Another look at 50mm

[E. von Hoegh]

[QUOTE="E. von Hoegh, post: As for "proving or disproving" an opinion, an opinion that is indefensible is worthless.

Or, more likely, it disagrees with your opinion. Opinions do not require a defense. The level of intolerance in the world today is completely intolerable. We should stamp that out.[/QUOTE]




We can fix it by shooting all the extremists, for a start.

If you have an opinion I disagree with, and are able to defend and explain it in an intelligent manner, I might not only change my mind but might learn something. If you say simply"opinions don't need defense" and leave it at that, it just sounds childish.

 

[RichardJack]

Any focal length can be used for portraits. But if your concerned about perspective and the proper proportions of the human face most professionals will choose between 85-135mm. Correction, most professionals won't be using 35mm film, they will be shooting between 135-200mm on medium format. Second correction...actually most professionals will be using a 70-200mm on that medium I dare not mention here.

 

[flavio81]

A trained eye will always see the extremely annoying distortion a 50mm does to a face.

But I'm not here to teach anyone. The theory behind focal lengths and distance is clear.

+1

So well, the 50mm does work as a portrait length as long as you include the room or the environment.
I love the 50mm lens, but for portraits, generally 85, 100mm, 135mm and even 200mm are great.

Even the 58mm lens is markedly better for general portrait use than the 50mm. I've used a 55/1.2 for portraits in the past but if you get too close, the face distortion is evident, as you note.

 

[warden]

My only problem with the conversation is its "focus" on lens focal lengths.
IMHO, the focal length question is one you address only after addressing the question of your choice of working distance (and the perspective that results from that).
If you are stuck with no lens choices, then the question becomes how best to make use of what you have.

That's where I come down on the issue as well. I've made casual portraits of loved ones with several lenses, and they're all working for me, at least form time to time. It's all good.

 

[voceumana]

Or If you say simply"opinions don't need defense" and leave it at that, it just sounds childish.

One person likes red, the other prefers blue, each has an opinion and neither is right nor wrong, and their need be no defense for either. That's what I mean.

Some like the looks of a portrait done with a 50mm lens, some don't, and neither is right nor wrong, neither needs to be persuaded, both can exist in complete harmony. The conflict exists only when someone tries to say that one of the opinions is wrong.

This is not a childish view, but a mature view--the sort of thing that develops in humans around the age of 30 in most adult males, a little earlier in females.

 

[NB23]

I strongly disagree.

A well trained eye sees the distortion induced on anyone's face by a 50mm lens. And it's quite deranging.

It's not a matter of taste nor a matter of being mature enough (wtf does maturity have to do in this?).
It's a matter of seeing, a thing that not many people master.

Seeing is a talent. Not everyone can see. Just look at what's posted and praised on the internet and you realize that 99% of the photographers and the audience are actually blind.

One person likes red, the other prefers blue, each has an opinion and neither is right nor wrong, and their need be no defense for either. That's what I mean.

Some like the looks of a portrait done with a 50mm lens, some don't, and neither is right nor wrong, neither needs to be persuaded, both can exist in complete harmony. The conflict exists only when someone tries to say that one of the opinions is wrong.

This is not a childish view, but a mature view--the sort of thing that develops in humans around the age of 30 in most adult males, a little earlier in females.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I can see optical aberrations in photographic images, but I don't let my trained eye distract me from viewing the artist's intent.

 

[voceumana]

I strongly disagree.

A well trained eye sees the distortion induced on anyone's face by a 50mm lens. And it's quite deranging.

It's not a matter of taste nor a matter of being mature enough (wtf does maturity have to do in this?).
It's a matter of seeing, a thing that not many people master.

Seeing is a talent. Not everyone can see. Just look at what's posted and praised on the internet and you realize that 99% of the photographers and the audience are actually blind.

I know of two published Ansel Adams photos taken with 50mm lenses on 35mm film--one of Georgia O'Keefe and and Orville Fox; the other of Alfred Steiglitz. Perhaps their are others. I think and suspect that most would agree that AA mastered the art of seeing, and I think neither of these photographs show any facial distortion. They are two of my favorites of AA. To me they are fine portraits, although casual in nature--they seem to capture a sense of the spirit of the individuals.

I referenced maturity because another poster stated hat my comments that opinions do not require defense was childish--that "the f" that it has to do with. An intellectually mature person accepts that different opinions exist and can comfortably live with both existing in the world even if neither matches his or her opinion exactly.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I strongly disagree.

A well trained eye sees the distortion induced on anyone's face by a 50mm lens. And it's quite deranging.
...

