Models Looking short legged lately...Making them taller?

[Snook]

Hey I have noticed a lot of my clients latley when looking in my computer aftr thshots saying that a lot of my subjects look short legged or short in general..
Specially when using wide angle 65mm on the P30...
I usually try to shoot around knee level or lower and straigtht on but I also find them looking short for some reason..
Anybody have any suggestions or reason why.
I was always thought that the taller you want them you shoot a little around the knee waist area... Today I just a pretty tall guy. 6'3 and in the screen he does actually look a lot shorter and I have noticed this a lot lately.
You here different people with different suggestion. eye level, waist, knee and below.
What is the best way to make some look the tallest especially with wide angle 65mm lens for RZ for example...
Thanks for any suggestions.

Snook

[Rob C]

Hey I have noticed a lot of my clients latley when looking in my computer aftr thshots saying that a lot of my subjects look short legged or short in general..
Specially when using wide angle 65mm on the P30...
I usually try to shoot around knee level or lower and straigtht on but I also find them looking short for some reason..
Anybody have any suggestions or reason why.
I was always thought that the taller you want them you shoot a little around the knee waist area... Today I just a pretty tall guy. 6'3 and in the screen he does actually look a lot shorter and I have noticed this a lot lately.
You here different people with different suggestion. eye level, waist, knee and below.
What is the best way to make some look the tallest especially with wide angle 65mm lens for RZ for example...
Thanks for any suggestions.

Snook

Hey Snook

Using Nikon cameras (film) I used to put on the 35mm lens for full-length model shots if I wanted a little distortion; I used to sit on the floor on my ass, with the camera at around 74cms off the ground, which is where my face seems to fit the tape I am using on your behalf. This gave a line of fire that usually hit the bottom of normal skirt (not a mini) hems and the problem then could be that the inside of the back of the skirt would sometimes show - not a pretty sight, so something of which to be aware.

Putting it right into the early to mid-sixties, we used to tend to use the 35mm lens also for half-lengths, which if one stood a little high, gave a slightly elongated look to the top of head, something which now sounds daft but then looked cool. (That's one of the reasons I suggest elewhere that one ignore political correctness: it's unnatural and will, like all fads, fade of its own accord, thank God, but not in time to have saved my calendar business.)

With the 'blad, the 50mm gave much the same look, but didn't seem to work as well for some reason and I hated using the 80mm, which left the 150 for most of anything where I had distance between girl and self. 180mm would have been nicer - it certainly was on the old Mamiya C33(?) TLR I once had. Come to think of it, perhaps the reason the 35mm worked with the Nikon was that one felt good working with it, not so good with the bigger, heavier box, which needed a tripod outdoors or electronic alone indoors. Once you stick a camera on a tripod it tends to get stuck there for the duration. Not good practice.

Can you post anything to illustrate your problem?

Rob C

[dwdallam]

The only thing I acan think of after your explanation is to get closer to the model so you have to shoot slightly upwards. The wide angle should then artificially distort the legs making them look longer.

[Rob C]

The only thing I acan think of after your explanation is to get closer to the model so you have to shoot slightly upwards. The wide angle should then artificially distort the legs making them look longer.

If not heavier...


;-)


Rob C

[dwdallam]

If not heavier...


;-)


Rob C

I've actually seen this technique make legs look much thinner. It probably depends on how much distortion you get.

[terence_patrick]

Post an example?  I can't remember if you shoot with an RZ, but the 140mm lens makes people look incredible, especially when doing full bodies.

[dwdallam]

Post an example?  I can't remember if you shoot with an RZ, but the 140mm lens makes people look incredible, especially when doing full bodies.

I just looked through all of my books and couldn't find the example I wanted to share. I have several more books in my truck. I'll look tomorrow for it. Sorry

[sergio]

They are eating too much junk food.

[Rob C]

They are eating too much junk food.

Or nothing at all.

Rob C

[bill t.]

Filter->Liquify...

