Nikon 24-85 mm for portrait

[BobK77]

Hi ,

I do not generally shoot portraits outside of my family, but certainly want to learn.
I just acquire a new toy - Nikon D750 with 24-85mm lens.
85 mm sounds like a good focal length and I decided to make a "portrait " like shoot.

My boy has a pretty big nose - but it is not that big ((. Looks more like 35 mm shoot.




Nikon 24-85mm @85 mm




Sigma 70-200 @160mm





--
I shoot JPEG, handheld

 

[Gato Amarillo]

Yep. I always considered 85mm a bit short for tight portraits. For me 160 would be about right -- anything from 135 to 200, depending on the face and how tight I want to come in.

Gato

 

[DW199]

If your objective was to create a portrait that was both realistic and flattering to the subject then I think that in the the first portrait you are standing too close. This has caused the big nose and small ears effect. In the second you are too far away. Small nose and big ears. The optimum for this young man would be somewhere in between, in mh opinion.

It is the viewpoint you choose which alters the perspective, not the focal length of the lens.

 

[Rich42]

Actually Bob,

The first shot at 85mm is pretty accurate perspective.

The closest distance that gives the perspective our eyes and brain usually accept as "normal" for the head and face is about four feet. At that distance an 85mm lens will give a "head and shoulders" view on the long dimension (36mm) of the "35mm" frame. A 100-105mm lens at that distance results in the head filling the frame, giving that focal length the common designation of a "portrait" lens.

You've got a little more than head and shoulders in the frame indicating you were a little more than four feet from your son. Any closer would have exaggerated the size of his nose.

You were much farther away with the 160mm shot. Filling the frame with the head or with the head and shoulders with a 135mm or longer lens means you have to be far enough away that the perspective becomes much too "flat" for most viewers (although the relative sizes of the facial features are actually being reproduced accurately).

But some people like the results better that way and have grown to expect that flattened perspective as the ideal.

Longer lens rendition has become increasingly popular because the depth of field becomes so shallow, softening the background so nicely. The 200mm f/2 lens has acquired almost a cult status for this type of shot.

In either case, both of your shots are good looking.

Rich

 

[DenWil]

Although elements from image one are a bit fussy for my taste and the photo is more of a casual throwaway snap -this, is ideal. Just wonderful.

The angle of the head, the expression and the hoodie (with its folds, the elliptical oval paired with the chin) are all spot on. There is a bit extra room at the top of the frame but the background suits the space in support of the subject instead of being a distraction. I like it. It is a lesson that many people should learn.

The key here to creating such a successful image is constructing your background and using DOF to your subject's advantage- so that it all looks so effortless. So many photographers want to insure viewers will see how clever they are so they inject bells and whistles - to the great disadvantage of their subject.

That's not a big nose. Classic ginger.

--
dw
denniswilliams.net

 

[BobK77]

Basically, sees like with 85 mm I should not try to fill the frame with the head shot.
Something like this should be better - and crop if I want to keep the shot.

I just switched from DX to FX. I mostly do indoor sport 85% ice hockey 15% indoor soccer.
I used Sigma 17-70 for general photography and 70mm (135 equivalent), and worked very well for the occasional "portrait like" photography.
I really do not want to go to 24-120mm for FX as generic lens because of the size and weight of the lens.
That is why I am trying to figure out if 24-85 should suffice the needs.

BHW background blur is not that attractive






everyone in my family hates to take pictures







--
I shoot JPEG, handheld

 

[BobK77]

Thanks,

I actually was not trying to make a portrait - I was testing if my Sigma 70-200 works
with D750. Some people complained it requires firmware upgrade. I even did not change from indoor sport setting - that is why there is ISO3200