Portrait focal lengths.

[Phil V]

Let’s start by acknowledging that there’s no ‘correct’ FL for creating portraits, there’s a creative reason to sometimes use a UWA lens or indeed a super tele.

However, we can then agree that photographic portraiture has its basis in painted portraits, and the sitter was generally a reasonable distance from the subject resulting in a slight flattening / shortening of features. This being acknowledged as ‘flattering’ has been the norm for decades / centuries.

This thread was inspired by the latest series of the Traitors, which I admit to enjoying. However, what’s caught my attention are the Head and Shoulder ‘portraits’ of each contestant which hang on the wall. And which all appear to have been taken with a wide angle lens as per a phone ‘selfie’. They’re rarely flattering and also ‘suffer’ from some eye and teeth enhancing etc.

So, the question is, is the WA portrait becoming the new norm? Is this now the view we’re used to seeing of ourselves? And will it or has it already started to change the way customers are expecting to see themselves.


Unfortunately I’ve googled and the publicity shots are more traditional FL’s, it looks like you’ll have to watch the show to see the pics I’m referring to.

 

[woof woof]

So, the question is, is the WA portrait becoming the new norm? Is this now the view we’re used to seeing of ourselves? And will it or has it already started to change the way customers are expecting to see themselves.

I'm not a professional so I have no customers, so I'm sorry for butting in.

If it is becoming the norm is it mostly because of smartphones?

I read a blog some time ago in which the guy (I think) used a 12-24mm or something like that and his pictures were striking and obviously took imagination and thought. I can't remember who it was though so I can't provide a link. From what I remember they weren't head and shoulders though and instead showed and accentuated body shapes or incorporated more of the environment. Good stuff though. Manny Ortis has also posted some wide angle people shots but again AFAIK not head and shoulders and the perspective distortion is there to be seen in some, if you see and recognise it and I don't think we can make too many assumptions about what people see and recognise or what they like.

 

[Erty]

Don't forget the on-camera single LED flash* which is pretty much in line with the lens.

They will still see a better picture every day when they look in the mirror and expect themselves to look like that. So I can't see much demand for wide angle portraits.

If they have got, say, 12 megapixels on the camera sensor and the picture is going to be used on facebook (2 megapixels); there should be scope to crop an image from a 28mm equivalent lens to the more sympathetic 70mm with a bit of distance. But only photographers would know to do this.


*https://www.digikey.com/en/articles...leds?msockid=3fbc0568e23064202600171be6306242

 

[Phil V]

I read a blog some time ago in which the guy (I think) used a 12-24mm or something like that and his pictures were striking and obviously took imagination and thought. I can't remember who it was though so I can't provide a link. From what I remember they weren't head and shoulders though and instead showed and accentuated body shapes or incorporated more of the environment. Good stuff though. Manny Ortis has also posted some wide angle people shots but again AFAIK not head and shoulders and the perspective distortion is there to be seen in some, if you see and recognise it and I don't think we can make too many assumptions about what people see and recognise or what they like.

This is what I alluded to in my opening paragraph. There are many focal lengths used to produce different kinds of images.

If it is becoming the norm is it mostly because of smartphones?

I believe so.

 

[cuthbert]

So this is quite an interesting subject to me. I’ve taken over the years lots of corporate headshot and over the last couple of years, I started to get people tell me that they didn’t like my photos and they made them look “fat”.

at the time I was using a 135 f/2 (the reason is that I would shoot these particular headshots in font of a large glass atrium window and this length lens enabled me to fit everything in the frame) and it looked very businessy (but it only works at a certain angle with a long lens)

So I did offer to reshoot a couple at 35 a bit further away and the client much preferred it and said it looked more natural.

85mm gets better feedback than 135mm, but generally outside of headshots a I’m seeing a lot of people seem to prefer 24 - 50mm.

I think there are a few trends in photography spurred on by mobile phones - I’ve seen a move away from wider apertures too (which isn’t a bad thing).

