How To Use a 50mm Lens to Shoot Portrait?

narke, à écrit :

Hello,

I by far got only one lens, a CZ 50mm. Using it to shoot portraits, is
it possible to get good results?

All 50mm are good lenses !

I like to hear some advice on
anything around this case, about composition, subject distance,
enlarge and so on.

I really love taking portraits with a 50mm.
You can make portraits enough close and more general views.

90% of the portraits taken in this picture are made with a 50mm :
http:/:www.monochromatique.com/portrait/

--
Daniel Rocha - Photographie
http://www.monochromatique.com

Alan Browne wrote:


As I said earlier, cropping a 50mm shot that was taken further back is
the same as using a longer lens uncropped. A cropped sensor does the
cropping for you.


That's not true Alan.
The depth of field of a 50 mm lens is greater than a 100mm lens. The
"crop factor" is just that. It is not, never will be and never can,
produce the same results as using a telephoto lens for a portrait.

You seem to be a past master at taking only those parts of an issue and
turning it into an argument that suit your point of view and focusing on
only the part you decipher differently than the poster intended.

Your suggestion that a 50 mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor dSLR will be the
same as using a telephoto lens is totally incorrect and has no basis
practical use. If you want a proper perspective to your portraits, just
relying on the 1.6 crop factor alone will not give you the same results
as using a telephoto lens designed for portraits.

In fact, your suggestion elsewhere that you can just move the camera and
obtain the correct perspective by cropping the picture, makes no
allowance for the fact you cannot enlarge a 35mm image to a traditional
portrait and keep the grain under control or retain any semblance of
detail if you have to crop it by 50% to obtain the correct perspective
in the first place. 35mm film simply does not have the latitude to
permit enlargements that big.

Somehow I get the notion that you soak up technical information like a
sponge. Wouldn't it be good if you also knew the implication of using it
without practical experience too?

Doug

In article ,
Ryadia wrote:

According to the theory argued by Alan a few weeks ago, the focal length
of a lens has nothing to do with perspective. Now he's saying by using a
50mm lens and moving the camera, you can alter the perspective.

You are giving the answer yourself: *moving the camera* will correct the
perspective to match the 50mm to the 85mm. You just have to stand in the
same spot for both shots, that's all. Then crop the 50mm shot, and
(perspective-wise...) both shots will be identical. Try it with a 28mm
and a 300mm, you'll be surprised.

Lourens

I'm saying precisiely what I've said from the beginning.
And given what you are saying, it's no wonder folks are confused. (O;

With a wider lens, just move further back and then crop the result.
If you move further back, you HAVE changed both your perspective and
DOF. But then you immediately go on to say:

From a perspective POV a shot taken at 2 meters from the
subject with a 50mm is identical to a 100mm at 2 meters away.
Which is exactly NOT what you just said to do. You kept the distances
the same!!


And in an earlier post, you said this:

For a 1.6x cropped sensor, you end up with a result similar to an 80mm
lens.
That would produce very nice portraits without any distortion.
NO. By cropping, you only end up with a similar FOV. Both perspective
and DOF will be different - ie `distortions`.

As I said earlier, cropping a 50mm shot that was taken further back is
the same
as using a longer lens uncropped.
NO. It is NOT the same in either perspective or DOF, only in field of
view.

"narke" wrote in message
oups.com...
(And the mega-cheap Canon EF 50mm/F1.8 on my 1.6 crop DSLR is by far
my
favourite combination for portraits, too.)

But, IMO, a 50mm lens is not a really 50mm lens for DSLR, is it?
They're not same in perspective for the film/CCD size is different.
-
narke
If
the nodal point to film or sensor distance remains the same, and the nodal
point to subject distance also remains the same, then the perspective
remains the same. If the sensor or film is smaller than 35mm, then the
perspective will be the same, but the image will be smaller, or cropped.
IOW, if you want a flatter perspective, move back; an exaggerated
perspective, move closer. There's no law that says a portrait is a
headshot. Maybe it is, maybe it's full length, maybe it's a whole room with
someone standing around. Or not. Bob Hickey

Subject: How To Use a 50mm Lens to Shoot Portrait?
From: "me"
Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2005 2:19 PM
Message-id:

"narke" wrote in message
roups.com...
Lewis,

Thank You Very Much!!! You'v offer me a excellent start point. I need
some time to study what you said and I'v already saved the post. Now I
answer some questions you mentioned,

1, If I'm using the CZ 1.4/50mm?

