360mm or 480mm for 8x10 portraits
Ken Smith
be better for portraits with the 8x10. On 35, one usually uses 85-135
range. Why then use a 360 which is like a 50mm on a 35. There must be
something else going on that as a first time 8x10 user, I don't yet
understand.
As for the look of the portrait, I would prefer sharpness back to the
ears, so I'm NOT thinking I should go longer for a select focus look.
I would prefer the full Avedon American West look, pores and all. I
read however that Avedon used a 360 for that collection. True?
Leonard Evens
The usual reason for a longer lens in portraiture is to get far enough
back to avoid "perspective distortion". The human visual system
adjusts for subject distance in a variety of ways so that a subject's
face at three feet looks about the same as the same face at six feet.
Even the relative size of the image as we see it is not that different.
The same is not true for a camera lens. Normally, a subject has to
be four to six feet or further from the lens so that the image will have
something approaching "normal perspective". But in order that the
image of the head not be too small at that distance, you need to use a
longer lens.
If you specify the distance of the subject from the lens, the size of
the subject, and the size of its image in the negative, you can
calculate the needed focal length by a simple optical formula. For
example, suppose the subject is placed at 2 meters, and you want a head
to take up about half the long dimension of the 8 x 10 frame, or about
120 mm. My head is about 240 mm, so the magnification M would come out
to about 1:2. The formula is
sub_dist/focal_length = 1/M + 1.
In this case, 1/M +1 = 2 + 1 = 3, and sub_dist = 2000 mm, so
focal length = 2000/3 = 667 mm.
A normal focal length for portraiture might be taken to be between two
and three times the normal focal length for the format. In this case,
667/300 = 2.33.
Of course, one need not have some specific image size, and a lot can be
done to deal with perspective distortion by how the subject is oriented
and by lighting. Also, there is no reason that the image of the head
has to be any specific size. So there is lots of room for creative
expression in portraiture using the lenses that you happen to be able to
use with your camera or the lenses you happen to have. Still I think
it is easier to do portraiture with medium format because there is a
wider variety of lenses available. For large format, particularly if
one doesn't have long lenses available, it might make sense to
concentrate on environmental portraiture in which the full figure is
seen in relation to a normal environment for the subject.
Thom
The rule of thumb is 1.5X the normal for portrait. But when you
compare 8x10 to 35mm you have to use the 24x30mm portion of the neg
and NORMAL is 39mm. Based on a "normal" of 323mm for an 8x10 the 480
is only 4.5mm short of 1.5X and its equal to 58.7mm on 35mm.
I use the incredibly sharp 420mm Fuji for portrait and find no problem
with it even though its a bit short.
There's also another factor. I rarely see a head shot done in 8x10
and lets remember that display prints where the demensions of the
subject exceed the real dimensions of the person don't look good at
all. Its certainly different if its a huge ad on a bill borad but I'm
assuming your prints would be large (30x40) but not outragiously huge.
THOM
Peter Stöcklein
"Ken Smith" <alden...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:eb5d68c1.03122...@posting.google.com...
> If the 480 works out to be "only" 66mm on a 35mm camera, wouldn't that
> be better for portraits with the 8x10. On 35, one usually uses 85-135
> range. Why then use a 360 which is like a 50mm on a 35. There must be
> something else going on that as a first time 8x10 user, I don't yet
> understand.
> As for the look of the portrait, I would prefer sharpness back to the
> ears, so I'm NOT thinking I should go longer for a select focus look.
> I would prefer the full Avedon American West look, pores and all. I
> read however that Avedon used a 360 for that collection. True?
You have to consider the aperture angle not the focal length.
For an full head shot (240mm length from former posting) you have a
magnification of 1 : 7.5 on 35 and 1 : 1 on 8x10. Therefore the aperture
angle is reduced by factor 1,13 in case of 35mm and factor 2 for 8x10
compared to infinity. For chest shots (720mm length assumed) you get 1 : 20
and 1 : 3 with aperture angle nearly by 1.0 and 1.33. This calculations
depends slightly on the assumed form factor e.g. 2:3 versus 4:5.
For a rule of thumb you have between 7/4 and 4/3 'focal length extension'
for 8x10 lenses compared to 35mm.
Peter
Jos. Burke
I'm using an 8x10 Deardorff (beside the point) and just picked up a Fuji
L 420 f8 -Is this
the lens you are making reference to?
I've not used mine yet!
I have it-It's flawless and uses 67 mm filters.
Did you mention sharp?
J Burke
"Thom" <thoma...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3feba4c9...@news.melbpc.org.au...
Ken Smith
No, actually I'm just a contact printer. Although I'm not a big print fan,
Avedon's American West prints that were in a Met show a few years ago were
sure a thrill. Your lens figures seem short, at least according to a site
for large format, (largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF 8x10in.html).
