Is there a definitive focal length for tight head shots...

[Allan Swindles]

Just an observation here folks, as a retired professional portrait photographer. I always found that double the standard focal length was good for head and shoulder portraits and for a tight head shot I would choose a 3x mag. but it does depend on the final size of the image and the viewing distance, as has already been indicated, but also the effect you are trying to achieve. A tight head shot enlarged to say 30"x40" might look good at distance, but closer, well? Times have changed over the years. In the UK, the BBC as I recall, would never shoot a close portrait with a wide angle lens. Not so these days, anything goes. I think they excuse it as reportage and the public have been seduced to it. It does not however, mean it's good photography.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Just an observation here folks, as a retired professional portrait photographer. I always found that double the standard focal length was good for head and shoulder portraits and for a tight head shot I would choose a 3x mag. but it does depend on the final size of the image and the viewing distance, as has already been indicated, but also the effect you are trying to achieve. A tight head shot enlarged to say 30"x40" might look good at distance, but closer, well? Times have changed over the years. In the UK, the BBC as I recall, would never shoot a close portrait with a wide angle lens. Not so these days, anything goes. I think they excuse it as reportage and the public have been seduced to it. It does not however, mean it's good photography.

While I understand your background, and respect it and your opinion, your comment about using wide angle lenses for portraiture seem a little like they are universally not good, just because you said so.
My experience is nowhere near as impressive as yours, but I would still like to interject that some of my own most successful portraits, close-ups or full figure, have been with wide angle to normal lenses. The shorter focal length has leant an intimacy to the photographs that I find rewarding, and an interesting point of view that I think doesn't subscribe to convention, but instead highlights a strong emotional connection.

My question to you is: What, exactly, makes the longer focal length 'better'? I'd seriously like to hear your view of things; perhaps I can learn something I didn't know, or it will be interesting discussion.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

RE perspective distortion and print viewing distance: I don't view photos with one eye closed nor at a specified viewing distance.

 

[MikeTime]

To put it bluntly, the longer the focal length (and the greater the distance to the subject), the less interesting a portrait will be. But coming in close is too confrontational for most people, and takes away form the flattering image most customers of a commercial portrait photographer will desire.

Then again, I just happened to see Arnold Newman's "portrait" of Piet Mondriaan. Quite distant, but the composition really makes the image.

Just saying...

 

[markbarendt]

RE perspective distortion and print viewing distance: I don't view photos with one eye closed nor at a specified viewing distance.

On large prints the effect even works with two eyes.

Old, I can't speak to how the distances that you view photos at but I think you might be surprised just how regularly most people do.

When I had my studio it was interesting to see people adjust to the size of their photos. 8x10s elbows bent a bit, 5x7s bent more, wallets bent tight, 16x20 elbows straight and locked or starting to step back.

In our homes the hallways and furniture and entrances and other whatnot also regularly define our viewing distances. 8x10s behind a couch regularly get people leaning forward to see the subject matter.

This is part of the magic of standing where the photo is naturally going to be viewed from, with a placeholder where it will hang and figuring out what lens and if that size print will work. It allows you to see if the viewer will be comfortable viewing it from there.

Personally I find that when a print is hung behind a couch, the subject matter needs to be printed larger to keep viewers from leaning over the couch.

 

[Ian C]

Projection Size & Viewing Distance to Preserve Perspective

If you take a picture of the same scene, one with a 35mm lens, and the other with an 85mm lens, how exactly would you position the prints so that the perspective would be the same, with relation to the viewer?

There are at least two ways to do this. Here is the simpler, more intuitive approach.

The original scene perspective is preserved if we view a print the size of the negative at the same distance as the focal length of the lens used to photograph the scene for infinity focus.

Using the focal length of the lens is good enough for most approximations at mid-distance to infinity-focus shots. If you require greater accuracy you can use the focus distance and the focal length to calculate the lens-to-negative distance. This is the actual viewing distance for correct perspective. Here’s a 35mm format example.

