I stumbled upon Ken Rockwell's piece about portrait lenses earlier today, and found interesting some of the things he stated.

It's his opinion the photographer should "want to be at least about 15 feet away when photographing people in order to achieve realistic proportions", as "Our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet (5 meters) away."

So, "If you want the whole person standing, you can use a 50-70mm lens. If they sit down, a 70-105mm works great. If you want just head and shoulders, you'll want a 200mm to 300mm lens, at least, since you want to stay at least fifteen feet away."

Fair enough, but I'm not sure I'd want to be using a 300 lens unless it was for a very specialised shot.

So, to cut to the chase, what have you found to be the best method of maintaing pleasing features?

I won't. No I really won't. I absolutely refuse to say anything about Ken Rockwell. I really do. I refuse. Seriously!

But, to address the question – most portrait photographers seem to find that a focal length between 85mm and 105mm provides the most natural perspective for head and shoulder portraits, Shorter makes noses too big and longer tends to flatten perspective unnaturally. (That's in full-frame 35mm terms, of course).

Or, do what Mr. Rockwell suggests. Whatever.

Michael

I think that is the most comical piece I have read in a while. Considering he doesn't photograph people, what in the world would he really know about it. His 15 ft rule is probably due to his being scared of photographing people.

Thanks for the replies

I asked because I've never really thought of there being a set 'best' distance to take a photo. Though I probably shouldn't admit it, I usually just plonk on the lens I think most appropriate for which shot I see in my minds eye; in most cases this is usually the 85 or 135 primes I have.

My camera is currently away being repaired, but once it's returned I'm going to have a play with the 15ft recommendation.

I don't understand why people read Ken Rockwell's site. He states on the site that it is a spoof and that he deliberately makes misstatements. Like a bratty 5 year old, he just likes to provoke reactions.

Whether he is serious here or not, I don't know, but I never read his site because I don't want the misinformation to somehow "stick" and I might not remember where I read it.

Sharon

Here is a direct quote from his About page -

"While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction. If you can't take a joke, please consider this entire site a joke, and any resemblance to any actual people, places, products or anything as purely coincidental."

I can't see any blatant misinformation in this article. Ken seems to be addressing here some pretty basic principles to do with perspective. He's not being dogmatic. He's suggesting a perspective guideline of 15 ft from the subject, as a rule-of-thumb.

He also states it's a matter of art. The point is, the appearance of a person's features do change depending on perspective. Whether one prefers an 85mm lens, a 105mm lens or a 135mm lens for portraiture is not only a matter of taste, but as Ken also states, can depend to some extent on the facial characteristics of the individual being photographed. What's wrong with that?

Here are a couple of 'joke' snapshots I took with my 5D & 15-30 zoom at 15mm.

That great bulbous front element of the Sigma 15-30 zoom would have been less than a foot from the subject's face.

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Ken Rockwell site is for smart people.

P.S. This site as well.

Well, I'm pleased you added 'this site as well', albeit as an after thought .

PLEASE!
I have read a few of mr. Rockwell's comments on various topics including equipment. The last straw for me was when I started doing research on a lens that I was considering. I stayed away from his site because of my doubts of his knowledge based on other times I visited his site and found his opinions for the most part to be not founded on fact.
On various other sites people were commenting favorably on the lens in question, when all of a sudden, there were comments on Rockwell's "report" on the lens. People on other sites were expressing doubts about the quality and reliability and whether to even bother getting the lens. Such a swing in opinion made me consider seeing what this "report" contained. I should have listened to my gut feeling and ignored going to his site, but I did. His "report" was based on a PREPRODUCTION MODEL that he briefly handled at a trade show-"I tried three samples at PMA 2006". People on other sites were falling all over themselves with doubt about the usability of the lens. Why? Because his "report" would not recommend it due to it's inability to autofocus to his likening. He recommended that people pass on upgrading to this lens based, primarily, on his findings.
The lens in question?

