trippy portraits at 6.7mm

KneeConWon said:

Click to expand...

The wide angle work for these two (at least for me), as the distortions are only minor and the lens is adding a new aspect to the image topic. The others look somewhat weird, because the hands or face appear too disproportionate. The first two on your original post are outright weird to me.

Cheers,
Holger

KneeConWon said:

Click to expand...

This one is my favorite. The way I use wide angle lenses for “portraits” is to tell two different stories at once. You have your daughter in the foreground, and your have your home in the background - two different & complete stories that fit well together.

But if you like the pictures - who cares what anybody else thinks?!

I agree,and I think the black and white one works too. A slightly less extreme wider angle (of slightly longer distance to the subject) might work even better though.

..these are neat pictures that offers fun perspectives..

..Cheers..

To me personally, the giant hands look just creepy. Sorry if I sound too blunt, I don’t mean to be rude. I just don’t think this is the right approach in using UWA for portraits. For such a narrow frame you would get better results with 18 or 32 lenses. I think the key is to avoid the distortions produced by UWA, not to accentuate them, unless you are deliberately going for a “funny” look. In my view, UWA works best for environmental portraits, when background or surrounding area helps to tell the story. I love using UWA for portraits, but here is my approach to it:

..great pictures! ..what you say certainly makes sense..

..but for me, being on the side of a creative creature, I do enjoy the OP's creative pictures.. and I really dig the one below.. ;-)


..to me, this is a memorable picture from the OP.. over time, somewhere in the future, when looking back at this picture, will bring back some delightful memories..

..Cheers..

--
Regards, John..
..down with naysayers!
'wake up and smell the roses'

I'm with John on this one. The shot he showed stood out to me as the most 'effective' of the bunch. It just 'works' very well. I think it might have something to do with the somewhat humorous perspective of the juxtaposition of your small person holding her small person. ( :

holgerlinke said:

KneeConWon said:

Click to expand...

The wide angle work for these two (at least for me), as the distortions are only minor and the lens is adding a new aspect to the image topic.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Glad to hear!

holgerlinke said:

The others look somewhat weird, because the hands or face appear too disproportionate. The first two on your original post are outright weird to me.

Cheers,
Holger

Click to expand...

Ya the size of the hands is certainly a bit startling in some of the other photos. In addition, isn't that how something appears to the eye when it's right in your face? The main purpose of an ultra-wide lens is to get close, as I understand. Of course, things looks disproportionate because we don't commonly see them that way - and that's kind of the point. I enjoy showing featuring perspectives one doesn't see everyday. A compromise of that is none of these shots are particularly flattering to the subject. That wasn't a priority here, clearly. Thanks for your feedback mate!

Justin9999 said:

KneeConWon said:

Click to expand...

This one is my favorite.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear that! It's actually one of my favorites of the bunch as well, and I can't even tell you why. Other than I just like the particular unusual look of it.

Justin9999 said:

The way I use wide angle lenses for “portraits” is to tell two different stories at once. You have your daughter in the foreground, and your have your home in the background - two different & complete stories that fit well together.

Click to expand...

I like it. You put that into words well. I think that's a good way to think about the larger perspective of wide-angle lenses. Thanks for sharing!

Justin9999 said:

But if you like the pictures - who cares what anybody else thinks?!

Click to expand...

I hear you. But photography isn't a purely selfish hobby for me - not that there's anything wrong with that! I also take photos for others to enjoy - whether that's for work, or in my personal life for family and friends. So I like to have a sense of what other people appreciate, and don't appreciate. But the spirit of your point is valid, and I agree with it - I like these ten photos, and regardless of what anyone else thinks, my personal appreciation of them is unlikely to be affected.

Thanks for your comments Justin!

Adrian Green said:

I agree,and I think the black and white one works too.

Click to expand...

Thanks for weighing in Adrian. I'm glad you pointed out the black and white shot, as that is one of my very favorites from the bunch. Thanks for noticing!

Adrian Green said:

A slightly less extreme wider angle (of slightly longer distance to the subject) might work even better though.

Click to expand...

That's a good suggestion. When I took these photos, I purposely shot everything at 6.7mm because I wanted to test the maximum wide-angle perspective of the lens and see what it could do. But your comment is a good reminder that even when using this lens, there are other focal lengths spanning the zoom range, and some may be more suitable to certain shots.

