A few, limited observations on traditional portrait perspective for the newcomer

[Ulophot]

I thought I'd share a little experiment in perspective I conducted some years back. It is not meant to be anything but an observation, because portraiture is very complex, involving far more factors than merely perspective and foreshortening. The artist may use a host of means to accomplish his or her desired effect, and perspective may play a larger or smaller role therein. Examples now abound on the web, showing virtually identical portraits of a subject made at a number of distances, to demonstrate perspective effects. However, my little contribution may be useful for some newcomers to the field.

Since I tend to photograph on location and include more than just the head and shoulders, I was interested in more than just the facial appearance. The possibility of a full-length seated shot in a relaxed pose was a consideration, and I wondered about avoiding a big foot on a crossed leg coming at the camera in a frontal view, though I wouldn’t necessarily choose that orientation. Turning the subject or moving the camera would diminish that problem, but I thought I'd measure the effect of it.

The test I set up was simple. I sat in a chair with one leg crossed and roughly measured the following distances, back to front, along an imaginary axis parallel to the floor: from the middle of my ear to the tip of my nose; from my nose to a comfortably extended hand, as on a chair arm or table; from my nose to the shoe-tip on my crossed leg (farthest point from my body). These distances were about 5.5, 15, and 30 inches.

I made four identically sized, self-standing cards. I then placed the cards along the edge of a long table (see Picture1), those distances apart, marking the four body points described. Then, measuring from the nose card, I marked off 2-, 3-, 6-, and 9-foot distances and photographed the cards, from the level of their centers, from each distance with a (borrowed) digital SLR.

Loading the files in my computer, I measured the relative sizes of the cards in the several images by using Photoshop’s ruler tool on the height, then derived the ratio of heights of the nose to the ear card, the hand to the nose card, and the toe to the nose card, at each photographed distance. Measurements were all approximate; no need to fixate on numbers. Nonetheless, the results are useful in helping to quantify the effects of perspective.

The chart shows the relative heights of the two compared cards and the magnification factor. For example, at 2 feet, the ear and nose cards measured 26.25 and 32.8, respectively, meaning that the tip of the nose was 1.25 times, or 25 percent, larger than the ear, whereas at 6 feet (and even less), the difference in magnification is negligible, although an extended hand, if included, would still appear magnified about 25 percent larger than the face.

Again, these are not offered to suggest rules; they are merely observations for my work that may be useful to some others.

215150
215151

[ic-racer]

One can just aim a camera at a sitter and move closer and farther until the perspective is pleasing. After obtaining the correct perspective, one selects a lens to frame the subject. That is how I have done it for many years.

[Tin Can]

I pick format, lens, film

Make a set, with lights

Then bring in sitter(s)

Ask the sitter if they have any ideas

I try to relax all sitters with gentle patter which is not rehearsed

Prefer sitter sit

Adjust lighting

Try real hard to limit sitter actual time sitting to 20 minutes, no more than 4 LF shots

I want to try this type of shot more, this is a historical plate, I am scheming already

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51132131849_cfc6064512.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kUnxoa)51129192500_d1d279983f_6k (https://flic.kr/p/2kUnxoa) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

Then we drink some wine


after

[LocalHero1953]

After this experiment, did you come to a conclusion about the limits of acceptable distortion? What nose to ear or nose to foot ratio is acceptable or unobservable?
The two ratios I notice particularly after nose-to-ear (i.e. I can see the distortion ; I haven't measured it like you) are face-to-leading shoulder for someone side on, and face-to-hand for a shot of somebody seated.

I'm a newcomer to LF, but have done a lot of portraiture in 35mm, so I know that to avoid distortion I need to be at least 6' away to keep head-and-shoulder distortion down, and that is not enough if a foot or hand is well out ahead. That implies a 90mm or so lens for head-and-shoulders in 35mm format. I was wondering what FL I would need for portraits in 5x4. I have started with a 250mm lens, which is more equivalent to to 60mm in 35mm format.

[fotopfw]

In LF I take more in the frame from the environment, the model is clear enough to see on that format.
That gives me some distance from the model, and I don't have to bother so much with perspective and DOF too.
I did have trouble with that on head/head and shoulders shots.
I like the way you showed this.

[Ulophot]

LocalHero, I have not come to hard conclusions, in part due to the many factors which can affect the final image, in part due to Covid having put my portraiture in abeyance just as I was getting started into it again after obligatory years away from my cameras. I have spent considerable time over the past several years since beginning my return (with various new features requiring lots of new testing, mostly confined to occasional weekends) studying portraits here and elsewhere online, as well as in books, and have been surprised at the strength of many that were made from a distance I would not have even considered, sometimes with "normal" lenses. That, plus discussions on the effective differences in appearance with different degrees of enlargement and viewing distances, have led me to consider violating my previous, generally 6-foot starting point.

