Dunno; quality looks quite good, but then a lot of cellphone cameras
*are* these days. Could still have used a telephoto setting...
To get someone at that size with a wide or "normal" view lens, you'd
have to be quite close, so the feet would be much closer to the camera
and hence larger (which is what the brain would expect to see).
From further away, that difference in distance is relatively minor
compared to the total distance, so you get less difference in scale
(i.e. less perspective). Because a telephoto gives the illusion that
it was taken closer than it was, that lack of perspective makes some
things look "wrong".
I've got other (studio-based) sets where they've obviously used a
moderate telephoto lens to shoot them. That's quite flattering when
the model is vertical- which is why they use telephotos in
portraiture- but it makes the legs look wrong when they're coming
towards the camera. :-O
Thanks for all the photos anyway :-)
On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 21:28:04 -0600, SL <SerpentLord@Evil.Incarn8>
wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Dec 2015 20:55:27 +0000, Adfgh Heirthf
><example@example.com> wrote:
>
>>This, unfortunately, shows the problem with long telephoto lenses'
>>compression of perspective when you have something (in this case, the
>>poor woman's legs) pointing towards the camera... :-/
>>
>>On 04 Dec 2015 09:10:25 GMT, SerpentLord@Evil.Incarn8 (SL) wrote:
>
> I suspected they were using just their cell phones.
|
|
 [016of209] - "ch11220.jpg" yEnc (1/1) 437433 bytes -')){kind=link}