Most of us don’t want to view a 24mm x 36mm print from 50mm or whatever the focal length used. But we can magnify the print size and viewing distance until we get something practical.

Use the focal length f and let

v = viewing distance

w = width of the projection of the 24mm negative dimension in enlargement

For the 35mm lens on the 35mm format we have

v/w = 35/24, so

v = (35/24)*w

If we choose a projection width of 16.5” to make a 16” x 20” print

v = (35/24)*16.5” = 24” viewing distance.

For the 85mm lens on the 35mm format with 16.5” wide projection of the 24mm width of the negative

v = (85/24)*16.5” = 58.4” viewing distance.

Viewing the print at the correct-perspective viewing distance preserves the angular relationships that existed at the camera’s lens position. For example, the on-print images of two objects that were 10° apart in the scene at the camera position will subtend 10° at the viewing distance v.

Of course this can be done for any format. Alternatively, you could fix the viewing distance and size the projection to suit as

w = (24/35)v

 

[markbarendt]

Great explanation Ian.

To simplify the application of the idea here a bit I might suggest thinking in ratio and understanding that it isn't normal to have viewing lines marked, rounding is okay.

If we know the viewing distance is about 36" (as if the print is to be behind a chair) and that the print size will be 16"x20" then if we use just the short edge in our calculation we get 16:36, simplify and round just a bit and you get roughly 1:2 as the ratio. (I used the short edge here because the long edge would be cropped to fit the standard paper with 35mm film.)

So if the short edge of the film is 24mm (the "1" side of our ratio) then the focal length should be roughly 48mm (the "2" side) to get normal angular relationships. If the short edge of the film was 4" then we'd want roughly an 8" (200mm) lens.

If we plan to print at 8x10 for the 36" viewing distance the ratio changes to 8:36, simplify and round just a bit and you get roughly 1:4 or 1:5 as the ratio. Short side 24mm x 4 = 100mm, x 5 = 125mm.

We can work backwards too. If all we have for our 4x5 camera is a 6" (150mm) lens and our ratio is 4:6 or 2:3, then a 36" viewing distance would suggest a print with a 24" short edge (break out the roll paper).

 

[Yashinoff]

Does it really matter what lens was used? Regardless of the angle of view in the photograph, the "natural" viewing distance is going to be about equal to the diagonal of the presented image. This is the distance people general gravitate to when they want to take in the whole image comfortably.

 

[markbarendt]

Does it really matter what lens was used? Regardless of the angle of view in the photograph, the "natural" viewing distance is going to be about equal to the diagonal of the presented image. This is the distance people general gravitate to when they want to take in the whole image comfortably.

If thats true, then to get a normal perspective, we should all be using lenses where focal length matches that diagonal measurement.

There are many other things that constrain viewing distances though like furniture, hallways, ...

 

[hugopoon]

I'll go with whatever lens I have on hand. Because I shoot for myself and really couldn't care less if others like or hate my work and how they're portrayed, when given the luxury of choosing FL (most of my photos are done without planning) I'll choose based on the current lighting and characteristics of the lens. I don't find myself going much longer than 105mm on 35mm. I usually carry a 50mm as my 2nd lens to the 25.

Basically I don't seek to flatter the subject in their eyes – I seek to record how I see the subject at the moment and how I want the photo to turn out.

Which is why I'm reluctant to make photos for people (but have no problems making photos of them).

 

[Yashinoff]

If thats true, then to get a normal perspective, we should all be using lenses where focal length matches that diagonal measurement.

My point was that the angle of view in the photograph is irrelevant to the angle of view of the viewer.

 

[markbarendt]

My point was that the angle of view in the photograph is irrelevant to the angle of view of the viewer.

Okay, why?

I know that I can see the flattening effect a long lens has when the print is viewed at 1:2 instead of its natural 1:4 for example it may have been taken at. The opposite is true for short lenses, a 1:1 shot viewed at 1:2 won't look "normal" to the viewer, it will appear to bulge in the middle.