I think one should also consider that some faces are much flatter than others, some wider, or narrower, and that a lesser or greater distance may subtly improve the drawing of a given face from certain angles, regardless of the "math."

I have naturally encountered the same issues you have in previous times, and preferred 85-105 for 35mm portraits, mostly. I sold my SLRs to refresh my 4x5 gear several years back, keeping my M4 with 35, 50, and an added 90. In 645 I like the 110mm, though I have a 150, and in 4x5 my 210, which is -- if I may suggest -- is closer to 60mm in 35 than your 250, though these things can be calculated in various ways. It happens that the 110 and 210 are very close, relative to format, and take in an upper-body framing at 5.5-6 feet, which often suits me. They are also short enough to allow full-length standing in a long room, and provide a bit more DOF than longer lenses would.

I look forward to seeing how some ~4-foot-distant portraits work out in different poses, when I start up again; I don't expect to get much closer than that. I should also mention, that I finally decided to add a 135 as a second lens for my 4x5, to handle interiors, especially, in which I wish to have the subject more surrounded by the environment and with extended DOF.

The never-ending learning process of portraiture!

[Alan Klein]

Would a 300mm with 4x5 be a good portrait lens? I'm asking because I already have one.

[Bernice Loui]

Traditional yes, 240mm to 300mm is often used as head-shoulder portrait on 4x5. Backing up is always an option to achieve the framing as needed.
More than just body shape rendition on film, it moves the camera away from the portrait sitter and allows room for lighting and lighting related items. IMO, lighting and related is MORE important than lens/camera. To make it overall good, it is a balanced lens of portrait sitter/lighting/pose/lens-camera and all related.

If one really gets into this, out of focus rendition of lens to be used from full aperture to about 3 f-stops down IS important. This plus how the lens transitions from in to out of focus and the lens's ability to separate subtle contrast differences. All these factors plus how the film behaves with lighting can aid in rendering dimensionality into a 2D image.


Bernice



Would a 300mm with 4x5 be a good portrait lens? I'm asking because I already have one.

[Ulophot]

Alan, why not? According to one calculator, this is roughly equivalent to an 80mm lens on 35mm, but I think this conservative (again, calculation methods differ). It's twice the length of the typically cited 150mm as normal for 4x5, and therefore, certainly a common "portrait" length. Many people presume a head-and-shoulders or closer framing of the face as typical for portraiture, and a head-and-shoulders framing with this focal length would put you in the range of 5 1/2 feet from your subject. Your challenge then may or may not be the DOF, which, at f/22 at this distance is just over 4 1/2 inches.

I prefer to start with a looser framing, usually; I'm a big fan of Rembrandt, among others, and a print of Velazquez's magnificent portrait of Juan de Pareja hangs over our mantle piece. The 210 works well for this, giving me an upper body framing at the same distance and about the same DOF at f/11 as your 300 at f/22. These are all choices. Strand reported used only a 300 for many years, on both his slightly cropped 5x6 (5x6.25) and 8x10. He managed pretty well, I'd say.

In all these matters, we need to try to master what we have, rather than hoping something else will solve our problem. It may, and it may be just right at some point, but skipping around in this mind-set is poisonous to focused creative work.

[Tin Can]

Perhaps we need to look at other formats and lenses

I always grab my Nikon 135mm f2 for Digi

PHOTO OF THE DAY
Eye-Catching Portraits and Photos of the Week (https://www.rangefinderonline.com/news-features/photo-of-the-day/eye-catching-portraits-and-photos-of-the-week-20/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Eye-Catching+Portraits+and+Photos+of+the+Week&utm_campaign=RF+Eng+20210424+POTW)

[Bernice Loui]

Canon FD 85mm f1.2L & Canon M6 digital, portrait grabber outfit.
Most often used aperture, f1.2 to f4.


Bernice




I always grab my Nikon 135mm f2 for Digi

[Tin Can]

I had a new Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens

Never liked it, I also tried the Nikon 105 f2, sold both. Then sold a 135 f2 and regretted it, so I bought another and kept it

I found out, I didn't like zooms. especially my 17-35 $2000 crap

[LocalHero1953]

Thank you, Philip, it's good to hear from someone whose thinking parallels mine. I also spend time looking at painted portraiture - especially Rembrandt, Vermeer, Velasquez..... My portraiture and theatre work is just beginning to start up again. I should have timed my step into large format earlier in the pandemic - though we can meet up more, I still need to build my confidence in mastering the basic craft skills of frame, focus and exposure before I can reasonably persuade others to take me on trust!

[Ulophot]

Yes, Paul, it is a jump from any roll film camera to LF. You have some impressive work on your site, so I'm confident you'll find your way.

