Head And Shoulders 4x5

[John Conway]

I would be interested in hearing what the favorite lenses are, as far as focal length, type of lens etc, for doing head and shoulders portraits in 4x5.I have always used medium format for this type of portraiture. I am thinking something in the 240 or 250 range but there does not seem to be much out there for 4x5 in that range. Most lenses in that range seem to be slight wide angle for 8x10. I recall reading somewhere that a lens with the big image circle for 8x10 will not work well for 4x5. Then there are the tele lens group for 4x5. I have thought about the soft focus lenses as well.

[karl french]

I like a 210 myself.

[Gem Singer]

The Nikon/Nikkor f9 300M or the Fujinon f8.5 300C are great compact sized lenses for head and shoulders on 4x5.

210 is a nice focal length for 3/4 length portraits.

[BrianShaw]

Head + Shoulders: 12 inch Kodak Commercial Ektar, and FujinonSF 250 for the ladies.

[BrianShaw]

... But as you say, more often than not I'll use MF.

[Alan Gales]

... But as you say, more often than not I'll use MF.

Like an RZ67 with a 180 f/4 SF lens with a wide aperture for the ladies and stopped down for the men? :)

[Ari]

210 racked out.
And there are many choices in the 240-250 range, if you like that much compression.

[Alan Gales]

If you are interested in soft focus, a 250 Rodenstock Imagon. As Brian mentioned a 250 Fujinon SF for the same effect at a lower cost.

Someone was selling a 250 Fujinon SF on this forum recently for a great price. I'm not sure but I think that it sold.

[BrianShaw]

Like an RZ67 with a 180 f/4 SF lens with a wide aperture for the ladies and stopped down for the men? :)

Heck no... a Hasselblad... and a Softar for the ladies. :p

(But I REALLY do get "Mamiya envy" when I think about their SF lenses!)

[Jim Noel]

300mm for me.

[E. von Hoegh]

240.

[jp]

I've used my 210 fujinar (tessar) on my speed graphic and kodak 305 portrait on my 8x10 camera with a 4x5 back.

[Frank Petronio]

A more modern and very sharp 300mm/5.6 Schneider Symmar-S or Rodenstock Sironar-N (or later) is very nice used wide open for traditional portraits in 4x5. Stop it down for non-human work. These are heavier but faster, and in more recent Copal 3 shutters, which are a lot nicer than the old ACMEs on the Commercial Ektars (which are great lens). You get a modern, easily fixable shutter with a higher speed, a ~1/125th (maybe 1/80th in reality). I like it because I can do both really sharp and then a shallow depth of field that retains a lot of integrity where it's in focus.

You can always diffuse the enlarger if you wet print, otherwise a 0.5 Gaussian Blur in Photoshop will make it look like the other lenses ;-)

It's nice to have the option and control, versus (suckers!) buying a dedicated portrait lens that is only going to be soft or moderately soft or not really all that sharp or flare resistant.

Of course if you are a backpacker and gram-shaver, this wouldn't be the right lens for you.

I apologize for selling that one Brass lens for $2000, it was an exploitive thing to do haha....

[Ken Lee]

Cooke Portrait PS945 Lens 229mm, f/4.5 (http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/largeformat.html)

[Bill_1856]

10" Tele-Rapter. Excellent, low size/weight, CHEAP! The only disadvantage is...wait...I can't think of any!

[John Conway]

I was bidding on one of those 10' Tele Raptars on ebay a short time ago. It was a beauty in the original wooden box. I really like that one. I was at my cottage in the mountains when the auction ended. No computer up there.

[John Conway]

I was thinking about my 4x5 portrait lens today. I happen to be reading one of my books on Bill Brandt. Brandt is one of my favorite photographers and his portrait work has always amazed me, especially the later stuff that he did with a Hassy super wide.

