Why do their heads look too big for their body?

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"To shoot wide and then crop . . . is the same as picking a longer focal length"</strong></em><br>

Except also (in addition to resolution dropping) . . . the <strong><em>Perspective</em></strong> is different.</p>

<p>WW<br>

:)</p>

 

[pete_s.]

<p>Nope, can't agree on that William.<br /> Perspective comes from distance relationships alone and has nothing to do with focal length.</p>

<p>The focal length is just magnification. Cropping is the also magnification since we cut some parts away but still have the same size screen/print. So if you shoot wide (less magnification) and then crop (more magnification) it's exactly the same thing as shooting with a different focal length. Perspective is identical because we didn't change the camera to subject distance.</p>

<p>Since I know you know this I assume we are not talking about the same thing?</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Pete, focal length affects more than magnification. The optics of the lenses create specific effects. I just did this series in my apartment to show the differences. The first is a 16mm, the next is 16mm from the same distance the 135mm shot was taken at, and then cropped in LR (you can even see in this tiny shot the decreased clarity and increased noise with doing this). This was all hand held, not with my tripod. With longer focal lengths, you get more compression of the perceived depth of field. So if you take a crowd shot in NYC, and you want it to appear more packed in, you'd want to use a longer focal length, if you don't want to make it seem like people are packed in like sardines, use a shorter focal length. These shots are all SOOC, shot at 2500ISO, 2.8, 1/160th on my 5DmkII. The bokeh and DOF you get at 2.8 even when cropped in is very different with a shorter focal length lens (see the blur on the back of the red bag and the blurred container in the 135mm shot vs the clarity of them in the cropped shot) than you do on a longer focal length lens. This is because that F stop we are using has to do with a ratio: Focal Length/Size of aperture so to get the same F stop on a longer focal length lens, you need a much larger aperture opening, which affects the depth of field.</p><div></div>

[pete_s.]

<p>No Vail, the "compression" of perspective doesn't come from the focal length of the lens, it comes from the fact that you have increased the distance to the subject.</p>

<p>You even show it to us in your example shot. The cropped 16mm and the 135mm shot have exactly the same perspective. As they should because they are shot from the same distance.<br /> And the uncropped 16mm shot have a very different perspective because the camera was very close to the subject.</p>

<p>The only lens specific effects are aberrations like a little barrel distortion visible in your uncropped 16mm shot. The increased noise and lower resolution is because you cropped the image (a lot).</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Pete, you are right about the compression of perspective coming from increased distance to the subject, not the actual lens. Sorry, I misspoke, and meant that if you were filling the frame with the same subject matter the compression effect comes into play. It comes from the relative differences in distances. The actual distance from the nuts to the advent calendar is about 6 inches. So when I took the 16mm shot about 2 feet from the subject, the relative distance from the nuts to the calendar is 1.25x, vs when I was standing about 12 feet away for the 135mm shot and the cropped 16mm the advent calendar's relative distance away from the nuts is now only 1.04x, which results in the compression effect. If I was standing 100 feet away, that would drop to 1.005x</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Nope, can't agree on that William.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Yes. you are correct.</strong><br>

I haven't read any furher and will read in a moment.<br>

I woke up this morning and my first thought was that I realized that I had misunderstood the meaning of what you wrote.<br>

You were meaning:<br /><em>"To shoot wide and then crop is the same as picking a longer focal length (and be standing in the same spot) - except that image resolution will drop."</em><br>

And that was the purpose for you posting it.</p>

<p>I totally missed the point you were making and I have numerous times made the same point that Perspective is dependent only upon camera distance (and elevation).<br>

<br />Sorry for the misinterpretation but it seems it allowed you to explain further . . . Now I will read all your responses and see if we agree!<br>

<br />WW</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"Since I know you know this I assume we are not talking about the same thing?" . . . </strong></em>thank you for that comment.</p>

 

[bikealps]

<p>three comments:</p>

<ol>

<li>I make a habit of dropping down on one knee when I take a full-length group shot. It's good discipline to get the perspective right. Of course, I adjust this based on the background, but it's a good start.</li>

<li>Overshooting it (leaving extra to crop from) can be handy when you get to album production. The image may naturally be a 4x6 or 4x5 aspect ratio, but the album might be 12x12 and you might want a square photo. Also, you might want extra background you can float a supporting image on.</li>

<li>I try to shoot every group in 2-3 ways: full length, 3/4, and head shots. Doing so gives you a couple options on expressions and backgrounds plus choices when it comes to album production. It's pretty quick to get all three</li>

</ol>

[savagesax]

If you have the room, which looks like you do in this picture, I'd back way up and pick up the foreground as well as the background. It's too uneven This surely should be full length based on what you said about picking up the colors. At full length you can do all sorts of magical images with the couple. I hardly ever use my 70-200LIS canon lens, but in this case, since there seems to be a lot of room I'd stand back and let the settings take place naturally. I don't think I'd go to the 200mm mark, but surely 150 to 180mm's.

 

Although this pic is inside at Disneyland I wanted to get the feel of the surroundings. I think you could have done something like this. I did go lower in height to sort of balance the scene.

 

I busted my elbow so if there are typo's thats due to typing with 1 hand.<div></div>

[savagesax]

Notice how the hieght on the top is about the same, to a point, as the bottom. Anyway this is how you can make the surroundings work to your advantage and you don't have to cut off bodies. At the same time, if you wish you can make several different images from just this one. A closeup. B&W, closeup in B&W, full length by cutting out part of the floor, a closeup of the guy kissing her hand. So in one shot you can make about 3 or 4 shots without the B&G knowing that all of these shots were taken by 1 image.

