Animal photography question...

[TheAntiPam]

Any camera experts out there? I love those photos of dogs (and others) where their noses are stuck up close to the camera and the lens makes the nose look SOOO big....

Anyone have an idea on what lens to use to create that look?? The picture below is not quite what I mean, but close...

Thanks for your help!

[Karen]

You need to have a lens with a fairly good depth of field, so that the nose AND the rest of the face is also in focus, and other than that, perspective will do the trick for you!

[TheAntiPam]

Ok, my friend has a 35mm camera, the "regular" kind with changable lenses - what does she ask for when she goes to the camera store ??? is there a particular measurement or number that indicates the depth of field?

(yes, we are beginners in this photo stuff!)


Thanks again!

[Karen]

Do you know what kind of lens she already has?

[wolflady]

I have a couple of quite unique photos of the wolves I worked with at Wolf Park really close up!
All the photos have been taken with a digital camera...so I don't think there is a separate lens attached. For this picture, I think it had something to do with the resolution, quality of camera and that it was set on a wide angle.

Here is a blurb from Monty Sloan (he's the wolf park photographer) about this picture of Erin he had taken at Wolf Park...

"Well, another weird photo of Erin. She often submits when she had a camera pointed at her so I just pointed down. I had the wide angle attachment lens on the Nikon Coolpix 990 camera and had it set on macro. This image was actually a vertical photo, but I cropped out a horizontal slice for this image. The camera resolution is 3.3 mega-pixel which results in about 2000x1500 pixels."

[wolflady]

Here is one of my favorites of Marion! This just says it all! LOL LOL

[lovemymaltese]

That is such a cute picture, that dog looks so inquizative.

[TheAntiPam]

Lenses - she has a 55 mm lens and one that is a zoom - 35mm to 70 mm I think ...

[Rottie]

You mean like this... (see attachment)

[Paul]

   I asked a friend of mine for the answer. I think he said rent a fish-eye lens without a hood to see if you like it. I think that's a good idea. Here is what he actually said:

      Paul


   The use of a wide-angle lens -- specifically a "fish-eye" lens is what creates the effect this photographer wants.

   > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <

   I would say one would need to use a minimum of a 28mm wide angle lens to begin to achieve the desired result. A 35mm lens won't create the desired effect (the angle of view isn't enough).

   A conventional 28mm lens will focus to approximately 1 ft. The photographer would want to focus as close to the subject as possible to change the perspective as much as possible. To do this, the photographer would set the focusing ring to the closest distance -- and then "move" their body position (the photographer's) until the focus is "on the nose". This will assure one is getting the "most" distortion out of the lens (distortion = big nose). I suppose if one had a well trained dog, one could have the dog come to the camera until the focus was accurate.

   Interchangeable zoom lenses that zoom to a focal length of 28mm (or even less) may NOT have the same (1 ft) minimum focusing distance. So-called "point and shoot" cameras -- where the lens is not interchangeable, but does 'zoom' also may not focus as closely as a stand-alone lens. This is due to the difference in the optics and in the optical design necessary for a zoom lens.

   While there are intermediate lenses between a 28mm and a fish-eye lens (24mm, 20mm; 17mm; 15mm,) -- those lenses are for highly specialized uses, and accordingly, they tend to be very expensive. Fish-eye lenses, with a 180 degree angle of view, can also be expensive (i.e., a brand-name, prime lens, with superb optics, etc), however there are many off-brand, inexpensive fish-eye lenses available for the popular cameras on the market today.

   Because of the infrequent use of this lens (after taking the first roll :-), I would offer a suggestion to look around for a used fish-eye lens, or inquire about renting a fish-eye lens for a day or two. The latter may be the least expensive way to attain the best desired result -- and it will also give the photographer a sense of if s/he thinks they will use a fish-eye lens enough to justify it's purchase.

   > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <

   There are, or at least used to be, some lens accessories that one could buy, and mount on the front of a 'standard' lens, which would theoretically mimic a fish-eye lens. The only advantage would be a cheap price, and a small size object -- I can't even guess what the results might be.

   > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <

   Normally a 15mm lens would be a fish-eye lens (where fish-eye is defined as having a 180 degree angle of view.) This range varies a bit, some 17mm lenses are fish-eyes, and at the other end of the spectrum there are 7mm fish-eye lenses.

   Just to keep things from being too simple, wide angle lenses are usually used to provide a greater degree of coverage in a photo, or to alter perspective. By their design, wide-angle lenses distort the image -- especially a round shaped object. Because photographers wanted the benefit of having the wider angle of coverage, but didn't want the disadvantage of distortion, a breed of lenses were designed to accomplish that very result. These are typically described as rectilinear lenses.

   One can buy, for example, a Canon 17mm wide-angle (conventional) lens, or a Canon 17mm rectilinear lens. Both have the identical angle of view. The conventional wide angle will (usually) produce a distorted image, while it's cousin, the 17mm rectilinear (design) lens will produce a distortion free image.

   The difference is the optical design, the number of elements, and the size and weight of the lenses. The rectilinear lens will cost at least 3 times the price of the prime conventional 17mm lens.

   I include this tidbit only because under Murphy and Gump's laws, it would just happen to be that this person who wants the nose photo would -- somehow -- windup with a rectilinear lens ... and complain because his picture didn't work (although the perspective would still be such that the nose would be big -- the nose would just be "rounder" with the rectilinear lens! (FYI, "distortion" will occur with any lens when the film plane is not parallel to the subject. The degree of distortion, and it's perceptibility to the human eye is what is at issue.)

   > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <

   Also in the Gump Dept, most fish-eye lenses on the planet are known for both their 180 degree angle of view, and the image result on the film/print which is that of a circle (180 degrees). Enter the exceptions, known as "full frame fish-eye lenses" -- 18- degree angle of view, and fills the 35mm frame. Cost is in the thousands.

   Two things sorta could work against the "nose photo". One is the need for a lens hood because of the 180 degree coverage. In fact, many fish-eye lenses "include" a lens hood as part of the design (i.e. -- the lens hood is not removable)

   The second item is the optical shape of the fish-eye design ... the front element of the lens is highly convex, and protrudes outward, unlike more conventional lenses. The result can be unintended nose impressions on the lens.

[anna_66]

Originally posted by TheAntiPam
I love those photos of dogs (and others) where their noses are stuck up close to the camera and the lens makes the nose look SOOO big....

I'm no professional, but is kinda like what your talking about?


Maybe it's not, but I really like they way they make her face look