I tell people who will listen, "Distance controls perspective, focal length controls framing." The first thing I do is choose the distance that gives me the perspective I want. It's the perspective, the relationship between the subject and the environment, that I see first, as well as how I want the subject to be drawn. Sometimes I want expanded perspective, so I know to get close. _Then_ I choose the focal length for framing. That's why I prefer to use zoom lenses, so that I can change framing without changing perspective. Sure, in many cases little difference makes no difference, but in some cases the difference in perspective becomes critical.
Thanks for making this video, Daniel. For the first few years that I did business headshots I shot 85mm or longer, mainly because of "conventional wisdom." I eventually started mixing lenses during a session to give my client some variety, and to give them a sense of greater value from their session, and soon found that more often than not they were preferring shots taken with the 50. I essentially pitched those shots to them as having more presence and intimacy, because that lack of compression/slight distortion gives the portraits more dimension. Business people especially liked this idea because they wanted to portray a greater sense of accessibility, which the shots with the 50 seemed to provide. Yes, it's a lot about how you sell an idea to someone, but as I said, pretty much across the board that idea resonates with clients.
RU-vid photographers have confused a lot of people by saying only a 85mm or 105mm is a good portrait lens when they should say those are generally good for headshots, just one of the many types of portraits.
Yes, distance and your angle to the subject, your position relative to the horizon, determine perspective and the lens's angle is only a crop. That was the message in perspective drawing art class almost 58 years ago, and in photography school 52 years ago. As to a "normal" lens being 43mm to 58mm (about 50mm) for a full frame camera of 36mm*24mm frame size, that's a male thing (as in XY chromosome). The anatomy of the brain and aspects of vision are on the X chromosome and XY people have one of those while XX people have two. This leads to difference in the brain's anatomy, like a bigger amygdala in XX people and in vision, like XY people seeing consciously in a narrower angle of view. I hypothesize that this is why XX photographers are more likely to include more environment in their photographs (i.e. use a wider angle than XY people). Another thing is that the 50-standard is undermined by smartphones and selfies. Because of selfies, people get more used to seeing their portrait shot from a short (arm's length) distance (a perspective that is often called wide-angle lens effect, but isn't). It's clear, looking at images in the web in general, that some XX content creators have figured out what the exaggerated perspective can do to their features. By the way, 35mm started as movie film (and still is) that ran vertically through the camera. It was generally used as reportage format when studio's (like "Hollywood") shot their drama movies on 70mm film. Lens and optics company Leitz had this product developer, Barnack, who developed a camera to take a strip of 35mm film for making test shots. These test shots were used to test sensitivity and the ideal (given artistic ambitions) processing chemicals and process. Because the 24mm wide by 18mm high movie frame was so small, Barnack ran the film for test "stills" horizontally and doubled the frame size, to make assessment easier. So that's what "full frame" was called before WW2, "double frame", in advertisements for the Leitz Camera "Leica", e.g. in National Geographic. In the 50s, 35mm stills photography had gained a huge market share and when Olympus released their Pen camera that shot the original 24mm*18mm frames, in stills photography these got called "half frame".
This is a great video, and illustrates one of the reasons why I shoot portraits with a zoom lens. I generally try to pick a shooting distance that best complements the subject, and makes their nose and ears roughly the same size. If somebody has a smaller nose and bigger ears, I'm coming closer to pull the nose forward and make it a bit bigger and push the ears back a little and make them a little smaller. If they have a larger nose and smaller ears, it's the opposite. I'm backing up to flatten out and shrink the nose and pull the ears forward and make them larger. Once I've worked out a perspective distance that gives the best look, then I'll zoom the lens to give me the composition I want. The distance range this typically works out to ~5ft at the close end, and as far away as 13-15 ft at the long end with the vast majority of subjects falling right in the 6-10 foot range. I typically will just start at 8 feet then move forwards or backwards depending on what they look like.
For photography with AF, a meter, is close enough to a yard. For Drag Racing and Space Flight, it's not close enough, or for cinema the difference is whether the performer hit thier mark or not.
