LF "look" on 35mm

[yian huang]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A portrait using a 50mm lens at f2 on a 35mm camera.

[Jon Shiu]

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]

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.

[Bob._3483]

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,