Photographing a Person: A test of focal lengths

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Dheorl Veteran Member • Posts: 4,119
Re: Photographing a Person: A test of focal lengths

forpetessake wrote:

richj20 wrote:

BingoCharlie wrote:

So what have you concluded from this experiment?

That there isn't too much difference. If I couldn't see them side by side, I wouldn't think that any were completely unacceptable!

- Richard

You confirmed what traditionally was considered a good FL for people portraits 80-135mm in FF equivalent (most portrait lenses used to be 90-105mm). Below that the image becomes distorted and cartoonish, above that it becomes flat.

Tbh I think this is all down to personal preference. If I hired a portrait photographer and they took the shots with the longer focal lengths I sure as hell wouldn't use them again. In this case I think it makes his neck to fatter and his chin no-existent, whereas I much prefer the shorter focal lengths (N.B. Better lighting with the longer focal lengths might have helped this).

Yes shorted focal lengths can distort stuff, but sometimes that's a good thing if used carefully and moderated. People spend hours in photoshop distoring pictures of ppl, why not just give a girl bigger boobs with the choise of lens/pose?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow