Getting close

[jcmexico2000]

<p> Hi, I was flipping to the pages of one of S. Kelby's books and it says that if you want to improve your potography you need to get in really close to your subject, way closer that you think., What is not clear to me is exactly what he is refering to, I own a Nikon D700 with a 70-200mm vr2 lens., is he refering to zooming in tight, or is he refering to actualy physicaly moving in close, and if so, how close and what settings for the lens, because if you are shoting at a 100mm with this lens and you move in close, then you may need to go to 50 mm for example to get the picture, but then you run into the problem of 100mm being more adecuate for a portrait than the mentioned 50mm. Thanks </p>

[dave_wilson1]

An old school saying when using a 24mm wide angle on a 35mm camera was "take two steps in". Using a zoom or a tele to isolate

details is another concept. So in answer to your question, there are many ways to get closer, sometimes physically, sometimes optically.

As for your 100mm/50mm comparison, Richard Avedon shot portraits at times in closer with a normal lens that caused sometimes undesirable distortions of the face or nose, one of my long time favorites Antonin Kratochvil openly likes using wide angle lenses to get in close to the shots, and more personal.

[CvhKaar]

<p>I think he is refering to getting physically close, so like with a normal ( 50mm) or wider ( 35mm 24 mm ) prime lens.</p>

[wade_roth]

Good question Jose. He reads the comments on his blog. I'd suggest asking him what he meant. He might just answer

you're question but it might give him an idea for a blog post.

 

As someone who reads his blog pretty regularly and has a Kelby One subscription, I've heard him reference the 70-200 as

his go to lens for people. He feels that the upper end of the zoom range really suits people. I suspect that he means getting

closer as in filling the frame. The great news about this is that you can see if you like this or not by just cropping some

images to different levels and seeing what you prefer. Good luck.

 

--Wade

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I don't think Scott Kelby was the first to suggest this. It was sometimes expressed as, "Get as close as you can, then get closer." I couldn't find the original source.<br>

If you do this without thinking, you will sometimes wind up with perspective effects which will lead your friends or clients to complain that you made their noses and mouths appear too big.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p><em>If your photographs aren't good enough</em>, <em>you're</em> not <em>close enough</em>. - Robert Capa.</p>

<p>Believe what Kelby means is to get physically close to eliminate everything that doesn't add to the image. Not really much to do with focal lengths though - you can get the same framing with a 50 and a 100mm provided you moved in closer with the former - but the images won't have the same perspective and likely convey a different message.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Years ago I had a chance to have my portfolio reviewed by one of the New York Times photo editors. His comments were basically (and I'm paraphrasing), "Lose everything over 85mm and only use that in an emergency. Use your 28, 35, 50, get in close, that's the only way to really connect with the subject."</p>

<p>Like Capa said, ". . . you're not close enough."</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Its generally true that in a portrait you don't want a lot of distracting background. The other idea here is that by being close to your subject, you get a more intimate "feel" in the image. Two things: this sentiment is wrong when doing an environmental portrait, where you intentionally want background information to add to the understanding of your subject; the other is that you can use anything from wide angle to telephoto but it depends on what kind of perspective you want to achieve. I've done successful portraits with wide angle lenses through moderate tele's. (24-105 with 35mm). Many examples in my 70's and people folders.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Here's 35mm film with a 50mm lens.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>D70 (aps size sensor) with 105mm lens</p><div></div>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I was going to quote Capa but Dieter beat me to it. Getting close with a longer lens works to a point but getting physically closer gives the photographer a more personal involvement with the subject and for me generally gives a better image. Of course you can also get your butt kicked. It depends on what you are doing but as a rule, the closer you can physically get the better.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

"Get closer" may mean different things to

different photographers. Getting physically

closer isn't always practical or desirable.

Sometimes using a longer lens for more

magnification to fill the frame is the better

solution.

 

I take a lot of candid photos of people, including in health care situations, and

street snaps. I'm not shy about getting close and

often use wide angle lenses, including compact

cameras with fixed wide angles (equivalent to

28mm, although I'd prefer 35mm).

