Environmental portraits - what are the best focal lengths?

[bartonke]

What are the most appropriate range of focal lengths for environmental portraits? Should I accept distortion as part of environmental portraiture and select the focal length that will give me the best landscape shot (i.e., something ultra-wide)? Or should I take the subject into account and try to limit the amount of distortion by selecting a longer focal length (e.g., by shooting ‘wide’ instead of ‘ultra-wide’)?

For example, let's say I was going to photograph a subject in front of the Coliseum, Grand Canyon, or Eiffel Towel. If I was just interested in the landscape, I would usually go ultra-wide (e.g., 11mm-16mm on a DX camera). Once I introduce a person into the landscape, how should the focal length change? Should I shoot the subject with an ultra-wide lens – this would give me more landscape (good), but more distortion of the subject (bad). Or should I instead opt for a compromise focal length (e.g., 24mm-29mm on a DX camera) – this would give me less landscape (bad), but also less distortion of the subject (good)?

 

[akwildshots]

personally, I don't think you can't generalise: you have to decide what you want to get out of the photo and adjust accordingly. I had a similar but different (that makes no sense) problem when shooting a leopard at sunset. I could over expose and wash out the sky but capture enough of him to get some detail which I could save in Lightroom or I could focus on the entire picture not just the leopard. I thought quickly before he moved away and decided to under expose and create a silhouette which worked well. You must apply the same choice making: decide what you want your main focus to be and how you want to portray them, then achieve the best compromise your equipment will allow you.

If you find this unhelpful (I know I would) and you just want an opinion, I would go for the person (the 24mm lens). A person viewing an environmental portrait looks at the person as the main focus, we are accustomed to it, we always enjoy taking pictures of people and like seeing them. So if you can't decide what you want to achieve out of an image, shoot for what your audience will look for.

Hope this helps. =]

 

[tirediron]

First, as mentioned, you cannot generalize. There is no one 'right' focal length for any type of work. Second, what you are describing are NOT environmental portraits. An environmental portrait is a portrait of the person in their environment. For example, a carpenter captured while building a house, or a taxi-driver in his cab.

What you are describing sounds to me more like a landscape shot that is going to have a person in it. In that case, you need to decide which is the priority; the person (long focal length) or the scene (short focal length).

 

[analog.universe]

I agree that it will certainly depend on the situation. However, if I was going out to do one of these shots, I'd probably reach for my 24mm first, and only go to the 11-16 if I couldn't make the 24 work. In addition to the expected distortion-due-to-focal-length, different lenses will render edge distortion differently at a given focal length. When I say I'll reach for my 24, I do it because it's wide AND because I know it's decent on the edges. I used to have a 28 that I was reluctant to frame people at the edge of... all depends on the rendering of the lens in question.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

If I'm taking a pic of a mountain I usually use my 24-70 at 24-35mm or so. If I'm framing a tree, waterfall, or barn on the side of the mountain I'll use my 70-200 at 200.

Do you want a few water lilys or the whole pond?

 

[KmH]

A portrait is intended to be about the person. So no, an wide angle lens would probably not be appropriate for an enviornmental portrait.

There is the further issue of image frame orientation.