about 15 degrees, so just a little below vertical. They were standing at slightly higher up than me. So any thoughts on what gave this effect? In other shots of them this didn't happen. Maybe how close I am to them shooting that wide? Can you think of anything? This is something I definitely want to avoid in the future. </p><div></div>

Shoot a tiny bit lower. Your body - lower it slightly. Also there is a lot of lost room at the top of the picture and the gown was cut off at the knees of the guy. Try to avoid cutting off someone at the joints, elbows, feet, and in this case the knees.

 

This photo can be saved simply by cropping . I know you didn't ask about the hand positions or perhaps tilting their heads closer together.

 

The big issue here is the space above the head, that would make the couples heads look a bit bigger.

 

It's actually a decent shot, just a minor problem with where you cut off the couple and the wasted height. I wouldn't worry at all showing the photo to the couple.

<p>Perspective distortion does it. Stand further away, your 34mm focal length is too short for a full length photo.</p>

<p>What Bob said. Both of them.</p>

<p>The heads don't seem too overly big for their bodies to me--maybe you're just a bit oversensitized to the issue?</p>

<p>Other than that, the only thing I can think of is the perspective distortion Bob suggested. 34mm for a full length (actually 3/4 length) is a bit wide, and since your angle of view was higher than their mid points, the body and legs will 'fall away'.</p>

<p>The typical suggestions for focal length to body length are as follows.</p>

<p>Full length--50mm with view point closer to mid point (waists).<br />Half length--about 70mm, with view point closer to chests.<br />Head and shoulders--about 80-100mm and narrower with viewpoint at face level.</p>

<p>35mm is suggested for groups from about 10 feet wide.</p>

<p>They look like a couple that I would like to have dinner with. It would be nice to know if they had feet.</p>

<p>thanks bob. I really hate the composition, but it is what it is. The bride was very keen on getting fall foliage, so that's why that's in there. For this shot, if I had more than 30 seconds to fire off the shot I would have had her fix her hand first and foremost, I would have had my 2nd shooter fix her veil and hair. And I would have tried to get more ambient. I did take one shot zoomed out so that you could see her full dress. Then I quickly zoomed in for 3 more shots, each closer than the next. So that I'd have a range to pick from. Here's the edit of the shot that they'll actually get. I didn't crop it closer because the sari needed to be in the shot.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Full length--50mm with view point closer to mid point (waists)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I often shoot full length with 35mm. I'll frame it a bit loose and then crop it tighter. Not sure if this is the right way to alleviate the distortion problem.</p>

<p>Green--the guidelines are guidelines. You can shoot with whatever you want to shoot with. Just know there are reasons for guidelines.</p>

<p>My question would be--why do you shoot loose and crop tighter? I can think of a couple of 'couldn't do anything else' or 'very short on time' reasons, but otherwise, why waste the frame space, particularly on a posed shot?</p>

<p>Nadine, when you mean view point, do you mean where my eyes would line up along their bodies?</p>

<p>Hi Vail,<br />Their heads look fine in the original shot.<br />You are correct to be sensitive as I believe your gut is telling you something is not perfect.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“<strong>5dmkII,</strong> taken on my <strong>24-70 2.8 L</strong>, . . . I did take one shot <em><strong>zoomed</strong></em><strong> out</strong> so that you could see her full dress. Then I quickly<strong> </strong><em><strong>zoomed</strong></em><strong> </strong>in for 3 more shots, each closer than the next.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Re read the Typical Recommendations Nadine set out for: Portraiture / FL Lenses to Use / Camera Elevations / the Framed Shot.<br />Implicit in those typical recommendations, is that the Shooting Distance also changes.</p>

<p>For example, I am photographing one person standing - with my 50mm lens, I pull a Full Length Shot (vertical) with a bit of air around the top and bottom of the frame, I am at about 15ft.<br />If I want a Tight Half Shot (vertical) and therefore for that shot I might CHOOSE to use an 85 lens - but I will be shooting at about 10ft.</p>

<p>It occurs to me that your Portraiture Technique is that your feet are planted and you do NOT choose the FL you require, but rather you frame the shot with the convenience of the zoom and the Focal Length choice just falls where it might.</p>

<p>? ? ?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Addendum:<br />If I may answer - Yes – “viewpoint” is “Camera Elevation” – where your camera is located vertically, Nadine gave a reference of how high off the ground your camera would be, in respect to the Subjects’ bodies.</p>

<p>I think his head looks fine. I do think her head looks a little big for her body, but I think that's due to the veil cutting off her right shoulder and her left shoulder angling backward (and arm being obscured a bit as well). You end up with a "half body" with an apparently large head. If you were to see her right shoulder and arm, the head would look more normally proportioned, imho.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I often shoot full length with 35mm. I'll frame it a bit loose and then crop it tighter. <strong><em>Not sure if this is the right way to alleviate the distortion problem.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><em> </em></strong><br>

No, it is not.<br>

Perspective Distortion (also Parallel Distortion; Keystone Distortion and Foreshortening) is a factor of the Focal Length of the Lens and the Camera's Viewpoint.<br>

For example with a 35mm lens and if you are close enough and shoot too high, (or too low) you will still have Foreshortening – certainly if you have shot loose enough, the effect of the Foreshortening will be decreased when you crop, but simply choosing a 35mm lens and shooting loose, is not a good technique for posed or managed Portraiture, which is what we are discussing here.<br>

On the other hand, for candid work or work on the hop and under the pressure of time at an event, I will often shoot loose - but only <em>whilst still being aware of the camera's viewpoint</em>.<br>

Sometimes, dabbling in “street” photography even using a 24mm lens and shooting from the hip - but in these cases the foreshortening / perspective distortion can also be <a href="../photo/11164431">purposeful and a part of the concept</a>.</p>

<p>WW </p>

 

<p>Vail--William W. has it right. I probably should have not used viewpoint. Anyway, I agree with what he said concerning making a conscious choice about focal length in relation to body length framed. The guidelines posted are for the least distortion in each body length.</p>

<p>This is one of the first things I taught people just starting out in photography. Don't just shoot from wherever you end up in front of your subjects--make a conscious decision and move yourself, if you can. Now, I understand you were in a hurry to get the shot since the light was going. However, unless you needed to be close to your subjects (having enough flash power in bright sun, for instance), you could quickly step back (if you had the room), setting your lens to 50mm.</p>

<p><em>"Now, I understand you were in a hurry to get the shot since the light was going . . ."</em><br>

so did I . . . "once upon a time" . . . we did all that <em>and also changed between three prime lenses.</em></p>

<p>WW :)</p>

<p> </p>

Normally I would have used VERY different focal lengths for the shot than what I did. One of the first things i teach my

beginner photography students is to use the appropriate focal length, suggesting avoiding smaller than 50mm unless

shooting larger group photos. Great example I set, right? But here's a bit more background. We had originally planned

that we were going to get a shot of the bride's side first, no joke 270 people, and then the groom's side, 80 people since

because of Daylight savings time we had almost no light left, and we still had to get shots of the 44 person bridal party

and the couple. So I had my 24-70 on. But then the bride informed me that wasn't going to be sufficient for her family,

and that we needed to do individual family shots instead. So my 2 large group shots turned into about 50 different formal

family shots, which is not unusual for a large Indian wedding. I told them that would eat away at all their time for shots of

the two of them, and they said, that's ok, the family shots are more important, and to them and their family, they really

were. But I knew they already pre-purchased an album and couldn't see having it not have a single shot of the two of

them alone after they liked their engagement shots so much, which we took during a three hour shoot, resulting in

beautiful well composed shots of the two of them. So while the families were lining up in order to get their individual

family formal, I said, oh, lemme just grab a quick one of the two of you alone. I couldn't back up any more because I had

a wall of 350 people behind me. Having them move back meant having them go up higher on the berm, and her risking

sinking high hells into mud. Normally I am not a foot plant photographer. I should have zoomed in more on the lens for a

longer focal length and gone with a head shot, but I was just focused on how the bride said she wanted the sari in every

shot, so I just went with what I had. I wanted to be culturally savvy and show that I understood and respected the

importance of that to her.

 

Luckily after we got all the family shots done, there was a hint of sunset left and we got a shot just as it slipped behind the

earth. Later in the evening we grabbed them for about 2 minutes for some shots of them alone. But I still wanted to

make this shot work that I posted here because they were a very sweet couple and I knew how much the bride wanted a

fall wedding to have the foliage as a backdrop.

 

We did the bridal party shots in the beautiful, and well lit, lobby of the reception hall with proper focal lengths and

distances. Those shots came out great :)

 

The lesson from this is that you truly never know what will be thrown your way at a wedding, and it is good to know how to

roll with the unexpected punches. In the end the couple was very happy with how I handled the situation that day and

hopefully they will like the fixed up shot. In the mean time, your excellent advice will undoubtedly help me think on my

feet better in the future, so thank you!

<p>Well that explains it. Have you tried perspective control in Photoshop? I've used it even on people a couple of times.</p>

<p>I have a couple of thoughts. I like using short lenses for stuff like this, even though I mostly use long lenses, even very long. Imagine that there is a giant perfect graph paper behind the couple. If you shoot from high or low tilted up or down, or angled left or right some parts of those lines are going to converge. Keep this in mind because you don't want them to converge, and it doesn't matter how short or long the lens is, either the field is flat or it's not. If you shoot from the front and say about chest high depending on how tall you are, you can't see in the camera without some contorting, or using a tripod is best, but you can position the camera with the convergence in mind and just raise or lower the height. That in itself will prevent this type problem pretty much. For example if I was shooting this on a Hasselblad I could just hold it lower and look through the top, but with rear eyepiece digitals it's a pain in the butt. Also, I would lessen the fill on them and throw a second flash at the leaves in the background, you'll hardly notice but it will give them a kick.</p>

<p>OK, I just read your post you wrote same time as mind, I completely understand, been there. So keep camera flat to plane and adjust fill on couple and background and that will help. Just think of your body as a flag pole and the camera going up and down on it but staying straight. That's why I almost shoot anything like this I can on a tripod</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Normally I am not a foot plant photographer."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Understood.<br />If you were shooting inside, with a wall behind you, there would be the same problem.<br />I most willing retract, how it occurred to me.<br />It occurs to me entirely differently now I read the fuller account and I am happier for that.<br />***<br />Going back to the original issue and how you made the shot. If you are forced to shoot at a FL wider than you would normally choose and the Subjects are standing above you (you mentioned a slight incline and you were below them) – it is better to get the camera higher – at about their face height or even a tad high than that and shoot directly with <strong><em>the Film Plane parallel to them</em></strong>.</p>

<p>The reason is twofold:<br />With a wide lens, if there is any barrel distortion it will be at the edges more pronounced, and the dress or the feet or the sky can be more easily manipulated than the facial features – so getting the face more towards the centre is good.<br />The second reason is all about the parallel or keystone type of Perspective Distortion being exacerbated when the camera’s Film Plane is skew to the plane of the Subjects.<br />If you shoot like that then the Perspective Control / Lens Distortion Correction in Photoshop (or similar) is easier used (or abused) if it is treating the Dress, or the feet or the tree behind them, rather than their faces.</p>

<p>This type of shooting scenario is sometimes challenging for those of us who are not very tall and a lot easier for those 6ft something people, alas I fall, in to the former category.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Imagine that there is a giant perfect graph paper behind the couple . . .So keep camera flat to plane"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />HAHA! Gee you have to be quick!<br />I was writing the same thing at the same time - and I got up to get a coffee. <br />I like the graph paper analogy I shall use that, please.<br /><br />WW</p>

<p>No lie William, I just finished my third cup, before bed no less, here in the states of course *-)) And, if there's any of my ramblings you ever find useful, go for it, I sometimes make sense. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My question would be--why do you shoot loose and crop tighter? I can think of a couple of 'couldn't do anything else' or 'very short on time' reasons, but otherwise, why waste the frame space, particularly on a posed shot?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Expeidency is the main reason for me to shoot loose and crop tight, especially for those journalistic shots with which you don't always have time to frame precisely. </p>

<p>Sometime with posed shots, I shoot loose to avoid putting people on the edges. The trade off, of course, is that you lose pixels cropping down. A photog taught me this when I first started out and I have been doing this since. Is this not right?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sometime with <strong>posed</strong> shots, I shoot loose to avoid putting people on the edges. The trade off, of course, is that you lose pixels cropping down. A photog taught me this when I first started out and I have been doing this since. <strong>Is this not right?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is “right” and what is “wrong” is open to debate and opinion.<br>

But for certain: I would argue strongly that if “Posed” in any manner whatsoever, then some Control is to be apparent.<br>

And that control would extend to managing the Technical Elements of the Craft.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>To shoot wide and then crop is the same as picking a longer focal length - except that image resolution will drop.</p>

<p>I would say that 35mm for a full length shot is fine especially if you want to show the environment. But you can't angle the camera down if you are close to the subjects. You need to drop down and shoot them. That's classic portraiture photography. "Craft" as WW called it :-)</p>

<p> </p>