The 105 f2.8 AF-S VR Micro Nikkor!

This site, LL, is indeed for smart people. mr. Rockwell's is for the gullible.

Well said : I think that the relationship you have with your model is WAY much more relevant that the tiny differences in perspective arising from different working distances - at least when you're not filling a WA frame with a single face.
For me, the ideal portrait working distance is the one of a casual conversation (1-2m), and therefore I think the 80mm-equivalent fits best my needs for portrait. Your meterage may vary!

So, based on your story about KR's review of 105 f2.8 AF-S VR Micro Nikkor, which exactly facts did he get wrong?

Some of Ken's comments about human vision may well be correct, but his "15 feet" assertion seems to be quite wrong. Is there scientific support for the claim that our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet away?

I suspect that we remember people from the distances at which we most commonly see them and interact with them, and that is generally not 15 feet. Sometimes there are good reasons for photographing people at such a distance, but "how brains recall facial features" is not one of them, IMO.

I would have to go back and reread the report, but the fact that he wrote this review based on handling a preproduction model at a trade show before the lens is released is not a very accurate method of making a subjective review of the lens.
Contrast his review then read one by someone that actually took the lens out and used it:
http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

Or POPPhotos lab tests:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2804/...8g-vr-af-s.html

After you read these two, which are backed by examples and lab findings,(KR dosen't seem to have anything to prove his point)make your own judgement as to whom you wish to trust. Like Mr. Reichmann, I'll choose to make no further comments about mr. Rockwell or his "knowledge"

That's a good question. I surmise that the distance of 15 ft might be a rough average of the many different distances at which we see people during our various activities, but I'm just guessing and I admit I have little experience in portraiture.

Doing a Google search to find the answer, I came across the following abstract of a scientific paper, which unfortunately one has to buy to read so I didn't get to read the full text, just the abstract below, which you might find interesting.



According to this study, if you want to make your subjects appear smart and strong, take Ken Rockwell's advice and photograph them from 15 ft. (400cm in the experiment is actually a bit less at 13 ft, but let's not quibble.)

If you want your subjects looking as attractive as possible, get closer, and if you want them to appear as friendly and good-natured as possible, get even closer. Makes sense?

The link to the website is http://www.journalofvision.org/7/9/992/

I think Mr Rockwell is spot on about the distance from the subject being super important

Close seems personal

distant - more distant

Each photographer must find thier own place, then choose lense suited to the desired crop

S

The Winston Churchill portrait taken by Yousuf Karsch is perhaps one of the most successful and well-known photographic portraits of all time. Does anyone have any details on that shot, apart from the often repeated story of Karsch pulling the cigar out of Winston's mouth.

It would not surprise me if that shot was taken from a distance of at least 15 ft.

Not to have to defend Mr Rockwell and some of his mis-information but what he was suggesting was not we recall faces from 15 feet, it was that we "use lenses that place us 15 feet from the subject".

This in most cases is probably correct in that "portrait" lenses, as has been expressed here already are roughly in 35mm terms around 100mm for head and shoulders, and 85 for 3/4 to full length. Probably one of the most popular lenses ever sold was the Hasselblad 150 MM which is around 85mm in 35mm terms.

What the OP and Rockwell was stating was that perhaps the most pleasing rendering of the face is from these lenses. If you wish to use a normal to wide angle on a face have at it.


Michael

Here's one - I took this from a car window rolled partway down using a Rollei 35 with a tripod-threaded clamp, from about 20 feet away. That's a 35mm fixed lens on 35mm film, and cropped about 50 percent. It's the most realistic portrait I've ever taken, and wasn't intended to be anything important.

I don't believe that is correct. Ken Rockwell actually states in his article that in facial recognition our brains reconstruct features as they would appear from a distance of around 15 ft.

When standing close to a person, talking quietly or making a transaction at the check-out counter for example, we do not see someone as having a big nose (unless she actually has a big nose). Our brains apparently reconstruct the facial features as they might appear to a camera at a distance of roughly 15 feet.