Yes, and I mount it on a Contex Aria. You said that is one of the
sharpest of all, that encourge me to ask that Sharpness is a good news
or bad news for portrait?

Who knows? Depends on what you and or the subject wants. If softness is
desired use diffusion, in which case the sharpness of the lens is not a
factor.

2, What kind of "portraits" do I want to do?

Actually I want three kind of portraits. People in enviroment and
somewhat Head/Shoulder shots. You said, the Head shots is a little hard
and it depends, now I wanna know what about Head/Shoulder shots? In
further, I want to know what is the closest subject distance for a 50mm
lens without introducing unpleasing aberration (big noise and so on).
In fact I am looking for a maximized posibility.

Your distaste for distortion is unknown so this distance can only be
determined by you. Take some portraits, make note of the distance and see
for yourself.

-
narke

Sign,
me

Why thank you, "Lewis". Didn't know I had a twin (other than the troll ;-)).
:-)

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

"Lewis Lang" wrote in message
...
Subject: How To Use a 50mm Lens to Shoot Portrait?
From: "me"
Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2005 2:19 PM
Message-id:
"narke" wrote in message
roups.com...
Lewis,

Thank You Very Much!!! You'v offer me a excellent start point. I need
some time to study what you said and I'v already saved the post. Now I
answer some questions you mentioned,

1, If I'm using the CZ 1.4/50mm?

Yes, and I mount it on a Contex Aria. You said that is one of the
sharpest of all, that encourge me to ask that Sharpness is a good news
or bad news for portrait?

Who knows? Depends on what you and or the subject wants. If softness is
desired use diffusion, in which case the sharpness of the lens is not a
factor.

2, What kind of "portraits" do I want to do?

Actually I want three kind of portraits. People in enviroment and
somewhat Head/Shoulder shots. You said, the Head shots is a little hard
and it depends, now I wanna know what about Head/Shoulder shots? In
further, I want to know what is the closest subject distance for a 50mm
lens without introducing unpleasing aberration (big noise and so on).
In fact I am looking for a maximized posibility.

Your distaste for distortion is unknown so this distance can only be
determined by you. Take some portraits, make note of the distance and see
for yourself.

-
narke

Sign,
me

Why thank you, "Lewis". Didn't know I had a twin (other than the troll
;-)).
:-)

Sorry Lewis, I was just trying to expedite things. Please continue with your
answer. ;-)
Film best,
me

Subject: How To Use a 50mm Lens to Shoot Portrait?
From: "me"
Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2005 2:19 PM
Message-id:

"narke" wrote in message
roups.com...
Lewis,

Thank You Very Much!!!

You're welcome very much! :-)

You'v offer me a excellent start point. I need
some time to study what you said and I'v already saved the post. Now I
answer some questions you mentioned,

1, If I'm using the CZ 1.4/50mm?

Yes, and I mount it on a Contex Aria. You said that is one of the
sharpest of all, that encourge me to ask that Sharpness is a good news
or bad news for portrait?


At the risk of repeating almost verbatim what has already been answered by
someone else for a reply that was directed at yours truly... :-)

Depnds upon your taste. For more surreal people shots I prefer a sharp image
because I am doing "character studies" that are larger than life so I like a
sharp, bright colored in y our face approach. This means sharp lenses and
saturated color (slide or negative) films.

For more "classic" portraits which aim more at flattery than self-expression
(or even surrealism) any even averagely sharp lens may be too sharp. Though I
myself am not a fan of diffusion filters (I prefer to use softer films (like
Ilford XP-2 Super in black and white (a monchromatic C-41 process 'color'
negative film) and Portra 400UC (or their lower saturation 160/400 Kodak and
Fuji professional portrait film variants) or Agfa VIsta 400 (though this ilk of
400 speed films now seems to have both lower contrast and quite saturated
tones, just not as in your face saturation as some of the slower slide/color
neg films like Velvias or E100VS) or its equivalent in color films) rather than
softening up a lens w/ a filter in front of the camera or after the fact by
scanning a film image and then softening it in some Photoshop-like digital
image manipulation program), some people use the diffusion filters to good
effect, but beware, too much of a good thing, can well, be too much. Experiment
and see for yourself how much if any diffusion works with the types of subjects
and style of people photography you prefer. "When in doubt... test it out" -the
only good piece of advice I got in photography school :-(...


2, What kind of "portraits" do I want to do?

Actually I want three kind of portraits. People in enviroment and
somewhat Head/Shoulder shots.

