Big Foot appears in photo

[Doc W]

Take a look at this crop of a neg scan (I excluded her face for privacy reasons. She is not my child). The child's right foot appears to be much larger that her left, and somewhat out of focus. I didn't notice it while shooting and I was really pressed for time.

This was shot with a 4x5 field camera. What should I have done to correct this, i.e., to get both feet more in proportion and in focus?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Things closer will look bigger than things further away. That can be minimized by using a longer lens and standing further away from the subject. Since you're shooting indoors, that may not be possible, depending on how big the room is.

 

[gone]

The right foot is supposed to be larger than the left. It's closest to the lens. If you wish to avoid this, reshoot it at a different angle. If you want both feet in focus you'll have to stop down. I am at a loss why you're surprised, as this must have been clearly visible on a view camera's GG.

 

[Doc W]

That was the angle I wanted and I was cramped for space. I also had almost no time so I didn't see it in the GG. I intended the question to be a little more general and I was thinking that there might be a a particular movement that would solve the problem. That foot looks HUGE to me. Is it just me?

 

[Doc W]

Things closer will look bigger than things further away. That can be minimized by using a longer lens and standing further away from the subject. Since you're shooting indoors, that may not be possible, depending on how big the room is.

IIRC, I was using a 150mm and the 210mm I had didn't give enough of the subject.

The right foot is supposed to be larger than the left. It's closest to the lens. If you wish to avoid this, reshoot it at a different angle. If you want both feet in focus you'll have to stop down. I am at a loss why you're surprised, as this must have been clearly visible on a view camera's GG.

I am at a loss as to why you are surprised that I was suprised.

 

[Bob Carnie]

That was the angle I wanted and I was cramped for space. I also had almost no time so I didn't see it in the GG. I intended the question to be a little more general and I was thinking that there might be a a particular movement that would solve the problem. That foot looks HUGE to me. Is it just me?

No I think the foot looks big and the young lady over time will either hate it or if she has a funny bone think its her favorite image. Ask her.

 

[John Koehrer]

It may have been less noticeable if her feet were closer together or possibly with her ankles crossed.

If the back were parallel to the leg of the chair would it be less obvious? I don't use a VC so I'm wondering.

 

[AgX]

Varying scales throughout the image (perspective distortion) is a major issue in portrait photography (or rather was, seen what is presented nowadays on tv...) One way to conquer it is the use of an apt angle of view of the lens, another one is the positioning of the person to be portrayed, respectice the position of his body parts (as hinted at above).

Aim should not be uniformity, but an impression looking pleasing, or alike direct viewing. (Let aside cases of intentional distortion.)

 

[Truzi]

Are you sure her feet are really the same size? LOL, just kidding.
The foremost chair leg also appears larger, as do most things closer to the lens. The perspective appears normal to me - the visual cues are there to suggest it is closer, so that in itself doesn't jump out at me as making that foot look mismatched. There is little in the same plan as her right foot (aside from the chair leg) - something else in the foreground might balance things.

There are more visual effects than simply the lengths.
I do think there is a bit of an optical illusion because of where the chair leg obscures her heel. Following the lines of her ankle, you can't really see where it turns; I think the mind tries to project the visible contours, and that this plays on the mind more than the perspective-size issue does. In other words, if her heel were showing, or at least the part where it starts to curve down, I think it would give a more "normal" impression despite being closer to the lens. It would still look "larger," but not stand out as an oddity.

The angles of the feet also seem to contribute. The left foot's angle makes it look thinner (less area shown). The shadows also amplify the effect.

 

[MattKing]

Her right arm would also appear much larger than the left, if both were visible. But that wouldn't really bother me, because of all the visual clues.

The problem isn't with any disparity in size - it is with the relatively unusual prominence of a slightly out of focus bare foot. We aren't used to having a foot be so important in a scene.

It could be worse - it could be Michael Phelps!

 

[Alan Gales]

Just give her a Slim Jim!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It looks fine and perfectly normal. The reasons you see the right one appearing "larger" are:

- she has turned her left foot slightly more edge-on and also curled her leftmost toes in so that they can't be seen

- the right foot is angled so that it presents more of the top surface of her foot (moreso than her left)

Having her feet closer together, crossed, or photographed from the front rather than side would help with perspective and depth of field issues.

EDIT: I notice she's sitting with her knees apart, which causes the dress to expand the full width of the chair. This, I think, makes her upper body look a bit too small in comparison.

Until you mentioned 150mm, I thought it may have been made with a much shorter, wider angle lens.

 

[Ari]

You can use rear tilt towards the subject to make them loom slightly larger, tilt (or swing) away from the subject to de-emphasize or correct perspective.
I know you were pressed for time, but when possible, try getting your GG plumb first and check the edges of the GG; that's where all the action happens!

 

[Doc W]

Lots of good tips here. Thanks folks. The big problem for me was the lack of time and space. I just didn't notice the giant foot because of the rush. Having read all of these responses, I should have either changed her position or used a bit of swing. I am going to do a bit of experimentation with both.

Thanks again.

 

[chuck94022]

I was expecting to click into this thread and see an image of a large, hairy biped running into a forest.

 

[Vaughn]

I was expecting to click into this thread and see an image of a large, hairy biped running into a forest.

Yeah -- I thought someone snapped another photo of me.

The image -- it does not help that the near foot also appears larger due to more of the top of the foot showing and appears bigger than a view from the side (as Theo suggested). Ari is correct about the edges, tho I say the edges define the center...either way, a pretty big responcibility! Good luck!

 

[Doc W]

I was expecting to click into this thread and see an image of a large, hairy biped running into a forest.

... the very definition of a LF landscape photographer.

 

[BrianShaw]

Unfortunately, this issue is only partly a photographic concern. It is also related to the age of the child. During growth spurt it is not unusual for the feet to be disproportionately larger than "normal". Trust me, I know... I'm buying shoes (way before the last pair has a chance to get worn out) for a kid going through that right now.

 

[michr]

something else I notice is that the slats connecting the back to the front of the chair on either side are not parallel to each other, instead they look splayed out. The foot might be more noticeable to the subject, but the shape of the chair is an indication of the kinds of distortion happening in this image.