11x14, 600mm, portraits

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Thinking in terms of 35mm lenses is a mistake because 35mm rarely runs into magnification issues (AKA bellows factor), especially in portraiture.

At a 1:2 ratio your 360mm lens becomes effectively a 540mm, and at 1:1 it is a 720mm. The closer you move your camera to the subject the longer it becomes. Odd, but true. I don't know what 5ft translates to using a 360mm lens with 11x14, but I would imagine it is pretty close to 1:2.

[John NYC]

I don't know what 5ft translates to using a 360mm lens with 11x14, but I would imagine it is pretty close to 1:2.

Yes, this is what I really want to know... If the lens was 5 feet from the subject (using 600mm and 11x14) what framing would this be of the subject? Same question for 7 and 10 feet away.

[John NYC]

Yes, this is what I really want to know... If the lens was 5 feet from the subject (using 600mm and 11x14) what framing would this be of the subject? Same question for 7 and 10 feet away.

Actually, I found a great solution to my problem... using the Viewfinder Pro app on my iPhone.

Can anyone give me the true image area dimensions of 11x14 film?

[Monty McCutchen]

John,

One of the interesting things about the ULF is as you move up in format what is considered wide angle does not render distortion on faces as does in 35mm. Wisner wrote an article years ago about the anomaly that you might find on line. All of my head and shoulders on my 20 x 24 are shot with 550 Schneider Fine Art lens. Many of the two times life size that you see done on the 20 x 24 Polaroid are done with a 355 G-Glaron inches from their face. This old picture I've posted in several threads (please forgive the re-post) exemplifies the point. 20 x 24 with the above mentioned Schneider 550 wide open f-11 about 20 inches from the my son's face. This photo is bigger than he is I would say about 1 and half life size. As you can see there is no distortion at all. Look for shorter focal lengths and you also save on bellows reciprocity failure due to the lesser bellows extension to get to your desired 1:1 ratio, thus making your sitter less likely to move over long exposures.

Hope that helps,

Monty

[Monty McCutchen]

Sorry John,

Jason beat me to the point! There's an example anyway for you.

good luck,

Monty

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I often use shorter lenses for portraits as well. With my 11x14 I use a 15" Darlot. Now generally this is done with my Century 8A Studio camera and I have plenty of bellows to work with.

As far as bathroom developing goes I do everything in mine up to and including 14x17. Space problems in my two bedroom apartment you bet but I just deal with it somehow. Go for it.

[John NYC]

John,

One of the interesting things about the ULF is as you move up in format what is considered wide angle does not render distortion on faces as does in 35mm. Wisner wrote an article years ago about the anomaly that you might find on line. All of my head and shoulders on my 20 x 24 are shot with 550 Schneider Fine Art lens. Many of the two times life size that you see done on the 20 x 24 Polaroid are done with a 355 G-Glaron inches from their face. This old picture I've posted in several threads (please forgive the re-post) exemplifies the point. 20 x 24 with the above mentioned Schneider 550 wide open f-11 about 20 inches from the my son's face. This photo is bigger than he is I would say about 1 and half life size. As you can see there is no distortion at all. Look for shorter focal lengths and you also save on bellows reciprocity failure due to the lesser bellows extension to get to your desired 1:1 ratio, thus making your sitter less likely to move over long exposures.

Hope that helps,

Monty

I know the distortion seems LESS as you move up in formats, but at least in 8x10, I still did see distortion quite significantly when you came in close enough to get head and shoulders with a 14" lens.

So, the general consensus is that 450mm would get me to head and shoulders on 11x14 with no distortion of noses, shot straight on? Using ViewFinder Pro, this tells me I would be 24" or so away from the subject to get a head and shoulders framing. That just doesn't sound right to me.

[C. D. Keth]

Yes, this is what I really want to know... If the lens was 5 feet from the subject (using 600mm and 11x14) what framing would this be of the subject? Same question for 7 and 10 feet away.

It's pretty easy math, just algebra and trig.

At 5 feet you'll need 989mm of bellows out, 7 feet will need 834mm, and 10 feet will need 747mm.

Using a little trig, those translate to diagonal angles of view of 25.6 degrees, 30.2 degrees, and 33.6 degrees. Compare those to the 41 degree angle of view of that same 600mm lens at infinity

Look those up on a table and they're equivalent to something like a 95mm, an 80mm, and maybe a 75mm on 35mm film.


Edit: One quick addition. with the chamonix's maximum bellows draw of 850mm, you could focus a 600mm lens in to about 2 meters (2040mm calculated)

[John NYC]

It's pretty easy math, just algebra and trig.

At 5 feet you'll need 989mm of bellows out, 7 feet will need 834mm, and 10 feet will need 747mm.

Using a little trig, those translate to diagonal angles of view of 25.6 degrees, 30.2 degrees, and 33.6 degrees. Compare those to the 41 degree angle of view of that same 600mm lens at infinity

Look those up on a table and they're equivalent to something like a 95mm, an 80mm, and maybe a 75mm on 35mm film.


Edit: One quick addition. with the chamonix's maximum bellows draw of 850mm, you could focus a 600mm lens in to about 2 meters (2040mm calculated)

Great info. Thank you!

[C. D. Keth]

Great info. Thank you!

Very welcome. Just note that was all done with the thin lens formula. Since real lenses have distance between front and rear nodes and some other things, there is a small amount of wiggle room in those calculations. They're far better than a guess but they're also not going to be millimeter for millimeter accurate in the real world.