Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,475   Posts: 1,542,617   Online: 1008
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    550
    Here is what I like:

    380mm (15 inch) – Head shot
    360mm (14 inch) – Head & Shoulder
    300mm (12 inch) – Half Length

  2. #12
    SteveR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Geelong, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    524
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by narsuitus View Post
    Here is what I like:

    380mm (15 inch) – Head shot
    360mm (14 inch) – Head & Shoulder
    300mm (12 inch) – Half Length
    Ahhh, to have the bellows length to use those lenses that close, I would be in heaven!
    ____________________________________________

    My goal in life, is to be as good a person as my dog already thinks I am.

  3. #13
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    747
    A 'headshot' (tightly framed, face only and no shoulders visible) takes about 150mm lens on 35mm format, or 6.3x the frame short dimension. That means you would need about 560mm to achieve the same tight framing (about 1.4' FOV along short dimension) with same perpective derived from the same camera position (8' camera to subject).

    If you use shorter, you either have to crop the neg to get the same tight framing, or you have to move in closer to the subject, which alters the perspective of the face.
    Last edited by wiltw; 08-21-2011 at 02:08 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    Unless you hav a rich uncle, due to the price of LF lenses, even used, make do with that which you already have. Make it work.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  5. #15
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,273
    Images
    20
    There was a good article some years ago by Ron Wisner about why supposed lens equivalencies from small formats to large formats don't necessarily apply. Lenses used for ULF portraits, for instance, seem impossibly wide, and yet they don't seem to produce outrageous distortion. Really, very few people would use a 500mm lens for a tight portrait on 4x5", because most cameras don't have that much bellows, unless the lens is a tele design. There are a few such lenses, but most large format shooters don't own them.

    On the other hand there are photographers who purchased the required 210mm lens for studying 4x5" commercial studio work at Brooks--portraits and still life--and never owned another 4x5" lens in their entire careers.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,057
    I have successfully used a 10 inch but prefer 12 inch for headshots.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada. Ex-California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    There was a good article some years ago by Ron Wisner about why supposed lens equivalencies from small formats to large formats don't necessarily apply. Lenses used for ULF portraits, for instance, seem impossibly wide, and yet they don't seem to produce outrageous distortion.
    If you are referring to very wide aspect ratio ULF, then I could see that. Otherwise, I'm curious about the claim. I went looking for the article and was unable to find it.

    [on edit:] Found this thread: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum44/1...it-lenses.html

  8. #18
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,273
    Images
    20
    The article used to be on Wisner's website, but that's disappeared, last I looked for it. It may be cached somewhere, and I think it was also published in _View Camera_ magazine, or maybe on VC website. If I recall, the main principle had to do with the fact that with a large enough neg, any portrait, or virtually any image made indoors is in the macro range, and the effective focal length depends more on the chosen framing than the focal length of the lens.

    In any case, if you look at what large format photographers actually do and cameras that actually exist and lenses that are in common use, the common portrait focal lengths get shorter with respect to the "normal" lens for the format as one goes up in format. If the typical portrait length for 35mm is, say 85mm, and the normal is 50mm, the ratio of portrait to normal is 1.7. If the corresponding lengths for 4x5" are 210mm and 150mm, then the ratio is 1.4. For 8x10", I'd say 14" and 12" and so would Yousef Karsh--1.17, and up from 8x10" it tends to stay in that range of about 1.0 (or even less)-1.3.

    I'm sure there are exceptions, and one can cook up all sorts of schemes for using enormous lenses in large format, and of course there is a certain amount of wiggle room either way, and one may prefer one lens or another for reasons other than focal length and subject distance. There's nothing wrong with using a longer lens, if you can manage it in a typical portrait situation (i.e., enough bellows to focus, ability to focus quickly without having to maneuver two tripods, etc.), but it is by no means a necessity, or even the norm.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  9. #19
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    There was a good article some years ago by Ron Wisner about why supposed lens equivalencies from small formats to large formats don't necessarily apply. Lenses used for ULF portraits, for instance, seem impossibly wide, and yet they don't seem to produce outrageous distortion. Really, very few people would use a 500mm lens for a tight portrait on 4x5", because most cameras don't have that much bellows, unless the lens is a tele design. There are a few such lenses, but most large format shooters don't own them.

    On the other hand there are photographers who purchased the required 210mm lens for studying 4x5" commercial studio work at Brooks--portraits and still life--and never owned another 4x5" lens in their entire careers.
    If you simply use diagonal measure of the frame, 'equating' angle of view comes out wrong because of the dissimilar aspect ratio of the frame...3:2 for 135, 5:4 for 4x5.
    But if you base comparisons on the SHORT DIMENSION of the frame, you will derive equal widths framed in both formats. 135 has 24mm frame width, 150mm = 6.25 * 24mm. Lisco film holder has 94mm of exposed film width, 6.25 * 94 = 588mm, same angle of view.

  10. #20
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    If you simply use diagonal measure of the frame, 'equating' angle of view comes out wrong because of the dissimilar aspect ratio of the frame...3:2 for 135, 5:4 for 4x5.
    But if you base comparisons on the SHORT DIMENSION of the frame, you will derive equal widths framed in both formats. 135 has 24mm frame width, 150mm = 6.25 * 24mm. Lisco film holder has 94mm of exposed film width, 6.25 * 94 = 588mm, same angle of view.
    True. I have used a similar idea for landscape shooting for years based on the long side rather than the short side. And the math is even easier.

    My favorite lens on 35mm is, well, 35mm, and the negative is 36mm. A 4x5 film holder is "about" 120mm on the long side, and a 120mm lens gives the same angle of view.

    In fact, I have wondered for years why people are so enamored with the expensive 6x12 roll film holders for field cameras. There's a 6x12 image in every 4x5 image I shoot. I can completely understand the handheld wonder cameras with the 47mm super WA lenses, but toting around a full kit then putting a roll film back on it seems like extra work to me. To each his own, but I have no problem using film holders and cropping.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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