Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT  (Read 13964 times)

:Ollivr

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2007, 10:18:51 pm »

Quote
85mm is the shortest lens you want to use for head/shoulders portraits, but 100-135mm is more common. The 70-200/2.8L IS is my most-used portrait lens, and it's generally toward the long end of the focal range, between 100 and 180mm, for head/shoulders portraits. When you use too short of a lens, you run into perspective distortion problems that can make an otherwise excellent image very unattractive. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:

Portrait @ 40mm:
[attachment=2746:attachment]

At first glance this portrait isn't that bad, until you realize that the feet are nearly as large as the head. I was too close to the subject and the legs and feet appear disproportionately large as a result. The parents were OK with the image in spite of its shortcomings, but do that to a swimsuit model and I guarantee you'll get fired.

Portrait @ 200mm:
[attachment=2747:attachment]

I had my 70-200mm cranked all the way out to 200mm for this shot, and was across the room. Note that the feet and legs (or at least what you can see of them) appear proportionate in size to the rest of the body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is surprising to me. I had thought distortion depended on quality aspects of the lens rather than the focal length. Also, I wondered about the necessary size of studios which use much longer lenses for portraits (lets assume a crop sensor). But I dont have experience with portrait work and generally tend to prefer wide lenses for what I shoot. Anyways, just was stopping by to say thanks for the explanation.

O.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2007, 01:07:46 pm »

Quote
That is surprising to me. I had thought distortion depended on quality aspects of the lens rather than the focal length.
There's distortion, and then there's distortion. Lens aberrations and barrel/pincushion distortion are lens-dependent, and for the most part are unrelated to subject distance. Perspective distortion is totally dependent on camera-subject distance. It really isn't a "distortion" in the same sense of the word, as it has nothing to do with the image being altered by a flaw in the camera or lens. It is simply an alteration in perceived size relationships due to a small object appearing larger than a large object because it is closer to the camera than the large object.
Logged

kitalight

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2007, 05:23:46 pm »

I just got an adapter to use my 85/2 NIKKOR on my 10D and it's great. You have to manually focus and the aperture is manual as well but it's so bright (both the lens and the VF) that even stopped down a click it's real easy to focus. I've seen the lens go for about $100 on fleabay and 40 for the adapter...that's L quality glass for a pittance. The 135/2.8 Nikkor is another choice...

Here they are on my 10D
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/9388/cannikkrp8.jpg
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 05:27:57 pm by kitalight »
Logged

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2007, 10:57:08 pm »

It depends on what you want to shoot.

"People in a room/ across a room" doesn't tell me at all what you are aiming at.

If you just want to get the images, you can use any longer range lens to just get their picture.

But if you are aiming for character, intimacy, for more portrait style work, I wouldn't go with too long a lens, as it flattens the face, takes personality out of it.

In lesser movie productions you see the camera man use a lot of long lenses, because it is easier that way to get a symmetry into the image. Great camera men get great shots with shorter lenses.

Regarding that comment about the "stupid idea" to use a "normal lens" for portrait: it depends on who's doing the shooting. As Pierre Assouline mentions in his book "L'Oeil du siecle", Cartier-Bresson used almost exclusively a 50mm lens, also for his portraits. If someone here knows better than Cartier-Bresson, he should scan his images for protruding noses. Be assured, you won't find any.

I would rather shoot a portrait with a 50mm lens (35mm in digital), than with a 300mm lens (200mm on a digital). I guess calling someone stupid, and then shoot portraits with a long range cannon is a double insult, first of the person insulted, then reason insulted.

I am always astonished how easily people throw worthless adjectives at others in internet forums. Do they really think it makes them look superior? (and their words always come back at them like a boomerang).

Intimacy:

In a portrait you need the sense of being close to the person, close in the sense of intimacy. You can't get that feel when you are looking at someone like through a sniper rifle visor.

For 35mm 80 to 85mm is excellent. (Some people liked 90mm, or even 100mm lenses, but that's where it stops. A 135mm lens is not a portrait lens any more).

For a DX sensor 55mm is ideal.
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2007, 06:54:21 am »

Quote
Intimacy:

In a portrait you need the sense of being close to the person, close in the sense of intimacy. You can't get that feel when you are looking at someone like through a sniper rifle visor.

For 35mm 80 to 85mm is excellent. (Some people liked 90mm, or even 100mm lenses, but that's where it stops. A 135mm lens is not a portrait lens any more).

For a DX sensor 55mm is ideal.
I think it is important to point out that the above is your personal opinion, and not a general statement of fact.
Logged
Jan

kitalight

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2007, 05:53:09 pm »

Quote
I think it is important to point out that the above is your personal opinion, and not a general statement of fact.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The conventional belief is that beyond 110mm perspective results in a flattening view, much as focal lengths less than 60mm begin to introduce exaggerated foreground distortion...the latter is more easily seen in wide angle lenses than the former with teles but the distortion is there nonetheless...these FCs btw are on 35FF, on the 1.6x format we're talking 50-70mm or so being the portrait range that least distorts physical features...but I think OP isn't looking for portrait quality...just wants to get closeups at a distance in low light, so the 85/100/135 would seem the best choices...and manual focus at that...given the "hunting" of AF in low light situations.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2007, 05:58:13 pm by kitalight »
Logged

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2007, 11:59:35 am »

Quote
The conventional belief is that beyond 110mm perspective results in a flattening view, much as focal lengths less than 60mm begin to introduce exaggerated foreground distortion...the latter is more easily seen in wide angle lenses than the former with teles but the distortion is there nonetheless...these FCs btw are on 35FF, on the 1.6x format we're talking 50-70mm or so being the portrait range that least distorts physical features...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought depth of field depended only on focal length of the lens and the distance you are from the subject. So saying that you get a different perspective simply because you are using a lens on a cropped-sensor as opposed to 35mm FF is misleading.
Logged

kitalight

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2007, 07:25:55 pm »

Quote
I thought depth of field depended only on focal length of the lens and the distance you are from the subject. So saying that you get a different perspective simply because you are using a lens on a cropped-sensor as opposed to 35mm FF is misleading.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quote
I thought depth of field depended only on focal length of the lens and the distance you are from the subject. So saying that you get a different perspective simply because you are using a lens on a cropped-sensor as opposed to 35mm FF is misleading.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I didn't say anything about depth of field (focus)...I said that the perspective, the relative SIZE (not focus) of foreground to background is the same, for the cropped-sensor as for the full frame format (when using say a 50 on the former and an 80 on the latter)...I should have added, GIVEN THE SAME IMAGE SIZE, which means that a 50mm lens on a fff cam will have the same perspective as an 80mm lens on a 1.6x format cam...if you don't understand this all you need to do is take a fff camera with an 80 and a 1.6x cam with a 50 AT THE SAME DISTANCE WHICH WILL GIVE YOU THE SAME IMAGE SIZE, and you will see identical perspective...THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS DoF...I'm sorry if I was misleading...and I hope this clarifies the nature of perspective regarding the 2 formats.
Logged

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2007, 06:17:08 am »

Quote
I didn't say anything about depth of field (focus)...I said that the perspective, the relative SIZE (not focus) of foreground to background is the same, for the cropped-sensor as for the full frame format (when using say a 50 on the former and an 80 on the latter)...I should have added, GIVEN THE SAME IMAGE SIZE, which means that a 50mm lens on a fff cam will have the same perspective as an 80mm lens on a 1.6x format cam...if you don't understand this all you need to do is take a fff camera with an 80 and a 1.6x cam with a 50 AT THE SAME DISTANCE WHICH WILL GIVE YOU THE SAME IMAGE SIZE, and you will see identical perspective...THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS DoF...I'm sorry if I was misleading...and I hope this clarifies the nature of perspective regarding the 2 formats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Even allowing for my misreading of your comment (my apologies for that one), the question remains.

Your comment was:
Quote
I should have added, GIVEN THE SAME IMAGE SIZE, which means that a 50mm lens on a fff cam will have the same perspective as an 80mm lens on a 1.6x format cam

How does perspective change depending on sensor size? This also depends on (a) the photographer's position and ( the focal length of the lens.
As far as I can tell, a 50mm lens will produce an image circle at the back of the camera that is the same size in both camera formats. The only difference is that the 1.6x sensor records less of it.

But if by 'same image size' you mean a sensor-filling image then you need to change the position from which you take your photograph, or change your lens. And I would agree either of thesechanges perspective.
Logged

kitalight

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2007, 10:34:19 am »

Quote
Even allowing for my misreading of your comment (my apologies for that one), the question remains.

Your comment was:
How does perspective change depending on sensor size? This also depends on (a) the photographer's position and ( the focal length of the lens.
As far as I can tell, a 50mm lens will produce an image circle at the back of the camera that is the same size in both camera formats. The only difference is that the 1.6x sensor records less of it.

But if by 'same image size' you mean a sensor-filling image then you need to change the position from which you take your photograph, or change your lens. And I would agree either of thesechanges perspective.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

with equivalent lenses if you shoot from the same position you get the same image size and the same perspective...I've done this using my ff nikon F and my 1.6x 10D...only difference seems to be DoF and image size due to different VF  magnifications...but for all intents and purposes, the perspective (relative size of foreground to background) is the same...
Logged

spidermike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 535
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2007, 02:11:06 pm »

Quote
with equivalent lenses if you shoot from the same position you get the same image size and the same perspective...I've done this using my ff nikon F and my 1.6x 10D...only difference seems to be DoF and image size due to different VF  magnifications...but for all intents and purposes, the perspective (relative size of foreground to background) is the same...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't mean to be obtuse, but I'm still lost - you have now added the phrase 'with equivalent lenses' and that adds another interpretation to make. To avoid confusion can we stick with the idea of a 90mm lens on a Canon 5D and the same lens on a 30D used to take the same picture from the same position.
I think of it this way - position the 90mm lens such that it projects a defined image onto a glass plate measuring 60cm x 60cm (the size is atually irrelevant). That is your image. Now, place a 35mmFF sensor (i.e. the 5D) against the glass screen such that the centre of the sensor is coincident with the centre of the image circle. That is the image recorded by the 5D. Do the same thing with cropped (1.6x) sensor and that is the image recorded by the 30D.
The perspective of the image on the glass screen does not magically change just because you have placed a different sensor on it - but the area of the image (i.e. field of view) recorded by the two sensors will differ.

The conclusion from this is that the perspective will not change just because you put the 90mm lens onto a 30D or a 5D and shoot from the same position.

However, if you move the position from which you take the photograph so that the field of view recorded by the two sensors is the same then the perspectives will indeed be different because position is one of the factors that determines perspective.

Or am I missing something about digital photography?
« Last Edit: August 05, 2007, 02:14:06 pm by spidermike »
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2007, 08:54:57 am »

Quote
Regarding that comment about the "stupid idea" to use a "normal lens" for portrait: it depends on who's doing the shooting. As Pierre Assouline mentions in his book "L'Oeil du siecle", Cartier-Bresson used almost exclusively a 50mm lens, also for his portraits. If someone here knows better than Cartier-Bresson, he should scan his images for protruding noses. Be assured, you won't find any.

I would rather shoot a portrait with a 50mm lens (35mm in digital), than with a 300mm lens (200mm on a digital). I guess calling someone stupid, and then shoot portraits with a long range cannon is a double insult, first of the person insulted, then reason insulted.

I am always astonished how easily people throw worthless adjectives at others in internet forums. Do they really think it makes them look superior? (and their words always come back at them like a boomerang).

