Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,274   Posts: 1,534,634   Online: 1062
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41
  1. #11
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Of course, you can go for a 28 mm lens and get all nose.
    My favorite for that was my Minolta Rokkor MC f/2.8 21mm lens.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  2. #12
    David William White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,182
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    32
    True about the camera-to-sitter distance being the biggest factor in exagerating perspective (making noses bigger, hands bigger, etc.) but this seems to be psychologically mitigated by printing 10x8 or larger, for some reason. A 50mm close-crop portrait will look more unnatural at 5x7 than it will at 11x14. Don't ask me why, though...

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    346
    The differences between normal and short tele portraits is more obvious if you look at a lot of portraits.

    Back when I was advising the high school yearbook we had a shooter in town who used conventional short tele lenses and a beginning shooter starting a studio in in his garage who was using a normal lens (the only one he owned for his 645).

    Our policy was to allow the seniors to submit their own portraits for the book.

    Looking at any individual picture they all looked fine but laid out 100 at a time on a table and cropped to roughly the same head size, the portraits shot on the normal lens just looked weird. In some cases it was hard to recognize individuals you saw every day.

    In that exaggeration of nose size by the normal lens used too close to the subject - in particular - became strikingly obvious.

  4. #14
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,372
    Images
    4
    I think a 50mm can take very flattering portraits if you remember two points: take the picture in profile or with the cheekbone closest to the camera; don't get too close. But even close up and head-on the results can be good:

    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    421
    Images
    1
    That's interesting. I wonder if it has to do with the average viewing difference of a 5x7 vs an 11x14 print? Perhaps at a distance our brain is taking in other details and kind of "ignores" the disproportionate relationship we would instantly pick up when viewing a 5x7 print just inches from our face?
    Just a guess.
    I love the portraits from a Minolta 85mm. Lovely bokeh and tones. Sometimes I think the 100mm or 135mm lenses shot wide open look better for certain tight head/shoulder crops - but it's all in what you want to fill a frame with.
    I personally feel 50mm is a little wide for a classic portrait, but it makes a good whole body portrait lens. For whatever reason, I have a hard time deciding between 35mm and 50mm for environmental portraiture, because it seems with a 50mm I can't get enough of the background in to really tell where they are good! I'm always wanting just a little more of the environment in there. So I have to back way up w/the 50! :-)
    Jed

  6. #16
    Leighgion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orcas Island, WA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    357
    Images
    16
    As already said, it's about flattering perspective, framing and isolation.

    I don't think the classic portrait lengths like 85mm and 105mm should be looked at rules so much as classic recipes. They're on the books because they work in a reliable way, but are by no means the only way to whip up something tasty.

  7. #17
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,239
    Images
    148
    Some great portraits are made with 28mm & 35mm lenses. It's really about the style you wish to shoot, my preference is actually a standard 50/55mm lens but I've used everything between 28mm & 200mm over the years

    Ian

  8. #18
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    I've done "portraits" with everything between 15 and 300mm...

    But for head & shoulder/torso shots which look (however subjectively) natural, short teles are hard to beat.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    You can use any focal lenght you want depending on what you want to get. A good 'vision' is the thing.

  10. #20
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by abudhabiandy View Post
    Hi, why use an 85mm lens for portaits - surely a 50mm will do?
    *******
    Do a head and shoulders portrait sitting. Use a ca. 85mm and a ca 50mm. Achieve the same head size on each negative: you will see the difference.
    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin