Ideal distance from subject for candid/environmental portrait in terms of perspective?

[ken_l3]

<blockquote>

<p>Yep, it doesn't sound reasonable. Yet how many of us avoid the front row at a movie theatre? If you find that the movie is more enjoyable when you sit near the middle of the theatre, you may have recognized perspective distortion, and found a way to minimize it.<br>

Anyone who has gotten a big-screen television for the immersive experience is essentially doing the same thing. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok, you really lost me there. Yes, I'd like to sit near the middle of the theater so I can feel "immersed" in the movie and yet I don't have to scan the screen from one side of the screen to another by sitting too close. Then the ideal viewing spot suddenly becomes a function of the size of the screen (or print). Where does the perspective (or the distance from the subject to the lens) come in? You enjoy the movie from the middle of the theater regardless of whether a particular scene from the movie was shot with a wide angle from a close distance or with a long telephoto from long distance. I thought you mentioned earlier that "the final print must be viewed from approximately its correct center of perspective, the angles subtended at the eye by the various images in the picture will be the same as the subtended angles of the original objects at the camera lens". How does that statement square with the most comfortable seat in a theater being about the center of the theater, regardless of the angle of view of a particular scene? The two and two don't go together.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, I know this is lame but will wikipedia help? This is what I (and I think everyone here except you) mean when using term "perspective distortion": <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29</a></p>

<p>When you move, relations between sizes of projected objects changes. Noses get bigger, ears get smaller or the other way around. It's got nothing to do with lens, it's pure geometry of non parallel projection. The closer you get, the more dramatic the change with every move.<br />And I'll say that again, it's not such a big deal in portraiture as long as you keep your mm's within reasonable limits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand what that wiki link demonstrated.</p>

<p>That isn't the type of perspective I'm referring to but it's probably for naut because I might have found something on second examination of what made the close up version of the old man's face on the right look puffy and swollen over thinner face at a distance version on the left which might have had something to do with his laughing expression that caused a squash and stretch effect between the two shots. The old guy was always smiling and talking when I was taking shots of him and sometimes he would just freeze in order to pose and I might have just caught him somewhere in between a laughing and posing expression that affected the shape of his features.</p>

<p>Anyway I took some shots of a setup of round, cylindrical and square objects on my kitchen counter shown below using the same distance differences at 80mm as demo'ed in the old man portrait and now can't find any distortion at all which pretty much supports what I described above. And to think I thought this was a crappy lens.</p><div></div>

[Bill C]

<p>Ken, by hook or crook, the motion picture industry has gotten you to move to a certain viewing position. I would say, on the average, they got you to "...stand at a position where 'unnaturalness' dissipates." But whether you accept my interpretation or not, you have still found your way into a certain viewing position, and it is near to the sweet spot where the film industry wants you to be. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I thought you mentioned earlier that "the final print must be viewed from approximately its correct center of perspective..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but I'm going to put those words back into Kingslakes's mouth. I don't want to act as a religous zealot on this topic, so take it or leave it as you wish. I personally think it's a useful concept in the craft.</p>

<p> </p>

[ken_l3]

<p>Bill, I don't take it as religious zealotry. Next time I go to a movie, I'll do some experiment. Also I went over Kingslake's book found on Google Books, and I'll need some more time and experiment to fully absorb his thesis.</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>In all the years I have taken portraits or candids I have never used a formula that dictated the right distance to be when using a particular lens. In fact all your shots with what ever lens you use will be dictated by your framing or composition. I am however conscience of wide angle lens distortion as close distances. As far a long lenses goes, I love them and I don't care that it puts on a few pounds on the subject the point is creating dynamic images and with the compression that those lenses gives it is worth it. Having variety is also good when doing a shoot. You don't want every image shot with the 50mm just because mathematically it is the natural perspective to the eye.... BORING!!!! You can put up all your arguments and talk for days but I just want to create great images. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I ditto Michael M here!</p>