Newbie photographer C and C please :)

[stillinamerica]

Hi! I have been taking pics with a Cannon rebel xsi I got for my wife in May. Completely new to photography ad am excited to have found this forum...just looking for a littel C and C on pictures that I took that I personally like, however I am fully aware that we all have different tastes and styles so curious to see your thoughts! Thanks in Advance!

[Robert_Lay]

The important facts here are that you used flash and that you used a 27 mm focal length. The flash is undoubtedly responsible for the flat lighting.

The focal length is too short for portraits - the result is very noticeable distortion (the closer you are to the subject, the worse the distortion can be).

Using lighting that creates shadows on the face improves the illusion of 3-dimensionality.

Using a focal length of 50 mm x the crop factor => 85 avoids distortion.

In other words, with your camera, the shortest focal length lens for this work would be at least 50 mm.

[stillinamerica]

Robert..awesome and thank you for your spot on reply. Thanks for the tips....I will keep the 50mm at the forefront of my mind! Cheers

[howaboutnow]

I like the second one, but it's too bad the kids are not facing eachother or doing something else. Nice colors in this one.

[AlphaChicken]

I think the first one is really cute and I will go as far as saying that the distortion works too. Looks like the kid is leaning or crawling right up to the photographer; it has a cute effect.

And Robert, I disagree that you straight up can't take portraits with anything that distorts. I flat out disagree. Maybe for a traditional portrait; who is still interested in traditional though?

Photography is a type of art regardless of the subject or the purpose. Art has some very basic rules. But not many. And especially none that are as constricting as saying that any lens with distortion is not appropriate for portraits.

Plus, even 85mm distorts. It does not do it so much, but if you look, it does.

[pwm2]

Using a focal length of 50 mm x the crop factor => 85 avoids distortion.
Don't y ou mean 50mm / the crop factor?

It would be a bit strange to use a large-format camera with a 10mm lens

Plus, even 85mm distorts. It does not do it so much, but if you look, it does.
The question here is if the lens compresses the image in a similar way as our eyes. In many situations, we aren't used to see the exagerated difference in size between different body parts caused by a wide-angle lens.

[LeuceDeuce]

Don't y ou mean 50mm / the crop factor?

It would be a bit strange to use a large-format camera with a 10mm lens


The question here is if the lens compresses the image in a similar way as our eyes. In many situations, we aren't used to see the exagerated difference in size between different body parts caused by a wide-angle lens.

It's a Rebel not a large format so the crop factor is 1.6, and yes it's 50 * 1.6 = 80.

[pwm2]

It's a Rebel not a large format so the crop factor is 1.6, and yes it's 50 * 1.6 = 80.
Thank you for telling me the obvious.

But think about the quoted formula. If a "crop factor" is how much smaller a sensor is than a 35mm sensor, then a LF camera would have a crop factor less than 1.0, because of its large sensor. So a LF camera should then have a very, very short focal length.

And in the other direction, a P&S camera with a tiny sensor should be required to have a 500mm equivalent lens.

A good formula should aim to have the same field-of-view whatever camera you have, which mean that the focal length is proportional to the sensor size, and not reciprocal. This formula says that a LF camera should use an ultra-wide lens, while a P&S should use super-tele.

[LeuceDeuce]

Thank you for telling me the obvious.

But think about the quoted formula. If a "crop factor" is how much smaller a sensor is than a 35mm sensor, then a LF camera would have a crop factor less than 1.0, because of its large sensor. So a LF camera should then have a very, very short focal length.

And in the other direction, a P&S camera with a tiny sensor should be required to have a 500mm equivalent lens.

A good formula should aim to have the same field-of-view whatever camera you have, which mean that the focal length is proportional to the sensor size, and not reciprocal. This formula says that a LF camera should use an ultra-wide lens, while a P&S should use super-tele.

I'm not trying to be confrontational just for the sake of it. I think you're wrong.

My G9 has a crop factor of approx 4.7

That means that I would need to shoot at 17mm to achieve a field of view similar to 80mm on a full frame camera.

17mm * 4.7 = 80mm equivalent (not 500mm)

I don't even know what the crop factor is on a large format camera is but for arguments sake let's assume that it is 0.5 (something less than 1)

160mm * 0.5 = 80mm equivalent (not 10mm)

[Robert_Lay]

I think the first one is really cute and I will go as far as saying that the distortion works too. Looks like the kid is leaning or crawling right up to the photographer; it has a cute effect.

And Robert, I disagree that you straight up can't take portraits with anything that distorts. I flat out disagree. Maybe for a traditional portrait; who is still interested in traditional though?

Photography is a type of art regardless of the subject or the purpose. Art has some very basic rules. But not many. And especially none that are as constricting as saying that any lens with distortion is not appropriate for portraits.

Plus, even 85mm distorts. It does not do it so much, but if you look, it does.