Thank you for a great video! This is so true! Portrait photography is all about connecting with your subject and a good connection will always affect the image in a way a lens never could. Sometimes we tend to forget this (me included). 😀
missed marissa, are both of you still doing that series?, Yes, I agree, as an example, Calumet did a video titled "the professionals choice" about learning LF in a studio setting, and the presenter said the same thing, using a studio stand, find the perspective, aka move around, THEN choose the lens (image size for the perspective desired), in that order!, so it is the distance that dictates what you are shooting, and the normal and telephoto lenses crop into the wide shot.
I so wish that I had had someone like you to learn from, back before you were born ;) Everything was formulas and rules and other stuff that also put me to sleep. One of my instructors was so full of himself I put a 4x5, a 2-1/4 square and a 35mm camera on the same tripod all at once, took five landscapes with all three cameras simultaneously, and had a commercial lab develop and print the photos just to prove a point. Instructor booted me from the class, his head of department threatened to fire him, what a great time.
Where I stand when I am taking shots has a huge effect on my final image. I am always moving about and experimenting with angles and distance to see what sort of interesting images my 28-135 zoom lens and my full frame camera can conjure up.
Very nice explanation there! Back in the day, on my old Mamiya RB67, 110mm was my "normal". I think the "where you stand" suggestion refers to more than just distance (certainly in the studio). For me it also means whether I stand on a ladder or sit on a chair, or on the floor. Am I above or below the subject. Also left or right. The distance and choice of lens, ignoring the sensor size, for me at least, is about compression of distance. Like the distance between, for example, ears and nose. Too wide an angle of view and the distance appears exaggeratedly long, while a too narrow angle makes the distance appear unnaturally short. So, if I'm too far away from the subject and I need a telephoto lens to adequately occupy the frame space, it might all look far too compressed. Some people apparently like that look.
This is why I dont use primes and only use zooms, so I can stand where I need to stand. Also the very reason I hate the stupid "zoom with your feet" phrase and it doesnt allow you to get the shot you want. When I teach ecom, I ask my students why they use 80mm, 70% say its the best, then I have them stand back further and shoot between 100 and 120, then I have them look at the shot, and tada, they looking at the front of the shoes not down onto the shoes, as well as the model not looking down and the camera seeing under the neck/chin
great video. ive been shooting with the 24-70f2.8 for a long time now. i occasionally will shoot portraits with a 50 or with a 100 but that zoom is so convenient because on location, i dont always have the space i need to get back with the longer prime. question though, what is the short arm on your booms, you have your strobes mounted to? nothing in your linked gear looks like those and i think they might be a better solution than what ive been doing
People think they look like what they see at the bathroom sink, about 2' to the mirror, 2' into it, 4'. Get in closer and you start making the nose larger. Stand at the mirror, look at your nose then lean close to the mirror.. it looks bigger. Then stand up and step back a foot, 3 ' from the mirror, 6' total. The nose gets smaller but barely noticeable. Step back to 4' and you might start to recognize the nose getting a bit small. Take a large step back to say 7', 14' total. Bingo, Michael Jackson nose. Folks will notice something out of the ordinary with this although may not be able to say it's the lens. Most folks have looked into mirrors their entire lives and never noticed it. It has nothing to do with a lens, it is distance. The lens I use for headshots isn't always the same. On my large multi broken Italian probiscus, I like the camera back 10-12'. Was doing a lens test on a 67 camera using a 645 back to get 50% more shots on a roll. Had the camera back nearly 14' to fill the frame. It's my profile shot!
Cropping in, and throwing away all those expensive megapixels! Shock! Horror! :D Mind you, there is a limit on that when using older low end or mid-range film-era lenses, top end film lenses should be just as good as modern glass, but you can always just say 'it's simulating the look of film, for the way it makes the viewer feel",....
If you look at the kilometers you go to higher numbers, 55 mp/h is 90 km/h. You have a ticket for doing the conversion wrong. 🤣 Very good video, thanks for sharing your knowledge