[rdenney]

The only downside to using a lens with coverage for 8x10 is that it will either be slow or heavy. But even at 300mm, most substantial 4x5 view cameras can handle the weight. But f/9 seems rather slow for a portrait lens.

When used wide open, the rendering of the lens comes into play. There are a zillion lenses that provide soft focus of various types at wide apertures. But if you want a lens that can go sharp, or reasonably sharp, without becoming crispy-fried, then consider a tessar design. All the manufacturers have made these, and they are often quite cheap. Their coverage is a little limited compared to the plasmats, but they are still abundant for 4x5.

The two that I have that seem to work pretty well in this application are the Calumet Caltar Type Y 240mm, and the Ilex-Calumet Caltar 12" (there was also a 10" lens in this line--also appropriate). The Type Y is a Rodenstock Ysarex and is limited to a maximum aperture of f/6.8 so that it will fit in a Copal No. 1. The 12" Caltar mounts in an Ilex No. 4 shutter that was easy to mount on a Sinar board (it's about the size of a Copal No. 3). The Caltar was Ilex's homage to the Kodak Commercial Ektar, when Kodak stopped producing same and Calumet needed an affordable line of lenses for their view camera. Both are tessar designs, and cheap when you can find them.

If you want a faster lens, look around for an Ilex Paragon, which in 8-1/2" (210mm) has a maximum aperture of f/4.5. I don't recall--maybe the 10" is as fast, though a 10" lens at f/4.5 will be mounted in an Ilex No. 5 if it exists. That's still easy to mount on a Sinar board but might be more interesting on smaller boards. It is not super sharp at that aperture, but it's sharp enough for most portraits. It will really smooth out the background, too. I'm thinking all the Wollensak and Graflex lenses in that size range are telephoto designs.

For me, the tessar designs give a clean vintage look, while I find that some more modern plasmats give a busy out-of-focus background and a modern rendering. But you may want that crispiness.

Rick "who likes portraits with a sharp face and a broad, smooth brush of a background" Denney

[John Conway]

You know, I have a Ilex Paragon 8 1/2 6.3 (215). Actually, I have two of them. They are on a camera that I just recently purchased, a Keith 4x5 twin lens camera. It neede a little clean up but she's almost ready.

[John Conway]

On those 300mm lenses that cover 8x10,the fact that the image circle is so big does not create a problem on 4x5?

[John Conway]

I meant to compliment Mr Ken Lee. Very nice work. And that Cooke lens is a fine piece of glass.

[John Conway]

I have an older 300 laying around. Maybe I should give that a try. It is a 12' Wollensak Velostigmat Focus Series IV 6.3 in a Betax No 4. I bought an old wood and Iron studio camera stand a while back and the guy gave me a 8X10 Century with the lens as part of the deal. She is actually in pretty good shape.

[rdenney]

On those 300mm lenses that cover 8x10,the fact that the image circle is so big does not create a problem on 4x5?

It shouldn't. The interiors of view camera provide pretty good baffling and minimal interior reflectivity, with bellows and so on. But you can (and should, in critical situations) shade the lens down to the edge of what part of the image you are actually using. Most view camera provide some mechanism for shading the lens precisely. But most people don't have problems in regular use without such precision. Most view camera lenses provide more coverage than the intended format needs, to provide for movements.

Rick "who does have an adjustable compendium shades for his cameras" Denney

[Frank Petronio]

On those 300mm lenses that cover 8x10,the fact that the image circle is so big does not create a problem on 4x5?

Not in a practical way, but in theory the extra light bouncing around internal reflections inside your camera could create additional flare. But most cameras are pretty much matte black inside. It would be worse in a small field camera, a Sinar or Cambo monorail has a larger bellows.

I've never had it be a problem and I've never heard of anyone having a problem. Besides there aren't many ~300mm lenses that don't cover quite a bit more than 4x5.

[John Conway]

I can't thank you guys enough. I am learning so much here.

