Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 24, 2004, 12:27 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

In addition to getting outside and taking photos, I do a lot of indoor portrait/glam/costume type work.

I recently picked up a 10D to replace the work I do with my Fujifilm S602. This camera and functionality isn't totally new to me considering that I used to shoot 35mm SLR back in the day.

Anyway, with the 10D, I picked up a 50mm Canon lens and a Tamron 28-75 (or something close to that) and have run into a small issue....which is not being able to get a full legnth body shot.

My indoor studio is basically a small room with backdrops and hot lights. This distance from me to the model is somewhat limited, but the link below shows what I was able to get with the S602 camera.

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/...hy/Marilyn.jpg

Using the new camera, with the Tamron lens, the best I can get is this:

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/...rilynShort.jpg

So the question is (short of finding a new studio), are there other lens options that will allow me to get these full length shots?

Thanks everyone for your expertise in advance.


Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 24, 2004, 12:53 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Remember that because of the size of the CMOS sensor vs 35mm film there is something called a crop factor. Your 28-75 lens on the 10D is actually 44.8mm - 120mm. Look into wide angle lenses like:

Canon 17-40mm L = 27.2mm - 64mm on 10D

Sigma 17-35mm = 27.2mm - 56mm on 10D

Sigma 15-30mm= 24mm- 48mm on 10D

etc...
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 1:17 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

mrkryz wrote:
Quote:
Remember that because of the size of the CMOS sensor vs 35mm film there is something called a crop factor. Your 28-75 lens on the 10D is actually 44.8mm - 120mm. Look into wide angle lenses like:

Canon 17-40mm L = 27.2mm - 64mm on 10D

Sigma 17-35mm = 27.2mm - 56mm on 10D

Sigma 15-30mm= 24mm- 48mm on 10D

etc...
Thanks, that's exactly what I was thinking... but someone had mentioned that wouldn't work because it would distort the image and suggested a larger studio as seen in this thread towards the end http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 1:54 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Since apparently you are unable to include the complete image by backing further from the subject, your only alternative would be to go to an even wider angle lens. Either that or find a shorter model :-)
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 2:19 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

ohenry wrote:
Quote:
Since apparently you are unable to include the complete image by backing further from the subject, your only alternative would be to go to an even wider angle lens. Either that or find a shorter model :-)
Ok, that makes sense... so what about these comments, is it something I should be concerned about?

Solving the problem by using WA/shorter lens for limited space portrait studio is insane, you results will look strange and funny, you have no choice but get a bigger studio, period.

How far were you away from the subject(s)?
1. The close distance "expands" the perspective
2. A wide focal lenght alone "do not distort" perspective (a lot of environmental portraits are made this way)
It's both (1) and (2) resulting from the small studio that will mess you up...

3. Have you thought about lighting in close quarter?



Thanks again for your help! I just don't want to buy something that won't help me achieve my goal.


Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 2:37 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Zendragon

Can't you see this:


The model fit in the picture, but:
1. Since the camera is at her head level the top 1/2 are larger than the lower 1/2
2. Moving the camera to the waist position with distort both top and bottom (and make the model looks large at the waist)!
3. The camera from the bottom position usually work best to emphasize a long dress (or legs) but really make a model out of proportion for glamour

... you can see that's there's not enough room for the lighting as well, you can bounce more but again you need the room (or larger light)!

Try "perspective" cropping/sizing in Photoshop, since optically you're obviously limited! :idea:
BTW the picture was only @ 35mm, the effect will be worst with a 28mm (ie 17 x 1.6), if you move in closer!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 2:59 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

For some technical data, read http://jamesmskipper.tripod.com/jame...rspective.html
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 3:01 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
Zendragon

Can't you see this:

The model fit in the picture, but:
1. Since the camera is at her head level the top 1/2 are larger than the lower 1/2
2. Moving the camera to the waist position with distort both top and bottom (and make the model looks large at the waist)!
3. The camera from the bottom position usually work best to emphasize a long dress (or legs) but really make a model out of proportion for glamour

... you can see that's there's not enough room for the lighting as well, you can bounce more but again you need the room (or larger light)!

Try "perspective" cropping/sizing in Photoshop, since optically you're obviously limited! :idea:
BTW the picture was only @ 35mm, the effect will be worst with a 28mm (ie 17 x 1.6), if you move in closer!
I obviously don't see it.... which is why I am asking.

So first off.... please see my responses:

1. Since the camera is at her head level the top 1/2 are larger than the lower 1/2

The camera wasn't actually at her head level. This shot was somewhat shot up.

2. Moving the camera to the waist position with distort both top and bottom (and make the model looks large at the waist)!

The camera was actually at the waist position


3. The camera from the bottom position usually work best to emphasize a long dress (or legs) but really make a model out of proportion for glamour

I have some like that too. But this is more of an example of what I am trying to do and not currently able to do

... you can see that's there's not enough room for the lighting as well, you can bounce more but again you need the room (or larger light)!

I agree that the room is small, but I got to ask, why do you say there isn't room for the lighting or that I need a larger light? Please elaborate?

BTW the picture was only @ 35mm, the effect will be worst with a 28mm (ie 17 x 1.6), if you move in closer!

So if I used an Ultra wide angle lens at around 35mm and stayed away from the 28mm, would I be able to do what I want to do here? I doubt that I will be shooting all the way out at 28mm for that.









Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 3:57 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

ohenry wrote:
Quote:
For some technical data, read http://jamesmskipper.tripod.com/jame...rspective.html
Thanks! That helped. I am interested to hear what NHL's response is.

So if I understand the article correctly, using a wide angle is fine as long as I am not trying to shoot at 17mm (or 28mm) for the entire shoot and not getting too close with it, but if I am shooting more at 23-25mm (close to 35mm) I should get similar results to the photos I have posted here?

Then that brings into question, is the model distorted in the photos provided?
Zendragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2004, 4:09 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I don't know the model in real life, but she seems out of proportion on her upper 1/2, as compared to her lower 1/2, but it could be because of the extended arms effect (or the highlight), her head even with the bright hair looks kind of small...


Zendragon wrote:
Quote:
I agree that the room is small, but I got to ask, why do you say there isn't room for the lighting or that I need a larger light? Please elaborate?
May be it's your intention, but it seems to me like the upper part of the hair, arms, and lower dress are outside of the coverage or baffled... moving the light back -> or make it larger.


Quote:
So if I used an Ultra wide angle lens at around 35mm and stayed away from the 28mm, would I be able to do what I want to do here? I doubt that I will be shooting all the way out at 28mm for that.
As long as you keep the distance... not getting too close, and pay attention to the camera position.

BTW I've seen people shooting portrait with a 400mm! :-):-):-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:05 PM.