I wish I could remember who it was that suggested changing portrait focal lengths to 100 mm, but I tried that this evening (I have to admit I haven't played with this too much before) and found 2 very different looking women. Notice the facial width/length and the eyes and especially the nose (as he noted). I did change the lighting color just slightly but it is lighted from about the same angle so I could get a good comparison. Quite illuminating for me. So--which one is the 'real' woman *G*? Diane B

The 38 to me looks much better here. To me 100 is much to flat. And low numbers are to distorted. I like the camera focal at 50. This works the best for me in a normal portrait. Below 35 is fine if you want to have that kind of distortion. The lower the number the closer to a wide-angle/fish-eye you get. As with higher numbers the flatter the scence becomes, things seem to be on the same plane, when you know they're not. But again different scences/renders will look better at different focal lenghts. Well my 2 cents on the camera matter ;-) James

With real-world cameras, the standard head-shot is around 50mm. Most Hollywood starlets insist on being shot with a long lens (70mm-120mm) because it smooths out their features. Your 38mm shot may look more realistic, but realism and glamour are two different goals. Glamour is still in the eye of the beholder, of course... Anyway, shorter lenses tend to exaggerate the depth distance between nose tip and cheek level, and between chin and ears. Women generally prefer (I'm told) for their nose and chin not to stand out excessively, making them appear more masculine.

http://www.3dmodelworld.com/tutorials/poser/paul/camera.asp Diane, I believe what you're looking for is this tutorial done by Paul in the "old" days of Poser 3. As for the two versions, I'd have to go with the one on the right. The only problem that I can see is what focal length you were using when morphing the character. I mean, if you had it at 35mm and then changed to 100 of course the face would seem wider. Now, had you morphed her at the 100 setting (at least, for a portrait) and then switched to 35 she would probably be looking quite leaner. Personally, I have changed my main camera setting to 55 and have it as default cause I used to forget and then get weird results. For portraits, I vary them from 100-135mm. Which reminds me, I have to tell people this or else if they download my characters they will look a lot different from what they expect with their own settings!

Like Jon, I've set my focal length at 60mm as a default. 38mm introduces far too many distortions, especially when you do a portrait-type view Paul

I don't remember who it was either, Diane, but I remember one who said to set the close-ups at 135. I've been doing that ever since. Try it on the "Poser Dork," it makes all the difference in the world. I've played around with this feature on all my images, especially close-ups, since I saw that thread some time ago, and it really does make a difference. It does something to the perspective that fixes the length of the face and the way the nose looks. Melanie

Diane, I'm surprised that you hadn't played much with camera focal lengths. In the real world knowlegeable photographers almost never use the wider angle lenses, or even standard, for portraiture unless they are after a special effect. Generally they will choose something between 70mm & 100mm (on 35mm cameras). This is because wide angle lenses do not merely include more in the picture frame but also have a dramatic effect on perspective. Filling the camera viewfinder with someone's face while using a wide angle lens will result in large bulbuous noses with smallish ears that appear farther than they should be. Visual exaggeration occurs as close objects appear larger than normal & farther objects become smaller than normal. Conversely, telephoto lenses will tend to flatten the image and in fact the farther something is, the larger it will appear in proportion to foreground objects. In the case of portraiture, this will allow you to fill the frame with a headshot while still keeping realistic looking ears and noses. Experienced photographers will often choose wide or telephoto lenses precisely for this reason rather than simply getting more into a picture or bringing something closer. (You may have noticed this telephoto effect if you've ever watched a tv news feature focusing on a single speaker in the middle of several rows of people. The speaker appears quite normal while people 5 or 6 rows back may appear rather larger than they should be.) Actually, in real life our eyes see the same thing but our brains know better and automatically make the corrections for us no matter how close or far we are from our subject. A camera won't do that and our brains do not make the same adjustment for flat images. I think this effect is not so obvious within Poser because we can modify facial features. If our focal length is too wide (also called short) we can alter the nose or whatever so that it still looks okay. But if you then choose a very different focal length you may find that the facial features change significantly. In 35mm photography the standard lens is 50/55mm. This is a compromise that is supposed to show the world as we see it from normal distances. You might find it instructive to set up a figure at the 50mm focal length. Then leave the figure untouched while you view it from different angles, distances and focal lengths. You should quickly catch onto the possibilities and this may add an entirely new technique to your bag of tricks. BTW, nice image.

