/fa/ - Fashion

lens size and distortion

the mirror you is not the real you

http://gizmodo.com/5661253/giz-explains-why-you-look-different-in-photos-than-you-do-in-the-mirror

>>6734886
so in real i am ugly yes? and the mirror only shows an more attractive version of myself?

interdasting.

>>6734886
True. Psychological phenomenon. Upon looking at yourself in the mirror, you see yourself as more attractive than you actually are.

>>6734903
>>6734903
>>6734886
>>6734886
source on that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRP82omMX0g

>>6734908
i don't have a source, but i know for a fact that i see myself as more symmetrical in the mirror than i actually am

one also tends to focus on their best angle when looking in the mirror while other people will see you at whatever angle you happen to be in relation to them

>>6734961
so if thats true...

what does those extremely beautiful people that you often see on the streets see in the mirror?

>>6734971
an even better looking version of themselves

welp, time to throw away all of my mirrors, they are fooling me.


ah, and dont forget to never ever go outside again.

thanks /fa/, you are truly my greatest ally

>>6734877
smart phone camera's are horrible

same with web cams

they use plastic lens systems, and a general apeture that doesn't really adjust.

to deal with the different lighting effects they just throw a filter over the image.

so when you adjust the "white balance" on an iphone, you're just throwing a color filter over the processed image.

then it's scaled up so it can be seen as a 15 megapixel image, which is why you see all that digital noise

and then it's even worse when you have to adjust the depth of field..ugh

>>6734997
>>6734997
so...my anxiety is partially created by my goddamn fucking phonecamera?

time to get a damn real camera.

>>6734877
also, if you guys are on dating sites.

go to Craigslist, go down to creative services, then search for

on location, portrait photog.

ask the photog to use a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8, or 1.4 lens. he should have someone holding a white reflector at your face to make your face glow, and have you standing in the shade.

boom 10/10 sexy as fuck portrait for dating site to get you laid

>>6735023

>mfw this thread

kill me right now, i am so ugly

>>6735200

me too bruv. me too.

>>6734997
Not that it matters much but you're making a few errors when talking about the technical mumbo jumbo

>>6735229
like?

>>6735023
What's f/1.8 mean? I have a 18-55m lens which came with my canon eos1100d, will that work?

>>6735238
Well he said 'you have to adjust the depth of field'. To do that you have to adjust the aperture, in contradiction of what he said earlier. Maybe he meant focus, I don't know.. but you have to do that on cameras anyway.

I'm pretty sure the white balance changes similarly to other digital cameras, just not to as great of a degree.

Saying scaling up increases noise might be true depending on what you're scaling it from, to, and what size you're looking at it. In the case of phone cameras it doesn't really increase apparent noise, it's simply a larger file than it needs to be.

When you're looking in the mirror, you're seeing in 3 dimensions, and your brain adjusts things so that everything looks normal. When you take a picture, you're projecting 3 dimensions down to 2. Just like with maps, there's always some distortion, and it can end up making your features look odd.

The photographer's convention is that a shot from about 15 feet away is pretty close to how you naturally see things, which for people means a longer lens. Phone cameras typically have shortish lens, and so a "fills the frame" portrait is taken from too close. You could back up 7 feet from your mirror and crop the shot down, but that's going to have shit quality, so you do need a camera with a longer lens if you care about how you look in selfies.

All that said, how you look in the mirror is how everyone else sees you (in three dimensions), so there's not really anything to worry about.

>>6735245
thats a kit lens, yes and no.

yes you can take decent shots with that ef-s 18-55mm kit lens

no, you can't take decent shots with that lens on THAT camera body.

your eos rebel t3 1100D is a very old, oudated, entry level DSLR that is trumped by a smart-phone camera

so if you have that particular camera, disregard what i said about the cell phone cams

>>6735312
Dude, okay, please stop giving photo advice. The 1100D is more than capable of taking very good photos.

>>6735245
Yes it will work. Sure it won't be as high quality as a professional portrait, but definitely good enough. And to be honest most amateur professionals take fucking terrible, cheesy, cliché photos.

What you need to do is open up the aperture as much as possible and avoid the wide angle end of the lens (18mm ~ 22mm). And don't listen to sieg.

>>6735312
Yeah I knew it wasn't the best, just needed it for my photography A level 3 years ago. I see it has a portrait setting on it, how much better will that make portrait shots then? I know this camera is quite good, even after what you said, for Landscape and Urbex photography since I got A for both AS and A level but I haven't managed to take a decent selfie with it yet haha.

>>6735362
>the EOS t3 is capable of taking pictures
sure, if it functions

>taking good pictures
sure if you scale it the fuck down to facebook resolution and you have a pro working it, the average d bag won't be able to work it to a point where the shots aren't embarassing.

if they aren't embarrassing you'd have so much time in light studio/photoshop its not worth the money saved with that trash

>>6735378
your camera was introduced in 2011...it didn't exist in 2010 (3 years ago).

when they introduced it, there was a collective WTF we're moving backwards in time now? in the /p/ community

however, it let full frame users sell their old junk lenses to newbies wanting EF mounts for their EF-S body trash

which really did the old, but still great lenses a diservice....

>>6735388
No.. you have no idea what you're talking about.

The 1100D has an APS-C size sensor like all current low - mid end SLRs.

See the little green box? That's a typical sensor size of a compact. And even an iPhone 5 sensor is smaller than even that.

And if you're going to tell me the size difference of the sensors makes little difference, then you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

>>6735451
here's the photo

>>6735286
Thanks for writing this out bruv it really helped

>>6735451
i alluded to that with the ef-s/ef comment about the lens interchangeability.

the sensor has an effect, but the features, how those images are processed through that sensor matter more so than the actual sensor itself.

just as a housewife leaves her 5d mkII on auto it isn't using the sensor to it's full advantage.

i've been shooting a Nikon D90 since about 2008, i am STARRING at my grilfriend's old cannon 1100D right here, same thing that the OP has, except the one im looking at is sitting in a camera bag with 5-6 lenses sitting next to it and an array of flashes and lens hoods laying around it


and if i went to take a mirror shot right now, i aint picking up that 1100D, im picking up that 5 year old D90

Does this phenonmenon also explain why I look fine in selfies I take, but when someone else takes a photo of me, when I see it I'm horrified and it ruins my mood and makes me hate myself for a long time

>>6735467
It was all a lie but it's good it made you feel better?

>>6735497

Confirmed for autism.

>>6735484
If you can't take a good photo with a 1100D you really are just a bad photographer. Don't blame the perfectly capable camera dude.

And no. How the image is processed does not make up for a sensor that is more than 13x smaller than an APS-C sensor.

I own a 5D as well as 20 odd film cameras and I sell cameras to get by and have been for years. I'm studying photography at university.

If you really think you're right, go ask /p/. I dare you.

>>6734971
>what does those extremely beautiful people that you often see on the streets see in the mirror?
god himself of course

>>6735497
explain.

>>6735546
i shot some DSLR on film, and processed with it too however thats not part of the argument.

the 1100D is a shit camera, yes you can take a facebook or instragram shot with it, but anything more than that is shit.

its not worth luggung around on a vacation.

and it will make you appear ugly as shit in a mirror pic, due to it being a shit tier camera.

he's better off with an iphone than leaving a 1100D on auto and aiming it at the mirror with a kit lens

if you know what you're doing you can get an OKAY shot with the proper equipment with that camera, but why? you're not saving any money, and you're not doing yourself, or your glass any favors by limiting what you shoot your work with.

it's like a fine craftsman working with rocks rather than trade tools

>>6735484
>>6735546
>Go ask /p/
Oh looks like that's already happened

>>>/p/2085890

>>6735418
I bought it in 2011, started my course in September 2010. Why are you so hostile? Were you raped by somebody who owned an eos 1100d?

>>6735568
i shot film SLR** this is about DSLR camera's

>>6735572
>>6735568
Oh, I'm the original guy btw, not multi posting or w/e, just went to eat my dinner.

