50mm 1.8 Portraits avoid exaggerated features

[steve_johnston9]

<p>

<p >Hello I am going to do some portrait work this weekend. I have the 50mm 1.8 for my Canon 500d. I have read that shooting at this range can cause distortion, such as exaggerating the size of the nose and face.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have found this happening, in other photos that I have taken. Can you offer any advice on how to avoid this or will a have to buy another lens ?</p>

</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>your 50mm is in fact close to a 85mm because of the crop factor on your camera.. so not that bad IF you are not taking image to close. For best result shoot a bit more than just the face, like a a passport photo cropping should help reduce the exagerate feature. Or buy / rent a 100mm and that should do it.</p>

<p>I like doing portrait with a 85mm personnaly.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The Canon 500d has a sub Full Frame sensor; it is 22.3x14.9mm<br /> <br /> I would think a 50mm lens would work well; a 60mm or 75 mm better.<br /> <br /> Perspective really is about distance ; if you keep the subject at 5 to 6 feet; you will have a less "big nose" effect of shooting at 3 feet!</p>

<p><br /> ****Shooting some portraits *PURPOSELY* at different distances of 3,4,5,6, and 7 feet and study them to see how distance makes the perspective change. It really does not matter what focal lengths is used; it isi ALL about distance</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>Perspective really is about distance</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's it. That is what you need to know. To refine that I might say it is /all/ about distance.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Once you move back to have less exageration of facial parts, you will be shooting a full figure portrait instead of head shot. With a 21 MP or 24 MP you could easily crop the center and achieve the same perspective as with longer lens, but at expense of some degradation of picture quality. With your camera you still have some freedom to crop.</p>

<p>See what is acceptable for you, and how big prints you intend to make.   </p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Eventually you will need a longer lens for professional quality portraits. </p>

<p>Despite the fact that perspective does not depend on lens focal length, in practicality you do not want to compromize your photo quality by use of lenses that may not be best suitable for the purpose. Some people even recommended use of wide angle lens for portraits.</p>

[anov]

<p>For head and shoulder shot and longer, this 50mm is fine for your 50D, tight head shot is going to make you too close hence the exagerrated nose issue.</p>

[dave_wilson7]

<p>Crop or not I still prefer longer lenses so 85 would start it for me, 180 also. That being said, I will shoot "portraits" with whatever lens I feel works for the look, I like 28 on a crop also for certain looks. But in the terms you're speaking for me ould be at least 85mm even on the crop.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Sorry for the extra post, had a big computer crash here yesterday, just trying to get back on the right PNet account.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I shoot portraits at focal lengths from 25-50mm most of the time. I don't have problems with distortion because I don't shoot in someone's face. If you look at the history of great portraiture, many were shot with a normal (50mm or equivalent) lens, and that was with no crop factor. Take the photos, see what distance works for how you want your photos to look, and don't worry about it.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Unless one knows the subject matter; there are really not answers to questions like.</p>

<p>If one likes a 4.5 foot distance and you shoot portraits; maybe a 75mm might be better than a 50mm with a cropped sensor.</p>

<p>BUT if you only lens is your 75mm and you have an assignment to shoot ladies with big red hats; it can be too long and you cut off their hats at 4.5 feet; thus a 50mm lens is better since it has more angular coverage.</p>

<p>Thus this quashes Franks comment of "Eventually you will need a longer lens for professional quality portraits."; since the longer lens is less professional; since you cut off their hats; or have to back away and have a real flat perspective.</p>

<p><br /><br>

A professional should use what tool works; and not get boxed in by dogma. </p>

<p>(1) The distance sets the perspective. </p>

<p>(2) The focal length then gives the angular coverage;<br>

<br /><br>

****Angular Coverage *DOES vary by portrait type* ; ie : HEAD SIZE (tiny young child versus 300Lb Football fullback) ; HAIR (none/bald guy versus B52/Beehive hair) , Hats (none, small, giant) <br>

<br /><br>

In cine/movie work there is little confusion about (1) and (2) . <br>

<br /><br>

If one uses the same 75mm lens and varies the by distance a lot farther out to cover the giant beehive hair; one can have a flat looking portrait; thus the 75mm can be the unprofessional one with a cropped sensor; and the "lowly" 50mm a way better one.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>How close we stand to each other; and what is a correct "distance" for a portrait varies a lot too by country; thus questions like this are murky</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Back when the earth was cooling one did manual retouching with pencils; thus a persons face had to be dime size or larger you you went crazy with eyestrain.<br>

<br /> Before WW2 contact printing ruled; a nice"portrait camera" was a 5x7" Graflex "Home Portrait" slr that had a lens a bit longer that a regular 5x7 lens; often a 10 to 12" lens instead of a 8.5" .</p>

 

[frank_skomial]

<p>"Unless one knows the subject matter" - perhaps you missed the sentence:</p>

<p>"Hello I am going to do some portrait" - is the subject not sufficiiently defined for you ?</p>

