How different Focal length changes the face

[Tommo1965]

Not sure if this video has been posted before..if it has its worth a repost as I found it very informative and others might have some use for it too.

[Ms Monny]

Very interesting!! Amazing how the face distorts and it is great to see the 100mm up against the 24mm and the difference between the two. Yep, I learnt something!

[Tommo1965]

yes I always knew that portrait togs preferred a FL around the 100mm mark..but quite honestly never knew why..now I do ...quite interesting to see even how much a 50mm distorts too

[ameerat42]

...I found it very informative and others might have some use for it too...

Very interesting!! Amazing how the face distorts and it is great to see the 100mm up against the 24mm and the difference between the two. Yep, I learnt something!

HH!

Sure! And with such a "hip" pr"ee"sentation, they NEGLECTED to point out that it is actually the subject distance that is the determining factor in (such as facial) distortion.

NOWHERE, did I see (about 2/3 of the way through I got sick of the hype and pushed the video along) any mention of subject distance.

Very informative indeed! It showed you their lenses and set-up. Oh, photography? Well, I must concede they did use some cameras.

Point of the show? OK, I give up!

H(Am)bug.

Edit:

yes I always knew that portrait togs preferred a FL around the 100mm mark..but quite honestly never knew why..now I do ...quite interesting to see even how much a 50mm distorts too

Oh, Ste-e-eve!

[Ezookiel]

What was with the last part after the ads where they attack a printer with axes while dressed as pirates?
The first part was really helpful though.
Just a question for those who know more about this. Would dialling up some lens correction in PP fix some of that distortion effect he demonstrates here?

[Tommo1965]

HH!

Sure! And with such a "hip" pr"ee"sentation, they NEGLECTED to point out that it is actually the subject distance that is the determining factor in (such as facial) distortion.

NOWHERE, did I see (about 2/3 of the way through I got sick of the hype and pushed the video along) any mention of subject distance.

Very informative indeed! It showed you their lenses and set-up. Oh, photography? Well, I must concede they did use some cameras.

Point of the show? OK, I give up!

H(Am)bug.

Edit:



Oh, Ste-e-eve!

LMAO

I think that the point was made to keep the subject the same size in the frame and was a given that you'd need to be closer to the subject as the lens got wider..eg subject distance

look at the beginning and around 2.30

[Ms Monny]

Yep!! He mentioned that the face filled the frame and it did all the way through the images. So it was a HEAD SHOT not a full body etc shot. This determined the distance.

[ameerat42]

Steve and Monika. I agree he did, but then just kept going on with the simplified theme that FL causes distortion.
As a demonstration it's OK, but the explanation...

Anyway, as long as you have a pinch pf photographic salts to take.
Am.

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day all

In the portraiture module of my workshops I get students to take pix at 55mm and also 135mm ~ shooting head shots & head & chest shots here ~ and they are all amazed at the differences to the facial features ... as well as the depth of field / background blur

For my money - I'd prefer to do serious portraiture in the 85 - 135 zone - never with less than 55 anyway
Regards, Phil

[gbamber]

I've been plating with different focal lengths, it is amazing the difference it makes

[I @ M]

An awful lot depends on how the subject wants to see themselves versus how you want to portray them.