This was said on a thread just in the last couple of days--altho' I know we've talked about it a number of times. I redid this woman at 60mm again. Looks quite different. I did as Jon suggested and remorphed at the 60. I wrote down all my morph numbers and then started from scratch again at 60. Looks different for sure. I'm not quite done with the props and lighting for a fair comparison, but there is a difference if you start at a different focal length than if you morph and THEN change to the different FL. Diane B

Oops- sorry for the redundancy.

jval--LOL--you hit it on the head--'experienced photographers'. My real life work is 2D--I work daily with color, pattern, texture and view it in 'real' mode-rarely photographed except for jury slides--which I have done by a professional photographer. I never take photos of people, myself--lots of landscapes. I guess this just hasn't wormed its way into my Poser knowledge (altho' its been discussed a number of times--I think about it then, then move on to something else and forget about it--I made 60 my default for Poser now--and that should get my attention G). Diane B

Ther standard "portrait" lens for 35mm photography is around 100mm, in fact "the" portrait lens for years and years was the 105 Nikon lens for the old Nikon F. In the real world, our brain corrects for distortion (as jval said), as it does for color temperature, but for photography wide angle lens distort. I do all my renders with a 200 mm lens in Poser, in Bryce even longer. You normally don't have to worry about being able to back up that far, or killing the camera motion, which give real-world photographers problems when the lens start getting past 100 mm.

As a photographer, my question for the creators of Poser would be, "What is the negative size for the focal length?" There is a formula for figuring out the "normal" focal length of a lens, and it depends on the size of the focal plane and its distance from the convergence point on the lens. Don't ask me what the formula is though... A "normal" lens for a 35mm negative is 50mm, while a "normal" lens for a 16mm negative is something quite different. "Normal," in this case, refers to that which provides an undistorted perspective for a given focal plane. A 35mm "portrait" lens is usually considered to be a lens in the 90 - 110 range. If you're shooting 120 film, a "portrait" lens is usually 80mm. In modern photography, these conventions have pretty much gone out the window, however. Most photographers use a focal length considerably longer than convention dictates, since convention is now stale. A longer focal length compresses details and decreases depth of focus, allowing a better "mental focus" on the model. In the last couple of years or so, many photographers have been bucking the "longer is better" trend and have been using shorter-than-normal portrait focal lengths of 30mm to 60mm to generate a new, fresh effect - allowing for a stretched perspective and deeper fields of focus. Bottom line is not that you should use any particular focal length for all Poser images - rather, you should experiment with the dial. Don't ignore it - take advantage of the effects it can deliver. -sk

Small correction ScottK: 120, or 'medium format' film requires a longer equivalent focal length than that of a 35mm film camera lens to give the same angle of view. An 80mm lens on a medium format camera is regarded as a 'standard' lens, in the same way as a 50mm lens is regarded as standard on a 35mm (small format :-) camera. A portrait lens on a medium format camera will therefore need to be around 30mm longer than a portrait lens for the smaller film.

You're absolutely right, PJF... I transposed numbers from standard to portrait... Thanks for the catch. While the numbers have been changed to protect the innocent, the general tenor of my post stands... ;) -sk

Okay, looked at Paul's tute and have read all of these. My question now for you is--do you make the decision beforehand whether this may be a 'portrait' or not and then set your focal length to YOUR desired FL for portraits and then morph OR do you morph at some default FL and then, deciding to actually do a closeup, change your FL? Diane B

I agree that one should experiment with various focal lengths. In matters of creativity sticking to the "rules" leads to mere dogma rather than creation. However, it is easier to plan a trip if you know both start and end points. I am a firm believer in creative serendipity but such good luck more often visits those who understand their points of departure than those who do not. It is true that today photographers are varying from the standards but that has always been true of the more adventurous. It is just that today we are given greater permission to be "odd". Still, the "portrait" focal length was based upon the laws of optical physics and the idiosyncracies of human vision. Those have not changed though our desired artistic interpretations may have. As for "what is the standard Poser lens?" I'm not sure that can be determined considering that our "negative" size can be anything we wish. I should experiment with that to see if it holds true in Poser's world.