That's two types, not three types. What's the third type beyond "People in
enviroment and somewhat Head/Shoulder shots"?

Anyways, the 50mm (and even wider focal lengths - I have even used down to 16mm
fisheye for some "environemental" portraits - see "RENNAISSANCE COUPLE WITH
DOG", "CHARLIE AND ME #1" AND "YOUNG AMERICANS #1" on my website) will do you
fine for people in environments. For the somewhat head/shoulders variety any
fixed focal length lens or zoom that covers the 70-210mm range (with the 85mm
through 135mm being the most popular/often used focal lengths for "classic"
headshots) should be more than adequare. I use a Tamron 70-150mm/3.5 on my
Contax SLR because its small, solid (made of metal), cheap, incredibly sharp,
has a reasonably bright (for easy manual focusing in the viewfinder) f/3.5
aperture and should I ever neeed/want to carry it over to another system all I
have to get is another Adaptall mount in the next system's mount and I can use
the lens on it w/o any problems. But I also have/use a Maxxum 70-210mm f/4 and
have rented out the fixed focal length old style manual focus Tamron 90mm/2.5
macro lens to do head shots. I have also owned and used the Nikon Series E
75-150/3.5 and 105/2.5 AIS Nikkor lenses as well as various 90mm (f/2.8) Leica
R lenses and their 100/2.8 macro for head shots (the last I took more "nostril
shots" to test the close focusing ability/sharpness ;-)). But as I've said
before, almost any focal length within the 70-210mm range and beyond from any
brand will do you well for head shots.

You said, the Head shots is a little hard
and it depends, now I wanna know what about Head/Shoulder shots? In
further, I want to know what is the closest subject distance for a 50mm
lens without introducing unpleasing aberration (big noise and so on).

What is and is not distortion with any focal length lens or at any distance
from any subject is purely a matter of taste and visual style and the purpose
of (and audience for/"who you are trying to please, if anyone of) your shot.
Whatis the closest subject distance? It totally depends upon you and your
tastes/needs/style of photography. But read on for both _my preferences_ (which
may or may not aply to you and your preferences/style of photography) and
suggestions as to how to find out what your "distortion"
preferences/tolerability is at what distance(s).

Having said that, I prefer a flatter perspective than most for (tight)
flattering/"classic" portrait/fashion headshots so the further back (regardless
of whether you end up cropping in-camera with the lens's focal length or after
the fact by cropping under an enlarger's easel's masking blades or in
Photoshop, digitally) the better.

For me, and this only applies to _me_ and _my_ tastes, and consider the fact
that I like (to do) very _tightly_ cropped headshots whilst still having a
flattering/slightly flattening perspective for headshots, my guess would be
somewhere's in the 4 1/2 feet to 5 1/2 feet range. But this is only a guess,
_my_ guess, according to _my_ preferences/tastes/mood and depends on the
subject's features (a childs face can have both a flatter nose and a shorter
nose to ears distance than an adult so you can get closer to a child, at least
in theory, with your camera/lens and still have a pleasing perspective on their
faces since their noses usually don't stick out that much to begin with) and
whether the shots style is going after "personality/character" more (where I
can go closer and perspective "distortion" which is a relative term in terms of
taste preference as my normal perspective may be your distortion and vice
versa), or more or a "flattery" type shot (where the farther away I am from the
subject the better as distance flattens apparent/subjective perspective/facial
features - for this type of photogrpahy might I suggest photographing from the
moon or Mars with an astronaughts suit and a very long lens with a tripod or
image stabilization ;-) LOL) or somewhere's inbetween.

SO what this boils down to _for me only_ is that I usually find myself
prefering focal lengths of between 85-135mm at roughly 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 feet for
tight to semi-tight headshots. With a 50mm lens you'd get a 2/3/above the knees
to somewhere in the above the waist range for these distances which would
include more of the environment and be more of a partial body shot than a tight
or even loose headshot. If you have similar leanings in distance/perspective
and need tight(er) head shots then the 50mm won't do it for you and you'll need
a longer focal length lens (either a or several fixed focal length telephoto or
telephoto zoom that covers the 85-135mm focal lengths and a bit more on either
end for flexibility in cropping, or you'll need to get a 2x teleconverter, or
1.4x teleconverter if you prefer, to get the equivalent of a 100mm lens (from
the 2x) or a 75mm lens (from the 1.4 times converter).

Now bear in mind that the above paragraph refers to more flattering (read
"flattening") perspective for classic style portraiture. For more surreal
and/or character studies there is no such thing as too close or too far away,
its only what works that counts - persopectivewise and lens/focal lengthwise
:-).

(Asking another photographer) What is the right perspective for a shot(s) is
like asking a cook how much salt, sugar or butter is needed ina recipe to get
the "perfect" cake. Ask 12 different chefs and you'll get 12 different right
answers that will most likely only apply to those 12 different chefs
and not to you since their tastes are not your taste and vice versa. Experiment
with distances and focal lengths of lenses and see which (distances and focal
lengths) applies best for your particular subject matter and tastes.

Personally, I would rent or borrow a telephoto fixed focal length or zoom lens
from a friend and (if he/she is simialr to the type of subjects you'd be
shooting), without camera in hand, just using your eyes (preferably just
closing one eye since stereoscopic vision might interfere with your judgement,
but either way, 3D or 2D vision, this technique should work) and walking right
up to their face then walking backwards until you get to a point where you find
_to your tastes_ "the big nose/small ears problem" is no longer
relevant/affecting the shot. You can also try it the other way around and start
from a distance of 10-15 feet and _slowly_ start walking in towards your
subject's face and see at which point the nose to face to ears proportions
become disturbing to you then walk back/away from the subject again to see at
what point/distance this "irritation" disappears. That (give or take) is
probably the best distance for that particular subject and your particular
tastes for a flattery/"classic head shot". As someone else said, then make note
of that distance (as a rough guide) and use the zoom's focal length to crop
in/magnify the image _without_ changing your distance to see which focal
length(s) work best for you, this particular subject and this particular kind
of shot. You may find that you prefer 75mm or 105mm or 127mm or even 50mm. But
remember, its the distance and the angle your camera is from the subject that
determine perspective (size relationships between planes with your subject and
between your subject plane and other planes/object in the shot) - the lens's
focal length, whether 50mm or 50mm is merely an in-camera cropping device, so
be sensitive to perspective _without_ the lens (through your distance and angle
to the subject) and then use the lens after the fact for final cropping. As the
old saying _mistakenly_ says they "zoom with your feet" - but in reality this
doesn't work as moving further towards or away from your subject not only
changes image size but changes perspective (size/shape/spatial) relationships
both within your subject and between your subject and other objects/planes in
your shot. You can only "perspective with your feet" (clumsy English but this
gets my point across) and then use the lens (zoom or fixed) to crop after the
fact. Zooming doesn't change perspective, moving in/out from your subject with
your feet does. So think feet first (relative to the perspective you want on
their faces/bodies for people) then lens after.

Don't get hung up on focal lengths (those focal length lenses you own and those
you don't own yet), get hung up on perspective. Photography is image making,
and in image making, perspective has priority over lens (most of the time) when
you want a certain look/feel to the picture. Each subject has its own best
perspective based on your taste and what you think is best. Many people get it
backwards and focus on the technology and equipment of lenses/etc first (by
choosing the focal length then considering the perspective after or not at all)
instead of considering a photograph as just another way/medium for making an
image. Perspective before lens. SPace/emotion before numbers (mm or feet... or
legs ;-)). First develop _your_ taste/style/preferences for certain
perspectives on certain (your types of) subjects). :-)

In fact I am looking for a maximized posibility.


Aren't we all... ;-)

-
narke

Sign,
me

This post is...

© 2005 Lewis Lang
All Rights (and left turns) Reserved

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Daniel,

90% of the portraits taken in this picture are made with a 50mm :
http:/:www.monochromatique.com/portrait/

I like these pics, acturally I'v visited your site serveral days
before! Would you tell me all of the following are shot by a 50mm
normal lens?

1, http://www.monochromatique.com/portr...iella_107.html
2, http://www.monochromatique.com/portr...iella_097.html
3, http://www.monochromatique.com/portr...iella_079.html
4, http://www.monochromatique.com/portr...iella_120.html
5, http://www.monochromatique.com/portr...iella_024.html
Thanks.

-
narke

LARGE SNIP OF THE MAN WHOWOULD BE ME ;-)

Sign,
me

Why thank you, "Lewis". Didn't know I had a twin (other than the troll
;-)).
:-)

Sorry Lewis, I was just trying to expedite things. Please continue with
your
answer. ;-)
Film best,
me

No, problem. I already gave my answer/reply - but being me, you already knew
that didn't you ;-).

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***