[Jim Galli]

Richard's Velostigmat (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=780185#post780185) would be very hard to beat for head and shoulders on 4X5. Have a little adventure! Even better, I've just finished up a 230mm Achromatic Meniscus in an Ilex #3 shutter. It's softness is so subtle, it just might be the most perfect 4X5 portrait lens on earth :D:D

[chassis]

What subject to lens distance is needed for a head and shoulders portrait with a 210mm on 4x5? I am coming up with about 1000mm or so, with about 260mm of bellows extension. Does this sound right? It seems like a small subject to lens distance.

The assumption I am using is to capture a head and shoulders image onto the 5" dimension of the film (portrait orientation).

I am a newbie in this area so want to see if I am using the calculations correctly. Thanks.

[MumbleyJoe]

What subject to lens distance is needed for a head and shoulders portrait with a 210mm on 4x5? I am coming up with about 1000mm or so, with about 260mm of bellows extension. Does this sound right? It seems like a small subject to lens distance.

The assumption I am using is to capture a head and shoulders image onto the 5" dimension of the film (portrait orientation).

I am a newbie in this area so want to see if I am using the calculations correctly. Thanks.

That math seems right to me.

At 260mm bellows extension, the lens-to-subject distance would be about 1 meter away, focusing on an area about 21x17 inches. I'd say you're doing the math right (or I'm doing it equally wrong).

That's all I have to add to the conversation, sadly. (that distance seems close to me too).

[Ken Lee]

I meant to compliment Mr Ken Lee. Very nice work. And that Cooke lens is a fine piece of glass.

Just to be clear, I don't own a Cooke portrait lens. I've never used one. I just linked to their site.

It strikes me as the ideal length for 4x5 portraits - maybe for all photos - and it has a superb and controllable soft-focus effect.

Of course, if someone would like to send me one as a gift, I would be eternally grateful :)

[Frank Petronio]

The trend is towards using softer, older lenses made for portraits but, having been down that road myself, I'd encourage you not to just keep doing the same old thing like everyone else. There are plenty of fine portraits to make with normal, modern, sharp lenses and it is a lot less mumbo-jumbo voodoo joojoobeanery... unless you like that sort of thing?

[John Conway]

I agree that the modern lens has a place when it comes to portraiture. I am actually about to photograph my son , now a teenager, with my 4x5 set up. When he was between ten and twelve, I took many pictures of him in black and white with my 8x10 camera and 300mm Fuji lens. It was the first time I had ever used large format.I had the lab do my processing. When I picked up the contacts I was blown away. The lab closed because of digital, and I sold my 8x10. I don't know why, but I go through phases when I can't even hold a camera. But then it comes back, in a strong way, and I feel this intense desire to make images again.

[colotonphoto]

I prefer the 210mm on 4x5 for head and shoulder portraits.

[Ken Lee]

Perhaps people would like to show some 4x5 head and shoulder shots. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand...

Here's the only one I have. 210mm Tessar. Perhaps it's not really just head and shoulders.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/8.jpg

[Ari]

Sure, I'm game.
This is a Fujinon-W 210, the older version with a massive IC, and it was shot on Shanghai 100 film.

http://i51.tinypic.com/ogcnqw.jpg

[chassis]

Nice images folks. What sort of camera-to-subject distances are you working with for these shots?

[Frank Petronio]

Here is a 150mm Schneider Xenar on 4x5 film head and shoulders portrait. If you keep noses away from the edges you see the distortion isn't too bad. Don't mind the harsh lighting, which was intentional.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/8647/alysha_thug_4x5.jpg

Another 150mm Schneider Symmar-S, I don't think she looks grotesque yet:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/8636/jess_straight.jpg

Here is a composite (don't pay attention to the fact that it is burnt out) of a series of portraits done with the 300mm on 4x5. I made these as I went since I had to tear down and reset up my lighting and backdrops on different days and I wanted to be consistent. But I think this jpg lost its profile or gamma changed over the years....