Thanks for the feedback!

jshen808 said:

..these are neat pictures that offers fun perspectives..

Click to expand...

Thanks John! You hit the nail in terms of what I was going for with these shots. I'm glad you could see and appreciate that!

VadymA said:

To me personally, the giant hands look just creepy. Sorry if I sound too blunt, I don’t mean to be rude.

Click to expand...

No worries, mate. I appreciate your honest feedback!

VadymA said:

I just don’t think this is the right approach in using UWA for portraits.

Click to expand...

For true portraits, yes I would agree. I only used that word in the thread title to indicate shots of a person (among other things). For UWA more generally, I'm using the lens correctly to get close. If you disagree with that, I'd be interested to hear your explanation!

VadymA said:

For such a narrow frame you would get better results with 18 or 32 lenses.

Click to expand...

I think you overlooked the story of my photos here - it's not in the background or even the girl specifically, it's in the foreground with the toys! It was to emphasize the world of a child and the things they care about - their curious fascination with these silly little trinkets. Taking the viewer close inside that world, almost in a macro-photography type of level. The wonder of childhood. Was none of this obvious, even in spite of me loosely labeling them "portraits"?

VadymA said:

I think the key is to avoid the distortions produced by UWA, not to accentuate them, unless you are deliberately going for a “funny” look.

Click to expand...

Bingo!

VadymA said:

In my view, UWA works best for environmental portraits, when background or surrounding area helps to tell the story. I love using UWA for portraits, but here is my approach to it:

Click to expand...

Wonderful photos! The tennis-court shot works great with the converging lines. We were clearly attempting very different things with our respective pictures. But you make some excellent points as they apply to genuine portraits, specifically of the environmental variety, and you backed up those points with excellent examples. I appreciate the reminder and illustration of what else an UWA lens can do. Thanks so much for lending your perspective!

jshen808 said:

being on the side of a creative creature, I do enjoy the OP's creative pictures.. and I really dig the one below.. ;-)


..to me, this is a memorable picture from the OP.. over time, somewhere in the future, when looking back at this picture, will bring back some delightful memories..

Click to expand...

Thank you for your additional nice words! I especially appreciate your comment underneath the photo. I never thought about it that deeply, but you may be right!

CX Bob said:

I'm with John on this one. The shot he showed stood out to me as the most 'effective' of the bunch. It just 'works' very well.

Click to expand...

Thank you Bob! I think that shot best accomplished one of the things I set out to do with the UWA lens in these photos - pull the foreground in, and push the background further away. Basically that classic UWA perspective.

CX Bob said:

I think it might have something to do with the somewhat humorous perspective of the juxtaposition of your small person holding her small person. ( :

Click to expand...

Great observation - you nailed it! Your larger perspective is also accurate - one should not look at these ten photos with too much seriousness. I intended them to be fun, odd, and with a bit of humor. Thanks for noticing!

KCW, very creative, don't be put off from doing something different, #4 for me is probably the best, some of the latter images have put the childs face in the shadow, maybe next time try the on board flash, or use something simple like a piece of A4 printing paper to reflect some light back into the shadows.

Judas said:

KCW, very creative, don't be put off from doing something different,

Click to expand...

Thanks mate! I appreciate the encouragement. It's good to know there are other people out there who appreciate the unusual.

DWL-P said:

#4 for me is probably the best,

Click to expand...

I like that one quite a bit too. It has the advantage over the other similar one in that you get a better view of the toy, which I think contrasts well with the girl's face on the other side of the frame and balances the image. Thanks for the feedback!

DWL-P said:

some of the latter images have put the childs face in the shadow,

Click to expand...

Ya I was kind of playing around with the unique lighting situation, where some parts were hit with sunlight from the window, and some parts weren't. I just decided to go with it. I could have lifted some of the shadows more in editing as well, but I liked keeping some of the shots a little dark - thought it gave them a little more contrast and mood.

DWL-P said:

maybe next time try the on board flash, or use something simple like a piece of A4 printing paper to reflect some light back into the shadows.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip!

#3 is okay and will look good in an album.

The rest range from weird to ... more weird. You might think about learning to bounce on-camera flash to lift the exposure of the subject, for example.

If you prefer hands that are larger than heads and arms as long as legs then these "portraits" are, well, how should I put it, very Matisse like, Henri Matisse, that is.

Otherwise these are super-weird photos.

Only joking. Beautiful girl, by the way.