wide angle vs. perspective distortion

<p>ok..this has been bugging me for a while and seems like a dumb question, but I figure if I don't ask it, I'll never know (and searching here and on google didn't turn up any answers), so...<br>

The most common recommended zoom for wedding photography is 17-50 on APS-C and the equivalent 24-70 on FF. Below 35mm FF (24 on APS-C), you get noticeable perspective distortion (I've noticed it in studio use so I hate using anything below 50mm on APS-C) so you'll get pretty odd looking people near the corners of any shots (including group shots), so why do you use focal lengths below that?<br>

Is it just to make sure you can get the shot in close quarters (why I suspect it's used)? Do customers just not notice the facial/body warpage when you show them the photos? :-)</p>

 

<p>Yes, when very pressed, I will use a wider angle than 'recommended'. However, when I do so, I still leave empty space at the sides and avoid putting people there. Otherwise, when I can, I use a focal length that won't give me distortion, although I still (unconsciously) leave empty space at the sides for two reasons. First is what I just mentioned and second, to allow an 8x10 proportion.</p>

<p>Customers do notice the warpage. You can get away with it sometimes if it isn't important people (not the bride or groom or their parents... :^) Or if it is a younger crowd, and they think the distortion is cool.</p>

<p>I do carry and use wider lenses, but not so much to photograph people as to take interior shots of the church—to get the entire congregation, etc. NOTE that when I'm shooting the entire church and congregation, I'm not up close to any person, so the distortion doesn't make people look fatter.</p>

<p>Occasionally I'll photograph people up close with a very wide angle, if I'm desperate, or trying to be artsy (which I don't do a lot). Picking your perspective can help, that is, sometimes the distortion is less noticeable; but I try not to use wide lenses up close to photograph, um, ample people. Actually I did it once. The results were fun but not especially flattering.</p>

<p>I don't usually go below 28mm (= 42mm on a full-frame camera). </p>

<p>There are so many reasons to use wide lenses, especially for getting environment in the frame, getting more line convergence, the unique 3d effect of a fast 24mm prime with shallow DoF, the nice perspective for detail shots, and lots of fun shots as well. Wedding photography isn't just about standard portraiture norms.</p>

<p>The distortions are a result of distance to the subject not the lens. the lens sets only the field of view. I try to stay 1.5 M from a single person. <br>

Sometimes controlling where you shoot is important. If they insist, I ask to take some shots as well in a better place with more room.</p>

<p>I shoot 16mm (on FF) a lot when I'm doing informal events or for receptions on the dance floor. I've had many moments when I'm there and something happens where a huge group of people come together. Yes you'll wind up with distortion, some people like it, I've just made it part of my style that people like.... maybe I do it too much. As long as you know what you're going to wind up getting. You can always crop the edges out.</p>

<p>I think it gives you the feeling of feeling and seeing everything as if you were there. When I have it on I always keep a longer focal length lens on another body if I see something I need to reach.</p>

<p>Thanks all for the responses. Sounds like the bottom line is event photography is not studio photography :-)</p>

 

<p>As you note Ken, where the circumstances are under your control, 35mm or narrower FL's are preferred for portraiture. However, there are often cases where I am backed up in a room, then get asked by the B&G to grab a group shot of 15 buddies from school or whatever. Then you better have a WA of at least 24mm equiv. ready, or you will have to climb on tables, step out the door of the room, go to another location, stand on top of other guests etc. :)</p>

<p>Additionally, a varied perspective helps to separate your shots from those of the P&S crowd. What you can do with a WA is quite amazing sometimes.</p>

<p>A highly respected photographer, David Ziser, often does bridal portraits with a wide lens. His recommendation is to keep the person in the middle of the frame. He often uses a wide lens to get environmental portraits, which I think is where the lens really shines. Check his blog for some great examples of wide-angle portraits (and other uses for the lens).</p>

<p>Ziser's recent video promo of his book was one of the things that prompted me to ask this actually. I noticed he recommended a 24-105/4.0 lens w/ a Canon 5D as his main lens (but in a 2009 video, he used an 18-200 and 17-85); it's interesting that he doesn't use 2.8 glass much but I guess that's because he uses off-cam flash so much. And he uses a 12-24 and 8mm fisheye. He has lots of perspective distortion in his images but they have a lot of the environment in the shot which is what the customers want...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A few thoughts, some already made above . . .<br>

<br>

The "Perspective Distortions" (usually either: <em >Foreshortening, Barreling</em> or <em >Parallel Distortion</em>), are a related to the: <strong ><em >Subject Distance</em></strong>; . . . also the: <strong ><em >Camera’s Viewpoint</em></strong>, <strong ><em >Camera’s Elevation</em></strong> and the <strong >Position of the Subject</strong> within the frame.<br>

<br>

At Weddings and other Formal Occasions, I have found that the relaxed setting and informal pose or moment is more adaptable to using the wide (below is an example of a 24 on a 5D – it is a full frame crop to 7x5 format). Note I went High Camera Viewpoint (I shot Hail Mary / Doorstop Style) to keep the heads in OK perspective and I didn’t much care about their feet or elongation of the two short fellows’ legs, because of the relaxed nature of the group and their pose . . . also note just a little crib of space at the edges not to make those two bulge. . . . that was shot at about 5ft to 6ft which is pretty close, really.<br>

