SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Does this selfie make my nose look big? Yes:
Taking selfies at a distance of about 12 inches from the face increases perceived nose size by nearly 30%, according to a report published Thursday in the journal JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery [DOI: 10.1001/jamafacial.2018.0009] [DX].
Researchers now are cautioning that patients interested in cosmetic procedures should not turn to self-photographs as guidance when considering making changes to their faces. "Patients, people, even my family have to be aware that if you're taking a selfie, it's not really how you look," said Dr. Boris Paskhover, a facial plastics and reconstructive surgeon at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School and a leading author on the study. "Selfies make your nose look wider and thicker when it really isn't, and people like a smaller nose," Paskhover added. "My fear is that the generation out there now doesn't know. All they know is the selfie."
Also at EurekAlert and The Verge.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday March 02 2018, @03:45PM (6 children)
35mm not really what you usually want for this; the actual FOV and scene distortion of the human eye is more closely approximated by a lens about halfway between 35mm and 50mm (43 mm). [petapixel.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02 2018, @04:04PM (2 children)
So Canon pancake 40mm lens should do it.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 02 2018, @06:58PM (1 child)
Which is why ~100mm is the best lens for portraits. Pros learnt how to make people look better long before photoshop existed.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday March 02 2018, @07:42PM
[for a 35mm format camera]
Yes, for a head only shot, otherwise that is a bit too long. In film days the major camera makers promoted an 85mm focal length [pentaxforums.com] for portrait use.
Actually, any lens gives the same perspective as the human eye does from the same distance. It is just that with a wider angle lens the photographer needs to get closer to "fill the frame" with a head, say, so introducing the perspective "distortion" as well as crowding the sitter. It is just a fact that the perspective from a longer distance (known to photographers as a "flat" perspective), even when enlarged, is more pleasing.
As for 43mm focal length lenses, that is the diagonal of a 35mm film frame (do the Pythagoras), which according to some gives the natural persective of the human eye. I believe it is more complex than that as the human eye's field of view just fades and deteriorates towards the indistict edges.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday March 02 2018, @09:11PM (2 children)
mmm. I was just reading off whats on my shelf over the desk. With the point that fast glass is going to be huge, heavy, and expensive compared to a cell phone. My whole phone weighs less than that lens and I have a phablet. Although I agree with you thats a wide-ish lens.
Is "fast glass" contemporary photographer speak or am I sounding old? I mean lens with lower minimum USABLE F stop. Note that there's plenty of lens sold that can be set to a low F but that comes with unusably low F stop resulting in horrible aberrations. Which kind of circularizes the argument... pics don't HAVE to be as ugly as tiny cell phone cameras generate...
For non-optical people, a pinhole camera is pretty much always in focus but is really dim, exotic tricks with glass lenses does the same thing as a pinhole but MUCH brighter, with the tradeoff of distortion and smaller range of focus, typical engineering tradeoff where exotic glass (literally, like weird flourites in the old days) gives better performance with enough engineering work. There's actually a very interesting telescope book on this topic, a textbook, hundreds of pages, but I can't find my copy.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday March 02 2018, @11:33PM (1 child)
Seems perfectly contemporary to me, but then, I am old. :)
Also, it's a vey low quality sensor compared to a good DSLR. No matter what, it simply doesn't have the area to seriously compete with a RAW file out of the 7D or my 6D. When quality matters, it's not the phone I turn to. Detail can be an issue as well. So far, phones are behind in sensor site density.
Agreed. I routinely take my cell phone pics into my photo app [ourtimelines.com] and un-distort / un-rotate them, adjust levels, crop, etc. Then there's Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop, Gimp, etc.
Going to pull the trigger on a Galaxy S9 shortly; that's because of the new camera capabilities. Looks like a bunch of fun. I have all manner of DSLR glass, a Canon 6D, tripods, etc., etc., etc. But many times, phone is handy, bang, done. Plus some images... the fine quality issues just don't matter. Turns out a jar of pickles is unexpectedly awesome? Snap a shot of the brand / style and stuff it in the gallery for recall later. Saves on spare neurons.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday March 04 2018, @04:31PM
Never take mechanical things apart without taking a zillion pictures of the process. This turns jobs that used to be a real bear, into life on easy mode.