Those seem to be relevant effects, and seem to be caused by the mis-match in the camera's and the viewer's angles of view.

What am I missing?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Why? Because 99.99 percent of all viewers are not aware of... nor do they care about... what distance the photographer intended them to view their photos. It's not about what you're "missing" in your photos. It's about not "connecting" with everyone else and "accepting" that they don't "analyze" perspective as you do. They see what they see and feel what they feel. In the grand scheme of things, this is all that matters.

 

[markbarendt]

Why? Because 99.99 percent of all viewers are not aware of... nor do they care about... what distance the photographer intended them to view their photos. It's not about what you're "missing" in your photos. It's about not "connecting" with everyone else and "accepting" that they don't "analyze" perspective as you do. They see what they see and feel what they feel. In the grand scheme of things, this is all that matters.

Really?

Then why do you bother applying the principle?

Don't forget to consider head/camera positioning which can either enhance or subdue particular features. Also, don't forget to consider the feel of the final image. It's a combination of subject, distance and desired final effect. I do have a rule of thumb for "very" tight head shots though... I quadruple the diagonal of the usable film size. For 135, if cropped to 8x10, the diagonal is about 38mm so I'd probably use something near 150mm. But this is if I'm actually cropping the hair out of the frame right to the face. If I'm including all the hair and a bit of shoulder (straight on and not to the arms) then I might start with a 105mm. These are just averages... for me. A long nose or chin requires different posing and lenses... subdue those features by shooting them straight on with longer lenses... or accentuate those same features, as one would when "characterizing" someone like Jay Leno, by doing the opposite.

 

[Yashinoff]

Actually it's very simple. It's because a photograph is usually flat. Whatever angle of view was provided by the lens at the scene - the end result is still a 2 dimensional flat image.

If the image is very large, the viewer will tend to stand back from it, if it is very small they will move in very close. It is not dependent on the angle of view, if you use an ultrawide angle lens, but print very large, people are still going to stand back if they want to comfortably take in the whole scene. If you use a telephoto lens and print very small, people are going to move in closer. It's the size of the print really, not the angle of view.

 

[Mr Bill]

I don't want to get mired down trying to explain how it works, but I will say that Mark Barendt has it exactly right, and he understands how it works (see his post #20 for a simple set of rules).

If you've ever seen a photo that seemed like you were right there - as though you could almost step right into the picture - well, Mark just revealed how to do it.

A handful of people maintain that the print is a 2-D surface, and different viewing distances cannot make a difference. The truth is that IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Let me give an example. If you draw some circles on a piece of paper, they ought to appear round. But if you tilt the paper, the circles will flatten into an oval shape - everyone agrees with this, right? Ok, now pretend that you have drawn a handful of circles on a very large sheet of paper. Viewing head-on, from a considerable distance, all appear round. But as you get very close to the paper, things change: the circles directly in front of your eye (line of sight = perpendicular to the paper) are still round, but circles near the far edges of the paper become very oval-shaped.

Forget about this for a moment, now, and consider what happens when someone photographs a large group with a wide-angle lens. The people near the outer edges get curiously-elongated heads, which seem to stretch out towards the outer edges of the print. In short, it has an obvious wide lens distortion. Mark Barendt has made the opinion that this distortion effect is a result of viewing the print from too far away.

So what happens if we view this print from a close distance (keeping centered)? Well, the heads near the center still have a proper shape. But the heads near the edges, which at first seemed elongated, have now flattened into proper shape. It IS exactly as Mark said it would be - the proper viewing distance (and position) makes the scene look natural.

As some have pointed out, most people don't really care where you want them to stand, or how far to view from. They want to look anyway they darn well feel like. Mark says that you can control this to some extent - if you hang photos behind your couch, they can't get within several feet of it; if you hang photos in a hallway, they can't get more than a couple feet away. So if you plan ahead, read post #20 and shoot appropriately. This will give the most realistic "you are there" effect on the photo.

