Comparison tool for portrait lenses with REAL images

[photo1x1.com]

But what does that have to do with the comparison tool?

 

[480sparky]

They don't match.

 

[photo1x1.com]

And that means?

 

[480sparky]

I give up. You win.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Not I win. The reality seems to proof (some) calculators wrong, because these are real images.
I'm not sure how somebody could get the idea I kind of manipulated them.

 

[waday]

I think he’s saying that you would have had to change your physical position, one being 5 ft away (35 mm) and one being 17 ft away (135 mm) in this example, to correctly compare the two photos. Because the DOF isn’t the same, the pictures weren’t taken at the distances needed to compare the photos. So, while you’re comparing two different focal lengths and apertures, the comparison is not technically correct because the distance from sensor to subject is not correct.

He’s not saying that you manipulated them. He’s saying you weren’t standing in the right place when you took the comparative photos.

I think.

 

[photo1x1.com]

I'm really not trying to be impolite or anything. I just don't really get it.
I have been shooting many, many portraits. With every portrait (half body) I shot, I tried to keep the same framing of the subject (same distance head to the top of the frame and same distance of the button of her jeans to the bottom of the frame). So the goal was to make it comparable. Obviously with prime lenses, that made me physically change the position, otherwise that would not have been possible.
So it seems I did exactly what you say, yet the result of those real images is not what you expected. But the images are real, and reality sometimes seems to proof calculations wrong.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Hm. Ok, I thought you had made a composite image with the subject being overlaid over the background. As I look at some of the combinations I can see how the model changes just slightly.

It sounds like you took pictures at each of the listed apertures and with each focal length moving your shooting position so that the subject was framed at approximately the same size in each shot.

People have posted videos of something similar to show how different focal lengths render the subject.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Hm. Ok, I thought you had made a composite image with the subject being overlaid over the background. As I look at some of the combinations I can see how the model changes just slightly.

It sounds like you took pictures at each of the listed apertures and with each focal length moving your shooting position so that the subject was framed at approximately the same size in each shot.

People have posted videos of something similar to show how different focal lengths render the subject.

Exactly. Those are real images, as I wrote in the title. I myself did a video a while ago, but thought a tool like this would make focal lengths and apertures much easier comparable. Particularly because it is not only about the subject, but also about the background (blur and angle of view).

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Hm. Ok, I thought you had made a composite image with the subject being overlaid over the background. As I look at some of the combinations I can see how the model changes just slightly.

It sounds like you took pictures at each of the listed apertures and with each focal length moving your shooting position so that the subject was framed at approximately the same size in each shot.

People have posted videos of something similar to show how different focal lengths render the subject.

Exactly. Those are real images, as I wrote in the title. I myself did a video a while ago, but thought a tool like this would make focal lengths and apertures much easier comparable. Particularly because it is not only about the subject, but also about the background (blur and angle of view).

Your subject was able to stay very still. How long did it take you?

I would have expected her forward arm (her left arm) to be more accentuated and appear larger in the 35mm version compared to the 200mm.

I’m also still surprised that at the lower apertures you were able to keep her completely in focus.

 

[photo1x1.com]

I knew f anyone could do it, then it would be her. She is model and our makeup artist, she is just great. It took me way over an hour to complete all the shots.
35mm isn’t all that wide and many wedding photographers use it as a second lens for their couple shots. I love that focal length, particularly at f/1.4.
Particularly on a crop sensor it doesn’t disturt much at all because you step back quite a bit.

 

[JBPhotog]

Hmm something isn't jivin'. Here are screen shots of your example photos and there is no way a 35mm at f1.8 that far away from the subject to capture a full body would have that shallow of DoF. In fact the framing looks very close to the same between them even though there is 50mm difference in FL.

Maybe check your lookups to see they are pulling the right file.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Thanks! Much appreciated. There is indeed a bug. I just tried to reroute it, but it would still show the same image for the 35mm f/1.8. I have to investigate into that.
Thanks again

 

[photo1x1.com]

Thanks again. Issue solved. I had a wrong database entry for the 135mm f/1.8 that's why it showed up as 135mm f/1.8 and confused the system.
Now it shows correct: 85mm f/1.8 vs 35mm f/1.8

 

[JBPhotog]

I'd say it isn't fixed based on these screen shots. Check out the view angle and the DoF, they don't look like the appropriate FL to me.