>>6735568

/p/ brought me here. Thanks for the laughs, asshat.

For everyone else: disregard what that fag says, he was probably high on cocks when making up that shit.

>>6734877
>How do they work?
It's glass in front of a thin sheet of metal with a high luster.

>>6735600
Well it's all good for me anyway, I bought that camera for a 2 year class which I finished in June 2012 and my only use for it now is messing with friends or taking selfies (which I find hard to do right which is why I posted about my camera and lens lol).

>>6735568
Holy FUCK, you're an idiot.

Regards,
/p/

>>6734877

It's mostly down to the focal length you're using. In order to achieve a relatively distortion-free image (aka a good, aesthetically pleasing portrait that doesn't screw up the proportions of your face) you need a focal length of at least 50mm. Because of their tiny ass sensors, phone cams and webcams usually have tiny lenses (the focal length on an iPhone 5 is 4mm, or something like that), hence the shitty portraits you get. The closer you stand to the camera, the shittier the result in terms of distortion.

>>6735642
i have that camera laying around, GF is on a shoot right now.

it should not be a surprise that she left this cam (1100D) and a nikon d90 here, as well as a few of the lenses she used to have before i got her a decent cam for xmas '12

>>6735023

>ask the photog to use a 35mm

just when I thought you couldn't be more of an idiot...

I'd probably beat the photographer to death if I caught him thinking of using a 35mm for a portrait.

>>6735668
It's irrelevant whether or not you have the camera at hand.

You're still a fool if you think a shitty plastic lens phone with fixed aperture and a tiny ass sensor will best a somewhat modern DSLR.

>>6735668
I can also take a similarly bad picture with a $10,000 Hasselblad or a 2005 Nokia. What's your point?

>>6735668

It's not a shit camera, it's just that you have no idea what you're doing. Seriously, stop making a fool of yourself.

>2013
>shooting in full retard mode
>kit lens
>claiming photographic expertise

holy fuck, you're something.

>>6735672
not the film you moron, the focal length

thins your face out

>>6735714
u srs? I thought you said you have been shooting since 2008?

>>6735710
>>6735712
>>6735713

i recreated, with the exact camera, on the exact setting, of what op wanted to do with this camera (mirror, shot kit lens, auto) minus the hood, but im too lazy to take it off (doesn't change anything in an indoor shot anyways)

and i showed you (albeit now a RAW IMAGE) that it will come out looking like horseshit

and 2/3 of you had agreed that the image looks like shit

>>6735714
That's what he's talking about, retard.

Typically, anything less than 50mm on a crop sensor camera will make you look like a mutant.

>>6735714

I was talking about the focal length, you dense motherfucker. If I were referring to the film format, I would have written 135 film.

That said, a 35mm lens does the exact opposite of thinning your face out.

Now that you've made it perfectly clear to everyone that you know jack shit about photography, how about you get fucking lost?

>>6735736
please read this again
>>6735712
then take your computer to the nearest cliff, set it down and throw yourself off of it

>>6735714
>>6735736

*cringe*

>>6735749
1: op's camera is trash, GF has one, she's looking to sell it. the one in the mirror, best offer she got $170....

2: that camera, shooting a WAYWT or a face shot in a mirror....sucks at it. an iphone will kick it's ass.

3: for the image quality that the t3 puts out, you're better off not taking it anywhere, just take your iphone and take your vacay shots with that...

4: i have that camera in my possession, none of you have even held it.(minus OP, which proved ineffective in this experiment) you just think any cannon or nikon DSLR is better than any cell phone, and it's simply not the case today

Thats it.


When i look into the mirror, i can see my flaws, the left eye is a little bit lower then my right eye, but thats more or less it.
Then i took a picture with my camera, which happens to be also the galaxy s3 mini camera.

I have dysmorphophobia for quite a while now, but it was good since i slowly started becomming normal again.

Now i look at my picture from my phone.

I look fat, my mouth is not a straight line, its like a fat mans mouth

my head looks crooked and my left eye seems to be 1-2 centimeter lower then my right eye.


so i was right all the time and my fucking doctors was just lying saying to me i look normal.