I respectfully disagree with part of that. I don't doubt that a well trained eye can see the distortion (if the 50mm is used too closely). I'm sure portrait photographers can spot it instantly. Where I disagree is the reaction to it. It seems to me you are saying others should share your reaction to it: that if anyone accepts it or thinks the photo is good, then somehow they're just ignorant.

Consider verticals for example. I know that I should use either front rise on a LF camera or at least a perspective control lens on 35mm so that the verticals of a building don't appear to converge. Yet, I rarely do that unless my specific goal is an architectural shot. If I just want to capture an interesting street scene, or even if I want to show converging verticals, that's ok. I don't say it's wrong or bad.

 

[Cholentpot]

Seriously folks? A photograph is judged by the equipment used rather than the subject? Need we bust out the 'I've seen many sharp pictures with blurry subjects' line?

You can shoot a beautiful portrait with a pinhole if you have the talent.

 

[voceumana]

You can shoot a beautiful portrait with a pinhole if you have the talent.

Thank you. Well put.

 

[Sirius Glass]

50mm lenses can be used for pleasing portraits if one backs off. Shoving a lens up the subject's nose never give a pleasing portrait regardless of the focal length nor format.

 

[George Mann]

I think and suspect that most would agree that AA mastered the art of seeing

Whether he did or not, his lack of exposure skills produced images that were often difficult to see altogether.

 

[blockend]

That's where I come down on the issue as well. I've made casual portraits of loved ones with several lenses, and they're all working for me, at least form time to time. It's all good.

Indeed. When people use the word portraiture they generally mean one of two things. One is a photograph that flatters and can be used for the subject's public image, the other is to bring out the character of the sitter. The first requires a lens to flatten facial perspective, and is accompanied by a controlled lighting environment, softening filters, a suitable backdrop, etc., the other requires none of these. The difference between, say, a corporate image and a rock magazine portrait. Both do the job for their intended market.

 

[Roger2000]

I strongly disagree.

A well trained eye sees the distortion induced on anyone's face by a 50mm lens. And it's quite deranging.

It's not a matter of taste nor a matter of being mature enough (wtf does maturity have to do in this?).
It's a matter of seeing, a thing that not many people master.

Seeing is a talent. Not everyone can see.

How pompous!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

One person likes red, the other prefers blue, each has an opinion and neither is right nor wrong, and their need be no defense for either. That's what I mean.

Some like the looks of a portrait done with a 50mm lens, some don't, and neither is right nor wrong, neither needs to be persuaded, both can exist in complete harmony. The conflict exists only when someone tries to say that one of the opinions is wrong.

This is not a childish view, but a mature view--the sort of thing that develops in humans around the age of 30 in most adult males, a little earlier in females.

"One person likes red, the other prefers blue, ..." (snip) That's stating a preference, not an opinion.

"A 105mm lens on 35 gives a more natural rendering of a head - only portrait than a 50mm lens" is stating a fact, not an opinion.

"35mm will do anything 4"x5" will do, easier and better" is an opinion, and it's wrong. It cannot be defended or justified on any rational basis.
If maturity consists of respecting all opinions equally regardless of how ridiculous they are, I really don't know what to say.

edit - Kindly read my first post in this thread, it's #4.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Seriously folks? A photograph is judged by the equipment used rather than the subject? Need we bust out the 'I've seen many sharp pictures with blurry subjects' line?

You can shoot a beautiful portrait with a pinhole if you have the talent.

A photograph is, or should be, judged solely upon it's own merits, regardless of anything else. It requires certain equipment used in specific ways to attain certain results. My 85mm lens focuses to 1.15 meters. I bet that working distance would result in a rather peculiar looking portrait...

 

[jim10219]

One thing I've noticed about photography compared to most other mediums of art is that photography is populated by a much larger proportion of crafts people than artists. To a craftsman/woman the quality of the image is determined by it's adherence to a set standard, or social norms. The goal is to create a product that aligns most accurately with the patron's expectations.

To an artist, the quality of the workmanship is judged by it's fidelity to the artist's vision. It's value is not determined by the patron's expectations, but rather by societies reaction. And sometimes that reaction may not be contemporary. Often times great art is not defined by it's ability to adhere to the rules, but by it's ability to exploit new exceptions.

Neither perspective is right or wrong. There's room in this world for both. I'm sure we could all imagine a bride being horrified to find out she hired a fine artist instead of a wedding photographer to document her big day and got back a bunch of blurry shots of trash bins. And I'm sure we can all imagine being less than impressed upon entering a museum and seeing a bunch of ordinary faces in Glamour Shot poses and lighting posted on the walls. And there's also some middle ground here between the two extremes that some may like to delve into. The craftsperson is in no way inferior to the artist, and the artist is in no way inferior to the craftsperson.

