Rules

[Bobby Deal]

Originally Posted by Medowlark

That's a great example Keith and it leads to the pregnant question (at least for someone who has never shot anything in a studio) -- there has to be a relationship between focal length and distance from the subject that is sufficient. Bobby isn't satisfied with the second, so you guys that do this kind of work could help by telling us what that relationship is..... Or maybe I should say, what satisfies you....Yes, I am still at the stage where I would like to know things like that. Sorry Fran, Pictures alone are not enough.

Personally I think it is in this case more a matter of perspective creating illusion then focal length and distance.

The particular shoes in the shot are deceiving as to size in the first place. They have a very high and long arch, especially when viewed straight on. Do to the long sloping angle that runs from toe to the top cuff of the boot the visual line they present is very long thus they look very large. They do not make the typical abrupt right angle at the ankle, instead due to the design of the shoes the arch line appears to continue two to three inches above the ankle. Add to that the mild distortion of the wide lens and you are talking feet that look seriously over sized for the subject.

As I never work with wide lenses in studio when shooting models and my physics are less then top shelf I can not pull an arbitrary number out of the air for you to correlate distance vs focal length vs angle of approach to equal distortional value or balance. I would expect that optimum results would occure at or near an equilateral distance of focal length and distance to subject when the perspective is maintained within a few degrees of camera neutral. Any applicable angle up of down is going to introduce some level of extension distortion in an equal and opposite direction. Of course I could be full of crap but this is what my instincts based on prior experience lead me to consider would be true. I am sure there is someone else here who will be able to provide a more percise correlation for you.

[Medowlark]

Originally Posted by Bobby Deal

Personally I think it is in this case more a matter of perspective creating illusion then focal length and distance.

The particular shoes in the shot are deceiving as to size in the first place. They have a very high and long arch, especially when viewed straight on. Do to the long sloping angle that runs from toe to the top cuff of the boot the visual line they present is very long thus they look very large. They do not make the typical abrupt right angle at the ankle, instead due to the design of the shoes the arch line appears to continue two to three inches above the ankle. Add to that the mild distortion of the wide lens and you are talking feet that look seriously over sized for the subject.

As I never work with wide lenses in studio when shooting models and my physics are less then top shelf I can not pull an arbitrary number out of the air for you to correlate distance vs focal length vs angle of approach to equal distortional value or balance. I would expect that optimum results would occure at or near an equilateral distance of focal length and distance to subject when the perspective is maintained within a few degrees of camera neutral. Any applicable angle up of down is going to introduce some level of extension distortion in an equal and opposite direction. Of course I could be full of crap but this is what my instincts based on prior experience lead me to consider would be true. I am sure there is someone else here who will be able to provide a more percise correlation for you.

Well, I don’t want to get too fixated on the equation, and your statement (my paraphrase ) that you generally avoid the issue by using a longer focal length is helpful…So what is that longer focal length that works for you?

[patterfr]

No problem Al, that sort of discussion is what this thread is all about.
Not personal feelings about whether rules should be used or not

[thcofer]

interesting thread Fran

[keithdewey3]

I think Bobby is probably right. There may still be some distortion in the second image.

I usually try to use a focal length of less than 70mm in the studio on a full frame camera. My most used lense is a 70-200mm.

The shots I used for demonstration here were shot for a clothing designer and so I used some techniques meant to emphasize the clothing in some unusual ways. Some of them worked and some didn't.

Great thread going on here. I am learning a lot and reinforcing some lessons I already had.

[Benji]

Having studied portraits for years and years, and having studied the rules for a few less years, I have come to the conclusion that one can "break (some of) the rules" in a photograph and still have a successful image. The problem comes in when one attempts to break all or nearly all of the rules in one image with the expectation of wowing the crowds.

IMHO rule numero uno, the rule that is king of all the other rules is how well was the photograph lit. I am amazed at how many photographers don't know that the very word photograph means light writing or written with light. They pose someone in bright sunshine at noon hoping it will be well lit. It can happen with ten or twelve assistants and two or three strobes, several reflectors and a couple of gobos but not with a DSLR with a speedlight slapped in the hot shoe. So we start with an image that has a pleasing light pattern on the subject's face. It may be butterfly lighting, or Rembrandt lighting, or split lighting, or Clint Eastwood lighting, or loop lighting but whatever it is it must be well thought out and fitting to the subject's face and the theme and mood of the image. In addition the light must be of a quality that sculpts the features without making the skin look mushy.

