Technique Help Please

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Hello,

People pictures! I'm seeking advice in taking casual shapshots of my kids and their friends. I know this seems pretty basic but here's a typical situation I found myself in last night. I'm looking for pointers on improving the quality of the shot:

Last night my 13 yr old son had a couple of friends over to watch the superbowl. Good looking boys enjoying the game in the living room, fixing burgers, and watching the playmates at halftime etc.

So I'm sneaking around with the 50mm lens and asking the kids to stop what they are doing and smile for the birdie. After a few shots I notice that to get all three of the boys together I need a 35mm lens, so upstairs I go and get the wider lens. I'm also using the Hexar RF 18 flash. (Pretty good up to 3m)

I notice with the 35mm lens your subjects seems "farther away" (DUH!) in the viewfinder. I also notice you have to move in closer to get the same detail of expression. Except teenage boys don't like that very much.

I also notice what I see in the viewfinder isn't what I get back from the photolab with the 4X6's I order. I'm never completely satisfied with the size of my subject relative to the surround of the entire picture. Subject's often too small or large.

So I guess my real question is:

How far/close are you from your people/subject with 1)35mm 2) 50mm 3)75 or 90mm lenses when you take your best most pleasing shots? What's your experiences with appropriate lens/subject distance for one person, or small groups of two or three?

If you are one of those computer savy type's I'd love it if you could post a few examples of "people" shots that aren't necessarily portrait shots. Please cite your approximate lens/subject distance.

Thank you very much.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 04, 2002

Answers

David, the Leica's viewfinder basically shows the way the world looks with the naked eye (ignoring manigification) in terms of compression/expansion of foreground/background. In other words, similar to what you get with a 50mm lens. You have discovered that the framelines are border outlines for the various lens' angles of coverage, but the finder does not show the "wide angle look" nor the "telephoto look". You have to know it and imagine it. One way is practice and studying your images. Another and perhaps quicker and better way is to take any SLR with similar focal length lenses or a zoom that covers them, and practice looking through it and then the Leica, mentally comparing what you see. This way you will develop the instinct you need to anticipate what the final shot will look like with the Leica. This is one reason why even though there's a 28 frameline in the M6, I prefer to use the accessory finder. Try as I might I just can't conjure up a mental image of the "28mm look" while using the M6's finder.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 04, 2002.

I guess you have an M Leica. First to your familiy event. It does not matter if in the viewfinder the subject is rather small, afterwards you can let the picture develope instead of 9x13cm to 13x18cm and then cut around. Just make sure that you have a good 100 ASA film, the lenses will surely not be the limiting factor. To your general question. I used to be the photographer for my friends at their weddings and the situation was similar as yours. So when the rooms have been big enough I used my 50-200 mm Sigma lens with the R mount. So I could stay relative far away and take the picture more or less unnoticed. I think you can not generaly say this and that distance is fine, as you noticed with your Kids you need to stay at a certain distance otherwise you are going to get static chees faces. So if you work with a M camera than try that what I wrote first, and if you have R equipement you may try to work with a 35-70 zoom or 80- 200 if you are outside.

-- Salvatore Reitano (reitanosalvatore@hotmail.com), February 04, 2002.

I don't like to use rules about distances for specific focal lengths because rules can be limiting. I have recently did a series where I started a bit long, and gradually moved in tighter and tighter until I filled the frame. The good thing about this is the selection you have after the shots are developed. You can pick the best shots.

Everyone is different and not everyone can stand a detailed scrutiny of a close-up, so you need to shoot for your subject. Below are three shots of the same person, shot with three different focal lengths. I estimated the distances, but they should be pretty close since I can stand in the same places and get the same framing. Sorry, but I have not done too much scanning, and only have these Nikon shots on-line, but the focal lengths should be the same for a Leica other than the slight difference between 90mm and 105mm. For every shot here, there are more shots on each side... closer and farther, but to me these are the best of the bunch.

You also need to think about how the focal length and distance effect the background. Even though many of these shots have the person more or less the same size, I used a longer focal length to restrict the amount of the background, or a shorter focal length to expand the background.

55mm lens at about 7 feet 35mm lens at about 5 feet

105mm lens at about 11 feet

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 04, 2002.


I think it’s really a question of whether you are attempting to take a something close to a portrait--emphasizing only the face (or head, shoulders, etc.)--or whether you are seeking shots of the boys in the surroundings, in which the “success” of the photo will depend on the entire composition and not just on how well you have rendered the subjects’ expressions.