I think it's a matter of preference. I usually start with a medium focal length of 80 - 110. Then I do my posing, then I may try adjusting FL a bit to see the effect. It really has far less difference in Poser than it does in the real world. In photography, the primary criteria that go into deciding on FL are Depth of Field and amount of light available (there is zero effect in this regard in Poser). The compression effect is another important reason for choosing a specific FL, and is the only one pertinent to Poser. One caveat: the closer the camera is to the subject (and this is true in Poser, as well), the more pronounced the compression or expansion effect of the focal length. If you're doing whole body shots, it will take more of an adjustment to see the effects a focal length change has than if you're doing a closeup headshot. -sk

Diane, assuming that Poser follows optical laws (& I do know that it does) you should make your adjustments at whatever the "standard" lens turns out to be. Then use the appropriate focal length for whatever you are after. Of course, this will also produce the usual distortions of the different fl's. The interesting thing about Poser is that because you can morph, etc you are in a position that the photographer would envy. Effectively, you are able to produce a pic containing the extreme distortions of a fish-eye wide angle lens in the background while keeping perfectly normal proportions for your subject. Yes, it's extra work but can produce highly effective & startling results.

Oops- when I said "I do know that it does" I meant "I do not know that it does"

Unless you are considering a special effect such as jval is describing, I would do the following: Set the face camera at the 'portait' focal length (in my case, I choose 85mm, like my favourite Contax Zeiss lens). Set the main camera's focal length suitable for the requirements of the scene you're working on. When creating a character (using morphs, etc) it is important to have a standard viewing reference, one that isn't going to add any apparent distortion to the features. I use the face camera as this reference, and it stays the same for all characters. This leaves the main camera free for general viewing of the character, or for positioning in the final scene. I've found that anything wider than 50mm and longer than 100mm gives the impression of distortion. Wide angles make noses and such seem bigger than they are, while longer focal lengths will make them seem flatter than they are. I've always worked in Poser like this, and have mentioned the process various times at various places. I guess you have to be famous for anyone to notice what you say, LOL! ;-)

PJF, I'm inclined to agree with you. I have to experiment a bit more with Poser to find out what's really going on in there. And probably you are famous- it's just that I only read the forum messages sporadically. Although I jump in once in awhile mostly I just miss things. Sort of like real life...

OK, Jim Burton, you mentioned something about the camera focal length in Bryce. I didn't know you could change it there. How do you do that? Melanie

Thanks Melanie--I spent an hour pouring over all the controls and then the manual and I can't find anything either--however, knowing Bryce and all its 'hidden' controls, I never question anything LOL. Also, thanks PJF--you're famous now G. I've just added your comments/notes to my Poser 'notes'. Diane B

Okay Melanie, Diane- look to the upper right of the camera trackball (the tan ball with the embedded 4 way arrows). You will see a little white button ball. Click on it and slide the mouse to the right or left while holding down the mouse button. You will be changing your field of view which is the same thing as varying your focal length.

Right, that I know--but HOW do you specify what length it is as Jim mentioned. He said he does them longer than 200 mm, but how does he know that--or is it 'experience' again LOL? Diane B

I don't think you can actually set the focalength in Bryce but you can set the field of view numerically (FOV). The default 60 degrees in Bryce is a bit on the wide side, appx that of a moderate wide-angle lens. The field of view of a normal lens (in 35mm photography) is 46 degrees for a 50mm standard lens. I have (had) info on fields of view for various focal length lenses, but can't get my hands on it right now...

As Guslaw said, you can change the fov. Do that by double clicking the button I mentioned. A table of options will appear and the fov setting is somewhere in the lower right area.

A quick web search found this site. It contains a field of view calculator for various lens focal lengths relative to film formats. http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html

But, is the Field of View setting in Bryce acting as a tracking control or a zooming control? If it's a tracking control, it's not the same as setting a focal length, and will not have the associated effects. I always thought it was a tracking control, and that the focal length in Bryce was fixed. -sk

The FOV is equivalent to changing the focal length, just like switching lenses on a camera. But it is measured in degrees rather than millimetres. Pop into Bryce and load an appropriate scene. Pick your object and adjust this setting quite a bit to the right. Then move your camera viewpoint so that your object fills the same space it originally did. The wide-angle effect should become painfully obvious. 1 degree is an extreme telephoto while 180 degrees will wrap half of Bryce world in front of you. Without meaning to sound critical, there comes a time when you just have to try it and see for discussion has its limits. Actually, I should take my own advice :-)

Thanks Jval... I hadn't gone through much experimentation with that. I agree about trying things out for oneself, but am away from my Bryce computer for an extended period... I'll play around with it when I get back to it next week. -sk

No Bryce... ouch!!! Are the withdrawal symptoms painful?

The human eye focal lentgh is approximately between 50-60mm when translated to 35mm photographic terms. As it happens, the 55mm objective is also known as the "normal" objective, meaning the FOV is pretty much the same as the human eye. I use 50mm FOV in Poser and it works just fine for me. Also, all this is "in the eye of the beholder", apparently.(Yes, I DO have glasses...)