So we have our well lit and properly lit image as the foundation of our "I'm gonna break the rules and create a beautiful image" image. Next it must be well exposed. An image with blown highlights and/or blocked up shadows will never wow anyone except maybe the rank amateur. Unintentional overexposure or underexposure of either the subject, the subject's clothing or the background behind the subject is another rule that cannot be broken. Yes you can intentionally overexpose someone for effect if you know what you are doing, but generally speaking those who overexpose do it unintentionally.

IMHO if an image has all of the above one can violate nearly any other rule and still have a great image. Now this is where the technical part and the artistry part are married. It takes two to make a marriage and it takes two to make a successful photograph. As the old song says "ya can't have one without the other." Post an image with all the technical stuff right and even though you may have broken a couple of the other rules and you will most likely have a successful image that will wow even the seasoned professionals.

Benji

[Bobby Deal]

Originally Posted by Medowlark

Well, I don’t want to get too fixated on the equation, and your statement (my paraphrase ) that you generally avoid the issue by using a longer focal length is helpful…So what is that longer focal length that works for you?

For me in the studio I tend to shoot in the 80-135mm range. Occasionally as low as 50 or up to 200 but more likely then not I will be in the 80-135 range if shooting with the 80-200 I tend to stay predominantly in the 105-135 area though I really love my 85 f/1.4 for head and shoulders stuff

[Medowlark]

Thank you Bobby, that is most helpful.

[Ed Shapiro]

OK! So let’s talk about lens choices, full length portraits and model shots (fashion) and camera subject distances. It is axiomatic that wide angle lenses are not the optics of choice for traditional portraiture and commercial work according to general rules of thumb. In terms of creativity, you can always opt to eliminate the causes of distortion or discard the rules and use the exaggeration of the foreground distortion as a tool. Say we were photographing a professional baseball player like good old Sandy Koufax of the past- he of very powerful and long arms- for a newspaper feature story. We could extend his pitching arm in front of him and it would be a shot with excellent storytelling content. For his baseball card or personal use- this kind of effect would not due for business, publicity or personal portraits because they are more like caricatures and although they are humorous and eye-catching they are distorted nonetheless. The first requirement of a traditional portrait is a good likeness.

Exaggerated foregrounds are oftentimes used in press and journalistic photography. In my younger days, working for a big city daily newspaper, I was the junior guy (slave and whipping boy on the team which meant I was assigned to all the scud work and boring stuff. I was sent to an exclusive department store to shoot a new line of glass dishes in from France. The store management and the designer were gonna be there. I shot a few grips and grins but the shot that made the paper was an image made with a wide angle lens that showed a bizarre rendition of the designer peering through a large glass serving dish.

Being a native New Yorker, I was always sent to riots, public commotions and violent labor disputes. One morning I got a call at 5:00 AM to drive out to an industrial plant where there was labor unrest and some violence had occurred the night before and more was expected that day. I then rubbed the sleep out of my eyes dipped my head in cold water, made some hot water for instant coffee and with cameras in hand I rushed to my car.

Seemed that the management had locked out the employees and warfare was in the air. It also seems that the big fellows from the Quebec Provincial Police had paid a late visit during previous nights “festivities” and made some “impressions” on the rioters with their bludgeons- there are some tough boys in the QPP. By the time I got there, there was only 1cruser on site with a cop and a clip board and 1 peaceful striker. So out came the 24mm lens and my front page shot was a close up of a lock and chain on chain link fence and a perfectly decent sharp image of the plant. The centerfold shot was a low angle one of the picketer with a big poster on his chest and a big hostile frown on his face. When I came back to the office, the boss apologized for sending me to a dangerous situation after seeing the pictures.

Back to business: In the old press camera days when it was sometimes hard or cumbersome to rangefinder focus the camera; we would preset the footage according to the hyper focal distance. Many images were shot that way to enable speed. For a variety of occasions such as weddings we would set the focus at 12 feet, look through the viewfinder and see when the subject is well composed and there is enough space around the subject to enable easy printing in the album or publication format. With flash illumination it was f/12.5 and that would take care of all fill length formal shots of the bride and groom, first dance sequences, full length groups up to 3 people and similar compositions. Acceptable focus, with that rule would be from about 8 to 24 feet with a normal lens for the format which in theses cases were 127mm to 150mm. To avoid distortion the camera position was at the subjects waist level to avoid foreshortening kinds of distortion. This system could be used with a modern DSLR of you are in a dim place- using flash and you are afraid of auto focus drifting and subject failure.