Suicide is the only option, i can never ever go outside looking like this.

fuck this shit world and the shit fate i was put in.

>>6735668
I'm not OP btw

I think it does well, this is just me pointing and shooting real quick where it's focused on some point of the computer screen in this pic.

>>6735784
pull your cellphone out, take the exact pic

cell phone, or DSLR.....i shot this

>>6735779
What's more likely from what we have learned here today:

1. Your photography skill is the reason why 'durr dis camera trash'

or

2. The 1100D is worse than an iphone?

So in short:

If i look very ugly on a phonecam, do i really look so ugly or si the cam changing the way how my face looks? So it does not, like a mirror, display the reality?

So if i use a better cam, i would look better and it would reflect the reality?

>>6735803
taking mirror shots with an 1100D and expecting to look attractive is a bad idea.

the 1100D image quality overall is worse than a standard phone.

the 1100D vs carl zeiss optic equipped windows lumnia phone 920 or above

will further embarrass that trash cannon

can't even get zeiss glass for a shit tier cannon without a shady adapter

>>6735779
1: OP stated he used and S3. Also, you're a fucking moron.
2: You're a fucking moron.
3. You're a fucking moron.
4. You're a fucking moron.

>>6734886
yes it is, its just flipped, its exactly what you look like but flipped

is this so hard to understand

>>6735831
>>6735831
but why do i look so unbelievable horrible on my cams pictures?

>>6735779

please continue, I've rarely seen someone go to such extreme lengths to look like an idiot.

>>6735803

>2. The 1100D is worse than an iphone?

no, definitely not. That's what "sieg heil" is trying so hard to convince you of, and I honestly cannot see why. Don't worry, though, he has made it very clear that he doesn't know the first thing about photographic equipment, so try not to take him too seriously.

>>6735823
You're a fucking moron.

>>6735836
BECAUSE LENS DISTORTION

>>6735836

did you even take a minute to give the thread a quick read? Some anon pointed it out already: >>6735643

>>6735821
>If i look very ugly on a phonecam, do i really look so ugly

depends on the phone, if it's an iphone cam, or a windows phone with good lighting
then yeah you're ugly.

>So if i use a better cam, i would look better and it would reflect the reality?

you will look better with a better cam, given the skill of the photographer, and the skill he has in lightroom, photoshop et. al.

the argument here is that OP does NOT currently posses a better camera than his phone camera. he only has a cannon t3 rebel.

which is the equivalent of like a modern day point and shoot from olympus from walmart

>>6734886
Wrong, the mirror you IS you. It is how everyone else see's you.

/fa/ confirmed for worst board.
You managed to outfag /mlp/, well done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe3oJnFtA_k

>>6735849
>>6735849
OP here, i have only the cam from my galaxy s3 mini.


It has 2 camers, one on the front and one on the back..

The front one works like a mirror, i look " good" in pictures from that, but if i turn the phone and take one with the back camera, i look like a mutant.

Pro Tip: Camera you is real you. Mirror you is an idealised version of you.

>>6735849

>t3
>is the equivalent of like a modern day point and shoot from olympus from walmart

are you just going to repeat your bullshit ad nauseam? I seriously hope you're 14, cause otherwise you're fucked up beyond repair.

>>6735849
He's talking about making his face look mutated, dumbass. Not MEGAPIXELS and whitebalance. The problem with phone cameras is that they have a very wide angle lens and tend to have a shitton of barrel distortion.

If you crank the kits lens of the T3 to 50mm+ it will have much less distortion and in turn reproduce a much more natural looking photograph.

>>6735836
lens distortion you fucking idiot

and the mirror is what you look like
except flipped

you want to see what you look like without flipping it? take 2 fucking mirrors and look in one to reflect the other

congratulations
now come to terms with your appearance you fuckwad

You are a photo genius sieg heil

>>6735867
the galaxy s3 camera shows you in the best possible light.

if you still don't belive me, go outside and start taking some pictures

all of the "good" ones will be your cell phone

>>6735899
You should post the original.

