Portrait photo advise

[Nicholas D]

Hello, I'm having trouble taking portrait pics of my girlfriend. Although she is very pretty imho she is not photogenic at all. Many features like her nose (which is long) just don't come out right in the photos. I did some research and this is most likely do to perspective distortion. It seem that the best way to solve this would be to get my hands on a 35mm and lenses with focal lengths about 85 through 135mm.

Thing is I just bought a G6 and don't wanna give it up for anything else (not crazy about buying a new cam either). Would buying a Tele-converter solve my problems? Would soft light help? Anything else I can do?
I'm very new to photography and any advise would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

[pcguy]

If perspective distortion is something you are having issues with, I would suggest moving back from the subject somewhat, and make use of the optical zoom available to you on your current camera. just stepping back a little bit and zooming into the 85mm equivalent range would tend to eliminate the distortions you appear to be experiencing, A 35mm camera with 85-135mm lens is not needed. The g6 will do just fine and has an equivalent optical length available. I have a powershot pro 1 and its lens is marked with the 35mm equivalent focal lengths of the zoom, but I dont think the g6 does. I will let someome more knowledgable on the g6 chime in here on how to tell when the g6 is at the right range...

[Nicholas D]

[QUOTE=pcguy]If perspective distortion is something you are having issues with, I would suggest moving back from the subject somewhat, and make use of the optical zoom available to you on your current camera. just stepping back a little bit and zooming into the 85mm equivalent range would tend to eliminate the distortions you appear to be experiencingQUOTE]

Thanks pcguy!! lol

Yea this is what I have been doing (moving back and zooming) and alhtough it helps a lot it doesn't quite do the trick. I don't know if it's just perspective distortion but I can't think of anything else. I don't know how to explain it either...all I can say is that a picture of me with the G6 looks a lot more like my image in the mirror while my girlfriend looks different.

[pcguy]

Have you experimented any with lighting techniques? This can also play a large role in how well or bad the results are. I do know that lighting is quite different in most cases when doing portraiture for men vs for women. There tends to be different lighting depending on the sex to give the most flattering images, or at least what is generally perceived. I would recommend picking up a book on portrait photography. I have a book that shows many different portrait shots, then discusses the setup and lighting used for each, along with why they choose that setup. There is lots of information on common portrait practices etc... I am sure there are several similar books on the market that would fit this need for you. Just remember, light plays an equaly if not more important role than the subject or the other equipment involved. You will hear lots of talk about fill light, key lights etc.... In the end though, the only person who knows exactly what you want is you, the trick is figuring out how to do it.

I hope all this makes sense. I am by no means a pro myself, so I am still learning along with the rest of us on the forum :)

[verT]

If she has a long nose you want her facing you as close to straight on as possible. If you are just using the G6 and no additional flash get her in as much natural light as you can, with out it being super sunny out. A light overcast day in a park should yeild nice results if you can get her face angled properly. I've just recently bought a flash and I can't believe the difference it makes with indoor shots. Best advice is to keep trying and keep experimenting. I'm two years into the game and still know nothing....

[Nicholas D]

Thanks guys. Don't know how much longer she is gonna tolerate me...I'd better get a new subject. I'll try the natural light method verT although I though that soft light complemented while natural did the opposite. Now wondering whether I should get a new flash...
I'm begging to understand more and more how little I know about the meaning of the word "photogenic".

[RAW]

When getting up close the least facial distortion you are going to get is with 35mm or 50 mm focal length...this are so called normal focal lengths.


Regards,
Artan.

[Mannytkd]

No-one has mentioned using a reflector, using natural light is great but you will still get terribls shadows of you not carefull and bounceing light back into the shadows will or almost rid them shadows. If you don't have one, you can use just about anything that's reflective, E.G.... a large-ish piece of tinfoil over some cardboard or a small piece of white cloth cellotaped to the back of the cardboard, you could then ask her to hold the reflector at the angle you choose for head and shoulder shot, you see it working straight away, just bounce the light youself and then move it away and you can see it doing it's job??!!

Good luck.

Thanks guys. Don't know how much longer she is gonna tolerate me...I'd better get a new subject. I'll try the natural light method verT although I though that soft light complemented while natural did the opposite. Now wondering whether I should get a new flash...
I'm begging to understand more and more how little I know about the meaning of the word "photogenic".

[Andy_T]

When getting up close the least facial distortion you are going to get is with 35mm or 50 mm focal length...this are so called normal focal lengths.


Artan,

I am afraid that is totally incorrect.

Actually, the focal length of the lens has nothing to do with distortion, it is all the fault of your distance to the subject (closer=more distortion, nose more prominent).

When using a 'normal lens' (50 mm focal length on 35 mm full frame SLR), you do NOT want to get close to her. This will ensure facial distortion and make her nose look even bigger.

(On a sidenote, the 'normal' lens is called thus not because it gives the most 'normal' field of view, but rather because it was there andreadily available when the first rangefinder cameras were introduced. So it really is just a name. There should be a thread with more details on that in the EOS forum.)