Sorry I don't know how to drop a link into this typing box. Grrr...AOL.
I don't want a full face shot. I was just thinking that I needed at
least some distance to avoid distortion of features. And I was surprised
to hear of people using 360's.
Jos. Burke
site.
http://www.brucemacneil.com/
very nice,
J Burke
"Ken Smith" <alden...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eb5d68c1.03122...@posting.google.com...
Thom
I don't figure 8x10, I actually took calipers and measured the
diagonal of the image on the film. Also remember you can't mix orange
and apples. If you want to compare 35mm with 8x10 your looking at two
different aspect rations. 1:1.5 vs 1:1.25, thats why I use only the
24x30mm portion of the 35mm frame. That could be the reason for the
differences.
>
> I don't want a full face shot. I was just thinking that I needed at
> least some distance to avoid distortion of features. And I was surprised
> to hear of people using 360's.
360mm would be 1.115 power magification or 169mm on a 4x5 or 44mm on a
35mm. Its actually a popular focal length for 8x10. I have been told
that the majority of 8x10 lens are 300mm or 305, 360 and 500. 420's
and 480's are not that common.
THOM
Thom
<josb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Thom,
> I'm using an 8x10 Deardorff (beside the point) and just picked up a Fuji
>L 420 f8 -Is this
>the lens you are making reference to?
Yup thats the one. SN 250764 bought in 1980, F8 in a Cpoal shutter
which is its only darwback since it only goes to 1/125th.
> I've not used mine yet!
>I have it-It's flawless and uses 67 mm filters.
>Did you mention sharp?
When I got it I did a shot of a lady full length (ala Playboy) and we
took the tranny (Ekta200) and blew it up. They eye was blown up to
5x7 inches and it filled the frame and the eyelash was razor sharp!!!
The grainw as falling apart of course. I don't know if I got lucky
or what but its the sharpest lens I have ever owned. I also have a
180mm W Fuji that is sharper than any of my Schneiders.
If you find one of these used (do they still make them) grab it folks!
THOM
Thom
I know how you feel, I remember the first time I saw 11x14" contact
prints in a gallery in 1981. The photography itself was lacking
(could have been beter) but the sharpness and tonal range was mind
blowing. The guy was a far better printer than a cameraman.
>
> I don't want a full face shot. I was just thinking that I needed at
> least some distance to avoid distortion of features. And I was surprised
> to hear of people using 360's.
Very common lens, even Kodak and Calument sold then (Caltars)
THOM
Ken Smith
> I think Bruce MacNeil is using a 360mm on 8x10. Check his images at his
> site.
> http://www.brucemacneil.com/
> very nice,
> J Burke
>
also the willingness to risk losing alot of clients to this style
that many would dread to have portray them.
Ken Smith
> site.
> http://www.brucemacneil.com/
> very nice,
> J Burke
>
Opps. The thumbnails DO enlarge. I hurried them and cancled it
out or something. They really look great.
Richard Knoppow
I'll add my rule of thumb to the others. Portrait lenses
should be from 2 to 3 times the long side of the format.
Usually 2 X the diagonal is recommended. Of course, the
perspective of the camera is entirely a matter of its
distance form the subject. The lens focal length is chosen
to "crop" the picture so that it fills the image area.
Most 8x10 field cameras will not accomodate long enough
lenses to fulfill the above criteria. Most portrait studios
used floor standing studio cameras with bellows draw on the
order of 48 inches. I think this is why some old portraits
show rather astonished (or is it shocked) looks.
Understandable considering the amount of machinery staring
at them.
For formal portraits I use a 5x7 Agfa camera with a 4x5
back on it. This thing has 21 inches of bellows draw, plenty
for a 12" lens. My favorite is an old Goerz Dagor, which has
just enough of the right kind of softness to be flattering.
Translating lens focal lengths from one format to another
is indefinite if the aspect ratio is not the same. If one
considers the full 35mm frame the diagonal, thus "normal" FL
is about 45mm, the usual 50mm lens being slightly long. If
one crops the 35mm frame to 8x10 aspect ratio the diagonal
becomes about 38.5mm. I think this explains the popularity
of 35mm FL lenses for 35mm cameras. So, for full frame a
portrait lens should be around 90mm but if the negative is
to be cropped to 8x10 the FL is about 80mm. Not a big deal.
The equivalent for an 8x10 is about 400mm and you are simply
not going to get that to work on most field cameras. Use the
longest lens you can and back the camera off a bit.
Actually, look at the nose size vs: ears. Big noses require
long lenses, big ears look better with shorter lenses.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dick...@ix.netcom.com