>>6735871
gr8 b8 m8. I rate it an 88/8. Its so gr8, I masturb8 to it with a cheese gr8r. Oh no i cut myself, now blood is everywhere. Who knew this would be my f8. Cant w8 to haunt the detective m8

>>6735912
He has two cameras, both on the same phone.

You're a fucking moron.

>>6735899
that was cellphone by the way

a junk cellphone, android.

there is a picture of me at the beach...that gets reposted here becuase it was on my girlfriends face book

taken from the lumnia camera based windows phone

>>6735915
I didn't realize he deleted it

>>6735922
OP also has the 1100D, the main camera on his phone is the (back camera) better of the 2

>>6735912

and he just keeps on going, and going, and going....

please keep this thread alive, I want to laugh some more when I get back.

>>6735932
The front camera is better for taking close portraits because it has less barrel distortion.

Please stop pretending you know things.

Flash makes everyone look bad.

Well, I know one girl who looks amazing in flash regardless, but for the rest of us, it does.

>>6735932
I'm the original 1100d guy, OP didn't say he owned anything other than the galaxy s3.

>>6735955
I'm also not involving myself with the convo anymore, just keep seeing it bump.

OP here.

I get the feeling sieg heil tries to tell us that the s3 phonecam is a good one and im just ugly?

is he trolling?
>>6735912
>>6735912
>>6735912
especially in this post.

>>6735951
not if you bounce it in doors, or soften it or backlight it outdoors

and if you have a high end rign flash you would'nt be saying that

>>6735962
>is he trolling?
Nope, just an idiot.

>>6735969
>not if you bounce it in doors, or soften it or backlight it outdoors

Yeah, because average plebs taking photos before a night out know how to properly utilise flash, right?

>>6735969
One, obviously taken outdoors under decent lighting and the other taken indoors by a retard who doesn't know what he's doing.

sieg how2 take cute selfies

>>6735779
Oh my god are you genuinely autistic or trolling??

Alright.

1 In this pictures was taken with the back camera from my s3 mini and 2 was taken with the front camera.

The back camers is the stronger on with a much higher resolution, obviously, but i has not the mirror effect that 2 has.

So in my opinion, even though i look like shit, 2 looks better, but apparently only 1 is the reality. Is there any distortion on this picture?

>>6735982
>retard who doesn't know what he's doing.

retards can modify netbooks with SSD's, higher ram, higher clock speeds and 6 cell batteries running professional software as he casually sips starbucks (at starbucks) where he does post?

>>6735976
if i am a retard, then how come i can use flash properly?

>>6735969
the exif says the shot on the right was a T3 though

>>6736033
people see you IRL as you appear in image one, albeit not in that weird orange halogenic bathroom light you're standing under

2: is how you see yourself

you look more attractive in image labeled 1

>>6735969
Sad_dog.raw is better than large_woman_hungrily_looking_at_cat.jpg

who gives a fuck

quit worrying about these trivial things and just live your life, this board is about clothes not "/fit/izens fishing for compliments while trying to impress strangers with their asos fits"

>>6735969
You mean to tell me, a CANNON, a weapon that isn't in any way an imaging device, is better than a smart phone camera?

Sad_dog.raw is better than large_woman_hungrily_looking_at_cat.jpg

>>6736052
And for me its the complete opposite.

i think my mouth hangs like i have a stroke in 1, my eyes are very crooked in 1 and it just looks...dunno, bad.

i mean sure i looked better when i didnt just sit around the whole day and had 10 kg less on me, but still 1 looks like shit for me.

