50mm V 85mm article. Portraits

Dj R wrote in post #16519697
I agree, it could have been laid out more carefully.
but it's all accurate.

I can't argue with that; what was said in the article was correct. It's what was omitted (any reference to subject distance) that was the problem for me as it implies the wrong cause for the observed effect.

Wilt wrote in post #16518875
If you want to shoot head and shoulders portraits, absolutely DO NOT USE 35mm FL even on an APS-C body...you ought to be using about 60mm on APS-C (or 100mm on FF) to do head and shoulders portraiture, because anything less is inviting induced perspective distortion! Shooting with 35mm FL from 8-9' away, and then cropping off about 2/3 of the frame in each dimension is a very foolish way of accomplishing good perspective from a 35mm lens to get a head and shoulders shot!

85mm is fine for waist-up shots, but getting a bit close and inviting perspective distortion for head and shoulders...you have to be 7.5' with 85mm to frame a 36" x 24" area, 8.7' away with 100mm to frame same area.

yeah, i use 200mm for headshots. with FF, i didn't even like half body shots with the 35

Wilt wrote in post #16519666

• 50mm in FF is good 'full length standing portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 85mm in FF is good 'waist-up portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 100mm in FF is good 'head & shoulders portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 150mm in FF is good 'tight headshot' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio.
  

But...

• 30mm in APS-C is good 'full length standing' portrait FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 50mm in APS-C is good 'waist-up portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 60mm in APS-C is good 'head & shoulders portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 90mm in APS-C is good 'tight headshot' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio.
  

Do all of these rules apply if someone isn't posing for the shot??
Let's say you take a shoot at a wedding of a family member (who isn't even aware that you are shooting them) from the side and they are not looking into the camera..?

Also let's say you are taking a picture of a model laying on a bed or the floor and you are shooting in from around 30degrees, so face in focus and rest of body slowly going out of focus, which lens would be used for that ??

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16520622
Do all of these rules apply if someone isn't posing for the shot??
Let's say you take a shoot at a wedding of a family member (who isn't even aware that you are shooting them) from the side and they are not looking into the camera..?

you never know, thats what zoom lenses are for.

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16520622
Also let's say you are taking a picture of a model laying on a bed or the floor and you are shooting in from around 30degrees, so face in focus and rest of body slowly going out of focus, which lens would be used for that ??

thats what fast 50's & 85's are for

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16520622
Do all of these rules apply if someone isn't posing for the shot??
Let's say you take a shoot at a wedding of a family member (who isn't even aware that you are shooting them) from the side and they are not looking into the camera..?

Also let's say you are taking a picture of a model laying on a bed or the floor and you are shooting in from around 30degrees, so face in focus and rest of body slowly going out of focus, which lens would be used for that ??

Also... Do all of the rules apply when taking portraits with more than one subject??

ramair455 wrote in post #16520642
you never know, thats what zoom lenses are for.

I am not quite sure if that has answered my question

Maybe I can generalise a bit here, with some different "rules":
Choose where to stand based on the perspective and general composition you want.
Choose a focal length to achieve the framing you want.
Choose an aperture to get the DoF you want.
Choose shutter speed and ISO to get the brightness (if I said exposure, someone would argue that ISO is not a component of exposure) you want, within the constraints of subject and camera motion and acceptable image noise.
No solution given the situation, light and available gear? Compromise on one of the above.

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16520622
Do all of these rules apply if someone isn't posing for the shot??
Let's say you take a shoot at a wedding of a family member (who isn't even aware that you are shooting them) from the side and they are not looking into the camera..?

First of all, if the subject is not aware and/or is not posed by the photographer, it isn't a formal portrait as much as it is a 'candid'.

To use Wikipedia's definition:
"A candid photograph is a photograph that is captured through motion mostly, without creating a posed appearance. This is achieved by avoiding prior preparation of the subject and by either surprising the subject or by not distracting the subject during the process of taking photos.[1] Thus, the candid character of a photo is regardless of the subject's knowledge or consent as to the fact that photos are being taken, and regardless of the subject's permission for subsequent usage such as distribution, but related to the apparent absence of posing. "

Nick_Reading wrote:
Also let's say you are taking a picture of a model laying on a bed or the floor and you are shooting in from around 30degrees, so face in focus and rest of body slowly going out of focus, which lens would be used for that ??

The FL is chosen by the photographer to provide the suitable FRAMING for a given shooting distance. Yes you could have identical subject framing (although a difference in 'perspective') using 100mm at 9' or 400mm at 36', more likely the subject is conscious of your presence and activity (shooting) and even taking directions from you at 9', but (assuming you are shy) has no idea of your presence or activity or subject when you are multiple car lengths away.
But depending upon the rate of decline of 'in focus', you are more likely to do that with the longer lens if you want really blurry feet, than if you are after a more gradual decline of 'in focus'...even for the same DOF from both lenses!

Wilt wrote in post #16519666
A good amount of confusion in the FL discussion is caused entirely by the fact that Canon lenses are described (by Canon) in the context of usage on FF sized images, NOT in the context of APS-C sized images. Another problem is the very generic reference to 'portrait', which means so very differently to different folks, just like 'transportation' means very different vehicles to different people!

• 50mm in FF is good 'full length standing portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 85mm in FF is good 'waist-up portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 100mm in FF is good 'head & shoulders portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 150mm in FF is good 'tight headshot' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio.

But...