These ideas are not new in photographic literature. Stroebel has a section in View Camera Technique (5th edition, section 7.13 Apparent Perspective Effects: Viewing Distance). In essence, viewing a print from "too close" weakens (compresses) the apparent perspective effect. But this is not usually too objectionable. But viewing a print from "too far" makes the apparent perspective too strong, which tends to be more objectionable. So the safest thing with portraits is probably to shoot from a longer distance, using a longer lens; this mostly removes the risk of "viewing from too far."

There's a lot more to portraits than just this, but I think what I've said above has a lot of application to landscapes (with some foreground) and some other general scenic photography.

 

[markbarendt]

Actually it's very simple. It's because a photograph is usually flat. Whatever angle of view was provided by the lens at the scene - the end result is still a 2 dimensional flat image.

If the image is very large, the viewer will tend to stand back from it, if it is very small they will move in very close. It is not dependent on the angle of view, if you use an ultrawide angle lens, but print very large, people are still going to stand back if they want to comfortably take in the whole scene. If you use a telephoto lens and print very small, people are going to move in closer. It's the size of the print really, not the angle of view.

I agree that that print size is important in the calculus here. I said as much above. People, including myself, expect to view certain print sizes at certain distances.

That norm gives me a tool to use to control/manipulate how viewers, myself included, view the scene in print on the wall. It allows me to choose if they, or I, see normal or flattened or whatever perspective.

The flat medium also isn't the issue here.

When viewing a scene through your camera using most any lens designed to provide proper rectilinear perspective, the scene looks normal through the viewfinder. The scene does not look weird compared say the grid lines we see in the camera. (I'm assuming well corrected lenses here and I'm leaving out lens distortions, like barrel and pincushion, purposefully.)

The normal looking view seen in most cameras, is a projection on a flat surface, the focusing screen or ground glass.

Photograph viewing distance

Photographs are ordinarily viewed at a distance approximately equal to their diagonal[citation needed]. When viewed at this distance, the distortion effects created by the angle of view of the capture are apparent. However, theoretically, if one views pictures exhibiting extension (wide angle) distortion at a closer distance, thus widening the angle of view of the presentation, then the phenomenon abates. Similarly, viewing pictures exhibiting compression (telephoto) distortion from a greater distance, thus narrowing the angle of view of the presentation, reduces the effect. In both cases, at some critical distance, the apparent distortion disappears completely.

The quote was excerpted from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(caused_by_camera_to_subject_distance)

Okay so here's an example from a local guy Dead Link Removed Bill shot that on 4x5 Velvia, as I remember he said he used a 90mm lens.

The small sizes we can see on the Internet don't do ths "portrait" justice, the person centered in the arch is just so small that they gets missed. In person though, where the short edge of the print is in the 30-40" range that person draws you closer to the print, as does the natural angle of the shot. Viewed in person and closer than one might normally view a print that size it is incredible and starts filling the viewer's peripheral vision.

 

[markbarendt]

There's a lot more to portraits than just this, but I think what I've said above has a lot of application to landscapes (with some foreground) and some other general scenic photography.

I agree.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Really?

Then why do you bother applying the principle?

I don't apply the "principle" I have a "rule of thumb". And I don't agree that wide-angle distortion is hidden by viewing a large photo from six inches away. I'm too myopic for that anyway.

 

[Yashinoff]

I don't want to get mired down trying to explain how it works, but I will say that Mark Barendt has it exactly right, and he understands how it works (see his post #20 for a simple set of rules).

If you've ever seen a photo that seemed like you were right there - as though you could almost step right into the picture - well, Mark just revealed how to do it.

A handful of people maintain that the print is a 2-D surface, and different viewing distances cannot make a difference. The truth is that IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Let me give an example. If you draw some circles on a piece of paper, they ought to appear round. But if you tilt the paper, the circles will flatten into an oval shape - everyone agrees with this, right? Ok, now pretend that you have drawn a handful of circles on a very large sheet of paper. Viewing head-on, from a considerable distance, all appear round. But as you get very close to the paper, things change: the circles directly in front of your eye (line of sight = perpendicular to the paper) are still round, but circles near the far edges of the paper become very oval-shaped.

