I share the following in case it may be of interest to other portraitists, expecially those relatively new to the field,. I am by no means new to it but am taking a new turn in my course and am discovering along the way some things I hadn’t previously recognized fully.
Many have seen examples, in books or on the web, of the effect of focal length on the way the lens “draws,” or renders, the face. A model, head height filling the frame, is photographed repeatedly, starting with a very wide-angle lens and each time with a longer focal length while the photographer backs away to maintain constant head size. The increasing spacial compression widens the face and neck in a straight-on frontal view.
Although about 6 feet (2 meters) lens to subject is often cited as a minimum distance for proper facial drawing, my curiosity had been aroused by numerous images taken from much closer distances than I for many years would have used, and with shorter lenses, while maintaining an apparently normal view (i.e., no obviously unusual effect.) Over the weekend, I made a series of tests, in three formats (4x5, 645, 35mm) with the lenses I have, making images from as close as about 3.5 feet, then 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 feet. I chose a few of the negs from each format and enlarged them to keep the head size fairly constant.
Instead of a fronal view, however, I chose a 3/4 view, which is more typical for my work. Although I did not have a professional model and the tests show more variation of pose “slippage” than I’d like, they show something that in hindsight is ovbious. Rather than thinning the face, the 5’ and closer images make it appear a bit fuller. The cause is the same as that in frontal views of course: parts of the face closer to the camera are enlarged more than those further away, a simple result of perspective. In this case, the cheek and close jaw side bulge slighly. The effect is subtle with the distances I used (no extreme close-ups) but notable.
These photos also confirmed for me that the close shoulder and arm, though subject to the same optical law, do not appear unusually large, although arms and legs extended toward the camera, if included with a short or normal focal length fron these distances, certainly did. Certain poses with hands would similarly.
I like the expression (not mine) that there are no recipes, only solutions to problems. Each artist has his or her vision. My observation is just one, small aspect of the infinite facets of portrait photography, affected by angle, lighting, head gesture (turn, tilt, etc.), and so on. Just something I will be aware of now that I have done the experiment myself and feel comfortable moving in closer with a shorter lens than I would have previously.
(My lenses range from 35mm to 90mm, in 35mm approximate equivalents.)
Bookmarks