This one camera settings was F 14.0 Shutter 1/30 ISO 200 and Focal
Length 26mm. I really dont see where the feet are smaller in this
one.
at shorter focal lengths, you get exaggeration of features. Things that are closer to the camera seem much much larger.
My foot is just over one handspan, from pinky to thumb, meaning that my foot is barely longer than my face is tall. that's probably fairly normal. but when I look at this model's feet, they look like they'd only go from her chin to her eyebrow. They're farther away, so they seem much smaller than they are.
The minimum focal length for portraiture should be around 80mm, and lots of portraits and fashion are shot with 135mm or greater.
I knew this was a little different angle but wanted to do something
a little different. Can you elaborate on the distortion? I do not
see it.
Look at her forward arm. her wrist should be no smaller than half the width of her shoulder, or thereabouts, but it appears to be 1/5th the width. that's because the shoulder was close and the wrist was far, and that kind of thing is greatlt exaggerated with short focal lengths.
Check out these 2 pics of a truck, one at 24mm and one at 80mm.
See how far away the barn looks and how elongated the truck looks in the 24mm shot? it's all stretched out. These pics are from
http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic04.htm used without permission (sorry, kevin!)
Longer focal lengths are considered more flattering because they don't exaggerate things like big noses, etc, and body parts end up apperaing to be the right size.
I do see the blown out white on her top I should be able to
fix that. I just added a little too much to it in photoshop.
ok, as long as it wasn't shot that bright, you might be able to fix it. if it came out of the camera like that, it would be sad face time.
One other thing, you said that you shot at f/14, iso 200... From what I've heard, read, and seen, you get a decrease of sharpness when your aperture becomes tiny. for the Canon 5D, it doesn't pay to go over f/13 because the light behaves weird any tighter than that. It's called diffraction and it has to do with the fact that the wavelengths of light affect where the photons hit, iirc.
SO, you could have shot f/11 at iso 100 for the same exposure, and you might have had a slightly sharper image (but don't go to f/4 because you'll lose some DOF.
AND, it varies for each camera. isn't that wonderful?
