Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,774   Posts: 1,516,649   Online: 1151
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,167
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    The Dagor will work focal-length wise. You may find it to be too sharp for portraits. Only way to find out is to shoot it and see.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    248
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Only distance affects perspective.

    Stick two cameras side by side both with 150mm lenses on, say one on a 5x4 and the other on a 35mm camera, the perspective is identical, only the angle of view changes. Then stick a 50mm lens on the 35mm camera without moving it, the angle of view changes and becomes closer to the 5x4 cameras, but the perspective is still identical.

    Now stick a 17mm lens on the same 35mm camera, the angle of view is enormous but again the perspective is the same.

    Ian
    Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree...

    I'd say in this particular matter, the angle of view affects the perspective. Or to put it another way, the distance *behind* the lens (from the lens to the film) matters too, as that determines the angle of view. Other things that will affect the perspective are movements of the camera, whether whether the lens is rectilinear, curvature of the film surface...

    When you run a 150mm lens out to 300mm to do a close-up, the angle of view captured on a given format decreases to the same angle as a 300mm lens focused at infinity.

    On a 35mm lens, the extension changes almost imperceptibly, if at all, as moving elements within the lens change the focus distance. So on a 35mm system, you'd be right, but we were talking large format here...

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    289

    dagor

    Thanks for the advice and info. everyone,
    here is a quick pop print of my daughter shot on 5x4 with the dagor 12" using a reducing back on my whole plate, not too sharp I think?
    Will try the dagor on 6.5x8.5 now
    A
    Last edited by Anton Lukoszevieze; 09-27-2008 at 04:59 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,173
    Images
    148

    Perspective

    OK sticking with large format.

    I can see what you are saying about the angle of view.
    "When you run a 150mm lens out to 300mm to do a close-up, the angle of view captured on a given format decreases to the same angle as a 300mm lens focused at infinity." But that's irrelevant, as one lens is focussed at 1:1 the other at infinity. However I have realised how you've got muddled.

    Forget format lens type etc the perspective is always controlled by the distance of the camera from the object, but the relevant part of the camera is the nodal point of the lens.

    So now as you move a 12" lens with your words "let's say 30 degrees corner-to-corner on 8x10. But as you extend it outward to focus closer, the coverage increases and that 30 degrees now covers 11x14, and you're cutting the 8x10 middle out of it." You are also effectively moving the camera nearer to the subject by your actions.

    So now two options, the camera stays fixed the lens gets closer as you focus so yes the perspective is changing but actually in the opposite way to your assumption. - ("Perspective becomes like a 17" lens") instead as you say yourself the overall coverage is increasing - a wider perspective because the lens is closer to the subject, the image cropped to the film format.

    Second as the camera is focussed if the lens object distance is kept fixed, perspective remains identical.

    This is why it's far easier to focus and use a 10x8 or larger format camera with back focussing when shooting close up.

    Ian
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 10-08-2007 at 07:36 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #15
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,173
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Hollis View Post
    not too sharp I think?
    Will try the dagor on 6.5x8.5 now
    A
    Harry, you seem to be struggling for depth of field, it'll take a bit of getting used to. If that's an available light image you've not done too badly. Good luck it should be a very capable lens.

    Ian

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    289

    depth

    thanks Ian,

    the light is available, window light. I should have stopped down more for better depth of field yes?

    H

  7. #17
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,173
    Images
    148
    Yes Harry, one of the problems with using larger formats is the longer the lens the less depth of field at any given aperture. But because the negatives are so much larger faster films can be used as grain is far less of an issue.

    So yes stopping down would help but its also important to choose the right point of focus. Of course a little bit of unintentional subject movement between focussing and exposure might be just enough to make a big difference.

    In reality the image is only marginally off, and probably its a combination of lens fairly wide open and slowish shutter speed. You ought to go and look at Jim Galli's website he has a number of LF portraits there shot with older lenses.

    Ian

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    361
    Images
    71
    Harry,

    your daughter, the picture and the overall feel of the photo which is what I look for in any lens question is beautiful. With a daughter like yours you couldn't pick a bad lens. As to stopping down for more depth of field with portraiture I actually prefer less stopping down and shooting wide open. I've included a picture of my 4 year old son I have posted before done on a 20 x 24 camera with a razor sharp Schneider lens, but shot wide open at f11 it renders the hair, backdrop and other points of less interest out of focus in a way that I like. That's what is so nice to me about shooting wide open it tends to draw peoples attention to the area you want them to look. Of course all of this is completely subjective and open to a wide range of personal interpretation. I also enjoyed the vast negative space to her left being put on the light side of her face, metaphorically speaking to her future, outlook, and overall disposition right? Or you got lucky!!!! Either way it is a wonderful portrait that I would have been proud to take.

    If you do think you might like the wide open look then you have a wide range of older lenses to look into. Some of my personal favorites would be an 11 1/2 Verito, some of the old Darlot or Dallmeyer lenses, Kodak's soft focus versions etc. You might check on www.Kerik.com for some excellent examples of the use of these lenses.

    Once again well done,

    Monty

    Zebra
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails satchel_small_2.jpg  
    Last edited by Zebra; 10-08-2007 at 02:04 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,397
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    With a portable full plate camera your lens board will likely be your limiting factor. I agree with zebra that I am drawn to the wide open look for portraits. Obvioiusly to get that look you are looking at lenses that open to f4 and wider. The math is simple. A 16 inch f4 lens must have a piece of glass 4 inches wide. The antique lens makers were very generous with brass. A 4" light will have a 5 1/2" housing which will have a 7" flange. You see where I'm going. The 11 1/2" Verito might be an excellent trade off. They aren't too physically horrible and they give 2 focal lengths, the other being about 18" iirc.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    289
    Thanks for all the input everyone. An education.
    Zebra, I love the photo of your son, we are both blessed indeed. I understand a bit more now about using lenses for portraits.

    H

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin