PDA

View Full Version : LF "look" on 35mm



yian huang
16-Aug-2004, 14:27
Hi

I hope this question is not too inappropriate for this forum.

First a bit of background. I have been doing mainly reportage and have recently started doing portraiture. I love the work of Avedon, Greenfield-Sanders, Arnold Newman, Sally Mann; and Paolo Roversi's 8x10 polaroids. Of course, while surfing this weekend, I stumbled onto the 20x24 polaroid pages, and the gearhead in me went nuts.

I am not quite ready to move up formats yet, but would eventually want to shoot 8x10 polaroids. I rented a 45mm Tilt-Shift lens for my Canon this past week and love the selective-focus look. I will be returning it on Wednesday and will rent a 50mm/1.4 to try and shoot with even less DOF (although without tilts).

Here is the question: Is it possible to emulate the LF "look" with either of these two lenses on 35mm format (full frame)(specifically for selective-focus portraiture at "normal" perspectives)? From my resutls this week, I think so, but maybe you guys can tell me what I will be missing by staying with 35mm?

Thanks, Yian

Darin Cozine
16-Aug-2004, 15:10
Selective focus can be done in a number of different ways.

You can use any lens you have at max aperture, and use the narrow field of focus. Fast lenses work best for this. At f1.4 or 1.2 you only have a narrow slice of focus.

Another way of gaining selective focus is by use of filters. There are various effect filters available, or you can use some vaseline on a clear filter to achieve the desired effect. I would think the cokin filter system would be ideal for vaseline.

Yes you can use a 35mm tilt lens to acheive selective focus, but I would think this is overkill as these lenses are very expensive. Much cheaper would be to get a speed or crown graphic with a roll back.

Dont forget post-exposure either. Digital or darkrooms can acheive these kind of effects.

paulr
16-Aug-2004, 15:21
as far as the LF "look" in 35, the best thing you can do is treat your camera as if it were a big camera. Use a tripod, take your time leveling the camera and composing, pay much closer attention to focusing, etc.. This alone will make a big difference.

As far as the technical end of it, do the obvious as far as using good lenses, the right apertures for what you're going for, sharp and low grain film, etc etc.

I did this for a few years before I could aford a view camera. One thing that helped me is that I used a zoom lens, and I paid close attention to what focal lengths I found myself using. This made it easy to decide what LF lenses to buy. Another way it helped is by encouraging me to take lots and lots of pictures, which shortened the learning curve. When I finally got the big camera it felt like I'd already had a running start.

I sure don't miss going around and pretending my nikon was a view camera, though. The leap was worth it.

Ralph Barker
16-Aug-2004, 15:26
Although you can do selective focus on 35mm through the application of various techniques (large f-stop as well as tilting the camera [film plane/focus plane] in relation to the subject), Yian, much ot the "LF look" is really a function of the larger negatives, and the richness of detail that all that film provides. The longer focal lengths required by LF cameras also act to limit DOF, in addition to providing full control via lens board and back movements.

QT Luong
16-Aug-2004, 15:46
The problem with using fast lenses at wide apertures is that they don't render the in-focus areas very sharply. So even at a modest 8x10 what you intended to be sharp would appear a bit blurry, which is definitively not the LF look. There is a considerable difference in sharpness between a 50/1.4 used at f1.4 and the same lens used at f8. Using the lens at 50/1.4 can produce superd results, but they won't have the look you are after. What 's unique about LF is the ability to render things very sharp and very blurry at the same time. Probably the best way to approach that using 35mm would be by digital post-processing.

yian huang
16-Aug-2004, 16:14
Thanks for the quick reply guys.

Darin, I am not adverse to using photoshop, but I would rather do it in camera, for the simple reason that I'm sure I could never do it as well in PS. (nor would I want to spend the time learning how to).

paulr, I hate tripods, and rarely use them except in fashion and dance photography, but I hear the truth in your words. Will try....

Ralph, can you explain a bit more about the LF "look"? Even when looking at images on the web (where obviously resolution does not play a part), LF images look different. Can you put that into words?

With regards to DOF, doesn't the larger aperture of the 35mm lens (eg. 50mm at 1.4) offset the longer physical length of the LF lens (eg. 360mm at f8 or 11ish?).