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/8647/portrait_petronio_urmc_composite.jpg

So if a 150mm lens can work and the 300mm works easily, the 210mm will be about middle-ground. I like the 210mm Schneider Symmar - Rodenstock Sironar series (with later versions) because they are compact, inexpensive, great quality, and they are in a Copal 1 shutter with a faster speed than the Copal 3, which the next longer lenses use (240mm Symmars and Sironars ride in a Copal 3). The larger Copal 3 is a good shutter but doesn't have as fast a speed and, being larger and heavier, it may introduce more vibration, especially with a smaller field or wooden camera.

I haven't used a 210mm in years but I think it would be nice to do again, not too far or too close....

Working distance for the 150mm was about 30 inches, the 300mm about 8 feet. It's nice to be further back when they have bad breath, but in general I try to work closer so we can talk softly and quiet things down.

[Ken Lee]

With the 150mm lens, we feel close to the subject. The portraits are rather intimate and even intense.

The images from the 300 feel more impersonal. They have a subliminal feeling of distance, which I guess is perfect for corporate portraits. The people are there, but it's as though they are looking at you through a glass.

[Jim Galli]

With the 150mm lens, we feel close to the subject. The portraits are rather intimate and even intense.

The images from the 300 feel more impersonal. They have a subliminal feeling of distance, which I guess is perfect for corporate portraits. The people are there, but it's as though they are looking at you through a glass.


So a 210 is somewhere right in the middle of intimate and sublime then, right?? :cool:

[BrianShaw]

12inch Commercial Ektar, wide open I seem to recall.

[Ken Lee]

So a 210 is somewhere right in the middle of intimate and sublime then, right?? :cool:

It is extinctly so. To say otherwise, would be a fragrant violation of all we hold deer :)

[BrianShaw]

With the 150mm lens, we feel close to the subject. The portraits are rather intimate and even intense.

The images from the 300 feel more impersonal. They have a subliminal feeling of distance, which I guess is perfect for corporate portraits. The people are there, but it's as though they are looking at you through a glass.

I absolutely love this kind of comment, and really wish I could see what you are describing. I feel so inadequate at times. :o

[Ken Lee]

Let's try it in audio terms, by analogy. Let's record a conversation with someone in a large room, two different ways.

First, we attach a wireless microphone to the subject's shirt, so the sound comes from very close to their mouth. We can hear them breathing.

Second, we move the microphone 20 feet away, and turn up the gain accordingly. We can still hear everything the person says, but the microphone picks up other sounds as well.

Listening to the 2 different recordings, we can tell the difference. One sounds distant, the other sounds intimate. It's a matter of subtlety, but it's there.

(That's the analogy. Now back to images.)

There's a difference between a photo of someone taken from 3 feet away, and one taken 20 feet away, even if they are cropped to match. It's a matter of perspective, and the difference in perspective is a visual cue or indication of distance. There are visual cues for distance, just as there are auditory cues for distance. Distance changes the relative size of objects. We can see that when comparing 2 images where the only difference is the distance to the subject.

Recently, there has been some interesting discussion of the topic on a thread entitled Is "normal" perspective the most pleasing? (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=80737&highlight=pleasing)

[Emil Schildt]

I think dedicated soft focus lenses has its place - at times. Sharp ones also - at other times.. It all depends on what you want.

Two images of Anna.

Both on 4x5 - both with my 300mm Boyer 4.5.

Works great with 4x5, but it is big and heavy..

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/91/36/793691-c7e2207a320e6d9d.jpg
(outdated slide film..)

and

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/28/46/1144628-4c13e56a32732248.jpg

then an image of Stine - now with an old Lancaster meniscus type lens... very soft..:

http://www.apug.org/gallery1/files/4/8/8/7/lancaster01.jpg

[John Conway]

I really like the look with the 150.

[John Conway]

I must say, the 300mm portraits are very nice and I like them as well.

