Which lens for portraits?

[mukul_dube]

<p>Scott Ferris: You said, and the reason I posted my headshot <em>" while a "normal" lens cannot be used for tight head shots" </em>This is clearly absurd,...</p>

<p><strong>A photograph taken with a "normal" lens can be cropped to make the result look like a tight head shot. Try framing a tight head shot in your finder with a normal lens fitted -- and then fire the shutter and make an ass of yourself. Absurd, you say? <em>Clearly</em> absurd?</strong></p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mukul,</p>

<p>Why would I? If I have a 50 I can use it as a 50 or crop it as a 90, saves lens changes and I can still print bigger than most people ever want. My comment was a reply to your comment<em> "that a "portrait lens" can be used for other things besides head shots -- while a "normal" lens cannot be used for tight head shots".</em> This is not true, a 50 can be used for tight headshots and nobody can tell the difference between a cropped 50 headshot and a native 90 headshot in a print smaller than at least 12"X18". They can't tell the difference because there isn't one. But we already discussed that.</p>

<p>The"look", or perspective, that people want is up to them, there have been many successful wide angle portrait images, many "normal" angle ones and many "portrait lens" ones, a fair few pros use good sized teles too, 300 and 400 f2.8's are often used on fashion shoots. What is your point? Mine was only that you can use a 50 as a 90 but you can't use a 90 as a 50, ergo the 50 must be considered more flexible.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>If space permits, move back -- and you will see how a 90 can be used like a 50.</p>

<p>There is an old expression, "frame filling". This refers to the object of interest occupying all or most of the frame. For "tight head shot" read "frame filling head shot" and you may understand what I have been saying, absurd though you have decreed it.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mukul,</p>

<p>You are 100% wrong. The perspective a 90 gives cannot replace a 50, simply because perspective is just about the subject distance, not focal length, if I have to move to take another image the perspective changes. If I have to move back with my 90 to get the field of view that a 50 gave me the images are not identical.</p>

<p>Old expressions are simply that, old expressions. Without going into the vastly increased printing capabilities of modern captures, the whole point of my post was just to point out that if you could only have one lens, a 50 or a 90, and you didn't want to limit yourself, you are far better off getting the 50 as you can take exactly the same image as the 90 with it, whereas you cannot replicate a 50 image with the 90.</p>

<p>Your suggestion that the 90 is more flexible is thus absurd.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>You will see this in my first post: "I agree with Fred C. If, however, you are to limit yourself to one lens, then the obvious choice is the 90 (or 85/100/105). With a 50 you often cannot get near enough (David Bebbington above): but with a 90 you are not obliged to be close."</p>

<p>Please read what Fred C. and David Bebbington said so that you get some idea of the context.</p>

<p>While you are about it, you might also read what I said earlier instead of asking what is my point.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mukul,</p>

<p>I have read it, that is why, in my opinion, <em>"If, however, you are to limit yourself to one lens, then the obvious choice is the</em>" 50, due to its flexibility. There is nothing wrong with having different opinions, but saying you can get the same image with a 90, by stepping back, as with a 50 is just incorrect. </p>

[mlg28]

Gentlemen,

 

http://xkcd.com/386/

 

Thank you,

Martin

[mukul_dube]

<p>But I did not say that, Scott. I could not have done. I came to know about perspective decades ago. What I said, by implication, is that a subject can be reduced to the same size on the negative by stepping back. Do you find this incorrect and absurd?</p>

<p>Good one, Martin.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Wow, semantics and cartoons. Great debating skills.</p>

<p>My point was, oh forget it, you are just being obtuse...............</p>

<p> </p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Here's a portrait I took with a 20mm lens.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Not so obtuse that I cannot see what you are doing. Having flung a final insult, you have burrowed under the mountain of your own droppings. I am happy to wish you warmth.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Sorry Mukul,</p>

<p>The mistake I made early on in the thread, and I admit it was 100% my fault, was, I assumed I was debating with an adult.</p>

<p>That you petulantly refuse to admit that exactly the same image, perspective, ears and noses etc, can be taken with a 50 as with a 90, but the same is not true of a 90 to a 50 is a measure of you.</p>

<p>Enjoy your happiness, I wish you well.</p>

<p>Scott.</p>

[rgerraty]

Martin Gomez, thank you. Xkcd is my most important discovery since getting the C Sonnar. Meanwhile, Elliott Erwitt

took a wonderful challenging portrait of Buckminster Fuller, above his geodesic dome, using a 21 SA whilst seated

right next to him in the helicopter. He wanted the depth of field to show the man and his creation.

[mukul_dube]

<p>Petulantly or otherwise, I have <em>not</em> refused to see what you imagine I have refused to see. But I see that you are blinkered and cannot see that. Nor can you see this matter in perspective although you go on endlessly about that phenomenon. Good-bye, Uncle Hundred Per Cent.</p>

[lalon_karim]

<p>I personally think that, for showing a face on a photograph to represent how the face is recalled/ remembered by us, we have to shoot that person from a distance that is equal to the height of of his/ her eye level (from the ground). This is only a theory, and not a scientific one, so there is no proof available to me. This theory implies that the shorter a person, the closer the distance from which u have to shoot to show the face as-is. It means thet we have to shoot children from a closer distance than adults. [bTW, the goal of photography (art) is not showing things as-is, a photographer (artist) has complete freedom of how he wants to show a person's face. This theory is only for u if u want to show a person's face as-is].</p>

<div></div>

[lalon_karim]

<p>This one was shot from around 6 feets. People who have seen him personally thinks that this photo represents more like how they remember/ recall him. [see another interesting thing, in both the photos the picture frame behind the person was at same distance from the person. But the further the shot was taken from, the larger the frame ends up in the photo.]</p>

<div></div>

[lalon_karim]

<p>I had another set of these photos where he was shot from around 8 feet too (along with 4, 5.5, 6 feet). From arounfd 8 feet, he looks fatter than he actually is. I have lost the set.<br />These photos do not prove the theory as there r no shots of other persons who r taller or shorter than him. His height is around 5-7, and his eye levels is around 5 feet 3 inches from the ground.</p>

[lalon_karim]

<p>All the photos that I posted were lens distortion corrected in Raw converter. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Holy crap! Lots of action in this thread! An actor paying for theatrical headshots for use by a commercial agency would typically want to minimize any noticeable foreshortening effect. For their needs, a head-and-shoulders portrait, shot with either an 85mm, 105mm, 135mm or 180mm [on a full-frame body] would probably be perceived by them to be "more acceptable" than, say a 50mm lens (without cropping). Sure, you could crop the 50mm, but of course, the closer the original framing is to its intended output "crop," the better the quality.</p>

<p>For more subjective (e.g., "arty") portraits, hell, the sky's the limit. My personal preference is either the 85mm or 105mm on a full-frame body for a "traditional" head-and-shoulders" portrait. For non-foreshortened, full-length shots (one of my favorite types of shots), either a 50mm, 55mm, 60mm, or the 85mm. For more "arty" full-length shots, or "environment portraits," my favorites are either the 24mm or the 35mm.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Crap! I didn't even know this was a Leica forum! I just saw it on the "active threads" list on the home page, and thought I'd contribute. I was talking in Nikon-speak FX DSLR focal lengths. Excuse me! Bye!</p>

[rgerraty]

Hey Ralph, nice you came - no need to rush off. We speak Nikon. It was about time to switch languages.

[bms]

<p>Wow,<br>

cool it down guys... or take it outside.</p>

<p>Other than that, regardless of focal length, Ty's shot is a winner! Love it.<br>

Lalon, very illustrative, thanks.</p>

<p> </p>