Lens Compression, is it a myth?: OnSet ep.

[@brad_in_yyc]

That was super interesting to see. Thanks Daniel and Marisa for demonstrating that.

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

Thanks for watching

[@AdrianBacon]

This is a great video. I generally prefer to be right at the 6-7 foot mark from the subject, which comes out to ~70-85mm (full frame) depending on how tight you want to be with the framing. It's close enough that things don't look too flattened out, but far enough away that it also doesn't have a "selfie" perspective, and yes, the 70-200 is my goto lens when doing headshots and portraits, and yes, I regularly use that width of savage paper and use it for a framing guide. These days I've been tending a little more like 7-9 feet due to covid concerns, but right around 7 feet is my personal sweet spot. There's no right or wrong, it really just depends on what you're going for. A ripped masculine dude will look even more ripped and square jawed from further away, and a feminine lady generally looks a little better when she's less flattened out.

[@zenphotojourney]

Great explanation of compression. And the two of you are always fun to watch.

[@afractionintimephotography]

Really enjoy your tutorials with Marisa, Daniel. Thank you for the education and entertainment ! :)

[@Mowikan]

My2cents: I almost always use 85 for “wide” portraits (waist to top head) 135 for close(face, neck). To create more depth I use open lenses( f2 to f5.6)

[@jairoplagio5100]

Do you use f2 for fulllenght?

[@simonfuller76]

85mm at f2 for full length actually looks great for environmental office portrait, full or medium length. I like horizontal headshots at 85mm f3.5. It all depends on how much space you have and what elements are visible in the frame. 135mm is lovely, but you become distant unless its half body or headshots.

[@250GTOAJ]

Good review of the topic! Thanks Daniel, Marisa and Dave 😀👍🇨🇦

[@richardsimms251]

Excellent session. Lots learned. Keep it up. Thank you very much. RS. Canada

[@kevinw7995]

First, I must say I enjoy the "self puppet" transitions! Really like to see these comparison type exercises. Glad you concentrated on the technical without worrying about the actual shot. However, there were still some great shots in there that will probably look fantastic after post.

[@debanej]

Hey Daniel, great content as usual. I like to use a 70-200 for portraits and shoot at about 135mm and move the camera closer or farther away to fill the frame. 135mm gives me the look I prefere.

[@patricenegros3982]

Conforts me in liking my 85mm prime for studio work! Thank you

[@bobrosberg55]

Love this video and especially the music! Always enjoy your tutorials)))

[@JohnCornicello]

Great quote from Ansel Adams: "A good photograph is knowing where to stand." It is DISTANCE, not focal length that determines perspective. Good content. And the studio looks great. Makes me miss it.

[@greggillies1320]

You Tubes greatest comedy duo, Marisa and Daniel! love these guys!

[@RaymondParkerPhoto]

Four decades ago, I bought the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens ... used it for hundreds and hundreds of headshots. Recently bought the Z MC 105mm f/2.8 and also own the new Z 70-200 2.8, which I generally use at 105 for tight headshots. For me, 105mm is perfect for that kind of image in terms of compression and, as you say, communication.

[@ernie28ernie]

Hi Daniel, great content, thank you! :) I have the Nikon 105 1.4 and I love it ;) But if someone has a rather flat face (Pfannkuchengesicht in german), it can be too much 'compression'. It's best to adjust the focal length to the face type of the model. Shorter focal length for flat faces, longer focal length for more narrow faces ;) Cheers, Martin

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

Good point!

[@winniduesseldorf]

Very informative video from Daniel and an extremely beautiful model Marisa. But aren't there longer tethering cords available at Adorama :)

[@ChemaGD]

Rule of perspective, pretty simple, all that its closer to you looks bigger, all that is farther looks smaller. Good video!!

[@MikeJamesMedia]

Thanks, Daniel and Marisa. Informative and charming, as always! :)

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

Thanks

[@b991228]

Does focus distance effect how much background is seen? Will a tele make it easier the be able to move the shadow on the the background out of frame?