Robert Appleby has already posted some links to his photographs from India (check the posts “Lansdowne Road” and “Yet More PDFs!”) or go to www.robertappleby.com. He uses mostly wide-angle lenses, but you will see some examples of tight "portraits" using them--ones where the subject’s body or face fills the frame (you do have to get close).

Regarding your question about 4x6s, Salvatore’s comment about enlargements and cropping is good. In magazines, we see prints much larger than we would get back from the mini-lab, so we forget that subjects that don’t fill a frame can seem really small in 4x6. Those 4x6 lab prints can't show the full negative; the proportions are wrong for 35 mm and so they are “naturally” cropped.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), February 04, 2002.


You're onto something, but you just haven't figured it out yet. If the only issue is to get more of your subject (three boys instead of two) in, you step back, or closer if you want less. The real reason to use different lenses is for the perspective change they give, which you've observed, but haven't figured out waht to do with, yet.

Wide angle lenses appear to amplify differences in distance and size-- so as you use progressively wider lenses, but move forward so the main subject takes up the same amount of the picture, the background recedes, becomes smaller, and thus includes more at the same time. Also, the background will *appear* clearer relatively.

When you use a telephoto, but step back to include the same amount of main subject, the background becomes both larger in proportion, and *apparently* less clear.

In both instances the main subejct appears essentially the same (not exactly, but that's another issue also related to perspective, especially if you're using a wide angle close to the subject) but the amount and importance of the background changes, which changes the picture completely.

Try shooting the same photo with both wide angle and tele lenses, but keeping the main subject filling the frame in the same way, and you'll see what I mean.

The reason your prints don't look right from the lab is because the lab isn't really set up for someone who cares what's in the picture. Look at your negatives in comparison to the lab's prints, and you'll see that the lab cuts quite a bit off the edges when it makes the print, and probably doesn't center what it does print, either. This is why so many people prefer to do their own printing, or get more expensive custom prints.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), February 04, 2002.



For me, questions and responses like the above, are the most helpful of all the posts of this forum. As I stated in another section, the expertise, experience, patience, and the ability of many of the members to express themselves so well, contributes to my understanding of photography immeasurably. I heard, or read, somewhere of some significant photographer who stated that photography is, at the same time, the simplest and most complicated of subjects. As I continue to enjoy this forum I think I understand more and more what he/she meant. Thanks to all who contribute so much to my days.

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), February 04, 2002.

In some really old portrait books -- fomrthe 30's, when some lens were still not recorded in true focal length, mnay of the articles simply stated that for "normal" perspective, you should be no clser than 6-8 feet from the subject. That, then, gives small group composition (not ful body at the closer end), or closer to single full pose, for mild wide angle, comfortable upper body/head for normal, and head (maybe shoulder) shot for short telephotos. Saves having to worry about how many feet with which lens. Of course, everyone has their own opinion, and some will swear by their manipulations of perpesctive with short lenses close.

Having said that, 3 boys, sitting on a couch, with a 35 mm, you will get ungainly knee prominence, unless perhaps they rotate them away.

-- Lacey Smith (lacsm@belsouth.net), February 04, 2002.


David, here is a "rule" which Al Smith and I (independently of each other, BTW) mention every now and again. I first discovered it in Gunter Osterloh's great book on Leica M stuff, but it has always appeared useful (at least to me). Using a 35 mm lens, the width of the field you end up covering (while shooting normally, screening horizontally) will correspond to the distance from you to the subject. Example: if you are 3 meters (say 10 feet) away from your kids, the width (while shooting normally, screening horizontally) of the whole photo will also end up being 3 meters (say 10 feet). Now this news certainly won't always improve the quality of the shot, but it may help you to know how much you're going to get covered and/or how close up or how far away you're going to have to move from the subject before shooting.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 04, 2002.

My approach would be to go ahead and take "casual" shots, that is not ask anyone to stop and smile for the birdie. Problem there is you keep breaking the mood which is naturally occurring. Try to blend in and then snap away. You will hopefully get more natural expressions and smiles as opposed to forced poses. Most people are not professional models who can turn off and on that big smile. You should fill the frame with the people you are shooting. Sounds to me like a 50 is perfect for shooting inside a room. I think most point and shoot pictures suffer from too much extraneous backround due to 28 mm or other wide angle lens.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), February 04, 2002.

