RDKirk wrote in post #15434843
If the point is to exaggerate perspective--if that's the image the photographer is going for--then for sure...go for it and go for it big. Some of Joel Grimes work shows how he photographs his subject with a moderate wide angle lens for a fairly subtle exaggertion that blends suitably with the extreme wide angle background he's going to composite. The composite would look "off" otherwise.
But was that the case in this case, or was the exaggeration simply not noticed?
Not taking "subject depth" into account can matter even more with more than one subject. Frequently they are at differences of no more than a foot distance from the camera, but shot with a wide angle lens at close distance, that's enough to draw a measurable difference in head sizes that will be subtly objectionable to most viewers (even if they can't articulate what seems "wrong" about the image).
You are correct sir. "Subject Depth" in a composition is important. And as you said, if the photographer is trying to achieve a different perspective to the image by shooting close up with a wide angle prime, with a wide aperture so as to narrow the depth of field around the subject to achieve a uniquely dimensional image, he or she should "...go for it big". Although, I've tried portraits with wider lenses in the past (10-20mm), I find the 35mm to be just wide enough to change the perspective and subject depth of field to be "interesting" and "different" and to make the portrait unique. Maybe even "curious" would be a good word to use here. I don't believe there will come a time when I would shoot all portraits wide angle. Don't get me wrong. I love the 70-200. It is a quite useful lens. I also love shooting portraits with the 50mm f/1.2. I do some outdoor portraits with my 24-105 at times as well (more studio work with that lens though). But right now, I'm loving the feel of portraits shot with the 35mm. Who knows, maybe next month, the 70-200 will tickle me fancy once again