[@jasongreenwood3260]

Thank you Daniel, for the great, easy to understand concepts. While I, as well as many other photographers, understand the inverse square law it's not necessary to know it to understand the effect of different equipment. How it can effect your shot and how to compensate for the equipment's traits to achieve the look you're after. You don't need a slide ruler and a college education to know this. Much like a grade school drop out can build a racecar by simply understanding what his tools do and the effect his tuning has on specific equipment.

[@JohanSchmidt]

Interesting point about the background at 200 - thanks, nice video

[@simonfuller76]

Thank you for this example. I think framing the person works better in your distant shot to show the difference but just to be clear, compression is based on the distance from the subject and the compression helps you maximise the backdrop which becomes relatively large with more distance. The problem is it changes the shape of facial features and we are all used to talking to people at about 1m or seeing ourselves in mirrors at about 1m or less. Now how can we use more or less compression for people other than models. Not everybody is slim and trim, real people are not perfect, rounder in body, double chins, loose fitting clothes. Some have rounder faces. How can compression/distance/focal length to help a person look less heavy?

[@marcthibault8723]

Another informative video! Thanks! 👍☺

[@kennethlua4928]

Thanks for showing the compression effect-excellent video I love using the 70-200 mm for portraits in a studio, as I can easily reframe and zoom in when the model hits an excellent pose I love the compression effect of 105 mm, so I got the Nikon f/1.4 lens too, sometimes that creamy bokeh makes the images magical (can’t overdo it though) Always a treat to see the lovely Marisa 😊

[@anthonybohemier3882]

its funny you mention about getting so far away with some of the longer focal lengths and the compression i often hear oh the 70-200 (or 80-200) are the best for portraits .. and we were debating this at work some folks saying oh the longer lengths give more flattering portraits .. and one of my non photographer co workers says "ohh what about that really big lens then that must be amazing for portraits" they were referring to my Sigma 150-600 C that i use for wildlife lol i dont own a 70-200 2.8 but i will definitely try my sigma 105 2.8 macro as ive had some amazing shots with it of my daughter. Ps thank you for breaking everythign down so easily so even a hobbyest like me can follow along

[@nickmorgan5933]

Actually if you've ever seen portraits at 300 and 400mm they can be really stunning and have a very unique feel, especially when you get into the fast primes like the 400 2.8.

[@onegreenev]

My favorite are my 50mm 1.2 and my 100mm STF 2.5. Those get the most use. The 100 gets the most of the two.

[@ForeverYoung007]

Thanks for taking the time and doing this video. I prefer the 200mm shots, I feel the proportions or features appear more natural but its minor compared to the 105. Would be interesting to see a similar test but instead of comparing focal lengths, compare the height of the lens relative to the face (nose or eyes) and focal plane. In other words how much does having the lens slight at, above and below the eyes or nose affect the photograph. I'm assuming slightly above is preferred.

[@pvandck]

I like this video a lot. I think it does what it sets out to do in the studio. A quick résumé from me... age mid 60s (sort of "old timer"), photography all my life, 30 years professional industrial and PR photography in the UK & France, now "hobbyist", so to speak, in Italy photographing my musician friends (in studio) and landscapes... blah blah blah. Worked 99% of the time with fixed focal length lenses in 6x7, 6x4.5 and 35mm formats. Now full frame digital. I do feel that "compression", which isn't imaginary at all, would be more easily demonstrated outside with landscapes and cityscapes, over longer distances. "Compression" is a simple and unavoidable telephoto effect - making the distance appear closer to a fixed view point, so all distances are proportionately foreshortened (or lengthened) in an image for a given focal length. Cropping an image, as this video demonstrates, doesn't do anything to change the appearance of the distances. Moving the view point has no effect on the physical properties of a lens, despite what some commenters may think - it simply isn't possible. It would be more easily demonstrated by alternating between, say, a 14mm lens, a 50mm lens and a 150mm lens in a landscape with prominent foreground and background elements. In portraiture, whether one prefers the appearance of 50mm lens portraits (as I certainly do) or 85mm or 100mm is purely subjective. But the compression (or expansion) effect is real and measurable.

