Help me take non distorted portrait images on my Q

[lencap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve enjoyed my Q, but never found taking portrait shots to work well.  The 28mm lens distorts features, whether trying to get in close to the subject or staying at a reasonable distance.  I hoped that cropping in post would allow me to avoid the distortion, but nothing I do seems to solve the problem.

The result is that I use the SL with 24-90 to get the shot I want.  That works, but the bulk of the SL setup means that I often leave it home and take the Q when I’m visiting friends or just walking around.  Now I’m thinking of going a different way entirely, maybe a Fuji 100V with a more forgiving 35mm focal length equivalent, but I know I’ll hate that decision and will miss the ability to set zone focus distance on the Q.

What solution did you have to avoid portrait image distortion on the Q?

Thanks for the help.

Edited October 10, 2022 by lencap

[Anakronox]

Simple answer?  You don’t shoot close-up or head and shoulders shots with a 28 if you can’t live with the distortion.  You can set the digital crop to 50mm and back up and frame as if you’re shooting with a 50 to mitigate this somewhat.  You’ll need to accept the low megapixel count on the Q, but the Q2 gives you a good bit more pixels to work with. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lencap]

Thanks for the comment.  I tried doing just what you suggested, but cropping to 50/75 focal length using DNG files in post still showed distortion.  For some reason I can't seem to get the knack of it.  To my eye it seems as if the 28mm lens perspective is the issue.  I capture the distortions when the picture is taken, and cropping it doesn't resolve the issue.  Typically I shoot 85/90mm for portraits.  I can't focus that well anymore at my age, so I shifted from the M to the SL platform.  Still, the weight of the SL combo doesn't allow for spontaneous images.

[Anbaric]

15 minutes ago, lencap said:

Thanks for the comment.  I tried doing just what you suggested, but cropping to 50/75 focal length using DNG files in post still showed distortion.  For some reason I can't seem to get the knack of it.  To my eye it seems as if the 28mm lens perspective is the issue.  I capture the distortions when the picture is taken, and cropping it doesn't resolve the issue.  Typically I shoot 85/90mm for portraits.  I can't focus that well anymore at my age, so I shifted from the M to the SL platform.  Still, the weight of the SL combo doesn't allow for spontaneous images.

The altered perspective doesn't come from the lens, but from your distance to the subject. You may still be getting closer than you need to get the perspective you want. Try setting the SL zoom to 90mm and standing far enough away from the subject to get a head and shoulder shot that fills the frame. Then maintain this distance, but set the zoom to 28mm, and take another shot without moving forward. Then get out your Q and take a third shot from the same distance. Compare the three images in your editor, zooming and cropping the wideangle shots digitally so that they approximate the 90mm shot. Can you still see an apparent difference in perspective, or are they about the same?

Beyond changes in perspective, you might be seeing distortion due to limitations in the optical design of the Q lens, which is a different thing. Modern digital cameras are usually programmed to compensate for these distortions when you are shooting with the camera maker's own lenses or have a fixed lens, but only if you are shooting jpegs (do your initial test shots with jpegs). If you normally shoot raw, you may need to use a converter that has a specific profile for the lens you are using, and make sure it is applied properly.

[Coffeecup]

When you find that 28mm in cropped mode still look distorted, an X100v with its even wider 24mm lens isn’t really a solution

[Anakronox]

1 hour ago, lencap said:

Thanks for the comment.  I tried doing just what you suggested, but cropping to 50/75 focal length using DNG files in post still showed distortion.  For some reason I can't seem to get the knack of it.  To my eye it seems as if the 28mm lens perspective is the issue.  I capture the distortions when the picture is taken, and cropping it doesn't resolve the issue.  Typically I shoot 85/90mm for portraits.  I can't focus that well anymore at my age, so I shifted from the M to the SL platform.  Still, the weight of the SL combo doesn't allow for spontaneous images.

You’re welcome.  That’s why I said mitigate somewhat.  You’re just never going to make a 28mm lens act like a 50, 75, or 90, regardless of your distance to the subject.  It’s not you or your technique necessarily, but the fact that you can’t cheat physics!   And as @Anbaric said, you may need to get even farther away than you think you should.  There are benefits to shooting with longer lenses such as that they do tend to compress things and also not distort features closer to the focal plane, like noses.  This is mostly due to your distance from the subject and the angle of view of the lens, but still - you need to back up more to lessen wide angle distortion.  If you want to challenge yourself, go for it, but it sounds as if you’re using the wrong tool for the job. 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Anakronox

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perspective and distortion are determined entirely by distance from the subject for a good quality lens, which the Q has. As a rule of thumb for traditional portraits with minimal distortion I aim to be about two metres from the subject. From simple geometry and optics that means I need a 90mm to frame a headshot, 75mm for upper body, 50mm for seated person, and 35 for full figure.

