Children's faces and the lens

[Lonnie1212]

Okay folks,

I bought the 135mm Nikon lens the angry photographer talks about. The pics are the sharpest I have ever seen. But the faces of my grandchildren do not look right. They look like different people. Something is not right here. They still look like cute little kids. But they do not look exactly like who they are. My daughter in law said she didn't recognize her 4 year old daughter in the picture when she first saw it. I think that more distance between me and the subject helps a little. The old 50 mm prime lens and the 24-120 mm take what I call 'more true' facial pictures. Any thoughts?

 

[zombiesniper]

Can post two images, one with the 135mm and one with a lens that doesn't have this issue? This will aid people in understanding what is happening with the image.

 

[Lonnie1212]

Can post two images, one with the 135mm and one with a lens that doesn't have this issue? This will aid people in understanding what is happening with the image.

When I get home tonight. I will post a couple. Thank you

 

[Lonnie1212]

This lens is breathtakingly sharp. Not all the images turned out bad. I can say that it's not a beginner's lens. It is very sharp but very unforgiving at the same time. It's going to take time to get used to it.

 

[smoke665]

Focal length and distance from the subject can have a huge effect on facial proportions How Focal Length Affects Your Subject's Weight in Portraits The other thing to consider is DOF and the amount of skin in focus. On kids, I'm fanatic about eyes being tack sharp, but a little blur on the cheeks, forehead, nose, goes a long way toward minimizing blotchy spots and blemishes.

 

[Designer]

I think that more distance between me and the subject helps a little.

Any thoughts?

Which is precisely the point of using a longer lens.

If their mother wants to continue to have close-in snapshots made with a shorter lens, then that is her prerogative.

BTW: Some photographers use even longer lenses, such as 180mm and 300mm, depending on how much room is available to avoid the distortion effect you get with a short lens.

 

[Designer]

This lens is breathtakingly sharp. Not all the images turned out bad. I can say that it's not a beginner's lens. It is very sharp but very unforgiving at the same time. It's going to take time to get used to it.

I don't understand.

What do you mean by "unforgiving"? Are you trying to get a very thin DOF? If so, why? I usually make sure my DOF is at least as deep as the subject.

 

[Lonnie1212]

This lens is breathtakingly sharp. Not all the images turned out bad. I can say that it's not a beginner's lens. It is very sharp but very unforgiving at the same time. It's going to take time to get used to it.

I don't understand.

What do you mean by "unforgiving"? Are you trying to get a very thin DOF? If so, why? I usually make sure my DOF is at least as deep as the subject.

By unforgiving I would say I have made more blunders with the 135 than any other lens. Yet at the same time the good pics can be breathtaking. Especially with children in front of a Christmas tree. As far as DOF, it is a critical issue. I took a picture of Micah's face and it was in focus. But Levi, who was 8 inches closer to me was out of focus. I
But that would be more of a focus point issue and aperture setting. I will post a couple of pics tonight. I am starting to confuse myself. I have so many questions and it goes on and on.

 

[Designer]

This lens is breathtakingly sharp. Not all the images turned out bad. I can say that it's not a beginner's lens. It is very sharp but very unforgiving at the same time. It's going to take time to get used to it.

I don't understand.

What do you mean by "unforgiving"? Are you trying to get a very thin DOF? If so, why? I usually make sure my DOF is at least as deep as the subject.

By unforgiving I would say I have made more blunders with the 135 than any other lens. Yet at the same time the good pics can be breathtaking. Especially with children in front of a Christmas tree. As far as DOF, it is a critical issue. I took a picture of Micah's face and it was in focus. But Levi, who was 8 inches closer to me was out of focus. I
But that would be more of a focus point issue and aperture setting. I will post a couple of pics tonight. I am starting to confuse myself. I have so many questions and it goes on and on.

Get hold of a DOF calculator. You can access any one of several choices on the internet, or do as I have done; get one on your smart phone so you always have it available.

Then, take a few minutes to do some measuring (or estimating if you can do that) the distances involved. If there is more than one person, be sure to make the DOF deep enough to include everybody.

Eventually, with enough practice, you can easily estimate the distances involved, and knowing your lens, you can get a feel for how much DOF you will have at any particular setting.

I presume you have now realized that the longer the lens, the farther back you have to be to frame whatever subject(s) you are shooting. That, too, will become intuitive as you gain practice with each lens you own.

 

[Derrel]

The lens has an inscribed depth of field scale on the barrel and the f stops are color coded in the old Nikon way. At 10, or 12, or 15 feet, or a metric equivalent of one of those three distances, f/8 should give you enough depth of field for a two-person portrait provided that the faces are fairly close together in distance.