Ideal Camera Height For Full Length Portrait

[Bruce E. Rathbun]

Can anyone tell me a good guideline for the camera height on a full length pose? I will be taking a portrait tomorrow afternoon of some family members. The portrait will be on either 8x10 or 11x14. It has been a long time since I have done a full length image. Any suggestions?

[tim o'brien]

I don't do a lot of portraits, so take this with a grain of salt. My best full lengths are taken with the camera about lower chest position, like with a graflex or TLR position. It seems to give a very balanced look, prespective wise, to the photograph.

Others with more experience may see different, but that's what I have observed.

tim in san jose

[Bruce E. Rathbun]

Thanks Tim. I ask as I do not do many full length shots. I was thinking around the middle of the chest area for lens placement. I do want to keep away from looking too far up the nose.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've heard people say that chest level is a standard for portraits, but I think that's just a historical artifact of the waist-level finder and can produce that "up the nose" perspective you mention as well as exaggerating flabby necks. It depends on the subject and the angle of the head, but I find I'm often around eye level, more or less (lower if a high perspective will produce a different distortion, like exaggerated baldness), and I'll use front fall and/or will angle the camera down to frame with the head at the top of the frame.

[Ralph Barker]

I think a lot depends on your subjects, the look you want to achieve, and the focal length/working distance you have to work with, Bruce. At full length, you're not likely to have an up-the-nose problem by positioning the camera lower than you would for a head shot. "Fashion style" would position the camera at or slightly below the waist, thus accentuating/lengthening the legs. In contrast, eye level will shorten the legs, making the subject appear a bit "dumpy". For women, don't forget to turn the hips at an angle.

[Jay DeFehr]

Although chest level or eye level can vary with the photographer (I'm 6'2"), I'm with the chest level crowd on this one. It only takes a minute to look through your viewfinder/GG and decide for yourself. Good luck.

[John Cook]

Excellent advice.

In addition, use the longest lens your situation will allow. Frame your picture with the front rise and fall, remembering to keep the camera back absolutely vertical (plumb).

Distortion, keystoning and foreshortening can be terribly trendy in fashion, but in portraiture isn't usually helpful. And it is difficult to evaluate in an upside-down ground glass image.

[mike rosenlof]

My vote goes for shoulder to head level with a bit of back rise for framing. I too like long lenses for this sort of work 300 or 360mm on 4x5 can be really nice

[tim o'brien]

Looks like all great advice. Time to go shoot and MOVE that camera around. Something will come out right. Guaranteed.

tim in san jose

[Bill Parrott]

Bruce ..

For full length portraits, you don't necessarily want a *long* lens nor do you want the camera angle to be too high. Zeltsman, a well known portrait photographer suggests that the lens length be somewhere around the diagonal of the format or slightly shorter even. For 3/4 length portraits, he suggest a slightly longer lens of about 1.5x the diagonal .. jsut some thoughts. In my work, I use pretty much a normal lens for full length portraits which are mostly bridals. As for the camera angle, the prevailing thought is to place the lens somewhere between the waist and the chest depending on your surroundings. Hope that helps.