What Bob just said sounds perfect to me too, especially for snap shots. That definitely isn't my specialty, but it is one reason I love using my 2/35 here. My best shots are never take after telling everybody what's up. Instead, I just "hyper set" my focus, keep the camera down in front of my tummy, wait for a few seconds -- or even a minute -- and then when I see what I want to see, it's just click, not cheeze.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 04, 2002.


...the finder does not show the "wide angle look" nor the "telephoto look"...

This is not correct. These "looks" are determined by distance from the subject, not focal length. The lens only allows you to frame what you want to frame.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), February 04, 2002.


David:

One method of getting the subject used to having their pictures taken is to "shoot" pictures frequently, not just on special occasions. Sometimes I use a camera (body + lens) without film to get me and them used to the equipment. My problem is the kids "know" when I don't have film loaded, or they ask. I sit down of an evening when the kids are watching a video, and switch lenses to see what the effects of each are. The perspective is the biggest issue.

The best learning tool, is to use the equipment and look at the results. Find a cheap processing place and burn some film and look at what the equipment can and will do for you.

Enjoy. :)

-- Mark Johnson (logical1@catholic.org), February 04, 2002.


Bob´s makes a lot of scence; your problem has nothing to do with focal lengths but with the relationship you´re making with this boys, if you were watching tha game and the playboy mates with them, then you become part of the gang, then raising your M with a 28 or 35 or even 50 will make no disturb, and after a wile they get use to you and your camera, and there is where good pictures are found. good luck

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), February 04, 2002.

oh yes, and forget anything about a flash!

fast film will make it

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), February 04, 2002.


oh yes, and forget anything about a flash!

Certainly flash is not necessary in many candid shots but the selective use of flash can add to the shot as well. I'm getting some chromes back from the lab where I've utilized the DAH/ WAA philosophy for fill flash. Meter for no flash in the scene and then dial your flash setting waaaaaaaaaay back for a fill flash with no trace of the flash being used. Although the M system is designed for available light it would be extremely self-limiting for a photographer to totally forego the exploration of flash before they've even tried it. Who knows... you might produce images like WAA someday with what you learned about flash photography with the M!

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 04, 2002.



Hi, David:

Bob and Robert already said most of what I think about this subject: get involved, be part of the gang and shoot frequently enough to make it part of the activity.

Forget about technical quality. Most of the time in these circumstances that is not the issue but the mood(IMHO). Getting faces in focus, exposing approximately well enough and meeting just the right moment are problems to be given priority.

The lens choice is not that important, I think. In my case I have noticed that the 50 Cron is the easiest one for me to use because of the large aperture and proper lenght. With my M3s I can also focus with both eyes open which is a great help to anticipate and get "decisive moments" concerning people's expresions. Sure it won't allow you to put as many people in your images at the same time as a 35 mm, though.

I have used 90 mm too but it takes you out of the gang and to go walking around chasing expresions happens to be disturbing for your intended subjects.

Concerning flash I'm with Robert: it is hard to imagine something more disturbig; everybody will be trying to anticipate when you will do it again . . . Definetely, 400 ASA is my way to go. Maybe sometimes in difficult lighting results could be far from ideal but getting a meaningful image could be all you need.

Here I choosed pictures taken in nearly the same circumstances you mention: young people gathered together in friendly attitudes. The one of the three guys reading was taken while I explained technical matters to them at my office and gave them the opportunity to verify our conclusions in a text book; they were standing under a bare bulb light and I was sitting close to them; I saw the opportunity and grab my camera which was on top of my desk, as most of the time. The others were taken while friendly talking around my and my brother's home tables after lunch in early afternoon.

All were taken at the closest distance my Cron would allow: 1 m.

Hope this could help. Excuse the lenght.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (
ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 04, 2002.


David,

One of the reasons I use an SLR is to see what the lens sees. Makes it easier to compose picture and choose focal length, shooting distance, etc.

A sneaky trick I use to avoid the "FROZEN LOOK" when shooting pictures of friends and small groups is to talk to them while I am fiddling with the camera. I usually tell them something like "Just relax a minute while I check something out here. Will let you know when I am ready." I continue chattering and then snap the picture before they know it. Usually works. If it doesn't work I can always say "OK,smile for the camera" and shoot another "FROZEN LOOK" picture. :-) LB

-- Luther Berry (lberrytx@aol.com), February 04, 2002.


Along the lines of Luther's comments: another way to get good candids is to shoot lots of film...Your subject(s) will eventually get so accustomed to your clicking away that they begin to ignore it.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), February 04, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