How To Use a 50mm Lens to Shoot Portrait?

In article ,
Ryadia wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

[stuff]

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

Er, actually it is totally correct, as a 50mm lens *is* a telephoto lens on
those cameras, just as an 80mm lens is a telephoto lens on a 35mm camera,
but a standard lens on a 6*6.

HTH.

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.

Here we go again... Perspective in an image is determined soley by the
distance from the camera to the subjects in the image, and has nothing to do
with the choice of focal length.

If you want to create a pleasing perspective on a portrait, you need to
stand several metres away, as a rule of thumb. In order to fill the frame
with your subject, you want to chose a lens which gives you the appropriate
field of view. On a 35mm camera, this could well be a lens with a focal
length of around 80mm. On a digital SLR with a 24*16mm sensor, that same
lens will give a picture with a smaller field of view, removing part of the
subject, so you need to use a lens with a shorter focal length. 50mm is
generally ideal.

Now take it the other way, and imagine you're taking someones portrait on a
4*5 camera. An 80mm lens is wide-angle there. If you use an 80mm lens to
fill the frame, you'll practically have to shove the camera ip your
subject's nose, and they'll look ridiculous. If you use that same 80mm lens
and stand where you do with a 35mm camera, you'll get the pleasing
perspective, but have to crop your negative/slide to 36*24mm or thereabouts
to get your subject filling the frame. The right thing to do is to stand in
the same place and use the appropriate focal length to fill the frame.

Ryadia wrote:
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.

This has been your pattern not mine. Since the beginning of the great
perspective debate I named the issues clearly:
-perspective is distance
-DOF will be deeper with a wider lens

As to the OP of the current thread, he has only the one lens to work with, so
given that limitation we can only advise him how to get the best possible result
from that lens. That is what this thread is about.

Lastly, it is not graven in stone that a portrait must have a shallow DOF. It
may be desirable in many cases but it is not the only way. For the OP in this
thread it is a limitation he clearly has to live with if he doesn't buy another
lens.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

"Bob Hickey" wrote in

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.

You're correct, but it the photographer DOES want a head shot, and he wants
to avoid the "pulling out" of the nose and ears that would result from
moving closer to the subject, then the normal lens is going to produce
unacceptable results.

One other factor that should be considered is that the normal lens is
typically very sharp, whereas a lens optimized for portraits will have a
shallower DOF (and corresponding wide apertures), making the skin features
look less harsh.

I use my normal lens for easily 80-90% of what I shoot, but it is not the
ideal choice for portrait work--especially when filling the frame with only
the head and shoulders.

"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'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



A thought just occurred to me. Might a teleconverter used with a normal
lens give a more pleasing result? Even if it degraded the resolution
somewhat, that might not be all that bad for portraiture.

Jeremy wrote:


A thought just occurred to me. Might a teleconverter used with a normal
lens give a more pleasing result? Even if it degraded the resolution
somewhat, that might not be all that bad for portraiture.

It would be nice if the thought to snip your posts would occur to you.

TC's sometimes don't work with shorter lenses. The system you have might limit
this. I can't use my TC's with my 50 or my 100.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Jeremy wrote:

A thought just occurred to me. Might a teleconverter used with a normal
lens give a more pleasing result? Even if it degraded the resolution
somewhat, that might not be all that bad for portraiture.

It would be nice if the thought to snip your posts would occur to you.

TC's sometimes don't work with shorter lenses. The system you have might
limit
this. I can't use my TC's with my 50 or my 100.

I'm just being nosey here Alan but why can't you use your TC with those
lenses?
Film best,
me

me wrote:

I'm just being nosey here Alan but why can't you use your TC with those
lenses?

Minolta won't let me. The Maxxum TC's only 'fit' certain Primes beginning at
135mm. It's due to the design of the TC's. I believe that Kenko TC's (for
Maxxum) will fit almost all the lenses.

Beyond that, I seem to recall somebody here mentioning that the optical path
characteristics make TC's useless below about 100mm or so. I don't really know
if it is feasible. (IIRC I suggested that a 50+2.0 TC would be a reasonable
attempt at a 100mm lens, but somebody retorted that it could not be done for
some optical reason.... what the truth is, I simply don't know).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

LARGE SNIPS

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).

A thought just occurred to me. Might a teleconverter used with a normal
lens give a more pleasing result? Even if it degraded the resolution
somewhat, that might not be all that bad for portraiture.

Already mentioned above as one of the possibilities but it would be up to the
OP to determine which works best formhim.

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. :-) ***

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
me wrote:

I'm just being nosey here Alan but why can't you use your TC with
those
lenses?

Minolta won't let me. The Maxxum TC's only 'fit' certain Primes
beginning at 135mm. It's due to the design of the TC's. I believe
that Kenko TC's (for Maxxum) will fit almost all the lenses.

Yes, there may be a limitation due to protruding rear elements of the
lens hitting the front elements of the converter. Besides,
converters/extenders are optimized for longer focal lenses. I haven't
tried my Kenko on shorter lenses, but on a good 200mm lens I saw
significant chromatic aberration in the extreme corners. I can only
imagine what it would do on wider angle lenses which are much harder
to design anyway.

Bart

"narke" a écrit dans le message news:

http:/:www.monochromatique.com/portrait/

I like these pics, acturally I'v visited your site serveral days
before!

Thanks !

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.

Only the 97, the others are too close !

Some 50mm pictures :
http://www.monochromatique.com/portr...iella_198.html
http://www.monochromatique.com/portr...iella_077.html

The gallery will be updated with new scans and new pictures in
february.

Regards,

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