The main point here is the basis for the focal length rules of thumb. On many occasions I have to make full length portraits in my studio; brides, police or military personnel in full dress uniforms, people wearing traditional kilts and some older folks who think a ¾ portrait or head shot is a mistake on the photographer’s part because he or she is inapt having cut off the new shoes, the feet and the legs and truncated the body! Yup- you get everything if you last long enough.

In portraiture or fashion work, distortion in the legs, if they show, is a big no-no in my opinion. Theses distortions can look like deformities, the after affects if serious orthopedic surgery or the need for same. Add that to a bad pose and you have one bad image. The exception may be some intentional distortion that is oftentimes seen in very high fashion work to kinda elongate the lines of a garment on a very slender and tall model- perhaps with a fashionable hat. Some classy department stores traditionally use pen and ink illustrations in order to capture the eyes of their more sophisticated buyers. They are not showing product per se- are illustrating concept. If you can do this kinda work you may secure some new accounts and lure a few away from drawn illustrations, at least as an alternative.

Sooooo, you need to figure what the normal lens is for your camera body. With a consumer DSLR the normal lens is 35mm, a full frame SLR it is 50mm. Once you have down pat, you are ready to refine you lens choice system. For head and shoulders shots a lens of longer focal length is desirable for producing images with minimal or no distortion. The ideal PORTRAIT focal length for consumer cameras is about 75mm and for full frame camera around 135mm to 200 mm depending on how much subject/background compression you want or don’t want. For full length and group portraits you camera/subject working distances will be from 10 to 25 feet, for ¾ length portraits about 5 tp 8 feet and close ups about 2 to 5 feet depending on the size of the subject, the exact camera and focal length choices working conditions or studio space available to you.

Never say “never” as in never use a wide angle lens for conventional fashion work or portraiture, The can be effectively used but your technique has to be impeccable. If you studio or location is a bit cramped you can use a medium wide angle lens as long as it is well engineered to provide little or no intrinsic distortions such as pincushion or barrel distortion. You must keep the camera perfectly level- no tilting up or down. If you get too much sky or ground or ceiling or floor, you must address those issues in cropping after the fact. I sometimes shoot for panoramic formats or make a camera vignetter whereby the floor and the ceiling fade to black.

There is also a relatively new trend in wide angle portraiture whereby the subject and the background are in sharp focus but the subject remains undistorted. I will find something in my files and scan it in so I can show it to y’all in my next post. It is a great method and goes over very big with corporate clients for annual reports showing people in their work environment and with the elements of fine portraiture.

I hope these zeros in more on the numbers pertaining to lens choices, working distances, and settings.

Ed

[Medowlark]

Originally Posted by Ed Shapiro

OK! So let’s talk about lens choices, full length portraits and model shots (fashion) and camera subject distances. It is axiomatic that wide angle lenses are not the optics of choice for traditional portraiture and commercial work according to general rules of thumb. In terms of creativity, you can always opt to eliminate the causes of distortion or discard the rules and use the exaggeration of the foreground distortion as a tool. Say we were photographing a professional baseball player like good old Sandy Koufax of the past- he of very powerful and long arms- for a newspaper feature story. We could extend his pitching arm in front of him and it would be a shot with excellent storytelling content. For his baseball card or personal use- this kind of effect would not due for business, publicity or personal portraits because they are more like caricatures and although they are humorous and eye-catching they are distorted nonetheless. The first requirement of a traditional portrait is a good likeness.

Exaggerated foregrounds are oftentimes used in press and journalistic photography. In my younger days, working for a big city daily newspaper, I was the junior guy (slave and whipping boy on the team which meant I was assigned to all the scud work and boring stuff. I was sent to an exclusive department store to shoot a new line of glass dishes in from France. The store management and the designer were gonna be there. I shot a few grips and grins but the shot that made the paper was an image made with a wide angle lens that showed a bizarre rendition of the designer peering through a large glass serving dish.

Being a native New Yorker, I was always sent to riots, public commotions and violent labor disputes. One morning I got a call at 5:00 AM to drive out to an industrial plant where there was labor unrest and some violence had occurred the night before and more was expected that day. I then rubbed the sleep out of my eyes dipped my head in cold water, made some hot water for instant coffee and with cameras in hand I rushed to my car.