<p>Do not invent the "big red hats" to force your theory, while you are wrong about it.</p>

<p>The statement is NONSENS: " since the longer lens is less professional"</p>

<p>I wouild not expect this from someone who gave some 18000+ advices.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Frank:</p>

<p>""Hello I am going to do some portrait" - is the subject not sufficiiently defined for you ?"<br /> Does NOT define what the type of portrait; thus the "area" around the subject.<br /> <br /><br /> We differ.<br /> <br /><br /> Here I am NOT an assuming type of persons; but you seem to be.<br /> <br /><br /> Here I have sorts of protraits; little kids to big folks with big B52 hairdos or hats.<br /> <br /><br /> I am sorry that this is so confusing; it is really quite basic.<br /> <br /><br /> You can go along be the assuming type in life; and assume on an assignment that one lens will work; ie best case the whole job.<br /> <br /><br /> Here I have gotten into trouble with lay assuming; thus learned about when in Jr High not to assume; but to learn what tools to bring to a job.<br /> <br /><br /> It is better to be flexible and not have an old rigid mindset<br /> <br /><br /> The area around the persons head is NOT known; thus can NOT box in the angular coverage. Thus you longer lens will not work with a cropped sensor; you cut off the ladys hair; or a person hat.<br /> <br /><br /> It is nonsense to assume stuff and not be flexible; there are many types of portraits; saying one "Eventually you will need a longer lens for professional quality portraits."" sounds real bizzare; because. There are many folks who use a 50mm on a cropped sensor all the time. With some jobs they can not use a longer lens; it just leads to an unwanted long distance; or unwanted hair/hat cut off.<br /> <br /><br /> Your rigidity dictating a longer lens for "professional quality portraits." can lead to trouble with some portraits.<br /> <br /><br /> A carpenter has more than on saw and hammer for a reason; so does a Photographer have many lenses. Having several lenses allows one to have more control.</p>

<p>****The OP already has a nice 50mm lens; it can be a fine portrait lens on a cropped camera. His question was about distortion/perspective; not about spending more money on a another lens. It is really about learning how to use ones tools.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Eventually you will need a longer lens for professional quality portraits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nonsense. I have done two consecutive magazine covers (see below for the more recent one) with a 24-70, all shot between 35 and 55mm on a 1.3x camera, not a 1.6. I have two more shoots scheduled with the same magazine and will use the same equipment. I've done a lot of portraits, mostly with the 24-70, occasionally with a 17-40. They get published. What a longer lens can help for is the subsection of portraits that are classical Hollywood headshots, but there's a lot more to portraits than Hollywood headshots.</p><center>

 

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/cainv.jpg" alt="" width="554" height="719" /><br /> <em>Cain Velasquez, Copyright 2010 Jeff Spirer</em></center>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>From my reading, it seemed kind of obvious from the OP, without over reading into it, that he's using a 50mm on a crop and he indicates that "I have found this happening" with regard to various "distortion" characteristics that he has read about. That kind of indicates to me that it's the business as usual and he should maybe consider a longer lens. Of course he can just leave more room etc. but if he is experiencing these distortions with the lens he's using with the compositions he's creating, again, without getting too far off the beaten track, a zoom with 70 or 80mm or a good old 85mm standby will likely fit the ticket. I'm not going to push my personal agenda on him or I'd have him shooting with 180 and 300mm, I'm just trying to understand his point of view and handle it.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>There are numerous reasons to get distortion. Of course the easy way out is to say it's the lens, but my experience has been that people don't understand what happens if they move up/down etc etc. Unless he posts some photos that show this, it's not possible to figure out what it is. Since it only takes one example (like mine) to show that it isn't the lens that causes this, it's time to look for other causes.</p>

<p> </p>

[jason]

<p>FWIW when i did fashion and model shoots, i always cropped close! These images i today call"heads-on-a-stick". i now always have some envoirement showing. Much nicer portraits.The 50mm will then be about 75..not 85mm. Only Leica worries about a 75mm lens choice..</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>"...distortion, such as exaggerating the size of the nose and face. I have found this happening, in other photos that I have taken. Can you offer any advice on how to avoid this."</p>

<p>Increase distance between subject and camera.</p>

[paul_reklaitis]

<p>Matt is correct! Most lenses do NOT cause distortion. The distance of the subject from camera is what is causing the exaggerated distortion. If you are shooting people, stay at least 6 feet away from them. I prefer about 12 feet when possible. The size of the lens, will define what is in frame at that distance. 50mm on 1.6x camera is an 85mm equivalent lens which makes for nice 3/4 portraits at 12 feet.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Ha!</p>

<p>I just noticed this thread - that <em>Velasquez </em>fellow is quite awesome. He fought down here in February this year. Quite an amazing record - I don't think he has lost a fight, at least that is how he was billed down here.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p > </p>