 

Bottom line here is simply give yourself extra room to play.

 

This is also why I hardly ever go over 400 ASA/ISO because with closeups you will see a lot of pixelation. In RAW at 100 to 400 you can have fun doing creative things to just one pic.

[savagesax]

On your pic you could have also backlit the trees so the colors would really pop out.

[savagesax]

anothr example - outside

[savagesax]

last time (I hope, this is a computer issue I have sometimes<div></div>

[fuccisphotos]

Bob, nice work and hope your elbow feels better soon. As I wroe in the second response, I had about 350 people

crammed in right behind me, so I could not back up any more than I did.

[savagesax]

Well Vail with 350 people pretty much banging into you, my photo wouldn't be much better! Thats a lot of people.

 

The elbow is in bad shape at the moment. It effects my right hand, but it's only been a few weeks. I should be feeling great in a month. Thanks for your thoughts.

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I honestly don't see the relationship in these shots. Vail is shooting 3/4 setups including environment and Bob is shooting full lengths. I've read all the text and get the points of view, but they're not the same thing, nor approached the same either. Also Bob, and I recognize you shoot a lot, consider in your second shot the groom needs to have his left foot pulled behind the dress more and to turn his right foot out more so that his hips are set up more comfortably. He has that classic lean right now where his foundation is not set up the best it can, therefore kind of awkward. In Vail's original set up the foundations are better set, and they look more natural, although she chose to go with the bride flatter to the camera, which is perfectly fine. I'm not trying to make a big thing here, I'm just stating my observations as such.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Another point to consider overall when doing any of these environmental type portraits is using a tripod and setting up the scene first and then bringing the B&G in with relationship to the setting. This point has been discussed before by several people on here. That means that first you picked a place, carefully considered a view point and selected an appropriate lens angle. Next you can flatten out the graph so that lines aren't leaning etc., unless of course that's what you want for "artistic expression" then you position the couple with the distance you see appropriate between the background you already set and the camera and shoot. If you adjust, at least the tripod keeps your adjustments closer farther or up and down, while you are not tempted to angle the plane of the film to the scene, again unless you artistically take that route. Kepp in mind also that, especially with a wide lens at closer distance, if the camera is even slightly angled up, and with a fairly traditional pose, then you have that funnel effect where the heads will be not only bigger but distorted. The opposite will occur if even slightly angled down the hips and legs will be bigger, often it is a big oversize arm or knee or something.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Dave, I think what you just described in that last post is EXACTLY the answer I was looking for to explain what happened in my original post. THANK YOU!!!! Had this not been a impromptu formal session in this location rather than the next one that I had scouted out previously, the tripod would have been out and on the camera. But it's a good reminder to take those few seconds and put it on anyways, even when you are in a hurry.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Vail, I'm glad that helped. Now, let me share a thought about the hands, and you can take it for what it's worth. First of all, you chose to use the bridal cloth which is great, but then you end up with three hands to deal with. Her left you hid under the cloth, OK fine, works. Her right however is a lost opportunity, I would have pulled that back a bit so that her wrist breaks back just off the back of her left arm with all her fingers out. I would also have her raise her index finger very slightly. His left hand I would pull back and have him lightly hold her arm just above the elbow, this will give him more room to get a little flatter to the camera and will show his fingers including his ring. IMO, it's a little too complicated to have the cloth, her hand on top of his and all that business, plus the fingers have no real definition or job in polishing off the shot.</p>

<p>You can try it at home, just put your right fingers lightly about mid knuckle on top of your left arm with your pinky about at the wrist bone, push in the thumb a little under the index finger, it will push it up slightly and that's it. Pretty much you want to keep the fingers together, not spread apart, but not squashed looking either.</p>

<p>Now, if you didn't have the cloth and wanted them to join hands, that works good, but right now his hand is stubbed off at the knuckle, let him open it to the next knuckle as if he's cupping a drink of water and have her put her fingers and hand the same way I just told you.</p>

[savagesax]

I like how you lit it up and cropped it. Looks really good. I made a 30 second, 1 hand attempt at lighting up the background. Since my elbow is wrecked I'm confident that someone can do a much better job, in fact a perfect job with the background. Lot's of talented photoshop masters out there. Simply consider lighting up the background. Sorry my arm is so messed up. This will look like a 6 yr old did this! Although it is still cropped the couple wanted to enjoy the fall color. I think it can be done with cropping the first pic and adding light.<div></div>

[pete_s.]

<p>Since Bob only has one hand I though I'd give it a go with two hands.<br /> I emphasizes the fall colors more but I would have liked to incorporate more of the surroundings at the time of shooting.</p>

<p>A longer shutter speed and a gelled flash that fitted with ambient better would have been my choice when shooting this. But there is not always time get it perfect :-)</p><div></div>

[savagesax]

Pete, Thats really excellent! Nice photoshop work.

[pete_s.]

<p>Thanks Bob!</p>

[savagesax]

Pete, what color gell flash would you use? A clouded one with color?

 

You really made that photo pop! If I have any questions about photoshop you will be hearing from me!!! I'm really impressed.

[fuccisphotos]

Pete, I too am impressed. Would you give us an idea what you did to get that look? Thans much! Just a few shots after I slowed the shutter speed to get more ambient.