Forget about this for a moment, now, and consider what happens when someone photographs a large group with a wide-angle lens. The people near the outer edges get curiously-elongated heads, which seem to stretch out towards the outer edges of the print. In short, it has an obvious wide lens distortion. Mark Barendt has made the opinion that this distortion effect is a result of viewing the print from too far away.

So what happens if we view this print from a close distance (keeping centered)? Well, the heads near the center still have a proper shape. But the heads near the edges, which at first seemed elongated, have now flattened into proper shape. It IS exactly as Mark said it would be - the proper viewing distance (and position) makes the scene look natural.

As some have pointed out, most people don't really care where you want them to stand, or how far to view from. They want to look anyway they darn well feel like. Mark says that you can control this to some extent - if you hang photos behind your couch, they can't get within several feet of it; if you hang photos in a hallway, they can't get more than a couple feet away. So if you plan ahead, read post #20 and shoot appropriately. This will give the most realistic "you are there" effect on the photo.

These ideas are not new in photographic literature. Stroebel has a section in View Camera Technique (5th edition, section 7.13 Apparent Perspective Effects: Viewing Distance). In essence, viewing a print from "too close" weakens (compresses) the apparent perspective effect. But this is not usually too objectionable. But viewing a print from "too far" makes the apparent perspective too strong, which tends to be more objectionable. So the safest thing with portraits is probably to shoot from a longer distance, using a longer lens; this mostly removes the risk of "viewing from too far."

There's a lot more to portraits than just this, but I think what I've said above has a lot of application to landscapes (with some foreground) and some other general scenic photography.

Forgive me for typing this, but that is an absolutely absurd thing to be concerned about. What next? What if the viewer stands closer to the right side of the photo than to the left? Should we keystone the image to effectively correct the perspective for them? Nonsense. Much ado about nothing.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I completely disagree with Mr. Bills theory for the following reason: If you have a wide-angle group shot where people standing near the edges of the frame look distorted, then this distortion plus the distortion caused by the print viewing distance will add to each other. It is like with the circles. If a large sheet of paper with several round circles painted on will be viewed from close distance, the circles toward the edges will look oval-shaped. Right. If a group of people is photographed with, let´s say 70mm, distortion free lens, everyone should look natural shaped when the print is viewed from distance but if you come closer, people toward the edges will look more distorted from the center perspective. If the print is already distorted because it was taken with a wide angle lens, they will even look more distorted. Logically, there can never be a point when both wide-angle and viewing-angle produced distortion can neutralize each other. Distortion will always be amplified. So the whole theory is a contradiction in itself!

 

[Mr Bill]

My explanation was largely in response to your post #61,

My point was that the angle of view in the photograph is irrelevant to the angle of view of the viewer.

I think I explained clearly how these angles CAN BE relevant. Rather than say, "Oh, so it CAN make a difference," you counter with, what if the viewer stands to the left or right? Well, ok...occasionally there are art and museum exhibits where the viewer's sight is restricted to a peephole, where the "realism" of the image is somewhat astounding.

Forgive me for typing this, but that is an absolutely absurd thing to be concerned about.

Yes, you are forgiven provided you also forgive me for saying that I feel like the person who tried to teach the pig to sing. Hopefully others will reach some sort of understanding on the well-known issue of proper viewing distance.

 

[Mr Bill]

I completely disagree with Mr. Bills theory for the following reason: If you have a wide-angle group shot where people standing near the edges of the frame look distorted, then this distortion plus the distortion caused by the print viewing distance will add to each other.

Hi, not so! First, the "theory" is supported by actual viewing of prints. When the wide angle photo of a group has apparent distortion, the heads near the outer perimeters become elongated away from the center. (This is due to the lens projection effectively striking a tilted-away surface.)

When a final print is viewed from a substantial distance, that elongation (away from center) is obvious. But as the viewing distance gets closer, the outer edges of the print are seen at steeper angles, and the original elongation becomes visually compressed. At the exactly correct viewing distance, the heads will visually become correct.