• 30mm in APS-C is good 'full length standing' portrait FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 50mm in APS-C is good 'waist-up portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 60mm in APS-C is good 'head & shoulders portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  
• 90mm in APS-C is good 'tight headshot' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio.

So we see that 100mm lens is a good 'portraiture' lens ONLY in the context of FF cameras! And 135mm is 'good portrait' lens only in the context of shooting from farther away than 8-10' (which is quite common particularly among those too shy or reluctant to interact with their subject from 8-10' away!)

These "rules" are meant to be broken. Just looking at what you're saying about 100mm lenses, why have I seen hundreds of great portrait shots with a 100mm lens on crop cameras? And why are there great portraits taken with lenses far longer than this? I'm certainly glad I never followed these "rules". I would have missed out on quite a few good shots. One of the best head or head and shoulders outdoor portrait lenses is the 200mm 2.8 (and of course, the 200mm f2 is even more remarkable). I've seen great portraits taken with 200mm lenses on full frame and crop cameras.
I also really like full length standing portraits with the 135mm f2. Of course this lens can produce beautiful head shots as well. But your guidelines above would say these lenses are far too long for good results, and that's just not accurate.

I say forget these rules, go out and experiment with your portraits. Use longer lenses and see what your results are. You won't be arrested for breaking these "rules" and you may end up with some wonderful portraits.

I'm calling the cops!

Jerobean wrote in post #16518507
I've found stilts more usable.

when I brought my ladder into the studio, I found I didn't have much room to have it opened up. however, on my stilts, I can recompose and my size profile is the same as without them.

these are the model I use. I find the jumping capability a plus as well, makes for some fun shots.

Since you would look so goofy I guess you don't have any trouble getting your subject to smile.

Just what size studio would have room for jumping stilts but no room for a ladder?

You do know somebody is going to read this and think you are serious and possibly even try it, right?

nightcat wrote in post #16521159
These "rules" are meant to be broken. Just looking at what you're saying about 100mm lenses, why have I seen hundreds of great portrait shots with a 100mm lens on crop cameras? And why are there great portraits taken with lenses far longer than this? I'm certainly glad I never followed these "rules". I would have missed out on quite a few good shots. One of the best head or head and shoulders outdoor portrait lenses is the 200mm 2.8 (and of course, the 200mm f2 is even more remarkable). I've seen great portraits taken with 200mm lenses on full frame and crop cameras.
I also really like full length standing portraits with the 135mm f2. Of course this lens can produce beautiful head shots as well. But your guidelines above would say these lenses are far too long for good results, and that's just not accurate.

I say forget these rules, go out and experiment with your portraits. Use longer lenses and see what your results are. You won't be arrested for breaking these "rules" and you may end up with some wonderful portraits.

These are not 'rules'!!! They represent reality...

These guidelines are FL generally found by tens of thousands of professional photographers shooting 135 format over decades with studios with not unlimited shooting spaces, to WORK WELL! Most pros with studios don't necessarily have the luxury of 40' shooting spaces, they make do with 25-30'. Most amateurs are lucky to find 25' and that space is more rapidly consumed than most amateurs can comprehend...

• 3' for backdrop;
  
• 5-6' for space between subject and backdrop so that backdrop can be well lit independently and also blurred outside the DOF zone;
  
• 2' for the subject;
  
• 8-10' between subject and camera;
  
• 2' for the camera/tripod;
  
• 3' of walking space behind camera
  

Wilt, you and I have discussed this before. Yes you did mention studio in your initial post, and I know my example was outdoors. However, my preference for longer portrait lenses covers indoor photos too. I love indoor head shots and head & shoulder shots with a 100mm or a 135mm. I've also seen many examples posted on this forum of indoor portraits with similar focal lengths that are stunning. Yes, these guidelines that you posted have been followed by many photographers over the years, but I don't believe that you have to strictly follow them at all times. And yes, there is a slight facial perspective that changes with longer lenses, but I rarely find this to be unflattering. I think we may agree with usage of wide lenses, such as a 35mm for a head and shoulders shot. The change in facial perspective in this situation to me is usually very unflattering.

FYI, Seb is also a Potner.

nightcat wrote in post #16522060
Wilt, you and I have discussed this before. Yes you did mention studio in your initial post, and I know my example was outdoors. However, my preference for longer portrait lenses covers indoor photos too. I love indoor head shots and head & shoulder shots with a 100mm or a 135mm. I've also seen many examples posted on this forum of indoor portraits with similar focal lengths that are stunning. Yes, these guidelines that you posted have been followed by many photographers over the years, but I don't believe that you have to strictly follow them at all times. And yes, there is a slight facial perspective that changes with longer lenses, but I rarely find this to be unflattering. I think we may agree with usage of wide lenses, such as a 35mm for a head and shoulders shot. The change in facial perspective in this situation to me is usually very unflattering.

Classically, lenses within the range of 80mm - 105mm have merited the label 'portrait lens' for 135 format. It is not a hard lined distinction, though. If one wants to shoot a head & shoulders shot with 135mm lens, you simply HAVE TO HAVE sufficient space...1.35x more distance than 100mm. So even if we like the facial perspective, if we do not have the space it cannot be done. The label 'portrait lens' did not happen by accident to the 80-105mm class. Personally, I have done many outdoor 'portrait' shots with 135mm in the past. The shots looked fine to me.
I have also done tight headshots with 135mm...but I would prefer 150-180mm for a headshot, if I had my druthers