 

Recently I reviewed my past few years of candid

snaps of people and printed several. I must admit

I'm not fond of some photos I've taken with 24-

28mm equivalent focal lengths. Oh, the photos are

dramatic and frame filling. But the distorted

faces made people look much heavier. I don't

take photos like this as trophies or to imply

ridicule or an unspoken message such as "Gee,

ain't humans grotesque." I'd feel bad if someone

I've photographed on the bus or street saw my

photos online and felt like an exploited object

of the voracious gaze of the impersonal

photographer.

 

So while there are situations where a wide angle

is the best solution to a particular problem

(such as snapping an impromptu portrait over a

bus seat), I'd rather use a slightly longer lens

and get a little distance for a more natural and

flattering look in photos of people.

 

However EXIF data shows the longest lens I use for photographing people is equivalent to 105mm, but seldom longer than 70-85mm. Even in crowded street festivals that's plenty of reach for my comfort zone. I have longer glass but rarely carry them.

 

And if you're photographing sports and wildlife

there's no substitute for long, fast glass.

[User_4754088]

<p>Gotta disagree with you here Steve, </p>

 

<p><em>Its generally true that in a portrait you don't want a lot of distracting background . . . this sentiment is wrong when doing an environmental portrait, where you intentionally want background information to add to the understanding of your subject</em></p>

 

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00d3B2-553837584.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="487" hspace="5" vspace="10" data-original="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00d3B2-553837584.jpg" />

 

 

 

<p>While I think you do some really nice work, especially in your portraiture, I think the image above is a "fail" as I find the sharp detail in the background to be very distracting from the subject's face. One of the things we need to keep in mind when doing a portrait with a wide angle lens, is if we're shooting the lens anything besides "wide open" we're going to create a very detailed background which can take the focus off the subject of the portrait.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Again, not trying to pick on you as I think you do really nice work, but the example you posted above, I think illustrates a concern we need to have with portrait work.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Best,</p>

 

 

<p>-Tim</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"If your pictures aren't good enough, it's because you're not close enough." - Like all blanket statements, this is almost complete rubbish - which I realise is another blanket statement. Oh, the irony and paradox!</p>

<p>Anyway, Capa's glib statement may well have applied to his war and other PJ pictures, but takes no account of how perspective works. The closer you get, and the wider angled lens you're therefore forced to use, the <em>less</em> a subject is isolated from its background. This might be fine for environmental portraits, but if you're actually trying to isolate the subject from the background, then getting close just doesn't work. The general background clutter is much more difficult to arrange into a good composition, as well as to throw out of focus by using a wide aperture.<br>

See these examples: https://www.photoflex.com/liteblog/how-lens-focal-length-shapes-the-face-controls-perspective-a-lighting-tutor<br>

and here: http://www.disognophoto.com/portraits/shooting-for-a-class.html</p>

<p>There are many other web pages exploring lens angle and perspective, and the only conclusion you can draw is that there's no substitute for distance, or lack of it, when trying to get the "best" composition. Zooming the lens just ain't the same thing at all, since the perspective (relative size of subject to BG) stays exactly the same unless you physically move.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Tim, I think taste is very subjective. I like the photo very much, as do the people who posted these comments:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>dennis is cool and all btw, but most of all he's connected to the photographer, which is what brings this photograph to life. the fact that it's so excellently composed (and the already mentioned tonality) just adds to the mixture and places this one very high above what i'm used to be looking at.<br /> Really nice portrait, for all the reasons Thorir pointed out. I also like the horizontals in the background, including the shadow on the grass, broken up nicely by the arches, and even the tree adds a nice break in just the right place. The light on his face is perfectly distributed, with the shadows providing depth without being at all harsh. What's really great though is the era and attitude infused throughout Dennis - the hair, moustache, stripey tank top, pose, and of course the look. Wonderful shot.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Check out the classic environmental portraits by Arnold Newman </p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>one of S. Kelby's books and it says that if you want to improve your potography you need to get in really close to your subject, way closer that you think., What is not clear to me is exactly what he is refering to, </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jose, it is best that you check with the author Scott Kelby directly. Anybody can guess what he means, but none of us knows for sure. However, getting really close to my subjects is not an approach I would use for my photography. Each image is different and such generalization doesn't make sense. Additionally, if I would like to learn about PhotoShop, I would learn it from Kelby. For photography, I think there are much better resources.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>I wouldn't disagree with any of those comments, the tonality is beautiful, your connection to the subject is obvious, but I still think the sharpness and busy-ness of the background takes focus away from your subject.</p>