[Mark Sampson]

Let's go back 40 years or so, to when I was a portrait photographer. I worked for a large studio, and my assignments were high school senior portraits. I and my colleagues used 70mm long-roll cameras; the format was nominally 6x7cm. The lenses on those cameras were 210mm f.l. That gave a conventionally pleasing perspective for the head-and-shoulders compositions required. My own ideas were shaped by those uncounted thousands of such portrait sittings... styles have changed since 1980, but my ideas about portrait perspective have not, and when I was called upon to shoot portraits later in my career (not often) I used the same visual ideas. (I still see a few of those portraits made on the job showing up on LinkedIn and FB.) The few portraits I've done with a 4x5 have all been made with a 300mm lens; when I shoot pictures of people nowadays I use my old-faithful Nikon 105/2.5 on FFD.
Of course environmental portraiture is a different matter, and the master, Arnold Newman, did as he liked with lenses and perspective; so should you.

[Tin Can]

As long as we are on Digi cams

I find the ones that can change format are good for seeing a longer lens effect

A D750 can make a lens longer by in camera crop from FX to 1.2 or DX 1.5

Which I chimp when deciding on what I want to see on a bigger screen

Making all my lenses versatile

[Alan Klein]

Alan, why not? According to one calculator, this is roughly equivalent to an 80mm lens on 35mm, but I think this conservative (again, calculation methods differ). It's twice the length of the typically cited 150mm as normal for 4x5, and therefore, certainly a common "portrait" length. Many people presume a head-and-shoulders or closer framing of the face as typical for portraiture, and a head-and-shoulders framing with this focal length would put you in the range of 5 1/2 feet from your subject. Your challenge then may or may not be the DOF, which, at f/22 at this distance is just over 4 1/2 inches.

I prefer to start with a looser framing, usually; I'm a big fan of Rembrandt, among others, and a print of Velazquez's magnificent portrait of Juan de Pareja hangs over our mantle piece. The 210 works well for this, giving me an upper body framing at the same distance and about the same DOF at f/11 as your 300 at f/22. These are all choices. Strand reported used only a 300 for many years, on both his slightly cropped 5x6 (5x6.25) and 8x10. He managed pretty well, I'd say.

In all these matters, we need to try to master what we have, rather than hoping something else will solve our problem. It may, and it may be just right at some point, but skipping around in this mind-set is poisonous to focused creative work.

F32 would give you 7" DOF which I guess is how thick my head is about. So would f32 be better at 5 1/2 feet. (focus range 5' 2.7" to 5' 9.7") You focus on the eyes and get the full head from tip of nose to back of ears.

I assume with view cameras, you use no movements or anything else with portraitures?

[Alan Klein]

Just to divert a little, today so many portraitures and blog videos are so distorted with big noses and obtuse faces due to getting closer with their wide-angle lenses on cameras and how vlogging cameras are used. They make the subjects look pretty bad. Yet people just accept them or don't notice or don't care.

[Alan Klein]

Look at my avatar picture. It was an extreme crop from a much wider photo. What lens would that be on a 4x5, 6x7 and 35mm if shot full?

[Ulophot]

"I assume with view cameras, you use no movements or anything else with portraitures?"

I have till now kept the back vertical for portraiture, but I have used lens tilt or swing on occasion. It's not different in that regard from any other subject: how is it I wish to portray my subject? I tend to find extremely short DOF in a portrait, especially a facial close-up, distracting; there are times when it works, but, for me, rarely. It's a matter of aesthetics and conception. Classical painters (by Classical, I refer to a philosophy more than any particular time period per se, just as in music) have had their own ways of rendering areas or a portrait "out of focus." In my view, the unity of the conception is key in a work of art.

[Bernice Loui]

Question is.. why is that type of distortion acceptable and widely accepted?

Answer could be connected to why the market for images has changes SO much in today's data centric image sharing world.

~As for your avatar image, that would be a longer than normal focal length image. Cropped out of a "wider" image achieves essentially the same visual effect as a longer then normal focal length lens.


Bernice



Just to divert a little, today so many portraitures and blog videos are so distorted with big noses and obtuse faces due to getting closer with their wide-angle lenses on cameras and how vlogging cameras are used. They make the subjects look pretty bad. Yet people just accept them or don't notice or don't care.

[Tin Can]

So many cell phone images are published/shared per second worldwide

the wide angle cell phone IS the Standard now

this will change as cell phones improve

long focus phones are coming

evolution

[Ulophot]

In response to Bernice, above, and without straying into non-forum territory: I think it fair to say that the lunge, as it were, into distortion, which has continued through the present (as opposed to more isolated examples earlier, e.g., Brandt's nudes), began in the mid- to late-1960s hand-in-hand with the psychedelic counter-culture. Other factors, such as lens design improvements and mobility of broadcast-quality TV cameras, contributed to the on-the-street, in-your-face news interviews with the lens not more than 2 feet from the interviewee; however, in my view, having lived through these changes and studied them, the cultural change, now many decades old, has created a "new normal" for younger generations especially. I think I'll leave it there.