Rules are made to be broken and there are plenty of good examples of engaging portraits at close distances, but don't expect to avoid distortion. You will see this in leading shoulders for subjects not square on to the camera, arms and hands extended towards the camera and, more subtly, noses and face shape.

[Anbaric]

26 minutes ago, Coffeecup said:

When you find that 28mm in cropped mode still look distorted, an X100v with its even wider 24mm lens isn’t really a solution

Perspective is again a function of distance rather than focal length, and because the X100V has a smaller sensor, you'll get about the same framing at the same distance to the subject as a 35mm lens on full-frame, and a similar perspective at that distance. Apart from the 'exaggerated' perspective you'll get when close to the subject with any lens, X100V images have low distortion, at least when processed as jpegs in-camera or with a raw converter that applies appropriate corrections.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Anbaric

[jankap]

The same problem you would have with an iPhone. Wide angle lenses at too short distance.

This is no distortion of the lens or the camera, it is the effect of projecting a 3-dimensional object onto a plane.

[lencap]

Thanks for the replies.  Helping me properly "frame" the issue is welcome.  A few thoughts come to me from your comments:

• Have the right tool for the job.  The 28mm lens is not the right tool for portraits.
• Perspective is part of composition.  If it doesn't look like I want it to when I'm composing, it won't get better in post.
• The ability to use bokeh in the image depends to a degree on sensor as well as aperture.  A cropped sensor (Fuji) won't magically transpose after the shot is taken.
• There's a reason why most photographers have more than one focal length in their kit.  Trying to get a "one size fits all" solution is destined to disappoint somewhere.

So now the question that I haven't posed needs addressing.  I'm heavily biased to FF sensors.  For decades I shot 35mm film as well as Hasselblad true 2.25" square images.  Holding the Hasselblad negatives after I developed them (Tri-X) was magical.  I miss that simple joy.  But, in a world of digital images I need to learn better skills in post.  I guess I need to explore the world of cropped sensors, just to keep weight and kit size manageable if nothing else.  I had Fuji X gear for awhile, enjoying the more solid feel compared to typical DSLR plastic bodies.  Unfortunately I found the non Bayer sensors challenging to process to get images to look like I saw them in my mind and camera framing.  Photoshop and Capture 1 have improved, but as much as I loved developing film that's about as much as I dislike Photoshop and rest of the programs that seem to continually beckon me to keep trying to improve the final image.  Yes, I could dodge and burn the print, but once it was done it was finished.  I have some images I've continued to edit for years, trying to get "The Shot".  

I developed film because it helped me to learn what happens between composing the image in my mind and seeing the final print.  I don't think I've printed anything above a 4x6 in years.  Perspective in imaging is critical to getting the final look any phographer wants.  My aging perspective hasn't adapted to the new reality of digital processing taking more time than digital image creation.  Seems as if the learning curves are reversed from years ago.  And yes, I still play vinyl records.

Thanks for the help. I appreciate your comments and welcome additional ones.

[Coffeecup]

9 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Perspective is again a function of distance rather than focal length, and because the X100V has a smaller sensor, you'll get about the same framing at the same distance to the subject as a 35mm lens on full-frame, and a similar perspective at that distance. Apart from the 'exaggerated' perspective you'll get when close to the subject with any lens, X100V images have low distortion, at least when processed as jpegs in-camera or with a raw converter that applies appropriate corrections.

Same applies to the Q when using in crop mode. When the Q is set to 35mm, the crop factor is 1,25 instead of 1,5 of the Fuji.

[jankap]

9 hours ago, lencap said:

My aging perspective hasn't adapted to the new reality of digital processing taking more time than digital image creation.

An interesting sentence. Formerly I got my slides back from Kodak and that was it. I accepted, that I could not do anything to increase the quality of the picture. My audience was happy. After some time the slides came into the cupboard.

Today I still go on a trip for some days and use the same set of lenses. After coming home I start with Lightroom, Photoshop, Margulis and Topaz to process the digital pictures. The time, that this processing takes, is more or less the same amount as the total time I had spent for my trip. So I need far more time. But I produce fotobooks now, I make expert looking prints up to A3+. I can combine my photo presentations with internet findings. My audience is happy still, but I can deliver them better pictures and more info.

So I like digital, despite it costs me far more time! And yes, most of the time I don't use sunshades, filters and tripods.

[LocalHero1953]

 

12 hours ago, lencap said:

That works, but the bulk of the SL setup means that I often leave it home and take the Q when I’m visiting friends or just walking around.

If you can put your preference for full frame to one side, you might want to consider a Leica CL and either or both of the 18-56 zoom or 60mm prime lenses (27-84 and 90 equivalent). Light, compact, high quality images, lacking the depth of field control of full frame, but great for family and other social photography. It looks like it is discontinued by Leica, but still a great option.