<p>But you're right, taste is very subjective.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Tim, I did a quick search on "environmental portraiture" and the first entry was Wikipedia, where the following quote comes from on environmental portraiture:</p>

<blockquote>

<p> The surroundings or background is a key element in environmental portraiture, and is used to convey further information about the person being photographed.<br>

Where it is common in studio portraiture and even in location candid photography to shoot using a shallow <a title="Depth of field" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field">depth of field</a>, thereby throwing the background out of focus, <em>the background in environmental portraiture is an integral part of the image. Indeed, small apertures and great depth of field are commonly used in this type of photography</em>.<sup id="cite_ref-2" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_portrait#cite_note-2">[2]</a> (italics added)</sup></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I urge you to check out Arnold Newman.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>This will be my last posting on this thread, as I don't want to distract from what the OP was originally asking.</p>

<p>With all due respect, you are missing the point of what I wrote. I'm not talking generalities about environmental portraiture. I am talking specifics about this particular portrait that you posted as an example. The issue I find with this particular portrait is that the sharpness, and busy-ness, and contrast of the "environment" distracts from the subject of the portrait. If you have studied photography, which your work suggests that you have, you have learned that the eye is attracted to the sharpest (and sometimes contrasty-est) part of any image. In this particular portrait, there is strong competition between the subject and the background as both are tack sharp, and the background is tonally higher contrast than the subject. Yes, in environmental portraits you want to include the environment. But you don't want the environment competing with the subject for the viewer's attention/focus.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[dave_wilson1]

I have made many photos in close and environmental shots with a full depth of field. It's an artistic decision, what some

like others don't. This discussion reminded me of a topic I studied quite deeply. Group 64.

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/f64/hd_f64.htm

[sjmurray]

<p>I understand that Tim is not posting again here, but I disagree with his assessment of my photo of Dennis. Myself and others are not distracted by the "busy-ness" of the background. Dennis is a strong enough figure and engaging enough to stand out just fine. The building in the background, and the other elements are equally important in this type of portrait. In an environmental portrait, the environment is part of the total image. As one of the reviewers has stated: "I also like the horizontals in the background, including the shadow on the grass, broken up nicely by the arches, and even the tree adds a nice break in just the right place." Obviously this person is not "distracted" by the background, and neither am I. So, it boils down to taste, not what is "the rule" about what attracts the eye. To me, the total gestalt of the image is just right.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Steve, for what it is worth I generally prefer shallow DOF but I think your Dennis portrait works nicely. If you are slightly defensive about your image, I think it is fair because Tim was slightly inflammatory with his initial comments. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>"Get closer."</p>

<p>It's a suggestion, a technique that works in some cases better than others. </p>

<p>Ultimately, you'll want to understand WHY this suggestions works when it does and why it comes up short in other cases. This will require some experimentation, but the knowledge that you'll gain from that effort will help you to expand and enhance your own style.</p>

<p>Instead of cluttering your mind with other people's ideas, strive to establish your own set of techniques based on the results that YOU want to achieve. Don't worry if your ideas aren't perfect; you can always revise them over time.</p>

<p>Even if a person has some level of notoriety, they're still not you. They don't know what you like or what you want to accomplish. They offer advice, but eventually you'll have to make the decisions if you want to create photographs in YOUR OWN style. No one can do that for you.</p>