>>6736047
i was going to trick /p/ with that, i had take the android image, over lapped another image in MSpaint light (win7 starter on netbook, win8 desktop likes to strip exif) so that it retained the EXIF data.

that image is just short of the resolution claimed in the EXIF so it was scaled

>>6736052
>>6736033
pic related are the stats for the camera and picture.

so its a 3.5m

>>6735899
fuck lol

>>this thread

lelest of lels

>>6736090
oh shit look at that:
>>6735023

me:
>ask the photog to use a 35mm

you;
>>6735672
>
I'd probably beat the photographer to death if I caught him thinking of using a 35mm for a portrait.

and he looks amazing in image 1.

his cell phone camera is a GOOD CAMERA

>>6736138
but will his t3 look as good at 3.5m/35mm?

nope

BUT IT DOES PROVE THAT 35MM FOCAL LENGTH WITH A GOOD CAMERA DOES DO ONE HELL OF A PORTRAIT.

a cell phone might not blur the back round as well as a DSLR but photoshop blur tool fixes all

>>6736138
Sorry to be rude, but i don't look "amazing" your are saying this to further validate your statement.

>>6736052
>people see you IRL as you appear in image one, albeit not in that weird orange halogenic bathroom light you're standing under

>2: is how you see yourself

This is the exact opposite of truth.

>>6736179
>>6736179
can you prove this?

>>6736163
you look pretty damn good in the first shot OP.

i i took you outside, under natural light, and got the shadows off of your face

to get rid of your complaints about your nose, mouth and features in an exoctic looking backround (could just be any park) like the black and white shot there was shot in front of my house in san diego california

you'll love the image

http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/qnadetail.asp?threadID=15903

thats where your complaints are sourced

>>6736038
>I know how to make basic upgrades to a laptop therefore I know all tech.

You see the histogram in lightroom? See how everything is on the left? Yes, retard who doesn't know what he's doing.

>>6736190
says the guy who is fucking proud of this dumbass shot

>>>/p/2085935

daww who has more clients? boohoo babby can't afford lightroom?

produ of an image with a gigantic honda element just in the frame

>>6736217
boohooo sieggy says that my camera is trash ima argue about focal length! and camera's sieg has laying around while he learns photography from a paid professional rather than a bucnh of kids playing around with t3i's and shooting honda elements in the parking lot, pretending they did it on purpose

>>6736138
It's 3.5mm you damned moron, not 35mm.

35mm is a HORRIBLE portrait lens.

>>6736249
>>6736249
this.

also is 3.5mm good?

>>6736184
Yes, the front camera is designed to be less wide and by proxy have much lower barrel distortion. They did this so you don't look like a potato when you take pics of yourself or video chat.

The back lens is wider and takes better landscape and snapshots.

>>6736258
its good.

these kids think that any dslr is better than any phone camera, like i said before.

and honestly, alot of the camera's coming on phones are better than most of the mid-low market dslr's of TODAY.

the 1100D is a low market DSLR of YESTERDAY

>>6736217
That's not me, retard.

I shoot a D7000, I'm just not myopic as fuck like you are. A somewhat modern DSLR will outclass ANY phone camera. Better optics, better dynamic range, better sensor etc.

>>6736243
Post photos that your paid professional took man that will shut them up.

>>6736263
>>6736263
but why does sieg heil say then that picture 1 (>>6736033) i looks better, which was taken by the back camera.

2 was taken by the front camera, creating the Mirror effect but apparently has less lens distortion.

>>6736271
>>6736258
No, it's not good, but it doesn't matter. It's a fucking cellphone after all.

And yes, just about any DSLR made in the last 4-5 years will shame a cellphone in the right hands.

>>6736285
forgot photo

>>6735926
whale whale whale.. look what the cat dragged out of the ocean

>>6736298
Because he's an idiot with a shitty eye.

>>6736313
>>6736313
so 2 does look better?
So if i could remove the mirror effect from 2 i would have a picture that is relatively close to the reality? like if i would mirror it again?

>>6736308
she's a pro photog
her brother collects lecia's of all years and models, she has shot he's prized m9 for a few higher end clients who wanted real estate photos

>>6736325
Did you take no.2 from slightly further away? If you do this with the back camera it will have the same effect.

>>6736325
Yes two is better. If you don't believe me about the distortion take a piece of graph paper or rule one out and take a photo of it with both the front and back, then compare the two. Make sure the phone is as level to the paper as possible.