Whenever I get somebody who says a 85mm photo makes them look fat, I send them this link

Amazing how focal length affect shape of the face

Its always difficult to answer what is the best focal length for a portrait. Here is small preview how different focal lengths can change look of a face.

www.danvojtech.cz

And this not only makes them feel better but explains the phenomenon - and I do offer to retake with a shorter lens.

I didn’t used to like portraits shot at 35mm, but over time I’ve warmed to them and I can see why some people find the compression of telephoto lenses unflattering and flat.

 

[woof woof]

This is what I alluded to in my opening paragraph. There are many focal lengths used to produce different kinds of images.

I think a lot depends on what we want. If we want a head and shoulder shot I'd be using a longer than "normal" lens but not vastly longer even if there's infinite room to back up. I think 135mm would be at the very longer end for me for the reasons highlighted in the link above (especially if the subject is your wife and she is already conscious of having a "big face") and at the other end once we get ever further into the wider than "normal" end perspective implications become ever more visible for head and shoulders pictures. I'd much rather include more of the subject and some context though but no one is asking me for head and shoulder shots.

I can see the reason for head and shoulder shots and that framing does to an extent decide the kit and to an extent the settings too assuming you want some depth to be present.

 

[woof woof]

I didn’t used to like portraits shot at 35mm, but over time I’ve warmed to them and I can see why some people find the compression of telephoto lenses unflattering and flat.

Are you happy with 35mm head and shoulder shots or are you including more of the subject?

 

[Nod]

I think Alan's right - it's the "fault" of smartphones, more specifically selfies. Not the most flattering look IMO!

 

[Phil V]

I think Alan's right - it's the "fault" of smartphones, more specifically selfies. Not the most flattering look IMO!

There’s another side to this though. For many people, they practice a ‘look’ that works for selfies, this is honed to perfection and is their idealised view of themselves.
Unfortunately it’s almost impossible for a casual photographer to shoot these people and meet their expectations.

 

[swanseamale47]

I watched a video the other day and the photographer was telling his viewers theres no right or wrong lens for a portrait, indeed he shot the same model on various FL just to show it didnt make a difference.
Personally I think it does make a difference. I've always favored 85-135mm as the "nicest" IMHO. Yes you can use longer or wider... but 85-135mm works for me.

 

[Dave Goodier]

As you know Phil, more traditional togs will say 85-135mm (FX equivalent) is the preferred range

Wider, and especially much wider, for me, seems more like creating 'character' shots

What I see changing more is the aperture used

When I first started f8 would be the norm so nose & ears are pretty much in focus, then it went right through to as wide as f1.2, meaning only the eyes were sharp and the nose/ears could be so OoF as to seem bizarre. I think its swinging back a bit now and I certainly never shoot wider than f4 or f2.8

 

[benc98]

I think I know the photos you mean.. are they taken specifically as a prop / decoration for that set? the breakfast table. I think it's a specific photo / print for that room - they almost have a painterly look (over edited?) to them and don't look photo realistic (I may mis remember). I don't think this is typical.

 

[Eucris]

This thread was inspired by the latest series of the Traitors, which I admit to enjoying. However, what’s caught my attention are the Head and Shoulder ‘portraits’ of each contestant which hang on the wall. And which all appear to have been taken with a wide angle lens as per a phone ‘selfie’. They’re rarely flattering and also ‘suffer’ from some eye and teeth enhancing etc.

I thought the portraits were supposed to be caricatures.

 

[Dave Goodier]

but 85-135mm works for me.

Ha - you typed & posted that seconds before me

 

[swanseamale47]

I thought the portraits were supposed to be caricatures.

Any portrait of me is...

 

[cuthbert]

Are you happy with 35mm head and shoulder shots or are you including more of the subject?

It looks fine -i shoot waist height so I’m not too close. Sometimes I will use a 50mm, or even a 24-70 towards the longer end - I don’t tend to take really tight headshots - they’re actually taken quite loosely framed in landscape even with the 85mm so they can be used in different media - with this particular client my images are often used in booklets and print where they incorporate the bokeh from the backdrop into the page (text overlayed onto it so that helps).