<br>

Also Environmental Portraiture lends itself to wide angle and quite close (about 3ft) – although the elongation of the crown of the head is obvious, so too is the leading arm – and both are a notes for negative critique the counter argument is that both are lost within the impact of the whole scene and her eyes: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9567749">http://www.photo.net/photo/9567749</a><br>

<br>

Also a 24 is interesting to use for a smaller view subjects, placed in the centre, when in tight spaces (about 10ft to the mirror): <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9568026">http://www.photo.net/photo/9568026</a><br>

<br>

I think the important skill to learn is how <strong ><em >to see the end result in the viewfinder</em></strong> – many miss seeing especially the barrel and the foreshortening in the viewfinder - especially on APS-C cameras.<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > </p>

<div></div>

<p>I really don't like that use of wide angle. Tilting the group so they look like they're falling over is not doing anything for me. If I was going to do fun shots I would try to make it not look like they were about to lose their balance, because it gives me a real "logical" sense of unease.</p>

<p>I use wide angles for getting scenery in the shot, having strong foreground vs. background presence, and for the strong lines. I really can't wait for my 24L to show up.</p>

<p >Point taken, Joey: each of us has likes and dislikes and I respect your opinion and your option to “like” or “dislike”. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But business and client satisfaction is beyond that, IMO, and as a consequence of that, having worked this younger teenage clientele quite often . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The clients liked it. Their parents liked it. It is liked and this obtuse sells in my area with this market group. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Primarily I serve my clients, and not my whims and fantasies nor my likes and dislikes . . Crikey! I even used some Flash fill.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This thread is ostensibly about “perspective distortion” and I simply placed three differing perspectives upon that topic – with three quite different samples.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I too use the wide for sweeping shots with strong foreground vs. background presence, and for the strong lines . . . I really look forward to you using your 24, also . . . and perhaps maybe providing some samples as various options to address the question asked.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>William: that photo you posted in-line is exactly the kind of wide-angle oddness that bugs me (I've gotten too OCD w/ studio work lately :-). The other two you linked are good examples of using a wide angle almost like how landscape shooters use the Sigma 10-20 to accentuate the stuff at the edges while keeping the stuff in the middle relatively distortion free. Sounds like customers basically don't mind and that's the real determinant of whether you used it properly...</p>

<p> </p>

<p ><strong ><em >Sounds like customers basically don't mind and that's the real determinant of whether you used it properly...</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >. . . yes . . . maybe . . . sometimes not . . . I think it needs to be judged on a case by case basis . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >This was that reason for my posting the three different images; and the basis of my comments.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Others had already mentioned centring the subjects (avoid edge barrelling) and keeping the camera square (viewpoint) and mid-line (elevation), and keeping a good SD (Subject Distance creates perspective – FL just makes the FoV) . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >These are all techniques to get the most “normal looking” image in a cramped space with a wide lens.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I noted that your question firstly revolved around studio work – and the comments preceding mine mostly discussed what could be done to set about getting the more “formal” images looking OK: that information could be applied to Studio Portraits and or the more Formal-type Portraits on location at an event or Wedding . . . I did make one addition on a technical matter, adding Camera elevation and Viewpoint to Errol’s comments about Subject Distance.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But I also noted that your question had an element about what the customers notice (or what we might be considerate of what the customers might notice) </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“The Boys” is an example which is perceived as OK by the customers and is a good seller in some markets . . . even though when technically critiqued there is noticeable Foreshortening and Skew (LH edge falling over) and Distortions of the Converging Parallels.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >However, at these gigs, when I am Photographing a Group of Girls (or the Boys and Girls together) it is very important for me to consider the “fatness perception” some girls bring to the viewing of their images . . . in this regard I would not pull a shot like that above if it were eight girls or Boys and Girls – better to use a 50mm and make it an half shot. – or use an 85mm and shoot half shots of couples. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The other two images (the links) were to display how when we might use close SD and a wide FL for creative portraiture – maybe useful at Weddings and maybe not. . . and some like that and some don’t – especially the girl at the table - I think either one likes that type of close Environmental Portrait work or not . . . there are usually no half-ways</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Perhaps I should have made it clearer why I was displayed three images that contained the some of the distortions which concerned you – rather than adding to the conversation of how not to get the distortions. </p>

<p ></p>

<p >I was simply offering options of when these WA distortions might be suitable and / or saleable.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p>Thanks William. Yep, I understood the two linked ones as showing examples of SD/FL. And I know about the girls and wide angle lenses thing...got smacked for doing a event group shot w/ a wide angle once when I was backed up to a table and probably should have shot it on top of the table ;-)</p>

<p><strong><em>"I know about the girls and wide angle lenses thing..."</em></strong><br>

<br>

Expanding upon techniques for posed / formal shots - I am always more alert in our Summer-time – sleeve-less dresses and skimpy tops means bare shoulders and arms - I never have women with bare arms at the edges of the frame.<br>

<br>

WW<br>

</p>