Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Portraits with 35mm lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio, now I see your point, and agree with it. I want more background to photos too. Often too much and forget to take the face photo that almost every magazine wants.

But still I don't have a clue about which distortions you talk about? Too small head and feet or what kind of distorion? You really have much better eye for human proportions if you see distortions on almost every 50mm lens.

Or you use it as reasoning to buy even more lenses. Which is always the good reason on this forum. Smile


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the picture with background I promised. Did I get it right this time?



PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
great portrait Carlson, distagon rock
distagon 25mm on full frame is also great for portrait


@kansalliskala

Poilu's shot is the perfect example of what perspective distortion with wide is: look at the heads of the two people and how their proportion is heavily influenced by the distance from the lens, so much more than with a normal (not to talk about a tele).

This perspective distortion principle is the same reason why Michelangelo's statue of David has a head which is disproportionate in relation with its body.



Michelangelo wasn't a dork, it's just that if you look at the statue once you are at floor height, you "magically" get correct proportions because of the long viewing distance with the statue head.


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I completely agree with Alessandro. But it isn't the lens that causes perspective distortion, it's purely dependent upon the distance from the subject. The reason wide angle lenses appear to be more prone to PD is that for the same framing they need to be closer to the subject. So as Alessandro says, stepping back and using a longer lens will always reduce PD.

I've posted this pic before, but it's worth showing it again. One shot is the full frame taken with a 135 lens. The other is taken with a 20mm lens and cropped to the same limits. The relationship of the sizes of the Mini and the van in the distance is the same in both shots. (Ignore the white van, it arrived as I was changing lenses. Smile)



Here's the uncropped 20mm shot:


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A G Photography wrote:

@kansalliskala

Poilu's shot is the perfect example of what perspective distortion with wide is: look at the heads of the two people and how their proportion is heavily influenced by the distance from the lens, so much more than with a normal (not to talk about a tele).

This perspective distortion principle is the same reason why Michelangelo's statue of David has a head which is disproportionate in relation with its body.


I noticed the same thing on Poilu's shot but didn't have the heart to point it. I actually once did the same trick with barley with one shot that went to an agricultural magazine. It is sort of inside joke, the crop is really 10 cm tall (sorry about the quality, it is from a scan):



To make another interesting Italy-Finland comparison, here is a local example corresponding the David-statue. Lahti ski-jump-hill looks tiny when you look at it from the bottom. No it is not, it is just far away. But the unfortunate tourist realizes it on after he went with an elevator to the top and sees the football field is the size of a postage stamp when you look down from there. Shocked Smile



PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alessandro, my opinion is that your Michelangelo example does not prove anything about lenses.

I think it only proves that the distortion is caused by the point of view. Which is precisely what I wrote in my previous message about the pink bottle, that you dismissed as ignorant. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Alessandro, my opinion is that your Michelangelo example does not prove anything about lenses.

I think it only proves that the distortion is caused by the point of view. Which is precisely what I wrote in my previous message about the pink bottle, that you dismissed as ignorant. Rolling Eyes


Told you the discussion was moot.


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More to the point, is that a swimming pool at the bottom of the giant ski jump hill?


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Angenieux 35 f2.5 (Retrofocus type R1) is quite good for portraits -- distortion is well corrected, I think ..





and see distortion on this picture here - vertically and horizontally ..



tf


PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2010 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nesster wrote:
More to the point, is that a swimming pool at the bottom of the giant ski jump hill?


(fi) Vesieste. =)


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A chullo!


PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



This is I. As ugly and undistorted as ever. smc Pentax 35mm f2.8


PostPosted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ariban wrote:
This is I. As ugly and undistorted as ever. smc Pentax 35mm f2.8

Wow! I'm trying to imagine how much more handsome you'd look without any distortion! Wink


PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:41 am    Post subject: peterqd Reply with quote

Who me? A cosmetic surgeon's nightmare I am Very Happy