[@paigecfrancis]

I like the 80-100 range for a traditional headshot but all the way out (180mm in my case) for a cinematic headshot. I get less background, more blur. Of course it’s all subjective…that’s just what I like personally. Nice images on the shoot regardless 👍🏽

[@pictureeyecandy]

Nice seeing adding a little effect of the stars of the star of the shoot being the lens. You just taught the "in-camera liquify tool" using focal length and subject to lens location. Who needs Photoshop? LOL Thanks

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

Indeed

[@tedebaer1]

Thank you!

[@mikegustafson6679]

Hey man, love the vids.... what's your preferred AF mode for studio work with the z6ii?

[@talentphotography]

Very interesting, and also, lovely dress Marisa!

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

Thanks

[@barneylaurance1865]

I'm not sure it's really true that the "horizontal is the same but the background is giving us more". In the long lens photo Marissa is just smaller in the image. It's about subject vs background perspective - the framing on the background is the same so the subject is smaller (gives us more) in both horizontal and vertical. Except of course that she's not as wide as she is tall so she fits completely in both shots horizontally.

[@phynx2006]

Excellent tutorial about portrait photography and compression also Marisa is looking as beautiful as ever 😍 just sayin 👍😎👍

[@barneylaurance1865]

Worth also looking at some examples of the dolly-zoom effect from films - it's the same thing done here but much fast as a moving image. The Now You See It channel has a good video.

[@Enrique-the-photographer]

Hello Daniel, why is the 85mm 1 “point something” so popular (on you-tube videos) for portrait photography, is it something that goes to “back in the day?

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

I can’t speak for others, but I find 85 to be long enough without being too long for the framing and subjects I typically work with

[@jpdj2715]

"Compression", Daniel, does not follow from the focal length but from distance. In the bit where you explain compression from 0:42 you say it correctly. Then you switch to focal lengths as if your explanation never happened. The compression follows from the "square law" that says, if with an angle of view of a, at distance 1 we look at an area of 1x1, then at distance 2, we look at an area of 2x2 and at distance 3 we look at an area of 3x3. You see here that distance goes 1, 2, 3 but the area of what we have in view goes 1,4,9 and that is where compression happens. If you have taken perspective drawing classes in your art school then you might have been taught about this and how to "compress" for things that are farther away. In flash photography, we use the "inverse square law" to figure "exposure" out. Here, distance and area are still the square law, but exposure relates to the inverse of the area. If we blast 100 lumen on 1 square area at distance 1, then at distance 2 we only have the effect of 25 lumen because the area lit by the 100 we started with now needs to cover 4 times the area. In short, the compression effect of "distance" is as real as 1+1=2. When we place a long lens on the camera, its narrow angle of view may make us more ware of the compression effect, but it is not the lens that does this compression. (all under the ceteris paribus assumption.) There's one thing separate from the "square law" and that's Depth of Field (DoF). Background blur can contribute to a sense of compression and longer focal length lenses have less DoF, but strictly speaking that's not what the "compression" discussion is about.

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

I’m switching focal lengths to show the same framing

[@kirkdarling4120]

@JP dJ Yes, indeed. Thank you.

[@SveinWisnaes]

@@DanielNortonPhotographer To do it correct, you should do all images from the same distance, then use cropping to get the framing correct. That will show you the correct result. And that the "compression is a result of the movement of your feet, not by changing your lens :-)

[@Billkwando]

Marisa is just so adorable.

[@fredsillito2676]

The elephant in the room is, when you take the middle from an image you are effectively changing the angle of view of the wider lens making it a long lens view. Moving position is moving the goal posts to fit the theory. Just my humble opinion.

[@barneylaurance1865]

Interesting about over-compression. Of course we don't have experience in real life of looking closely at the shape of a face dozens of meters away.

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

True!

[@TwixlerDev]

I love the marisa outros :P

[@thomashall1267]

Wow it took you long enough to let Marisa be your spokesperson. Great job as always guys and cudos to the decision maker. Happy Holidays to all

[@mjl1958]

The reason you see more of Marisa at 200mm is because you based your framing on the background paper, which is ~1m further away than Marisa. You should have based framing on Marisa.

