Portraiture with a Fisheye

[Gerald]

It is a common thought that the ideal lens for portraiture is a fast 85mm. Indeed, focal lengths such as 85, 100 and 135mm are great for formal portraits where the subject is in a static pose. The relatively small distance of 1 to 3 meters between the camera and the subject provides a strong emotional connection between the photographer and the subject. The emotional connection is very important in this type of photography because a good portrait should "capture the soul" of the person being portrayed. In contrast, a super telephoto lens introduces an unwanted emotional distance between the photographer and the subject, and it shows in the portrait. Going to the other extreme, wide-angle lens are generally not recommended for portraiture because they easily introduce distortions, such as to show a disproportionately large nose relative to other parts of the face. That said, the truth is that a bad photograph can "commit" a bad portrait with the best "portrait" lens in the world, whereas a talented photographer can make a good portrait, no matter the focal length of the lens.

Many people think that a fisheye is the last option for portrait photography. To be fair, if you search the internet for pictures taken with a fisheye, you'll find thousands of grotesque pictures of people, where the photographer seemed to be interested only in making fun of friends and relatives. That is unfortunate; however the many examples of improper use of fisheyes should not stop us in experiencing this kind of lens in portrait photography. The purpose of this post is just to show that a fisheye lens can be used efficiently in portrait photography.

Of course, there are big differences between a "portrait lens" and a fisheye when used for portraiture. When someone uses a fast portrait lens of, say, 85mm, a common motive is to take advantage of the shallow depth of field to isolate the subject from the background. In contrast, a fisheye shows almost everything in focus. Indeed, for a F8 aperture the depth of field goes from 0.7 meters to infinity! How to deal with the lack of isolation of the subject from the background?

Answer: use the property that everything which is far away is reproduced in a very small scale by a fisheye. Or, as an alternative, choose a composition that integrates the subject with the background ("If you can't beat them, join them"). In many portraits with a fisheye, the foreground is more important than the background. When this happens, the picture gets a very strong 3D character.

Let me present some examples.

Photo #1 is an example where the foreground is very important. The wave crashing on the beach introduces a dynamic character to the picture. That dynamism is enhanced by the presence of the energetic woman who is away only 5 meters from the camera. Notice how the fisheye curvilinear perspective, which is noticeable in the slightly curved horizon, is not too objectionable. In photos taken with a fisheye it is important that the curvilinear perspective does not dominate the composition.

A note: as the woman's face cannot be seen, one may argue that it is not a portrait. Well, there are many genuine portraits in which only half a face can be seen. Should we call then half-portraits? To avoid a sterile discussion, I will consider as portraits all photos that show a small number of people that are the main subject of the composition. It is worth mentioning that there is a portrait genre called "environmental portrait", which is "a portrait executed in the subject's usual environment, such as in their home or workplace" (Wikipedia)

Photo #1 – Sigma XQ Fisheye 16mm F2.8 on Sony A99V, ISO320, 1/320s, aperture not recorded, probably F8:





Photo #2 is another example where the model is portrayed with her back to the camera. The picture has a static character. The well-curved horizon gives an idea of infinite space. Note the importance of the foreground to create a sense of spatial depth.

Photo #2 – Sigma XQ Fisheye 16mm F2.8 on Sony A99V, ISO640, 1/320s, aperture not recorded, probably F8:






Photo #3 is an example of a very asymmetric triangular composition. The curvilinear perspective goes unnoticed because the horizon was centered and the models were placed in the center of the frame, but the right part of the image was cropped out. The main lines converge to the main subject, the girl in the blue dress. The look and posture of the other girl reinforce the compositional importance of the main subject.

Photo #3 – Sigma XQ Fisheye 16mm F2.8 on Sony A99V, ISO640, 1/320s, aperture not recorded, probably F8:






Photo #4 and #5 - This is a case in which the subject is far only a meter from the camera, but still appears in full body. At a distance so short, some distortion is inevitable, but depending on the model, the distortion can be mild and even quite acceptable. Just as a technical note, a 16mm fisheye lens has a vertical angle of view of 100 degrees, which is roughly equal to the vertical angle of view of a rectilinear 10mm ultra wide-angle lens.