The girls will love for it.  But never let them see you working on their image, it's rather ego crushing.  Actually, they don't even need to know.

Do it quick before you have include a disclaimer!

[dwdallam]

Filter->Liquify...

The girls will love for it.  But never let them see you working on their image, it's rather ego crushing.  Actually, they don't even need to know.

Do it quick before you have include a disclaimer!

I was going to suggest that also. You can stretch the legs in Photoshop with transform also.

[Hank]

My two favorite lenses for full-length models are the 300/f2.8 and the 200/f2.  Often I use an 80-200 f/2.8 as long as I can stretch it in the circumstances.  Obviously that means outdoor shoots or long studios.  Our shooting room is 40 feet long, and that's barrely enough for a 200.  Fine if they're not tall and aren't reaching over their heads, but otherwise short.  Results with long lenses are really pleasing, both for lack of distortion and enhanced opportunities to manage DOF.  

As you have to move close and use shorter lenses, then the more concerned you have to be about distortion.  You can work with it or your can work around it, but you have to recognize it and be ready for it.

[Rob C]

My two favorite lenses for full-length models are the 300/f2.8 and the 200/f2.

And that, of course, is why I love the work of Hans Feurer.

http://www.wibagency.com

Rob C

[Boris_Epix]

Ok Snook,
I'm not sure how useful the posts so far have been. Some suggestions contradicted exactly to what I believe is true.

Tele lenses give great compression, little distortion. But for maximum long legs I take wide-angles and get really close and very low (not just hip height but almost touching floor with the ear level). The wider the better (more distortion). So your 65mm is probably not the worst choice (although I own the 50mm RZ lens not the 65mm).
Now why doesn't it work? Well the best (worst) part of the lens is outside of your very cropped (in regards to 6x7 format) P30 frame. The further away from the center the more distortion the lens has and enlongates legs and such. The center of the wide-angle is more neutral in a way (which seems often to make matters worse compared to the distorted areas) and because of your cropped sensor your frame.

Have you tried to shoot the P30 on a 645 body with a wide angle? That would cover more of the outmost areas of the lens.


How I'm doing it:

Unretouched pic I shot at a workshop I gave (model about 6'):
Canon 1Ds MK3, 24-70mm 2.8L, used at 24mm
From as low as possible, with feet as close as possible to the lower edge
The shorter the skirt/dress the longer the legs :-)
The skinnier the model the longer legs/arms will appear.
I find it important that the chin/face is not covered by the shoulder that can easily happen. The model shouldn't lean back from the camera with the upper body as this will make the head/upper body even smaller.
 [attachment=16906:Aleks_04...ETOUCHED.jpg]

Quickly retouched pic to give the model something for the book
Face replaced from a different frame
CTRL + T to TRANSFORM
Move the middle point to the lower edge or the face (depending what way you go)
Now press and hold the CTRL to DISTORT, pick the left top corner and drag it up (and possibly a bit to the left too), take the right top corner and drag it up and maybe a bit to the right
Sometimes this will distort parts of the image for the worse (wider hips, smaller heads). That's why you may feel the need to move the top corners more to the outside to counter-act.
Another way to minimize adverse effects is Edit/Transform/Warp. This lets you bend move parts a bit. But the controls are rough and not super flexible

So now the LIQUIFY filter comes in.
You can use it to further reduce adverse effects and make legs more shaped, hips tighter, head bigger/smaller/longer/whatever, feet smaller, etc.

This is the finished pic:
[attachment=16907:Aleks_0450_Vers2.jpg]


Another sample with a 5'6" model:
[attachment=16909:AA_Eva_1685_Vers1.jpg]

Sometimes the effect is too strong so I will back off and used a bit a longer lens. But generally speaking, the closer and lower down (touching the floor with the ear) you are and the closer the feet are to the lower edge of the frame the more extreme. Not sure if your 65mm on the RZ will work for this though.

I don't know why but when uploading the pics to the forum here suddenly they have bad posterization and a bit of a color shift. But anyway... the point was enlongating the legs.