How long a lens are you using for H&S Portraits with 8x10 and larger?

[Richard Johnson]

If you keep the person centered, as in the nose in the center and more "sky" over their head, you can minimize distortion and use a relatively wide 300mm. It's the edges that give you away, you see this with a lot of amateur shots where they used their wide angle zoom on their dslr to fit the entire person into the frame. You'll often see a beautiful svelte young girl with size 22 feet at the edge of the frame ;-p

A 14" Commercial Ektar or 360 Symmar is a great all-around people lens for 8x10, especially outdoors in natural light where you don't want a huge bellows extension to become a sail in the wind and you can use every bit of fractional speed possible over the longer lenses.

[Sheldon N]

The big thing with 8x10 portraiture is that as you approach head and shoulders portraiture you are starting to approach what would be considered "macro" photography with other formats, ie. you are starting to get close to a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

When you approach a 1:1 reproduction ratio, the amount of bellows extension dramatically affects the field of view that the film sees from the lens. At a true 1:1 ratio, or a subject size of 8x10 inches and a normal lens, you need 600mm of bellows extension and the field of view is cut in half from what it would normally be at 300mm. This means your effective focal length is like a 600mm lens, at least in terms of angular field of view. With the angle of view changing at high magnifications, that forces you to back the camera up... which gives a more flattering (telephoto) perspective.

This is why people can make good portraits with 8x10 and larger formats, despite using what would be considered a "normal" lens under other circumstances. A simple rule of thumb would be that your effective focal length is roughly the same as the amount of bellows extension required to make the portrait.

[Tin Can]

The big thing with 8x10 portraiture is that as you approach head and shoulders portraiture you are starting to approach what would be considered "macro" photography with other formats, ie. you are starting to get close to a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

When you approach a 1:1 reproduction ratio, the amount of bellows extension dramatically affects the field of view that the film sees from the lens. At a true 1:1 ratio, or a subject size of 8x10 inches and a normal lens, you need 600mm of bellows extension and the field of view is cut in half from what it would normally be at 300mm. This means your effective focal length is like a 600mm lens, at least in terms of angular field of view. With the angle of view changing at high magnifications, that forces you to back the camera up... which gives a more flattering (telephoto) perspective.

This is why people can make good portraits with 8x10 and larger formats, despite using what would be considered a "normal" lens under other circumstances. A simple rule of thumb would be that your effective focal length is roughly the same as the amount of bellows extension required to make the portrait.

I understand macro concepts. Since my cameras have up to 75" of bellows, I want to push the limits, in portraits.

I am curious if anyone else is going very long, particularly in 8x10 and 11x14. I know some van cameras and 20x24" cameras use very long lenses, but they have to in order to achieve coverage.

[AtlantaTerry]

LF has different limitations and cannot copy those perspectives in the longer lengths.

Is that really true?

›

On my 4x5" cameras I use 210mm, 240mm and 300mm lenses for head and shoulder portraits.

[Carsten Wolff]

Standard Head and Shoulder focal lengths that work well in 8x10 are anything that isn't wide angle, (as in all formats). - Generally, over 350mm. I've cheated, using a 5x7 (15" Tele Wollensak) lens on 8x10, which at portrait distances can work well, although it isn't perhaps the ideal option. Lenses with small max. apertures such as the 19" Artar, 450mm Fuji-C or Nikkor-M still work ok, but it is harder to achieve shallow enough DOF, if that is wanted, with those. Anything with larger max. aperture may be easier; i.e. we're looking mostly at vintage glass these days; the reason why the 14" Commercial-Ektar (f6.3) (and its clones) was/is popular and why I tried the 15" Wolly (f5.6). That is not to say that you couldn't get a, say, Cooke XVa to work for 8x10 portraiture .

[David A. Goldfarb]

Various lenses, 12 to 14.5 inches.

[Tin Can]

Standard Head and Shoulder focal lengths that work well in 8x10 are anything that isn't wide angle, (as in all formats). - Generally, over 350mm. I've cheated, using a 5x7 (15" Tele Wollensak) lens on 8x10, which at portrait distances can work well, although it isn't perhaps the ideal option. Lenses with small max. apertures such as the 19" Artar, 450mm Fuji-C or Nikkor-M still work ok, but it is harder to achieve shallow enough DOF, if that is wanted, with those. Anything with larger max. aperture may be easier; i.e. we're looking mostly at vintage glass these days; the reason why the 14" Commercial-Ektar (f6.3) (and its clones) was/is popular and why I tried the 15" Wolly (f5.6). That is not to say that you couldn't get a, say, Cooke XVa to work for 8x10 portraiture .

Well, I have a 15" Tele Wolly, never occurred to me to try it on 8x10. It's setup for Speed Graphic. Then I looked up the Cooke you mention. LOL, not this guy!

I'm just checking for what people have tried, like 600 to 1000 mm, I have been using 480mm. lenses get a lot heavier above 20".

Since I am all studio, I am not in the AA club who uses entirely different gear and hikes a lot.

[mdarnton]

That's true, LF extensions give an effect, but it isn't a free ride. I think a lens needs to be more than three-four feet away--five is nicer--for a proper perspective, regardless of the film behind it, and shorter lenses on 8x10 don't really allow that. Now if you don't agree about perspective problems, then you can do whatever you want. For me, a 300mm on 8x10 puts the lens too close to the subject. You can do it, but it doesn't look good. To me.

Rather than format and lens, think of it as a problem of the distance of the eye that's taking the picture. That's where perspective comes from.

[jnantz]

8x10 i use 14" +
11x14 i use 20" +

[Monty McCutchen]

What Sheldon said. More so and more so the larger the format you go up to. 20 x 24, 16 x 20 is what I shoot 1 to 1 or larger and you want to go down in focal length not up. Bellows extension is virtually impossible to achieve useable exposure times as well as achieving any hope of a camera that will remain still.

These 20 x 24's were shot (basing this on memory now) anywhere from roughly 20 inches to 2 feet, from subject face, with a Schneider 550 mm wide open at f11. They range from 1 to 1 to larger on negative. So over 1100mm of bellows with an exposure in excess of 1 second. All these factors have to be considered when thinking about head and shoulders and the magnification needed, and the small movements that can ruin a shot. Full body relaxes some of those requirements as does the 8 x 10 format, but as you go up in format more factors come into play that affect final product.

You can plainly see there is absolutely no distortion at all in noses, ears etc. Depth of field as Garrett said is a completely different issue that can prove problematic but as you stated that's for another day.

Check out some portraits with the Polaroid 20 x 24 done at Columbia College in Chicago with Peter LeGrand. If memory serves me right they were using a 355 G-Glaron single digit inches from subject face and they are beautiful.

best,

Monty

The big thing with 8x10 portraiture is that as you approach head and shoulders portraiture you are starting to approach what would be considered "macro" photography with other formats, ie. you are starting to get close to a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

When you approach a 1:1 reproduction ratio, the amount of bellows extension dramatically affects the field of view that the film sees from the lens. At a true 1:1 ratio, or a subject size of 8x10 inches and a normal lens, you need 600mm of bellows extension and the field of view is cut in half from what it would normally be at 300mm. This means your effective focal length is like a 600mm lens, at least in terms of angular field of view. With the angle of view changing at high magnifications, that forces you to back the camera up... which gives a more flattering (telephoto) perspective.

This is why people can make good portraits with 8x10 and larger formats, despite using what would be considered a "normal" lens under other circumstances. A simple rule of thumb would be that your effective focal length is roughly the same as the amount of bellows extension required to make the portrait.