<p >Your question rewritten is:</p>

<p >What is the focal length of choice for my camera?</p>

<p >What focal length is best for portraiture?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >First focal length of choice: For each format size, we are taking about the dimensions of the film or digital chip inside the camera; we can calculate the focal length that yields a view that we call "normal" perspective. All we need to do is measure or calculate the diagonal of the format size. Earlier you told us you aspired to buy a Canon 5D Mark II. Assuming you did, the dimensions of this camera sensor measure 24mm by 36mm, this is the same size as the venerable 35mm film camera and we call this format "full frame".</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now the diagonal measure of this format is 43.3mm. If we mount a lens with a focal length equal to the diagonal, the resulting image is said to match the human perspective.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This is a view such as seen while looking out a window and gazing about. We can use a wax pencil and draw the outlines of objects seen on the glass. This drawing is said to be the human perspective. The camera duplicates this perspective if the lens used matches the diagonal of the camera's image. Because on the full frame, this works out to a weird value, 43mm, most 35mm cameras are fitted with a 50mm. The slight difference between 50mm and 43mm is trivial in this regard.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If we mount a shorter lens, the view (field of view) will be wider. Shorter means we enter the realm of the wide-angle and this zone starts at about 70% of "normal" and shorter. For the full frame that's 50mm x 70% = 35mm or shorter. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If we mount a longer lens, the field of view is narrower. The realm of telephoto is consider 200% of "normal" and longer. This is 50mm x 200% = 100mm or longer. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now to address your portrait lens question: Because portraits are generally viewed as prints on paper print size 8x10 or maybe over-mantel size like16x20 etc., the viewing distance tends to be long. Most viewer stand back and view from a yard or meter away. We must take this increased viewing distance into account when we select our portrait lens. If we ignore, perspective distortion creeps in. The most common error is using too short a taking lens. The distortions results are bloated nose with reduce in size ears. Most times the error is microscopic and only revealed by the words "I don't photograph well". Using too long a less is not serious, however we get compression and the nose and ears appear too close together. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The focal length deemed best is about 2.5 times the diagonal. The industry standard for the full frame format is 105mm. Hollywood uses 3 times normal for their close-up shots so for them, the focal length most often used will be 130mm.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Few pay much attention to this stuff. Most images don't need to match the human experience. After all photography is both an art and a science and you are free to output your images in ways that please only you. Portraits are the exception. Let me add that professionals who make a living at this stuff gravitate to long portrait lenses because their images of faces sell better. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Let me add that professionals who make a living at this stuff gravitate to long portrait lenses because their images of faces sell better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, that's why Richard Avedon, generally considered one of the greatest photographers ever, used a 360mm lens on his 8x10 camera, the equivalent of 52mm on full frame (35mm type) cameras.<br>

<br />Lots of talk here, but the photos tell the story. Great portraits have been made with a variety of lenses, but many of the great portrait photographers have used the equivalent of 50mm on 35mm full frame. Maybe the "professionals" referred to above are the guys that do it in the malls.</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p >The 8x10 format has a diagonal measure of 12.8 inches which works out to 325mm. That’s equivalent to a 43mm mounted on a full frame 35mm. The difference between a 325mm and a 360mm makes little difference, as both will deliver "normal" or near "normal" perspective. The caveat is the 8x10 matched with a lens in the mid 300mm range delivers normal perspective only if a contact print is made. </p>

<p >Conversely, the full frame 35mm format is tiny. To make an 8x10 it must be enlarged a minimum of 8x. more likely 10x. The magnification needed to make the enlargement renders the 50mm incorrect as to perspective when used for portraiture. To return to a "normal" perspective a lens 2.5 times the diagonal will be required. It’s the viewing distance and the magnification that must be taken into account. </p>

<p >In other words, if the print size and the viewing distance remain the same 8x10 vs. 35mm, the resulting pictures will have different perspectives. Suppose the viewing distance is to be 12 inches (304.8mm) and we are examining in succession prints made with a 35mm camera enlarged 10x. The lenses used for the same scene are a 35mm a 50mm and a 100mm. We calculate the viewing distance that delivers "normal" perspective. </p>

<p >35mm lens x 10 magnification = 350mm or 13.78 inches</p>

<p >50mm lens x 10 magnification = 500mm or 19.64 inches</p>

<p >100mm lens x 10 magnification = 1000mm or 39.28 inches.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The three images will be different as to image size. If on the other hand the 3 images are printed so all 3 have the same image size, different enlargement magnifications will be required. If the three are printed to deliver the same image size, the perspective for all three will be correct if the viewing distance is uniform. </p>

<p >The bottom line is you can't duplicate the perspective yield of the 8x10 format with a 35mm without taking enlargement magnification into account. </p>

<p >A good reference on this subject is C.B. Neblette's book Photographic Lenses. Also, if you check, you will find that it's no accident that the most popular portrait lens focal length sold for the 35mm, over the years, is the 105mm. </p>

<p >Thanks for reading my gobbledygook.</p>