[@barneylaurance1865]

I think there's value in doing it either way. Of course by definition if you base the framing on Marissa you'll see roughly the same part of Marissa. But sometimes the background is important.

[@Traveljournalist]

could you please make a Hollywood Glamour picture with Marissa ?

[@nlpix1]

A very complex way to say 85-105mm is the best focal range for portrets. Compression has also to do with design of lens, not only the focal range. Meaning a 24-105 at 105 vs a 70-200 at 105 is not the same compression. And a 24-70 at 70 with crop 1.5 (=105) again is differend.

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

You won’t catch me saying any focal length is “best” whatever works for the subject and mood is best

[@DuenkelPortraitArt]

I don't think that's correct. 105 is 105.

[@jjk9999]

regardless of the physics, "lens compression" is a good way to describe the result.

[@steveperryphoto431]

You always have little gems of information in all your videos. I always watch them with a notebook by my side.

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

Thank You!

[@AbdonPhirathon]

Compression as people describe it does not exist. The phenomenon of longer focal lengths “flattening” facial features and creating “flattering” images is subjective idea that older generation photographers preferred as their subjects where mostly skinny caucasian types with long noses. Aesthetically, they did not want their subjects to look cartoonish, so it was decided that a longer focal length would solve those “issues”. Nowadays, photographing people of different races and ethnicities you’ll realize that by using longer focal lengths, you can “flatten” features that make peoples faces look unnaturally round or even make people look fat. Since my clients are not the caucasian types, I rarely shoot anything over 85mm for portraits, as I’ve had people complaining that they look fat and nothing like what they perceive themselves to look like. In the day of the selfies, people shoot themselves a lot closer now, and they are used to a different perspective than the one created by telephoto lenses. In my experience, 40mm-60mm recreates that “real look” that people are more willing to accept and that make them look how they view themselves.

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

Indeed!

[@henrycartier]

Very good point and comment @Abdon Phir'athon! I have been experiencing the same where some clients (mostly female caucasians actually) feel something is "off" with their jaw even with short teles such as the 85. But they can't put their finger on it (and I usually end up dodging and burning like crazy) . But now I start to realize it might be the compression effect (and the selfie perspective people are used to these days). Question to you Abdon: would you be able to use a 50mm lens for a normal framed business headshot for exampe? Like head and upperbody. For that one needs to be pretty close but I guess that is still not close enough for distorsion risks? Fullframe sensor.

[@jadusja]

You should keep Marisa’s head same size, not the background 😊

[@MohanChowdada]

Hi... Adorama. TV. Love from india. 🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳😍😍😍

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻

[@SwoleBeastTribe]

E A R L Y G A N G ! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 - Swole Beast🤙🏽🙏🏽✌🏽 💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙 T H I S Hyped ! 👁👁👁👁👁👁👁

[@wibbley1]

Yes, lens compression is a myth, yet tubers keep making videos perpetuating the myth. Many even dis-prove the myth in their videos, but still do not see it. In this vid, the myth is busted at 3:12 and 3:47 It is the distance to subject that changes, not a lens, which only magnifies and focusses light, somehow changing the laws of physics and magically moving the background closer. Take a photo with a tele and wide lens, but remain in the same place. Sure the wide lens will have a much smaller subject, but the proportions will be the same.

[@digitalgenre7194]

Marissa is amazing.

[@chirag4]

Yes SHE iS

[@daletaylor2433]

Daniel, sent you an extended comment on your FB link email. You may want to check it / them out.

[@nenmeet]

I perfer 85 to 105 for portraits.

[@DanielNortonPhotographer]

Cool

[@harvymckiernan93]

I've never seen this as lens compression. Lenses magnify, or perceivably crop into the perspective. A lens, especially a zoom lens, simply 'crops' further into the perspective. As simple as that, it is no different from a sensor crop or image crop. Perspective naturally compresses (inverse square law again) at a given subject to distance ratio. The lens simply crops into this ratio given its level of magnification . The perspective doesn't change. Zoom lenses do no more than an image crop factor.

[@andrewgonzalez6208]

Just came here to say… “no it’s not”