From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Hello edwin,
>The issue with distortion and group portraits has nothing to do with >barrel or pincushion distortion. It has to do with the fact that wide >angle lenses sqash and fatten objects in the other edges to keep the >lines straight. While for buildings and landscapes this is very >acceptable, having a fat, squatty person show up in the picture is >very disconcerting to the individual. At about the 35mm focal length >for 35mm cameras, this is minimal to non-existent. >Been there, done that, had a few squatty looking people in my day. >Bruce Ah! While I haven't shot many big group pictures since I was in college, I'm familiar with what happens to people at the edges of the frame when I'm shooting with a 20mm or 18mm lens. What bugs me is not the "squashing" but the "stretching" and loss of 3-dimensional appearance. This effect would explain why people who make their living doing large group portraits often use a moving-lens panoramic camera. Why is 35mm the safe focal length? Anybody have enough physics to know? It would seem that 43 (the "normal") would be more likely correct, but 35 and 43 might be hard to tell apart. I suspect that subject distance has a bunch to do with this effect as well (along with, as William Robb pointed out, viewing distance) because I don't recall getting bit badly even with 24mm lenses but when I went that wide on a group shot I was also reasonably far back. DJE
