Why 50mm will ruin your face

[sqw]

In my post yesterday, some people were having trouble seeing what I was getting at with the full length figures, so here is a better example, concentrating on just a head shot.

http://www.filmphotoacademy.com/blog...e105_thumb.jpg

This is shot at 105mm – everything is well proportioned – she looks human

http://www.filmphotoacademy.com/blog...e070_thumb.jpg

This is shot at 50mm and the proportions are drifting off – by comparing the two images you can see that things are not right at this focal length.

http://www.filmphotoacademy.com/blog...e024_thumb.jpg

And to take it to the extreme – this is 24mm – obviously the distortions are greatly exaggerated – but the 50mm is still showing the same distortion just not as strongly.

The reason for this is not a distortion in the lens, but a perspective distortion. It's caused because nearer objects will always appear larger in the frame. So, when you use a shorter focal length, in order to achieve the same crop you have to move the lens closer to the subject.

[postcardcv]

Please can you post the photos into the thread as it will make them much easier to view.

[sqw]

Would love to but [img] is turned off for me....

[postcardcv]

You can add the photos as attachments to the post, we do not allow images to be embedded as it is possible for them to be deleted at source leaving a thread making little or no sense.

[sassan]

Yes and good work flow.
Not because I am mean(OK you may argue to the contrary), but I have dedicated my 8mm fisheye lens to my beloved Mother-in-law and actually call that lens, MIL lens! And please trust me when I tell you that it is not the portrait that I took with that lens that made her to love me mutually, it happened spontaneously right from dinosaur times...

But then, another take home note, you can take an acceptable portrait image with a 50m or even 24, if and only when you increase the distance of subject from camera and crop the image tight in post processing.