How Focal Length Affects the Shape of the Face

Jul 30, 2016 9:19 PM

RubberCatTurds

Views

76572

Likes

2255

Dislikes

48

the gif

the stills

The reason behind the saying of "the camera adds 10 pounds."

source: http://www.danvojtech.cz/blog/2016/07/amazing-how-focal-length-affect-shape-of-the-face/

Dan Vojtech is a great photographer that I enjoy following. Check out his other works.

slower motherfucker

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thats my problem! Everyone sees me at 500mm.. pffft. And i just thought i was fat. Silly me

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is actually cool

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Saying is wrong in practice. We see like 50mm ff lens captures on 35mm film/sensor. Camera can take off 10lb at wide end (20mm) not add it.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He's cuter at 200mm.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

At first I misread the title and thought it said follicle , and I was like, damn, short hair it is then :(

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Were these pics taken before or after he bombed the Boston Marathon?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

uncool mate

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Looks like you ate 5 cameras

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

#betweentwoferns

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

More like the fisheye lens takes off 10 pounds. The most scale- and ratio-accurate pictures you can take is with a long lens from far away.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

this is objectively interesting

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What's not directly apparent is that this happens because the perspective changes; the camera is physically getting farther away.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Close up the relative distance of the face & body is extreme. As you move back it decreases. You can hide a lot of fat shooting wide & close

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Proof that no matter your focal length, you cant make a D-bag handsome.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

so which is the real one?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

All of them

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Yes, I know that. I was making a joke.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That is width/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

50 mm is good latin

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's pretty friggin awesome.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

What is normal on a telephone?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Most phones I've noticed have a 35mm "equivalent" lens.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The photographer is moving away from his subject as his focal length increases, right?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This reminded me of that stupid JOHN CENA shrinking face gif

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This is cool as fuck

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Slower you slut

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

TIL The camera actually can add ten pounds.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

No they don't. They can take off. We look ourselves close on mirror, and see ourselves like 24mm in GIF. Others see us like 50mm.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

TIL I can't do anything right.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

what focal length is my self facing camera on my phone that makes my head look like a loaf of bread?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Approx 26mm (in 35mm equivalent)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

TIL i should always take pictures with 200mm lenses.

9 years ago | Likes 42 Dislikes 3

200mm can make the head look a little small compared to the body

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Actually 50-100mm is preferred for portrait shots

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

You bastard!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

so you want to look fat?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

135 or bust.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

135 because thats the longest lens I have. :D

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Lol, I'm never going on a diet again! I can just adjust the camera and die happy

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Perspective, NOT focal length. It's all in the camera position. You could make this GIF by zooming w/ your feet & cropping to = subject size

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Nope!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

So what's the focal length closest to the human eye?

9 years ago | Likes 262 Dislikes 2

Add the angle of a 14-18mm lens with the proportion of a 35-50mm lens

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

69mm... At 70-80mm you get pink eye.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

It's 35mm

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 9

1/2) The last photo is the one that probably looks closest to this guy IRL. There is a reason you always see photographers using those

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2/2) but lenses when photographing models. At least this is what my photographer friends told me in reference to these images...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Nov 6, 2016 10:59 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

No, the human eye is not large enough for there to be 50mm distance between the lens and the retina.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 6

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Nov 6, 2016 10:59 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

the human eye has a focal length of apx 22 mm, this is misleading as 1 the back of our eyes are curved, 2 the periphery of our visual

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Nov 6, 2016 10:59 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

so that's I'm always fat in photos

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

pretty sure its 50mm

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 9

Maybe if you're an anime character? The eye is not large enough to have 50mm distance between the lens and the retina.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

You are right, but I was referring to the field of view. 50mm will give you just about the same field of view as the human eye.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

This is what I've been taught. Though, not trying to preach.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

About tree fiddy

9 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 3

There it is

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

God damn it, monster!

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

On a 35mm camera ("full frame" in digital talk) it's about 50-65mm for natural eye perspective. Source: my W2 says photographer on it.