QT Luong, first of all, thanks for a very informative site. Are you claiming that a 50mm shot at 1.4 can't produce one sharp part in the whole image? I find this hard to believe, yet suppose that at some level it must be true for people to love LF that much. I will rent the lens later this week and test. Question: What is the equivalent of shooting 50mm at f1.4 in LF(8x10) in terms of focal length and f-stop for roughly the same DOF and magnification?

Henry Ambrose
16-Aug-2004, 17:00
A portrait using a 50mm lens at f2 on a 35mm camera. (http://henryambrose.com/michl1.jpg"target=_blank)

Jon Shiu
16-Aug-2004, 18:57
okay, I didn't read the whole thread, but have you heard of an invention called Lensbabies? They look pretty cool and are inexpensive.
http://www.lensbabies.com/

Ralph Barker
16-Aug-2004, 20:36
I think the difference between 35mm and LF, Yian, is somewhat like fidelity in sound recordings. The greater film area of LF allows you to capture an image that has greater fidelity to the original, just as a sound-studio-grade recording system would be better at recording a symphony than the "notes" feature on a cell phone. Essentially, the larger film has more silver-halide crystals with which to capture image detail.

With a 50mm lens at f/1.4 on 35mm, you get about 3" of DOF with an object distance of 6 feet. A 300mm lens at f/5.6 on 8x10, with the same object distance, would have about the same DOF. Depending, of course, on the size of the CoC selected for the estimates.

Tuan is correct about most 35mm lenses performing somewhat poorly when wide open. Leica lenses, in contrast, perform quite well at maximum aperture, but still perform better when stopped down. The king of limited DOF for 35mm is the f/1.0 50mm Noctilux lens for the Leica M rangefinder. But, it's awfully expensive, and the film size still results in less "fidelity" than you'd get with a larger format.


http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/M6/Noctilux-05-550.jpg

Bob._3483
17-Aug-2004, 04:04
Part of the answer may be to use longer lenses than you have mentioned. A portrait for example may be taken with anything from a 150mm to a 300+ mm lens (210mm seems typical) in 4x5", stopped down to f/11 or f/22. The effects of DoF seem different - perhaps more subtle when viewed - than when taking the same shot with a wide open 80mm lens on 35mm.

Post processing by blurring the background works quite well as it also blurs the grain out of existence, adding to the LF "look" - at least in the darkroom: not sure if it would work as well in digital - thinking about it - should work even better as you have more control.

Plus, as stated, you just can't beat all that negative area! If you print digitally ('cos you won't have an enlarger capable of handling 4x5), consider hiring a 4x5 camera + lens(s) for a weekend (or even 8x10, but now you are talking money, especially if you want Polaroid too), some Type 55 Polaroid and holder (see this forum's homepage for more info than you can shake several sticks at for more info).

Cheers,

John Cook
17-Aug-2004, 07:11
If your only definition of “the LF Look” is shallow depth of field as seen in images on the web, you can easily achieve that with 35mm and a super fast lens. I have viewed head shots taken with an f/1 lens wide open where only one eye was sharp.

But there is a great deal more to “the LF Look” than that. It is difficult to explain with words. You really need to hold a print in your hand. It doesn’t show very well on a monitor.

There is an image deterioration which occurs when a small negative is enlarged. This is quite apart from the normal, expected apparent loss of sharpness and increased grain. The image actually seems to begin to come apart and take on a harshness. Almost like the raw enlarger light is leaking between the grains of silver.

In stark contrast, an enlargement from large format negative seems to somehow hold together. The print takes on a creamy, almost luminescent quality. Like the difference between stereo and mono music.

The first time you see a really good LF print you may not recognize it as photography. Certainly unlike anything you had ever seen before. I still recall, forty years later, holding an original Ansel Adams print in my hand. I was awestruck.

paulr
17-Aug-2004, 08:29
"But there is a great deal more to “the LF Look” than that. It is difficult to explain with words. You really need to hold a print in your hand. It doesn’t show very well on a monitor."

This is more of what I'm getting at. LF for me has nothing to do with selective depth of field but a lot to do with that look.

Some aspects of the look come from the size of the film; you're not going to duplicate that. But some of it comes from the inherent deliberateness of the image making. This is something you can achieve with small format. You won't fool anyone who's paying attention, but you'll be able to get a bit of that elusive something.

