What lens focal did Karsh use in this shot ?

[Pere Casals]

Any guess about what the focal length he used for this particular shot?

(beyond lightning importance) What would happened with volumes with a longer or shorter focal?

I find this shot amazing... (not the single one:))

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6014/5996996329_282a6bafcb_b.jpg

[Jim Jones]

Karsh used Ektar lenses up to 14". He nearly always used 8x10 cameras.

[John Kasaian]

I'll go with the 14" Commercial Ektar as well.

[chassis]

With the 14" lens on 8x10, to get the head/shoulders framing, the camera to subject distance would be a bit close, correct? Or could the image be a crop out of the full negative?

The perspective looks close to my eye, meaning I am not seeing any flattening. Therefore it seems like a fairly short camera to sitter distance.

[Luis-F-S]

Probably whatever he happened to have with him!

[Jim Jones]

Probably whatever he happened to have with him!

Whenever possible His portrait sessions were carefully researched and planned. He even kept 8x10 cameras both in Ottawa and in Europe to facilitate having the right gear readily available.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks for the information, I'm preparing for 8x10 portraiture (dry plate) and this particular image is a good aesthetical reference for me.

[Pere Casals]

With the 14" lens on 8x10, to get the head/shoulders framing, the camera to subject distance would be a bit close, correct? Or could the image be a crop out of the full negative?

The perspective looks close to my eye, meaning I am not seeing any flattening. Therefore it seems like a fairly short camera to sitter distance.

There was something that I was not understanding from this shot, and it was perpective, this is where the focal distance plays a role. Now I feel that 14" perspective has an slight geometric footprint, but I feel it is very important.

My old Symmar 360 will see some action !

If YK liked the 14".... it should be the way to start !

[Charlie Strack]

It also might have been shot with Ortho film--often used back then for portraits of men.

[Rich14]

Here's the whole image.

http://orig06.deviantart.net/22b8/f/2017/172/8/7/bogart_by_rich14-dbdk3kg.jpg

In this version, Bogie's head is about a third of the 10 inch dimension. With a 14 inch lens, that would have placed the camera at about 5-6 ft.

Rich

[Mark Sampson]

Good point, Mr. Strack. Kodak made Tri-X Ortho 4163 in sheet sizes until 1991 or so and advertised it for portraits of men. We had some in the freezer at Kodak but I can't remember using it, so can't say how it worked. I suppose it's all gone by now.
A Wratten #44 filter, used with your usual film, might provide a similar effect to what is seen in the Karsh portrait referenced above... even if your subject isn't Humphrey Bogart.

[chassis]

Here's the whole image.

http://orig06.deviantart.net/22b8/f/2017/172/8/7/bogart_by_rich14-dbdk3kg.jpg

In this version, Bogie's head is about a third of the 10 inch dimension. With a 14 inch lens, that would have placed the camera at about 5-6 ft.

Rich

Rich thanks for the camera-subject distance calculation!

[Jim Jones]

Good point, Mr. Strack. Kodak made Tri-X Ortho 4163 in sheet sizes until 1991 or so and advertised it for portraits of men. We had some in the freezer at Kodak but I can't remember using it, so can't say how it worked. I suppose it's all gone by now.
A Wratten #44 filter, used with your usual film, might provide a similar effect to what is seen in the Karsh portrait referenced above... even if your subject isn't Humphrey Bogart.

Among the many Kodak films that I miss is Professional Copy Film 4125. With appropriate processing it had enhanced highlight contrast like that in many Karsh portraits.

[Jim Noel]

Good point, Mr. Strack. Kodak made Tri-X Ortho 4163 in sheet sizes until 1991 or so and advertised it for portraits of men. We had some in the freezer at Kodak but I can't remember using it, so can't say how it worked. I suppose it's all gone by now.
A Wratten #44 filter, used with your usual film, might provide a similar effect to what is seen in the Karsh portrait referenced above... even if your subject isn't Humphrey Bogart.

I still have some Tri-X Ortho, as well as Ilford Ortho , and a couple of other brands. W #44 filter will not come close to a true ortho film, nor will any other filter.

[Pere Casals]

I still have some Tri-X Ortho, as well as Ilford Ortho , and a couple of other brands. W #44 filter will not come close to a true ortho film, nor will any other filter.

The ortho footprint should be seen in darker lips... Women have straight solutions for that...

I don't know if Bogie's lips suggest an ortho footprint... do you think that ?

[Rich14]

Rich thanks for the camera-subject distance calculation!

I've always admired Karsh's work. Many years ago, I was the process cameraman for a printing company that was printing a set of advertising brochures of his work. I shot duotone halftones from original prints which were superb. Memory's a funny thing. I seem to remember the prints being larger than 8x10.

This image of Bogie is one of my favorites. I've never looked at it trying to decide what lens was used. Now, looking at it that way, Bogie's hands look larger than they should. A 14 inch lens is a just slightly long normal on 8x10. It might give this perspective. But I think a slightly shorter lens was used. 12 inch or maybe 10.

Rich