I wouldn't argue with you about it, because it isn't something I invented - it's a rule that has been around for over 40 years that I'm aware of. Ask anybody!

[Robert_Lay]

I see that I forgot to comment on the silhouette.

It's beautiful - congratulations on that one.!

[Robert_Lay]

I'm not trying to be confrontational just for the sake of it. I think you're wrong.

My G9 has a crop factor of approx 4.7

That means that I would need to shoot at 17mm to achieve a field of view similar to 80mm on a full frame camera.

17mm * 4.7 = 80mm equivalent (not 500mm)

I don't even know what the crop factor is on a large format camera is but for arguments sake let's assume that it is 0.5 (something less than 1)

160mm * 0.5 = 80mm equivalent (not 10mm)

I agree 100% with Chris. That's the way the crop factor is established throughout the Canon system. However, you both are giving the same facts while trying to give the facts a different meaning.

[pwm2]

Correct. Your formula is <recommended FL> * <crop factor> => <equivalent FL> which is rewritten to <equivalent FL> / <crop factor> => <recommended FL>.

But the original formula was 50mm * <crop factor>.
Using a focal length of 50 mm x the crop factor => 85 avoids distortion.

50mm * 4.7 => 235 mm for yuor G9.
50mm * 0.5 => 25 mm for your arbitrary "large format" camera.

If the original post had instead said 128 mm / <crop factor> => <recommended FL> it would have produced:
128mm / 1.6 => 80mm
128mm / 4.7 => 27mm
128mm / 0.5 => 256mm

[LeuceDeuce]

But the original formula was 50mm * <crop factor>.


That would be because (ironically for simplicity sake) the original formula was given for the specific camera that the OP owns rather than a universal formula to be applied to any camera.

Since the OP is a new user Bob gave the most simple and direct guidance. Now I'm sure that we've confused the hell out of him :)

[pwm2]

That would be because (ironically for simplicity sake) the original formula was given for the specific camera that the OP owns rather than a universal formula to be applied to any camera.

Since the OP is a new user Bob gave the most simple and direct guidance. Now I'm sure that we've confused the hell out of him :)
No. It was because the formula (together with the text) was given in the wrong direction for the intended result.

When you set up an equation, you can set it up in multiple directions, depending on what your unknown is.

You can set up the formula v * t = s, to compute how long distance you will travel in a fixed time. Or you can set up the formula s / t = v, to compute how fast you should drive to travel a specific distance in a fixed time. Or you can set up the formula s / v = t to compute how long time it would take to drive a specific distance at a known speed.

The formula - as presented - did use a magic constant 50mm and multiplied with 1.6 to suggest that the OP should use a 80mm lens. The formula should have been presented in the reverse direction, i.e. it should have said:
"Using a focal length of 80 mm / the crop factor => 50 avoids distortion."
That was the reason why I made my initial post, asking if he didn't intend to perform a division with the crop factor. My intention wasn't that the multiplication should just be replaced with a division, but that the formula should have been rewritten so that it does compute the result the text implies that it computes. For an experienced photographer, it may be obvious that the formula should be rewritten, since the alternative use of the formula would lead to the obviously incorrect result that a LF camera should use a UWA while a little P&S should use a super tele lens. But when posting a formula in a thread with the title "Newbie photographer C and C please :)", the formula should from the start have been presented in the correct form so that the result of the equation would match the claim.

[stillinamerica]

Sorry to have created a debate as such...thanks for the kind comments on my pics though, very encouraging! cheers

[Robert_Lay]

I made the rash assumption that people would automatically understand the math involved without the benefit of a more thorough discussion of how I was using it, etc.

In fact, as I look at it now, I can clearly see that unless you just happened to be thinking about it the same way I was thinking about it, you would get lost.

In other words, I should not have just plopped it down and hope that the point would get across.

I apologize for that and will try to do better next time. Meanwhile, the whole thing is becoming a gigantic embarassment:o

[pwm2]

I apologize for that and will try to do better next time. Meanwhile, the whole thing is becoming a gigantic embarassment:o
Not at all. If I had made a better first response showing the rewritten formula, there wouldn't have been a debate. After all, the original formula is correct as long as the reader knows what it computes.

[gibbit1]

OK, so if you two are done talking about math, I'd like to get back to the pictures.

I think the OP did a fantastic job, especially for a newbie to photography. You have an excellent eye for composition and opportunity. I agree that a wide-angle lens distorts perspective and shouldn't be used in most portrait situations, but here it works very well. After all, babies are all about distorted proportions, what with their big eyes and small bodies and all. The wide-angle lens emphasized this, creating a quirky photo suitable for showing her/his prom date in about 17 years.

The silhouette works very well, too. The one girl walking away from the other with her head down seems to tell a story, but the viewer gets to make their own inference as to just what that story is. I don't know if you actively considered this or just got lucky, but you did a nice job either way. Keep it up.

[djvkool]

Nice Silhouette on the 2nd one, IMHO the crop is way to tight though...