Why does my lens make my model look fat?

D

DaydreamJay

Messages
496
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been trying out my Pentax FA 1.4 50mm lens today. Ideal for portraits they say. Anyway I took a few dozen pics outside in the sun and they came out ok. We then went into a local pub and sat next to a window giving natural light and I took another dozen shots - to my complete surprise my model had put on about 3 stone.

We went back outside for some more shots and much to her relief she was slim again.

So how come that these (face) shots looked so different? She was noticably bigger and rounder on the ones taken inside.

I can post examples if required.
 
Posting examples would definitely help but I suspect what you're seeing is some barrel distortion that makes the centre of the image appear to 'bulge' forward. This typically only happens when the subject is very close to the camera and diminishes as the distance between subject and lens increases. The effect also diminishes with longer focal lengths.
 
OK here are two examples - they were both test shots to get exposure settings right so I know they are rubbish pics - but in the indoor one she is a right porker...! In real life she is really skinny.

28481_418764491312_588166312_4460552_250572_n.jpg


28481_418764501312_588166312_4460553_5218107_n.jpg
 
Hard to compare when the lady in question is side-on in one and facing forward in the other. Certainly doesn't look like the barrel distortion I suggested initially. I think it's more to do with her pose and the way her clothing has moved. I await someone with more experience shooting models to tell me where I'm wrong!
 
Ok, thanks :)

I have the advantage of knowing how she looks in real life which is like the outdoor pic. In the indoor one she is almost unrecognisable.
 
I would say there are several things happening here.

1 the difference between the distance of each shot.

2 the pose, the first one is side on hence the model having her face slightly turned so naturally pulling the skin back making her face appear slimmer.

3 her expressions, in the first she looks slightly sullen giving the affect of a longer face hence slimmer, and the second she is smiling, which will naturally lift her mouth and cheeks and giving her a slightly fuller facial expression, and her shirt/blouse in the second isn't pulled straight down as in the first shot, hence giving a slight frumpy look.

That's my take on it anyway, hope it helps :)
 
In pic #2 the clothing is doing no favours but it is the pose that is causing the problems.

She appears to be a little slouched and has her chin slightly angled down, this shortens her neck.

She has a roundish face and this is exaggerated by the hair being ballooning out sideways, it is almost as wide as half the face.

Even a slight angle with the body position will slim her down a tad.
 
Spot on guys. The effect of the lens is called foreshortening and will make her appear bigger but that's minor compared to the angle, pose and lighting. The lighting is the only bit I can add as the window lit one is cross lit (from one side) producing shadows that again add weight.

So I'm afraid it's not so much the lens but you! lol (Just teasing)
 
Thanks for all your replies. Some useful info there.

I do feel that there is more to it than the pose etc. When I took the above indoor pic (which was basically a test shot for the lighting) I immediately looked at it and thought "she looks fat" but to the naked eye (in the same pose) she didn't. And then every photo I took in that room all came out the same. I was wondering if it was because I was sat closer to her, but I did a few outdoors where I was a similar distance and they looked fine.

The photo below is one that I did in the "fat room" and I had to reduce the width by a full 20% to get it to look anything like her!

28481_418731471312_588166312_4459482_6928006_n.jpg
 
DaydreamJay said:
I do feel that there is more to it than the pose etc. When I took the above indoor pic (which was basically a test shot for the lighting) I immediately looked at it and thought "she looks fat" but to the naked eye (in the same pose) she didn't.
Click to expand...

No its all to do with the shadows and the fact that your perception of the scene with the human eye is "HDR" rather than a single exposure your camera can do.

Ali is correct... you have to be careful with posing and shadows to make things look flattering.
 
In the first shot.. pleasant soft light, no deep shadows, angled towards the camera.

Second shot.. deeper shadows, but not a problem.. what is a problem is the pained/uncomfortable smile, the square on pose (only Arnie looks good straight-on), and the extreme stretch on the clothing (looks like it's ridden up - there's a full 4" difference in the position of the top button). These are things that you need to be aware of through the viewfinder and direct her to correct.

It's almost all the pose.

I hope your first thought was really, "that's not quite right".. ;)
 
Alastair said:
In the first shot.. pleasant soft light, no deep shadows, angled towards the camera.

Second shot.. deeper shadows, but not a problem.. what is a problem is the pained/uncomfortable smile, the square on pose (only Arnie looks good straight-on), and the extreme stretch on the clothing (looks like it's ridden up - there's a full 4" difference in the position of the top button). These are things that you need to be aware of through the viewfinder and direct her to correct.

It's almost all the pose.

I hope your first thought was really, "that's not quite right".. ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks Alistair, but as I said it was a test shot for the lighting. No need for her to smile :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top