Here is the relevant quote from his article.

Yes. I think the important point here is that it's not the focal length that matters but the distance from the subject. If you have pixels to spare and are prepared to crop, then you can probably make do with a 50mm lens instead of an 85mm lens, or an 85mm lens instead of a 135mm lens.

However, in using a wider angle lens then cropping the image, there might be DoF consequences. It might not be possible to get the desired shallowness of DoF. For example, your cropped image with 50mm lens taken from around 20ft might have been better with a less intrusive background.

When it comes to taking foto's of people , there are some many opinions on that subject , one would run of of time to read and understand them all:

number one: who are your shooting
number two: why are you shooting them
number three: where are you shoothing
number four: when are you shooting then
and number five will be answered by the first four questions and will give your the equipment to use and lenses to use :

Keep it simple always:

I don't quite see how that is keeping it simple. Nor do I see how answering those 5 questions will help me choose the right lenses and equipment if I don't already understand the sort of basic principles which Ken addresses in his article.

The interesting issue in Ken's article, or at least one that flows on from the points he raised, is that 15 feet is a good distance to shoot a portrait whatever the camera and lens, if maintaining the most realistic facial proportions is the desired intent.

If this statement is true, then it helps enormously in choosing the right lens. One chooses the lens which allows one to fit the subject and composition into the frame from a distance of 15ft without unnecessary cropping, and one chooses the lens which has a sufficiently wide aperture to throw any distracting or unwanted background out of focus.

Nope, he clearly claims that we recall faces from 15 feet: "Our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet (5 meters) away."

Head and shoulders with a 100mm lens in 35mm terms is not 15 feet. With that lens at that distance, holding the camera vertically covers a field of view of more than 5 feet. Head and shoulder is a field of view of roughly 2 feet, which would put the photographer roughly 6 feet away from the subject. This is why Ken recommends 200mm to 300mm lens for a head & shoulders portrait, not 100mm.

The issues raised here are interesting. They seem to me to be connected to the concept, 'the camera never lies'.

I've often said myself, 'of course the camera lies'. 'What about the unnatural enlargement of close objects when using wide-angle lenses?'

If Ken is right, that our brains process perception of the human face from a perspective of roughly 15 feet away, even when we are standing just 2 or 3 feet away from someone, then perhaps the camera is not lying as much as we thought it was. Perhaps our perceptions are partly a lie.

One thing to consider is that most of us have two eyes and the camera only one

Using our stereo vision we are indeed making internal (brain) reajustments to the perception of the image

While a person may not appear unnatural when viewd close with both eyes try shutting one eye and one can become aware of 'wide angle' type distortion

Whether 15 feet is right who knows but I think it is of critial importance to choose ones dietance first then the lens dependant on the desired crop of the portrait

I have got shorter with my lenses over the years and beleive it has increased the intimacy of my portraiture

this closeness can be challenging to compose in a flattering manner

S

I'm at my studio retreat at the moment, but when I come in contact with someone, I'll try that, even though she might think I'm afflicted with some disposition.

Gah. Baka-boy is at it again.

It's so much more complex that he can even understand. So much so that he really just needs to earn to shut up and NOT even bring it up. Just ask any wedding photographer about the literally dozen or so different factors in every single shot.

Faces are damn hard to deal with. He should know that he doesn't know anything about it and not even bring it up. Of course, since he apparently still does it anyways... Yeah, I'd take anything he says with a small boulder of salt, because he just doesn't know how much he truly doesn't know.

But he is entertaining, I have to admit I read Ken's site every day as part of my entertainment.

That's pretty radical. I wonder if he was being serious about 300mm (or should I even ask).

And yet another view of rockwell
http://chrisweeks.uber.com/blogs/damn_.html

Damn betcha. But only if you're photographing the Baron Munchausen or Barbara Streisand (before she had several yards of her schnozz cosmetically amputated). For normal people a shorter lens might work better.