Intimacy:

In a portrait you need the sense of being close to the person, close in the sense of intimacy. You can't get that feel when you are looking at someone like through a sniper rifle visor.

For 35mm 80 to 85mm is excellent. (Some people liked 90mm, or even 100mm lenses, but that's where it stops. A 135mm lens is not a portrait lens any more).

First of all, you're doing the same thing you're complaining of others doing, assigning pejorative adjectives to things you disagree with.

Second, you're comparing apples to oranges. Most of HCB's work is not head-and-shoulders portraits, which is what the OP was inquiring about. A 50mm lens will not cause perspective distortion (body parts appearing unnaturally large or small in relation to one another) when the subject is more distant than head-and-shoulder range, such as full-length or group shots, which is why HCB's work does not exibit such distortions. But any photographer, no matter how famous or obscure, will encounter such distortions when shooting at very close range with a wide-angle lens. A 50mm lens at head-and-shoulders range on a full-frame camera will exibit such distortions.

Third, intimacy in a portrait is not dependent on focal length, but rather on the pose and expression of the subject, and the composition of the image. Getting close to some subjects can help create an emotional connection, but others become uncomfortable when their space is invaded. This is particularly true when working with small children, who often become distracted or uncomfortable when you stick a camera in their face, and rarely behave naturally under such circumstances. What you are proposing is true in some cases, but certainly not true in all situations.

Ultimately, you are confusing stylistic preference with universal truth. While perspective distortions can be an effective creative element in some portraits, such distortions are certainly not always desirable, attractive, or conducive to a sense of intimacy, as I demonstrated with the photos I posted earlier in this thread.
Logged

kitalight

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
PEOPLE IN LOW LIGHT
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2007, 12:35:01 pm »

Quote
I don't mean to be obtuse, but I'm still lost - you have now added the phrase 'with equivalent lenses' and that adds another interpretation to make. To avoid confusion can we stick with the idea of a 90mm lens on a Canon 5D and the same lens on a 30D used to take the same picture from the same position.
I think of it this way - position the 90mm lens such that it projects a defined image onto a glass plate measuring 60cm x 60cm (the size is atually irrelevant). That is your image. Now, place a 35mmFF sensor (i.e. the 5D) against the glass screen such that the centre of the sensor is coincident with the centre of the image circle. That is the image recorded by the 5D. Do the same thing with cropped (1.6x) sensor and that is the image recorded by the 30D.
The perspective of the image on the glass screen does not magically change just because you have placed a different sensor on it - but the area of the image (i.e. field of view) recorded by the two sensors will differ.

The conclusion from this is that the perspective will not change just because you put the 90mm lens onto a 30D or a 5D and shoot from the same position.

However, if you move the position from which you take the photograph so that the field of view recorded by the two sensors is the same then the perspectives will indeed be different because position is one of the factors that determines perspective.

Or am I missing something about digital photography?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think digital photography adds any variable to perspective...the only variable is distance from the subject. The perspective is the same regardless of the lens used if the distance from the subject is the same (though on the same format a wider angle lens makes the subject much smaller)...
On any format camera, to fill the frame to the same degree as you would with an 80mm lens using a 50mm lens you will have to move closer....
If you frame a headshot with the 80mm on the 35mm format, and want to do the same with the 1.6x format camera, FROM THE SAME CAMERA-TO-SUBJECT DISTANCE, and use the 50mm lens (1.6 x 50 = 80), the perspective (relative SIZE of foreground to background) will be the same....it is as simple as that.
Now I'm NOT saying you CAN'T introduce distortion for effect, but it does change the nature of the subject's appearance on the photo...easily sensed when using an ultra wide angle lens, less so when using a tele, but there just the same...a heavy person looks thinner using a wide angle, and teles add weight, which is why actors always complain that TV cameras (teles for the most part) add 10lbs to them, and why models are usually thin, as most fashion shots are taken with teles.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2007, 12:36:30 pm by kitalight »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up