View Single Post
You really need to be. . .
Old 08-29-2005, 10:04 PM   #2 (permalink)
Free Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35436
Location: Sunset
Posts: 500
Comments: 0

cclesue is offline IP:
  Reply With Quote

more specific in you're request. A mind reader I ain't. However I'd like to comment on the "up angle" thing. Years ago I think it was "da fish" that said He always knew when a photographer knew what he was doing by how far off the ground his camera was. The lower the smarter. . . or something like that. He was commenting on the foreshortening effect all cameras have when the plane of the film is not parallel to the subject. I believe that with digital cameras the effect is worse since the sensor plane is even smaller than 35mm film. Most photographers shot from eye level and never realize they are shooting down and therefore make the torso look longer when compared to the legs. (I call it the paparazzi syndrome) If you want to make the legs look longer shoot from knee high. The most natural is waist level being careful to keep the sensor plane parallel to the subject. Sometime try this experiment. Pose a model against a white or other featureless back drop, (this is important) face and hips on. Then from exactly the same distance (filling the finder with your subject) shoot three images. One at eye level (shooting down, one at waist and one from the knees up (shooting up). Enlarge these image to at least 8x10 and set them side by side. Ask some non photographer friends which they like the best and why. I think you will be surprised. For years I carried a set of such images and asked dozens of people which they prefered and most picked either the low angle or the waist angle but unless they were experienced photographers they couldn't tell me why or what the difference was. They just seemed better.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to cclesue Visit cclesue's homepage! Find More Posts by cclesue