Just sayin'.

Of course, since the photographer in question is <genuflect>Ken Rockwell</genuflect>, I'm sure he can just whip one of his Brownies off the shelf and use it for the portrait. Maybe he'll win another award, too.

When I was growing up with this stuff, 30-40 years ago, it was common knowledge that you'd take landscapes with the widest lens, most other photos with whatever fit, but for portraits you'd usually opt for 90mm or thereabouts to avoid the facial distortions you'd get shooting close-up. Since when did Rockwell or digital tech rewrite the logic of portrait shooting?

According to the specialist site on vision from which I quoted on the previous page, the logic of portrait shooting has already been rewritten as a result of careful experimentation.

The long and short of it is, using a short focal length tends to cause people to look a bit chummy and benevolent; using a long focal length causes people to look smarter and stronger in character, which is the effect one might want to achieve with a formal portrait, and using a lens somewhere between the two extremes, 80mm or 90mm, is a compromise between too chummy and too smart, a sort of bland average or normalcy; the middle way; stay out of trouble.

Well, that's the answer then. My wife wants to know why I spent half of my life savings on a gold Rolex, and I can see now that it was that ad with the portrait of the Rolls-Royce president wearing the thing. Shot with a long lens from the visitor chair, of course.

The way I see it, Ken simply posted about his personal experience with the lens (pre production or not) and I am guessing he made it clear in his article as well. If that is the case, I fail to see how any one can accuse him of anything, especially since he mentioned it clearly and if people fail to see it or fail to take it into consideration, it is their fault, not his!

Personally I enjoy reading his articles; I do try to implement some of the things he talks about. However at the end of the day I just what ever I feel is ok and try to capture photographs from my perspective.

So just read/listen to what every one has to say and at the end of the day, do what ever you feel is right.

Fifteen feet is not really helpful in any sense. Are you not going to take pictures of people indoors unless the room is large enough to get 15 feet away.

More relevant is to realize that lenses can distort perspective when they are longer or shorter than "normal". Too short and body parts closer to the camera are exaggerated in size. With longer lenses (and fashion photographers will make use of 400-600mm lenses outdoors with models) there is a flattening of perspective that is flattering.

Normal for a 35mm or FF camera is about 40-55mm while with a DX camera this is 30-35mm. Popular portrait focal lengths with 35mm film cameras have been 85mm and 105mm. They provided some foreshortening of perspective and also providing a more comfortable working distance between the subject and the photographer.

This comfort zone is purely cultural and varies widely. But if you subject is not comfortable having someone 3 feet away taking their picture it will show in the resulting images. On the other hand there are shy or timid souls who shoot from distances with which they are comfortable.

But both the actual perspective, the mental perspective, and the working distance are all factors affected by changes in lens focal length. In addition changing the focal length has a bearing on the DOF and this affects whether all of a person is in focus or even all of their head or both parts of a couple and the background.

To follow Rockwell blindly one should only use a 70-200mm lens for all of their photography and shoot only in large rooms or outdoors, ignoring the environment.
Take a look at the great work of any of the outstanding portrait photographers over the past 125 years and you will find none that follow Rockwell's guidelines - NONE.

If the photographer has bad breath.

Light.

These types of rules are really silly. Imagine if we all followed this 15' "rule." Homogenized pictures would be the result. And to quote Arnold Newman discussing people stating rules of photography and the way to do things, he said "run like hell." Its a good point that we as photographers should understand perception, and to help us with that, there are two books that I am suggesting: Perception and Imaging by Zakia and Ways of Seeing by Berger (more socially directed). In addition, one might study Gestalt Theory and Neural Network Theory, both of which can help a photographer make better pictures.

Back to lenses though. Just understand that generally as you get closer to a person with a lens, the person will distort a little more. Also, distortion from zoom lenses tends to be different than from fixed focal length lenses.

Good luck.