Photo #4 – Sigma XQ Fisheye 16mm F2.8 on Sony A99V, ISO500, 1/320s, aperture not recorded, probably F8:



Photo #5 – Sepia - Technical data the same as Photo #4 F8:

[bernhardas]

Edited

[kds315*]

Great idea! I myself never trusted any "set rules" and experimented a lot,
often to find out wrong in those "rules"

[TAo2]

Hi Gerald,

whilst all yer photos are very nice, none of them are portraits and not by any stretch of the imagination. You entitled the post "Portraiture with a fisheye". Ah don't know the exact definition of "portrait", in a dictionary, but assume that it will say something like -"an image of a head or head and shoulders, where a face and/or an expression is the dominant feature". Ah thought ah was going tae see a new idea on portraiture, using a very difficult lens tae produce it...disappointing. The emperor has no clothes...

[RnR]

There is a thing called 'environmental portraiture'

[TAo2]

[Gerald]

bernhardas and Klaus,

I appreciate your comments. I know you both are great experimenters in photography. My interest in photography is divided between technology and art. The greatest enemies of art are perhaps accommodation and repetition.

I really like wide-angle lenses. They are "generous" lenses in the sense that they often bring to the frame more visual elements than we would like. And the fish eye is the "generous" lens! The wide angle lenses are for those who like to work with composition, geometric relations and perspective.

[Gerald]

[TAo2]

Hi Gerald,

Ah honestly think that it's a meaningless phrase tae add a couple of zeros onto a portrait price. Ah've looked at a lot of Newman's work - he doesn't impress me.

Ah think the 2 photos yev used as examples are a bad advert for what is (IMO) marketing speak. There is nothing in the environs of the Clinton photo tae suggest anything about the character or personality of the man - it's the president... in the White House. Now, had Monica Lewinsky's polka-dot dress been draped over his table - THAT would've been a shot...

The Stravinsky shot breaks the cardinal rule of portraiture - don't distract from the subject. My eye keeps flitting over tae the piano lid. Stravinsky is overwhelmed by the massive intrusion of that lid. Ah think your shots are better...but not portraiture; on that we can disagree amicably...

PS Ah really like wide angle lenses also.

[Gerald]

[TAo2]

Hi Gerald,

Stravinsky's face is crying out tae me

" Sit at a huge piano", says Newman. "It'll bring out the inner you", he says. " If he'd told me he wanted me sitting at a piano, ah'dve told him where tae stick his fuckin' piano. How un-fuckin' original can ye get?

Now, if Newman had put two portraits on the wall, one of Mussolini and one of Hitler, instead of sticking a bloody great piano there, then ah would've been much more animated. Ah could talk for hours about those great fascists!! "

Stravinsky? he was just a guy...

[Gerald]

This Van Gogh "selfie" is another famous case of "distraction" in a portrait:



Note the wavy background. A simplistic observation would be that the background is very "distracting". Hmmm ... if you've seen other Van Gogh paintings, surely you know that wavy brush strokes are one of the hallmarks of the painter. So when you "get distracted" by looking at the wavy background, you continue to see the painter, but in a metaphorical way. Van Gogh was a genius.

[kds315*]

[Abbazz]

[bernhardas]

Edited

[Oldhand]

[Jeff Zen]

Am I the only one here who finds this thread utterly pretentious?

Gerald, I like the third image very much, the color one much more than the sepia. Nice work.

[kds315*]

[Musashichan]

[Jeff Zen]

[Gerald]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read or write about my post.
It was a nice surprise to see that my original post triggered so many interesting comments on the art of photography.

[kuuan]

#4 my fav too. I wonder how come that the horizon on the sea looks perfectly straight while the houses on land show quite some distortion.
very amusing and in the end encouraging articles by the online photographer, thank you very much for sharing!
Regarding environmental portraits I have found the CV Super Wide Heliar 4.5/15 on my APS-C cams, that is a 22/23mm equival. without distortions, very good for the purpose ( quite a few samples with this combo of 'street / documentary' portraits on my flickr )

[Gerald]

[Nordentro]

#3 is really nice, you can hardly notice the fisheye effect
What beach is this?

[Gerald]