I now understand more clearly why Mark kept saying "Just try it."

If a group of people is photographed with, let´s say 70mm, distortion free lens, everyone should look natural shaped when the print is viewed from distance but if you come closer, people toward the edges will look more distorted from the center perspective.

Yes, I concur. Certainly this will happen as a result of the print being viewed from too close (relative to the original lens used).

If the print is already distorted because it was taken with a wide angle lens, they will even look more distorted.

Not so - the distortions are in opposite directions, they will cancel each other out.

 

[Mr Bill]

It appears that some think this idea of a "proper viewing distance" for prints, and that the "apparent wide angle effect" is some half-baked idea. So I'm going to put in a few literature references for those who might have them.

Basic Photographic Processes and Materials (Stroebel, Compton, Current, and Zakia, 1990) - page 150, "The Wide Angle Effect"

Applied Photographic Optics (S. Ray, 3rd Edition 1992) - Chapter 23, "Perspective and projection", see 23.1.3 "Viewing distance" and 23.1.4 "Perspective distortions."

View Camera Technique (Stroebel, 5th edition 1986) - section 7.13 "Apparent Perspective Effects: Viewing Distance"

Controls in Black and White Photography (Henry, 2nd edition 1988) - p.235 "Proper Viewing Distance of Prints."

Enlarging (Jacobson and Mannheim, 20th edition 1969) - p.28 "The Problem of Correct Perspective," followed by "The Optimum Degree of Enlargement," and "Practical Magnification Problems."

The last, Jacobson, has perhaps the most "readable" discussion; here's an excerpt:

We simply have to accept that we cannot achieve the realism of correct perspective with telephoto views. Fortunately this matters less in practice than might seem...
...
By similar arguments we can say that most people tend to look at wide angle pictures from too far away, or not enlarge the negatives sufficiently. That then leads to the exaggerated wide-angle perspective already mentioned. This is curable by simpling adjusting the magnification and final print size to the appropriate relationship for correct perspective. It incidentally also leads to a new way of looking at photographs: owing to the increased angle of view which the photograph subtends at the eye we can no longer take it in at one glance. The eye has to roam over the image - much as we scan a real scene in front of us.

This indeed greatly increases the realism of an enlargement from a wide-angle view. It is the reasoning behind wide-screen motion picture projection... This realism of perspective becomes equally impressive with giant enlargements of negatives taken with a wide-angle lens and used, for instance, as photo murals.

ps: in the event anyone wants to perform their own test - DO NOT use circles drawn on paper; this will not show the effect. (The wide lens sees the circles in a foreshortened manner, but the lens projection elongates them onto the film, cancelling the effect.) Only 3-D objects, such as people, or ping-pong/tennis balls, etc, will show the effect.

 

[markbarendt]

It appears that some think this idea of a "proper viewing distance" for prints, and that the "apparent wide angle effect" is some half-baked idea. So I'm going to put in a few literature references for those who might have them.

Basic Photographic Processes and Materials (Stroebel, Compton, Current, and Zakia, 1990) - page 150, "The Wide Angle Effect"

Applied Photographic Optics (S. Ray, 3rd Edition 1992) - Chapter 23, "Perspective and projection", see 23.1.3 "Viewing distance" and 23.1.4 "Perspective distortions."

View Camera Technique (Stroebel, 5th edition 1986) - section 7.13 "Apparent Perspective Effects: Viewing Distance"

Controls in Black and White Photography (Henry, 2nd edition 1988) - p.235 "Proper Viewing Distance of Prints."

Enlarging (Jacobson and Mannheim, 20th edition 1969) - p.28 "The Problem of Correct Perspective," followed by "The Optimum Degree of Enlargement," and "Practical Magnification Problems."

The last, Jacobson, has perhaps the most "readable" discussion; here's an excerpt:

Another place where one can see the viewing angle on 2D surface effect is the turn lane arrows on the highway. They look right when you are in that lane.