Incidentally, I've spent years trying to put my finger on the mysterious quality of 8x10 contact prints. I shoot 4x5 myself, so I haven't made any. But there's something unique about them, and it has nothing to do with sharpness. I looked over a friend's shoulder at a bookstore and saw he was flipping through a book of handheld color photographs. Stylistically, they were hand camera pictures. But I knew instinctively, at first glance, that they were 8x10 contact prints. Neither of us knew the photographer, but the introduction confirmed it: the guy shot handheld 8x10. Whatever it was that triggered that response still eludes me. It had nothing to do with sharpness, depth of field, tonal qualities, etc.. I couldn't see any of that in the book over my friend's shoulder. It was something more general about how the world looked. Still trying to figure it out.

Ralph Barker
17-Aug-2004, 13:00
Paul - I'm convinced that our eyes "perceive" detail well beyond what we can theoretically "resolve". So, while we may not be able to make out the microscopic detail in a contact print, I think we can sense that it is there, and respond accordingly. I think that is part of the richness of detail in LF, the "fidelity" of recording, to which we are attracted.

Bryan Willman
18-Aug-2004, 08:46
The "what causes the LF look" is a much studied question. All the comments about more film area, the care of use required, and so on, are surely correct.

I don't know that using a Noct wide open will give you the LF look, but it does yield many interesting pictures, at least for me.

Physics dictates that simple image area (never mind the amount of silver) will be an advantage. Thus, a 4x5 sized camera will have an advantage whether the capture medium is film, digital, or carefully arranged chicken feathers.

The other side is print size. 35mm images often look utterly amazing as slides on a light box, or as 150x100 previews on my 1600x1200 monitor. They really only look "less than perfect" when you enlarge them to some sensible size.

Remember that a 4x6" print is a 4 diameter enlargement from 35mm. The comparable enlargement from 4x5 is a 16"x20".

Contact printing's advantage probably comes from being a less lossy process than using an enlarger, even at 1 to 1.

The practical outcome of this is to shoot very carefully, then print pretty small. Your 35mm images are more likely to "amaze" or "be magic" like LF images when they are printed at 4x6 or 5x7. (But that might not be the size those images want to be.)

John D Gerndt
18-Aug-2004, 20:51
I love this forum.

Bryan Willman has already made the best practical suggestion: try smaller prints. My personal target is 3x and smaller for enlargements.

I'll second the call for a tripod. It is all over anything written about sharpness, even in Lieca's own publications.

Finally, I believe lenses for 35mm and large format to be from different camps, that is, the designers make different compromises/decisions in their design and manufacture.

I have 8 or 9 35mm cameras around that I try to keep excercised and ready to shoot but rare is the occasion I reach for one when there is a chance to use larger film. Big film wins!

Cheers,

JanE
19-Aug-2004, 11:10
"It was something more general about how the world looked. Still trying to figure it out."

There's a difference in spatial relationships that makes 8x10 look totally different than the same picture taken at same angle with smaller formats. It's obvious already between 5x7 and 8x10, not to talk about 4x5. Why it's so, I don't know. Maybe the combination of longer lenses, wider apertures and larger areas does it. Free for theoretical physicians to come out..........

I have a friend that can say immediatly with only a glance at any picture if it's done with 8x10 or bigger. Mostly I can myself too see the differences, and just this inherence character, not the question about resolution, has made me an 8x10 photographer.

The very seldom beautiness you can see in old historical pictures rises from this phenomen, as most of them are taken with larger plates.

Jan, Finland.

Øyvind Dahle
19-Aug-2004, 15:12
One difference I see, is with wide angle lenses, the LF photographer either let the vertical lines be vertical like we see them, or distort the sky to an extreme level.

You can also have vertical lines by using a bit shorter focal length on your 135, let the back of the camera be vertical (using either horizontal or vertical framing) and crop afterwards, or move the camera so it can shoot stright on.

Øyvind:D

David A. Goldfarb
19-Aug-2004, 15:45
Yeah, it's kind of like the silk purse "look" from a sow's ear.

David Mason
6-Sep-2004, 16:46
You can treat 35mm like a view camera to a certain extent. For example solid mechanical SLR bodies like the Canon FT/QL are so cheap on EBay that you could affordable carry around bodies for N-2 through N+2 development. Using the finest grain (not necessarily sharpest) film you can find may give you smoothness comparable to medium format, if not large format. You can use a tripod, compose level, and focus carefully. The tripod will give you all the sharpness you lens/film can deliver and you can optimize the aperture.

Ultimately LF will still have an edge, but you will probably learn a lot and have a better idea whether the LF way of doing thing suits you