With wider lenses I take a few frames where I defocus the lens to get the bokeh in the backdrop filling the frame but shop it in later to work around the issue of the 35mm not magnifying the background to the same degree - it’s not ideal but it works well and these are very rarely all used together so you don’t really notice the different focal length - which you can a bit when you see 35mm and 85mm side by side

 

[woof woof]

It looks fine -i shoot waist height so I’m not too close. Sometimes I will use a 50mm, or even a 24-70 towards the longer end - I don’t tend to take really tight headshots - they’re actually taken quite loosely framed in landscape even with the 85mm so they can be used in different media - with this particular client my images are often used in booklets and print where they incorporate the bokeh from the backdrop into the page (text overlayed onto it so that helps).

With wider lenses I take a few frames where I defocus the lens to get the bokeh in the backdrop filling the frame but shop it in later to work around the issue of the 35mm not magnifying the background to the same degree - it’s not ideal but it works well and these are very rarely all used together so you don’t really notice the different focal length - which you can a bit when you see 35mm and 85mm side by side

Thank you for the detailed reply, I'm happy with 35mm for slightly wider than head and shoulders. I've just printed and framed two I'm happy with, both are just above the elbow with just a bit of space above the head so that's a bit tighter than you. There's no really obvious perspective issues for me but that could change with body posture if arms, legs or anything else is nearer the camera.

 

[Phil V]

I thought the portraits were supposed to be caricatures.

They’re heavily edited, but it certainly looks like they’re based on photographs shot at around 28mm.

 

[zx9]

My son who is twenty three and is now getting into 35mm film photography after growing up with phone photography actively sort out a wide aperture 28mm lens for portrait shots. Whilst wanting to help and guide him, in no way do I want him to take pictures like dad does. I am looking forward to seeing what he makes of 28mm f/1.9 (?) on his Nikon FG20 , for me I would reach for my 85mm f/1.4 C/Y but that is so 1980's.

 

[Nod]

There’s another side to this though. For many people, they practice a ‘look’ that works for selfies, this is honed to perfection and is their idealised view of themselves.
Unfortunately it’s almost impossible for a casual photographer to shoot these people and meet their expectations.

The look that "works" for selfies is like polishing turds! IMO!!!

 

[swanseamale47]

The look that "works" for selfies is like polishing turds! IMO!!!

Occasionally I do a fun "selfie" pic of the bride and friends at wedding, 16mm lens on FF and get in real close, strangly they love it. I suppose it's what they are used to seeing.

 

[woof woof]

Occasionally I do a fun "selfie" pic of the bride and friends at wedding, 16mm lens on FF and get in real close, strangly they love it. I suppose it's what they are used to seeing.

The odd picture like that could be fun and I could be wrong but I doubt they'd be happy in the long term with a whole album full of pictures like that.

 

[Nod]

I've done fun "portraits" using an 8mm circular fisheye. About as flattering as you'd imagine!

 

[swanseamale47]

The odd picture like that could be fun and I could be wrong but I doubt they'd be happy in the long term with a whole album full of pictures like that.

I doubt they'd like an album full too. It's just one of the fun shots we sometimes do, usually towards the end of the night Not sure how many end up in the actual album itself, but they do sometimes post them on social media... or antisocial media as I call it.

 

[sk66]

I don't think WA will become "the norm," nor do I believe such selfie/cell phone type images will change the way we perceive ourselves/each other.

Or perception of ourselves/others is much more subconscious and based heavily on 2D/monocular vision and cues. I also think it is probably somewhat influenced by culture and age/health... i.e. the typical "personal space" allowance/requirement we use as our minimum viewing distance in daily life. I.e. the "normal lens" was selected as it suites the way we perceive the world; it didn't create nor alter the way we see it.

But I do think it is already much more accepted as "a look/style."

 

[Erty]

Just tried it. It looks wrong. Even taken at arms length it looks bad. At about 1m distance it is okay, but my head is 1/6 of the height of the picture (a bit like 85mm?)