Rather, you step further back so that her head and shoulders fill the frame when using 80 mm focal length ('optimal' portrait for 'normal' people).

With somebody with a prominent nose, you might look to it that her head and shoulders fill the frame nicely at 135 mm focal length. When you use 50 mm focal length, you should have the whole persion in the viewfinder (of course, you will have to crop to get a 'portrait' then).

Best regards,
Andy

[RAW]

Artan,

I am afraid that is totally incorrect.

Actually, the focal length of the lens has nothing to do with distortion, it is all the fault of your distance to the subject (closer=more distortion, nose more prominent).

When using a 'normal lens' (50 mm focal length on 35 mm full frame SLR), you do NOT want to get close to her. This will ensure facial distortion and make her nose look even bigger.

(On a sidenote, the 'normal' lens is called thus not because it gives the most 'normal' field of view, but rather because it was there andreadily available when the first rangefinder cameras were introduced. So it really is just a name. There should be a thread with more details on that in the EOS forum.)

Rather, you step further back so that her head and shoulders fill the frame when using 80 mm focal length ('optimal' portrait for 'normal' people).

With somebody with a prominent nose, you might look to it that her head and shoulders fill the frame nicely at 135 mm focal length. When you use 50 mm focal length, you should have the whole persion in the viewfinder (of course, you will have to crop to get a 'portrait' then).

Best regards,
Andy


:oops: I feel stupid and I only tried to help...;)

The only reason i wrote that is from what I read on a book that I purchased "Learning to see creatively" by Bryan Peterson...a very nice book by the way.

He (the author) mentioned it especially on a close portrait photo of a kid (the face filled the left part of the frame) and on the somewhat blured background a kid playng soccer...

So, just not to take the blame...it is his fault that I got it wrong...:D

[Ballen Photo]

(On a sidenote, the 'normal' lens is called thus not because it gives the most 'normal' field of view, but rather because it was there andreadily available when the first rangefinder cameras were introduced. So it really is just a name. There should be a thread with more details on that in the EOS forum.)



Hi Andy, I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully dissagree with this version of why a normal lens is called a "Normal" lens.
If you do a search on this topic, you'll find that MOST will agree that it's called a normal lens because it has approximately the same field of vision as the Human eye.
This is the basic interpretation I got from every photography book I have read.
Without looking it up, The 35mm equivalent range of 45mm to 55mm was included as "Aproximate" normal, I believe. :rolleyes:
Other than this, I'll leave this to the "Experts" to sort out.
BTW, The lens you choose for portraits DOES have a bearing on how close you will be for the shot, and is why the 35mm equivalent of an 85mm lens is considered the "Ideal" length, so in this instance you are both right. ;)
-Bruce

[RAW]

Hi Andy, I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully dissagree with this version of why a normal lens is called a "Normal" lens.
If you do a search on this topic, you'll find that MOST will agree that it's called a normal lens because it has approximately the same field of vision as the Human eye.
This is the basic interpretation I got from every photography book I have read.
Without looking it up, The 35mm equivalent range of 45mm to 55mm was included as "Aproximate" normal, I believe. :rolleyes:
Other than this, I'll leave this to the "Experts" to sort out.
BTW, The lens you choose for portraits DOES have a bearing on how close you will be for the shot, and is why the 35mm equivalent of an 85mm lens is considered the "Ideal" length, so in this instance you are both right. ;)
-Bruce

That is what I got from the book that I mentioned above and that is the only reason I posted my opinion.

[neil_r]

Post a picture so we can see what you mean.


N

[Andy_T]

Hi Andy, I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully dissagree with this version of why a normal lens is called a "Normal" lens.


Bruce,

it's a good thing that we can agree to disagree :D

I thought the same thing ... until I read a very informative thread on POTN (and began to think a bit more about it). I tried to summarize the contents of that thread from my memory, but I will have to try to find it again.

I think that the human eye has a vastly larger field of view. As far as I remember, the 'lateral sight' and 'frontal sight' should be distinguished, because we only see the things in front of us really sharp, but we also detect motion with not-so-good resolution in a wider field of view. You can do a test ... move one hand to the right side of your head and the other to the left ... move both hands to the front and make notice when you can see them again. With lateral view, I think that I have some 170° FOV ... quite more than a 50 mm lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[Ballen Photo]

Bruce,

it's a good thing that we can agree to disagree :D



True, and thanks for that thought Andy. :D
Now, If I may quote a paragraph from a book entitled "John Hedgecoe's New Book of Photography" which by the way, isn't new by a long shot, The last copyright I saw was 1994, published in London, New York, Munich, Melbourne, & Delhi, and it's based strictly on film cameras; A standard, or Normal lens produces an image that is roughly equivalent to the way a scene appears when viewed by the naked eye.
Now, Taking the 1.6 crop factor of say a 10D where a 30mm lens has an equivalent FOV of 48mm, which aproximates the said "Normal" range for a 35mm camera, you might consider the 30mm lens as normal for that camera.
I've seen refference to this same information in just about every book on photography that I've picked up.
If you can find that link you mentioned, I would be more than happy to read it with an open mind. ;)
-Bruce