24-70 f2.8 perspective

[Markd3]

Good day all. Long time no post.  Hope you're all well.

I recently took a shot with a D800 and the 24-70 f2.8G ED Nikkor . I have dropped this lens in the past and it was repaired by NPS.
The question is this. Is it just perspective that makes the women on the right look so large or do you think it's a lens issue. 

Shot at 1/100 f14 38mm.

I'd be open to suggestions on how to fix this without having to shrink her is PS and clone in what's missing.

TIA

Mark

[Birna Rørslett]

You didn't specify the camera format, but either with  DX or FF models, 38mm is fairly close to a normal angle of view. Thus any sense of exaggerated "perspective", or more precisely, geometric distortion, has to do with the relative spacing between elements inside the picture frame. Anything  closer to the camera will be rendered larger, and objects close to the periphery can be perceived "stretched" as well as this lens is rectilinear. However, at the moderate wide setting you applied, the latter point shouldn't be of much concern.

To me the overall image looks pretty natural, and actually the different sizes of the people add to a feeling of "depth". Perhaps that was unintended and can only be rectified by having people at more similar distance to the camera plus shooting with a longer focal length.

[Kenneth Rich]

"objects close to the periphery can be perceived "stretched" as well as this lens is rectilinear. "
Rectilinear, huh?  Were she as old as I , I'd say more time on the treadmill would fix it, but she looks a healthy quarter my age.

[Tristin]

It's a composition problem, the women on the right are several feet in front of the other people and the positioning of the people overall is lopsided.  If you are going to put people a noticeable distance closer to the camera, pick the smaller of the people.  Bigger people in the back, smaller in the front, and try to keep it even. 

[Markd3]

Thanks for the comments.  I really wasn't going for an all lined up smallest to tallest type image but more of a Penn type stagger.  I know, it's got a long way to go.  Teachers only had a few minutes but no excuses.  As long as its not the lens, I'm happy to watch the depth the next time. Still a work in progress, but the latest version is attached.

[Tristin]

Smallest to biggest is simply a pragmatic approach to avoid situations like this one where someone either looks like a giant or a midget, and everyone is visible.  Regardless of the look you're going for, the basic principle is nearly always going to be good form in group photos.  Look at the size of the far right girl's head compared to the guy in the back, second from the right.  The fact that they are so close in the image, yet show such stark differences in size, is exactly what gives it an off feel.  The human eye sees these things and wonders, "Is the guy in the back absolutely tiny?  Is she giant?  Am I seeing things correctly?".

[Airy]

Definitely too close to the group, but if it cannot be helped, some geometric corrections can be performed in PP:
- tilting the image over a horizontal axis, because the picture was taken "looking down", which exaggerates the upper bodies in proportion to the lower bodies;
- using the anamorphosis correction in DXO, to avoid the "stretching" at the sides.
At 38mm, the geometric distortion of the 24-70 is close to zero IIRC, so the lens is not to be blamed.

[Ethan]

Have a close look at your verticals......

Not lens defect but operator error.

Objects closer to the camera appear larger......blah blah blah...... is not the error in this instance!










and a global correction (right hand need slight adjustment which you might wish to do yourself) ......

[Markd3]

Excellent feedback.  Thanks again. Quite frankly, I'd rather it be my mistake and not lens issue. Ethan, Airy mentioned DXO. Is that what you used as well?

[Fons Baerken]

Excellent feedback.  Thanks again. Quite frankly, I'd rather it be my mistake and not lens issue. Ethan, Airy mentioned DXO. Is that what you used as well?

I suppose you may even use perspective control in photoshop, actually it doesnt bother me, like the shot for what it is.

[John Geerts]

If you are not experienced with the effects of the focal length on the image, I would suggest to use 50mm and longer for (group) portraits.

[Ethan]

Excellent feedback.  Thanks again. Quite frankly, I'd rather it be my mistake and not lens issue. Ethan, Airy mentioned DXO. Is that what you used as well?

I use C1P for all my work and your shot was corrected with C1P.

I also use Photoshop but not for distortion and more for compositing and CC...etc.

I do not use Dxo Photolab. However, when the going gets tough, I use DXO Viewpoint.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Have a close look at your verticals......

Not lens defect but operator error.

Objects closer to the camera appear larger......blah blah blah...... is not the error in this instance!










and a global correction (right hand need slight adjustment which you might wish to do yourself) ......

That correction makes the women in the front even wider. The poor man in the back row (second from right) has a head which can fit within the fist of the woman in green.

[Markd3]

Thanks for the feedback folks.  I was able to correct it somewhat in DxO.
Any suggestions for future shoots of groups? I'm not interested in having them all lined up in a row. More of an Irving Penn group type shot.

[Erik Lund]

The 'automatic' lens raw converter in Photoshop, Camera raw, makes a distortion correction that makes it worse in this case, so make sure it's adjusted or tuned off, it's the barrel distortion correction trying to make the image rectilinear by stretching out the corners.