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 5

There is also something about what you actually see and what your brain is filling in automatically. 50mm is about right.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is correct. It has same view angle as human eye. Optics are equivaled by angle. Human eyes 17mm focal length is about 50mm equivalent.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Thank you for mentioning film/sensor size. Anyone who is throwing out a number without equivalent sensor size isn't totally right.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Makes a 100 percent difference, for sure.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

About 17mm

9 years ago | Likes 217 Dislikes 11

Doesn't that also depend on the distance the subject is removed from the viewer? If you touch noses I think it could be fish-eye like almost

9 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 0

The lens is pliable & has ciliary muscles that can contract to change its shape to focus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation_(eye)

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

Hrmmm, I need to read that in order to understand it. Thanks for the link.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

So OP has messed this up badly. Focal length is relative metric in optical systems. Key is view angle. To equalize different optical 1/

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

Thank you. Strictly speaking f=17mm, but it's clear the context was asking which of these most closely mimics what we see.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nice. I fix messed up info of OP and get downvoted. Yes, eye is 17mm but that is equivalent of 50mm on camera! Camera doesn't make you fat!

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Right? Fucking imgur circlejerk sometimes.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

2/ systems, one much find equal view angle/field of view. This ensures that the compression is the same, which dictates the relation of..

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

3/ ..propotions in the picture plane. 17mm lens on camera is not the same as 17mm focal length of eye in propotions. ~45mm lens is

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

The question was not about if focal length or field of view is more important. The question was what the focal length is of the eye. (1)

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Alright. I crunched the numbers. OP is right in saying 17mm. But bear with me to understand why 55mm is considered a "normal" or natural (1)

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

focal length for 35mm format. The focal length of an optically average eye is about the same as the distance between the front and back (2)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

of the eye, so 23.30mm. But we now must consider that the eye is full of fluid and such and a camera is full of air. The refractive (3)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

index of the inside of the eye is 1.336, similar to water. So the focal length of 23.30mm in the eye is indeed equivalent to 17.44mm in (4)

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I think what's being asked is, what camera focal length is closest to what we see, not the actual focal length of the human eye

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

17mm camera lens is too wide. 35-55mm camera lens are more normal, and used a lot as portrait lenses.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

You are correct. This OP has messsed up this thing badly, as he hasn't realized view angle is the key, not physical focal length.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

He has, he is answering the question asked, not the question implied. People need to ask better questions.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And I think everyone else who answered is confusing focal length and field of view. I stand by my answer. I literally have a PhD in this.

9 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 4

I'm not doubting you, but although the human eye DOES see in 17mm, we have two of them, so nothing looks like that first pic.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Dr RubberCatTurds PhD. (Physics, Optics)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What the hell is someone with a PhD doing on Imgur, home of washed up, under-performing losers?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Being a washed up, under-performing loser and having a PhD are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

I have a Phd in underwater basket weaving.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Can't find a job because of fucking Obama.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

We see with a focal length of around 17mm, but with a field of view about 55 degrees wide. A 43mm lens would have that field of view, but

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

Um, the average person can see with a binocular visual field of about 200 degrees. I dunno where you're getting this 55 degree field from.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

would make someone look "fatter," as in the images above.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

I keep seeing other people answering 35 or 50mm. This is wrong. The human eye is not large enough to accommodate that distance between (1)

9 years ago | Likes 97 Dislikes 6

Try this: Get a 70mm lens and put your camera so that one eye looks straight ahead and the other looks straight ahead through the camera (1)

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

After years of working as a photographer I have never seen anyone be able to "prove" to me that 35mm or 50mm is a normal. 17mm is just (2)

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

ridiculous. If you want things to look realistic, use 70mm because that will make stuff look correct when viewed close up.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Would love a citation on this information. Was taught it was 35-50 but am open to why it might not be.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's 35-50mm when equalized to 35mm film camera focal length. OP is autistically believing 17mm focal length on all systems give same result

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Damn OP knows his shit!

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

her*

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Did i just assume your gender??

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's ok. I'm not triggered.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

the lens and the retina. You are all confusing field of view and focal length. The focal length of our (2)

9 years ago | Likes 91 Dislikes 3

nice

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

eyes changes with focus (accommodation), but the average is about 17mm. Our field of view average is about 55 degrees. A 43mm lens has (3)

9 years ago | Likes 75 Dislikes 2

Maybe you mean that field of view upon which we focus and see in 3D averages 55 degrees but your natural FoV is much higher. It's why 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

games can cause sim sickness in some people, the % of your view that is taken up by the screen being far more than the FoV of the game. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

that field of view, which is probably why people are saying 35 or 50. Like the images above, that would make someone look "fatter" than (4)

9 years ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 2

the the 17mm lenses that we have in our eyes. End rant. (5)

9 years ago | Likes 66 Dislikes 2

WHAT IS THAT THING

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

A tarsier

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0