You'll see that the back has a lot more barrel distortion.

>>6736336
Well, at least she knows she should be behind the camera. I hate the fat chicks who are 'sassy'.

>>6736336
Did your professional photography girlfriend take that photo, or you mean that is your girlfriend in the photo?

>>6736336
Damn, dude. Your gf is hideous and has pleb taste in cameras.

>>6736346
>>6736346
nope its almost the same range.

One question about the mirror effect...does that even appear on a camera?

I mean, does it matter if you use front or back camera? isnt it always the same photo besides from the distortion effect?

Don't worry about all the haters, Sieg. I support you and I believe everything you say. Keep up the good work, pal.

>>6736418
>haters
>facts
pick one

>>6736418
sieg pls

>>6736308
>look what the cat dragged out of the ocean

>>6736418
>looking good Sieg
Thanks Sieg

correcting some misinformation here.

It's not the focal length that distorts the subject, it's the distance of the subject from the lens.

What focal length affects is field of view -- that is, how much of the subject is in frame.


So if I wanted just the head in frame, and i had a 85mm telephoto, I would need to stand far away.

If I had a 28mm wide angle, I would need to stand close.


Standing very close or very far away distorts the subject in different ways. It's not the focal length, it's the distance.
But there's more. The format of the film or the size of the sensor also affects the field of view.

The easy way to explain it is to say that using a smaller sensor is like "cropping" to the center of the frame.

THis means that smaller sensors (like those found on cell cameras) have the *equivalent* field of view of higher focal lengths.

For example: a micro four thirds sensor has a 2x crop factor. This means that a 25mm lens on that sensor has the equivalent field of view of a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

IT goes the other way too. At 100mm lens on a medium format 120 camera has the equivelent field of view of a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera.
So yeah you can say that a tiny cell phone camera has a tiny focal length around 4mm. And that;s true. But that doesn't mean it will distort because it *also* has a tiny sensor. I don't know what the equivalent focal length of a cell phone camera is, but I would guess that it's probably somewhere around 35mm, because that's what most non-zoom point and shoots traditionally had and 35mm makes it easy to take selfies.

So your cell phone camera probably isn't distorting your face all *that* much.

And if the wide angle distortion really bothers you , you can just stand further away from you subject.

>>6736448
bump for good info

>tfw i'm so hideous in pictures
kill me now

>>6736448
Beat me to it, thanks. But I might post my example pics anyways.

>>6735286

>>6736581
do it.

>>6736579
Post pictures.

>>6735286
>>6735286
>>6735286
this is so wrong it hurts.

in the mirror is the absolute wrong picture of you.

the real you looks like in the pictures you take with your camera

>>6736652
stahp

>>6736652
>>6736588

How your camera takes pictures is pretty damn close to how people see you... at various distances.

Images 1 & 2 use the same focal length. Image 3 is a wider one because I couldn't get close enough. Aside from inconsistent focus & lighting, this is how I appear to people right after waking up on a tuesday morning, from across the room, a normal standing distance, and from them putting their face right up into mine. The focal length doesn't matter, what does is how far away the camera is. When people see you, they don't put their face exactly one arm's length away from you, so it's silly to take pictures from that distance. Put it on a tripod and put it a nice comfortable distance away from you.

>>6736683
>>6736683
its true fgt

buy one of these http://www.truemirror.com/

>>6736851
No, it isn't.

>>6736862
proof it fgt

as>>6736715 stated camera pictures are how you appear to others.

not the mirror.

>>6736715
Cutie.

>>6736875
Lenses suffer from varying degrees of distortion. Mirrors do not.

Yeah, look at the guys photo and see the amount of distortion in the far right photograph. That is not how people see you.

>>6736860
hm might b cool

>>6736911
That's how they see you when they're right up in your face. That's how someone sees you when you're slow dancing.

>>6737200
I'm the guy with the pics. I'm sorry to say but this is not entirely true.

People have two eyes, and you look very three-dimensional that close up. That is how you will appear at that distance with one eye, but unless you're dating a pirate you'll be much more look-able with two.