[rdenney]

I absolutely love this kind of comment, and really wish I could see what you are describing. I feel so inadequate at times. :o

Ken skipped a step in his description. He's describing a visual effect in terms of the feeling it imparts without describing the visual effect.

The visual effect of the 150 is to separate the subject more from the background--the background is smaller with respect to the subject. This is true even if you define the background as the subject's ears (which is the only way you can when there is no background, as with "Gandolfi's" first two images). Being more separate from the background means being closer to the photographer (and therefore the viewer). That closeness gives a feeling of relative intimacy.

The visual effect of the 300 is to enlarge the background with respect to the subject, which has the effect of pushing the subject into the background rather than separating the subject from the background. That gives a sense of separation from the photographer/viewer. The difference between 150 and 300 is not glaringly obvious, but it is apparent, as long as the camera positions are adjusted to make the faces the same size. If you use the same camera position and crop the 150 image so that the face is the same size in an enlargement as the 300 image, they will be identical.

If you go to an extreme on the short end, then the intimate effect is lost. The relative size of the nose and ears with a camera position too close is so exaggerated that it draws attention to itself as an effect, and overwhelms feelings as subtle as intimacy. We are not used to seeing heads and shoulders from a foot away when we look at someone. We get a foot away so we can see their eyes and maybe not much else. When we want to see their head and shoulders, we pull back to several feet. We are also accustomed to looking at them from 6 or 8 feet away and seeing their upper halves or their whole bodies, though we can still see and concentrate on their faces.

Thus, the two or three-foot camera distance requires a normal lens for a head and shoulders portrait and reflects the way we see and interact with people during a close conversation. The 6-8-foot distance requires a longer lens and reflects the way we see and interact with people during a conversation that might involve several other people. Those associations are triggered by our sense of perspective, even just between the nose, eyes, and ears, and reinforce the intimacy feeling.

Rick "thinking that poses and expressions can reinforce or contradict these associations" Denney

[Ken Lee]

Wonderfully stated.

[Ken Lee]

It may be that because photographs contain so many different layers of content, most people pay little attention to the sense of distance from the subject.

The average viewer, if not a photographer or trained artistically, looks at the subject. The viewer notices the clothes, the pose, and if the lighting is uncommon, then perhaps the emphasis given by lighting.

A photographer might notice things like composition, selective focus, chiaroscuro, the background, the lighting itself, contrast, tonality, color balance, and other technical issues.

As long as the subject isn't excessively flat (long lens) or stretched (wide lens), most photographers probably pay little attention to the sense of distance - because there are so many other factors to consider. They probably notice it even less, when the subject is not a person, but a building or a landscape.

[Robert Hughes]

Two images of Anna.

Both on 4x5 - both with my 300mm Boyer 4.5. Works great with 4x5, but it is big and heavy..

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/91/36/793691-c7e2207a320e6d9d.jpg
(outdated slide film..)

I love the side lighting on this, it looks like a Vermeer painting.

[Tom J McDonald]

Frank Petronio, that dude with the Amish beard looks like he should be shooting large format.

[John Conway]

I haven't added much here to the thread but I am sure learning a lot as I read along.

[Frank Petronio]

Frank Petronio, that dude with the Amish beard looks like he should be shooting large format.

Nah too hairy. If you really commit to large format you shave it all so you don't get hair on your film.

[Tom J McDonald]

Nah too hairy. If you really commit to large format you shave it all so you don't get hair on your film.

So that's what I'm doing wrong (my eyebrows I mean, I can't grow a beard).

[rdenney]

Nah too hairy. If you really commit to large format you shave it all so you don't get hair on your film.

This theory is not supported by empirical evidence.

Rick "who has more than once spotted out the effects of a beard hair" Denney

[E. von Hoegh]

" Head and Shoulders 4x5"

For the discriminating LF man, eliminate those dandruff marks on your negatives.