Seemed that the management had locked out the employees and warfare was in the air. It also seems that the big fellows from the Quebec Provincial Police had paid a late visit during previous nights “festivities” and made some “impressions” on the rioters with their bludgeons- there are some tough boys in the QPP. By the time I got there, there was only 1cruser on site with a cop and a clip board and 1 peaceful striker. So out came the 24mm lens and my front page shot was a close up of a lock and chain on chain link fence and a perfectly decent sharp image of the plant. The centerfold shot was a low angle one of the picketer with a big poster on his chest and a big hostile frown on his face. When I came back to the office, the boss apologized for sending me to a dangerous situation after seeing the pictures.

Back to business: In the old press camera days when it was sometimes hard or cumbersome to rangefinder focus the camera; we would preset the footage according to the hyper focal distance. Many images were shot that way to enable speed. For a variety of occasions such as weddings we would set the focus at 12 feet, look through the viewfinder and see when the subject is well composed and there is enough space around the subject to enable easy printing in the album or publication format. With flash illumination it was f/12.5 and that would take care of all fill length formal shots of the bride and groom, first dance sequences, full length groups up to 3 people and similar compositions. Acceptable focus, with that rule would be from about 8 to 24 feet with a normal lens for the format which in theses cases were 127mm to 150mm. To avoid distortion the camera position was at the subjects waist level to avoid foreshortening kinds of distortion. This system could be used with a modern DSLR of you are in a dim place- using flash and you are afraid of auto focus drifting and subject failure.

The main point here is the basis for the focal length rules of thumb. On many occasions I have to make full length portraits in my studio; brides, police or military personnel in full dress uniforms, people wearing traditional kilts and some older folks who think a ¾ portrait or head shot is a mistake on the photographer’s part because he or she is inapt having cut off the new shoes, the feet and the legs and truncated the body! Yup- you get everything if you last long enough.

In portraiture or fashion work, distortion in the legs, if they show, is a big no-no in my opinion. Theses distortions can look like deformities, the after affects if serious orthopedic surgery or the need for same. Add that to a bad pose and you have one bad image. The exception may be some intentional distortion that is oftentimes seen in very high fashion work to kinda elongate the lines of a garment on a very slender and tall model- perhaps with a fashionable hat. Some classy department stores traditionally use pen and ink illustrations in order to capture the eyes of their more sophisticated buyers. They are not showing product per se- are illustrating concept. If you can do this kinda work you may secure some new accounts and lure a few away from drawn illustrations, at least as an alternative.

Sooooo, you need to figure what the normal lens is for your camera body. With a consumer DSLR the normal lens is 35mm, a full frame SLR it is 50mm. Once you have down pat, you are ready to refine you lens choice system. For head and shoulders shots a lens of longer focal length is desirable for producing images with minimal or no distortion. The ideal PORTRAIT focal length for consumer cameras is about 75mm and for full frame camera around 135mm to 200 mm depending on how much subject/background compression you want or don’t want. For full length and group portraits you camera/subject working distances will be from 10 to 25 feet, for ¾ length portraits about 5 tp 8 feet and close ups about 2 to 5 feet depending on the size of the subject, the exact camera and focal length choices working conditions or studio space available to you.

Never say “never” as in never use a wide angle lens for conventional fashion work or portraiture, The can be effectively used but your technique has to be impeccable. If you studio or location is a bit cramped you can use a medium wide angle lens as long as it is well engineered to provide little or no intrinsic distortions such as pincushion or barrel distortion. You must keep the camera perfectly level- no tilting up or down. If you get too much sky or ground or ceiling or floor, you must address those issues in cropping after the fact. I sometimes shoot for panoramic formats or make a camera vignetter whereby the floor and the ceiling fade to black.

There is also a relatively new trend in wide angle portraiture whereby the subject and the background are in sharp focus but the subject remains undistorted. I will find something in my files and scan it in so I can show it to y’all in my next post. It is a great method and goes over very big with corporate clients for annual reports showing people in their work environment and with the elements of fine portraiture.

I hope these zeros in more on the numbers pertaining to lens choices, working distances, and settings.

Ed

That was most illuminating Ed. I enjoyed reading your experiences from back in the day, and think your rules of thumb can be most useful to anyone struggling with these issues. I keep a hard copy file of stuff that I find particularly valuable and this will go into it. Thank you.