[pegelli]

12 hours ago, Anakronox said:

You’re welcome.  That’s why I said mitigate somewhat.  You’re just never going to make a 28mm lens act like a 50, 75, or 90, regardless of your distance to the subject.  It’s not you or your technique necessarily, but the fact that you can’t cheat physics!   And as @Anbaric said, you may need to get even farther away than you think you should.  There are benefits to shooting with longer lenses such as that they do tend to compress things and also not distort features closer to the focal plane, like noses.  This is mostly due to your distance from the subject and the angle of view of the lens, but still - you need to back up more to lessen wide angle distortion.  If you want to challenge yourself, go for it, but it sounds as if you’re using the wrong tool for the job. 

I don't think this is true. Do a simple experiment, stand ~2,5 meter from a person and take a photo with the head in the middle with a 28 mm lens and then from exactly the same position do the same with a 90 mm lens. On your computer crop the image of the 28mm lens to exactly the field of view of the 90 mm lens. When you then compare the cropped 28 mm image with the full 90 mm image the only thing you'll notice is the lower resolution of the 28 mm image (due to the cropping) but the distortion, compression and perspective will be exactly the same.

Edited October 11, 2022 by pegelli

[Stuart Richardson]

If you have the SL, you are likely better off getting a smaller and lighter lens like the 65mm or 90mm Sigma lenses. Don't worry about the image quality, if anything they will be better than both the Q and SL 24-90mm. If you want to surpass them, you would need to go to a 90mm Summicron, and even then it is close. Taking close up portraits with a 28mm lens is going to lead to distortion. Cropping should work, but since it does not seem to work for you, then you are unlikely to get it sorted. There is no magic bullet to make a 28mm into a 85mm. It seems to me that an easier solution would be the SL you already have with a compact and light portrait lens with autofocus. It will not be as light as the Q, but it will be much lighter and less bulky than the SL with the 24-90mm. Below is a comparison with the Sigma 90mm 2.8.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited October 11, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[jankap]

Or one without autofocus. Perhaps an Elmar 90mm f/4.0.

[bobtodrick]

The Q/Q2 at 28mm is not the best head and shoulders portrait kinda camera (in my opinion) if you cannot live with the inherent distortion a wide angle has.

Here is a link to someone who does great portrait work (IMO) with the Q2 Monochrom...but he works with the distortion instead of trying to alleviate it

 

[hdmesa]

There's some half-baked info in this thread. 28mm is not the problem, the Q lens distortion and angle of the camera relative to the subject is. The Q lens requires a substantial amount of software correction to produce a normal 28mm photo, and as a result, distortions close to the edge of the frame are exaggerated relative to an optically well-corrected 28mm prime.

Some tips for close headshots with the Q:

• Don't put any part of someone's head near the edges of the frame.
• Don't position the camera too much higher than the subject and/or tilt the camera downward since keystoning will stretch the edges of the frame and distort the face (can be an issue with any wide angle).
• Stay at eye-level with the subject if you can.
• Certain face types can benefit from the Q lens distortion: subjects with short foreheads or long foreheads can be made to look more flattering by changing the camera angle.

The Q is a great camera for portraits, even headshots.

Edited October 11, 2022 by hdmesa
grammar

[lencap]

Thanks again for the comments and suggestions.  I appreciate all of them.  The more I work with the suggestions and other thoughts the more I think that, for me, I have the wrong tool for the job.  The 28mm perspective seems to be my primary issue.  Despite changing distance, height, angle and other things I just can't seem to get a facial image that isn't compromised in some way.  The result seems clear - get the right tool.  So it's either go to the longer end of my zoom or invest in a prime that covers the focal length I prefer (85/90).  That would seem to suggest that the Q, wonderful as it is, isn't the right choice for portrait work, at least as I intend to use it.

I appreciate the help; thanks to everyone.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[LocalHero1953]

6 hours ago, lencap said:

Thanks again for the comments and suggestions.  I appreciate all of them.  The more I work with the suggestions and other thoughts the more I think that, for me, I have the wrong tool for the job.  The 28mm perspective seems to be my primary issue.  Despite changing distance, height, angle and other things I just can't seem to get a facial image that isn't compromised in some way.  The result seems clear - get the right tool.  So it's either go to the longer end of my zoom or invest in a prime that covers the focal length I prefer (85/90).  That would seem to suggest that the Q, wonderful as it is, isn't the right choice for portrait work, at least as I intend to use it.

I appreciate the help; thanks to everyone.

With respect, as long as you think that the problem with the 28 is its 'perspective' then you are likely to encounter similar problems again. 'Perspective' depends only on distance to subject, not FL.

If you simply mean that a 28mm lens encourages you to get too close, then I agree with you.