Movements for a full length portrait?

[sully75]

Hi All,

I've been vexed a bit with this for a while. If I'm taking a full length portrait with a normal lens, my instinct is to want to keep both standards parallel with the subject. So if there were no movements, the camera would be about belt height, which I don't think is good.

I think that's how I ended up with this picture, I'm not sure (it was one of my first), but it feels like the picture is centered on his belt with a little distortion (this is 180mm on a 5x7, so a little wide)

Andy by Paul McEvoy, on Flickr


So...My instinct is to put the camera about Adam's Apple height, and then use a lot of front drop (on my usual portrait camera, that's all I have available) to bring the feet into the picture.

I actually don't have enough front drop to do this though, particularly for a tall person. Then my alternatives are
1) drop the tripod height to where the combination of front drop and camera height get the person entirely in frame (except I don't really have enough front drop...I end up with the camera feeling too low, so I end up cutting off people's feet like:


Mike in the Back Yard by Paul McEvoy, on Flickr

I haven't really worked with the camera much lower than that but I'm paranoid it's going to look weird (I know...just need to try it).

or

2) use a combination of front drop and tripod tilt (I don't have front tilt) to get the person in frame, and then rear tilt (got that!) to get the proportions right. That works, sorta, except then I get inconsistent DOF on the subject, have to use a wider aperture or end up with this:

Mary Ann by Paul McEvoy, on Flickr

Which is nice on its own but not at all what I meant to do.

Really what I want is the second picture, but without cutting off the feet.

So...my question, for pretty straight on, squarish portraits like these, are you using front drop and keeping everything parallel? Am I on the basic right track with this? Should I just drop the camera lower?

Thanks
Paul

[Peter Gomena]

Placing the camera at belly-height doesn't bother me at all. Many portraits and fashion shots are made from waist-level to make the subject feel large and powerful. (Look at Helmut Newton's work as a prime example. Rolleiflex at waist level.) Since you have no front tilt on your camera, maybe you can split the difference and shoot from chest-height rather than neck-height. You might have to back up a little. Or get a camera with front tilt. You will have to be able to tilt the camera bed or rail down and then tilt the front and back standards parallel. You may begin to run out of image circle with a 180.

Peter Gomena

[sully75]

Thanks Peter. It's really the first shot that's always bothered me and got me worked up. And I'm not even sure that's what's going on. I think it's that the 180mm is just a little wide for these kind of portraits. I'm actually using a 210mm now.

I'll have to try some test shots at different heights.

[Michael Batchelor]

I agree with Peter. Keeping the camera at head height is for your mind's eye. Specifically it puts you on an equal plane with the subject.

Forget about all that. You aren't having a conversation with the subject. You're making a portrait of the subject. Unless there is something in the background that you want in the centerline of the subject's head then place the camera where you can easily get the best portrait.

Quit looking only at the subject's head. Look at the whole body, and also look at the plane from the center of the lens through the subject.

Sometimes you really might want the camera high. Other times you might not.

[Frank Petronio]

Stand back a little further?

Shoot at tit level since that usually works... that's what I do a lot.

Tilt the camera and let the focus on the feet fall where it may? Which is what you did with the female portrait and it is uber-trendy, but I'm over it since it's been trendy for a long time now (about as long as Aero-Ektars have been trendy).

Or beg their patience and try to tilt the camera and then adjust both standards to be parallel to the person again... tick tock, tick tock. I bet most people are patient but you probably will feel weird and clumsy doing this for a minute or two since it is extremely geeky.

Or get a monorail with real rise and fall control and do it the way you intend to do it. Everyone here likes to fall all over themselves about field cameras but sometimes a full-movement monorail just makes so much more practical sense whenever you deviate from doing simple repetitive rocks and trees landscapes.

[Frank Petronio]

Stand back a little further?

Shoot at chest level since that usually works... that's what I do a lot.

Tilt the camera and let the focus on the feet fall where it may? Which is what you did with the female portrait and it is uber-trendy, but I'm over it since it's been trendy for a long time now (about as long as Aero-Ektars have been trendy).

Or beg their patience and try to tilt the camera and then adjust both standards to be parallel to the person again... tick tock, tick tock. I bet most people are patient but you probably will feel weird and clumsy doing this for a minute or two since it is extremely geeky.

Or get a monorail with real rise and fall control and do it the way you intend to do it. Everyone here likes to fall all over themselves about field cameras but sometimes a full-movement monorail just makes so much more practical sense whenever you deviate from doing simple repetitive rocks and trees landscapes.

[sully75]

Thanks Frank. The picture of the woman, it's fine and nice but I don't show it to people as part of my portfolio. It was not my intention at all.

I'll just shoot lower I guess. Makes sense. The camera I'm using is so light weight, it's really easy to carry around and harass strangers with, which is what I'm trying to do lately. I hear you (broken record) re: monorails, but find they don't go over the shoulder all that well the way my piece of crap 5x7 does. If it had front tilt, all this wouldn't be a problem, but alas, no sale on that.

[Dan Dozer]

Hi Paul,

One thing I've learned is that if you're shooting a person who isn't very tall and also has a long torso and short legs, shooting with the camera up at eye level will make their legs look shorter. Not nearly as much of an issue with subjects with longer legs. Also, I nearly always shoot with the camera level with the ground and use rise/fall to position the person in the frame. I almost never shoot with the camera tilted down at all. If you have the camera position up high and pointing down, depending on the focal length of the lens and the height/proportions of the subject, it can make the upper part of their body out of proportion with their lower part (unless that's what your're trying to achieve).

[Tobias Key]

To my eye the in picture no.1 the feet seem too big and the head too small. So I'd say the camera was too low. Image 2 looks right apart from the cropped out feet. I normally shoot with the camera at about chest high with a 210mm on a monorail and use a little bit of drop, seems to work really nicely. Monorails are cheap...

[jp]

In image 1, the verticals of the porch are right, but perspective doesn't seem right on the person. If you can avoid the complex architectural geometry in the background, your life will be easier.

I'm also fine with the rolleiflex/sternum/high-waist height for the camera. For outdoor environmental, I'm more apt to be thinking about the upper body/head and what's behind it, how it relates to the horizon or background than a particular height.

With my 8x10, I use rise/fall to get legs in the photo. Subject distance and camera height control what's behind the person's head. In this example, http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2012/img491.jpg I wanted to keep my daughter's head out of the trees in the background (300mm on 8x10). I used a surveying tripod at it's lowest height.

With 4x5, I usually just consider what I want in the background, aim down if needed, not worrying about movements. http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2011/img002.jpg is an example with the camera at about 3' height aimed straight and level (210mm on 4x5). http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2012/img518.jpg is one I aimed down from my normal handheld height and didn't have the focus right (210mm lens), but the perspective is OK. Had I managed to get her face in focus, the feet would be a little fuzzy, but that wouldn't bother me.