>>>Nah, 50 mm at close up gives intimacy. >> >>...and a black eye. Nobody likes their features, particularly noses, >>exaggerated. I don't buy it. >> >>I'm not saying that portraits can't be taken on *any* focal length. I >>shoot on a 38mm (equivalent) focal length quite regularly - but not on a >>tight head shot. >> >>Depends what you consider acceptable, of course, and I can't argue with >>that. What I can argue is that if you put that shot and a similar shot of >>longer focal length and ask her to pick one, she will choose the longer >>focal length with question. I would eat Frank's bunny ears if she didn't.
>Yeah, she would - but that does not mean that it would be a better photograph. >It would be a standard nondescript snapshot. You do not always have to >follow every rule in the book. With shorter focal lengths (and look how >short focal lengths the top photojournalists are using these days) you >are drawn into the subject�s space and it gives the image more impact. >And it does not actually distort the image, it�s called perspective and >everybody is getting used to it. I don't follow every rule in the book, never have, never will. I have also used wide focal lengths for portraiture, so where's the problem? I'll write it again: depends what you consider acceptable. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