My point is, there's a reason why some say 50mm on a 135 camera is too short to be an effective portrait lens. And there's a reason to ignore their advice completely. You just need to know who's giving you the advice, and how that relates to what you're trying to do.

Also, as per the Dunning-Kruger effect, try not to put too much stock into anyone who claims to "know a lot" about subjects as complex as photography. That's just general life advice made doubly important in the age of the internet.

 

[blockend]

One thing I've noticed about photography compared to most other mediums of art is that photography is populated by a much larger proportion of crafts people than artists. To a craftsman/woman the quality of the image is determined by it's adherence to a set standard, or social norms. The goal is to create a product that aligns most accurately with the patron's expectations.

That's true. Almost no one apart from historians cares about the brand of paint an artist uses. Photography principal claim is to describe, but photographers are under no obligation to describe authentically. Berndt and Hilla Becher took description to its conclusion, but they're an acquired taste.

 

[NB23]

How pompous!

Please tell me I'm not as POMPOUS as someone wanting to be very accurate with his choice of films or developers.

I mean, we spend a lot of time debating wether this or that film we shot would look better in a solvent or an acutance developer (a thing that is largely trivial and which takes a loupe to really understand, after all) and yet, here we are being EXTRA LOOSE on the definition of a portrait and wether out subject has a bigger nose than in real life.

That makes me Pompous? Great, I'm actually liking it.

 

[Cholentpot]

A photograph is, or should be, judged solely upon it's own merits, regardless of anything else. It requires certain equipment used in specific ways to attain certain results. My 85mm lens focuses to 1.15 meters. I bet that working distance would result in a rather peculiar looking portrait...

Having talent includes knowing your equipment and it's limitations and strengths.

We can hark on that portrait winner from a few weeks ago who had Gramma scribble on a negative and drop some tea then entered it and won. In my opinion that's hackery and a copout. To other it was brave and insightful. If you are going on merit based I would contented that the entry had no photographic merit. Other vehemently disagreed.

For a paid job I would not show up with a 50 for a portrait. Shooting for myself or if someone requested I shoot how I want? I'd bring my 50 along with a 135 and even a 28. I've taken some nice portraits with a 28 believe it or not.

 

[film_man]

So a portrait, a portrait. Ok yeah, if you shove a 50 up someone's nose (min distance is <0.5m on most 50s) so that you can get a very tight head shot then that does make it look a bit mickey mouse. Maybe you like it maybe you don't. Same with a 24 which can make people look big headed or with a massive jaw. Maybe you like it maybe you don't. An 85 or longer is probably a better option for a tight head shot.

However, for a head & shoulder or further away I still think a 50 is a more engaging look than an 85 or longer. The longer the lens and the more of the person in the shot the more artificial it looks. A 50 at 0.7-1m is a perspective like having a conversation with a friend at arm's length/across a table. Anyway, whatever people like.

 

[voceumana]

Perhaps much of this discussion is based on the reality that no two people see exactly the same way. Much of what we see is because of processing in the brain and not based solely on what is presented to the retina by the lens.

My mother once commented about a professionally produced portrait of my sister something to the effect that the professional photographer tried to make the person--subject of the photo--something like she wasn't. It was an astute observation that a flattering portrayal is not always accurate to the subject. I understood her thoughts. In that sense, the professional portrait, though very nicely executed, was not a good portrait of my sister--it didn't look very much like her.

 

[blockend]

I understood her thoughts. In that sense, the professional portrait, though very nicely executed, was not a good portrait of my sister--it didn't look very much like her.

That's because the photographer was working to a formula that suited him and not the sitter, or your sister hadn't done her homework. A good studio portraitist should understand whether the subject is looking for flattery or character. My wife has to regularly have her portrait taken for professional purposes, and has to come across as smart and in control. The kind of deranged fairyland approach many studio photographers apply to mature ladies would kill her image stone dead, so although she may not love the shots, she respects the results as being honest and fit for purpose. It sounds like your sister's 2-dimensional caricature didn't match the 3-dimensional person her friends and family knew her to be.

 

[rpavich]

A trained eye will always see the extremely annoying distortion a 50mm does to a face.

But I'm not here to teach anyone. The theory behind focal lengths and distance is clear.

The seeing part comes with extensive practice and a sensitivity to see things as they are.
There is a tremendously high percentage of bad photography on the net, all shared by people who think it's good. So how can you show them they are wrong without soundig like a a'hole because their little feelings are hurt?

I simply gave up. Who cares.

True.

Lots of folks just don't see it; sometimes you have to show them the comparison before they "get it."