Anyone have 8x10 300mm f5.6 environmental portrait examples?

[Corran]

12" (300mm) f/4.5 Gundlach Radar, shot at f/8 if I remember:



In comparison this was shot wide-open:



I would point out though that the 110mm f/2 you mention on 6x7 is more like a 360mm f/6.8 on 8x10. Which is available - look for a 360mm f/5.6 or f/6.8 Symmar (the f/6.8 is newer). And, here's a photo from said Symmar (the f/5.6 version), shot wide-open:



BTW, look up images by SergeiR on this forum for many examples from the 300mm Radar and 360mm Symmar lenses - he does great portraits. I don't shoot a lot of portraits.

[formanproject]

12" (300mm) f/4.5 Gundlach Radar, shot at f/8 if I remember:



In comparison this was shot wide-open:



I would point out though that the 110mm f/2 you mention on 6x7 is more like a 360mm f/6.8 on 8x10. Which is available - look for a 360mm f/5.6 or f/6.8 Symmar (the f/6.8 is newer). And, here's a photo from said Symmar (the f/5.6 version), shot wide-open:



BTW, look up images by SergeiR on this forum for many examples from the 300mm Radar and 360mm Symmar lenses - he does great portraits. I don't shoot a lot of portraits.

Awesome! Thanks so much for that! That was really helpful.

Yes, the look i'm going for is similar to what you got with the gundlach radar at f4.5. Basically that incredible shallow depth of field look with a very wide angle perspective, that's otherwise unachievable on any format other than 8x10 (Or shooting 50-60 digital photographs with a telephoto lens and stitching them together). And thank you, I will definitely check him out.

[Richard Wasserman]

Look at Alec Soth's Sleeping on the Mississippi

[Corran]

There is no precise "crop factor" due to differences in aspect ratio. You can either compare long side to long side, short side to short side, or diagonal to diagonal.

Long side comparison - 36mm on 35mm film, roughly 250mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 6.94. If you crop the 8x10 to a 2:3 ratio, it matches.
Short side comparison - 24mm on 35mm film, roughly 200mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 8.33. If you crop the 35mm negative to a 4:5 ratio, it matches.
Diagonal side comparison - 43mm on 35mm film, about 320mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 7.44. Doesn't really match but it's a good middle of the road value.

You lose a bit on the 8x10 sheet from the film holders, which can vary, so these aren't immensely precise. The 200 x 250 mmm measurement of 8x10 is based off of the 7.875 x 9.875 nominal film size of 8x10.

So all that being said, that factor from Wikipedia is roughly 7x. Seems like they are comparing the long edge.

[MAubrey]

There is no precise "crop factor" due to differences in aspect ratio. You can either compare long side to long side, short side to short side, or diagonal to diagonal.

Long side comparison - 36mm on 35mm film, roughly 250mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 6.94. If you crop the 8x10 to a 2:3 ratio, it matches.
Short side comparison - 24mm on 35mm film, roughly 200mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 8.33. If you crop the 35mm negative to a 4:5 ratio, it matches.
Diagonal side comparison - 43mm on 35mm film, about 320mm from the 8x10 means a crop factor of 7.44. Doesn't really match but it's a good middle of the road value.

You lose a bit on the 8x10 sheet from the film holders, which can vary, so these aren't immensely precise. The 200 x 250 mmm measurement of 8x10 is based off of the 7.875 x 9.875 nominal film size of 8x10.

So all that being said, that factor from Wikipedia is roughly 7x. Seems like they are comparing the long edge.

Yes indeed, I mainly asked simply because I was curious about Ken's caveat.

The footnote at the top of the chart says the diagonal. It looks though like they're just assuming a diagonal on the basis of the traditional normal lens: 300mm...which gives you exactly Wikipedia's .143 / 6.9768.

[Ted R]

The diagonal of "35mm" is 43mm. The diagonal of 8x10 is close to 12.5in which is about 317mm.

the ratio of sides for "35mm" is 36/24 = 1.5

the ratio of sides for 8x10 is 10/8 = 1.25

the ratio of 1.5 to 1.25 is 1.2

[mdarnton]

I suspect people who are more into 4x5 and 8x10 think of the problem as "How would I crop the ends of a 35mm frame to make an 8x10?", so their angle of view comes to what's contained in a 24x32 35mm frame. Coming at it from decades of 35mm, I think of it as "What am I doing to do to fill those two extra strips on the long edges?" so it's the opposite problem. However there's a tradition that predates all of us that angle of view is calculated on the diagonal, and that's how I usually try to think of it when I'm switching formats. In the average, going either direction, it usually sort of works.

[Vaughn]

But eventually, it comes down to how the light hits your groundglass.

I used a FujiW 300/5.6 exclusively for many years. I just never used it wide open except to look at the GG.

After using a few different focal lengths of the same lens type (180mm, 250/f6.7 and 360/f6.3), the 300mm feels like a wide normal to me. I got use to hauling the 300mm, 250mm and perhaps a 19" RD Artar in a barrel in my pack. But even removing the Artar, the 360mm made it feel I was adding a ship anchor to my pack! Worth it and the winds couldn't push me around in Death Valley!**


Below are two images with the 300mm, but not wide open. Both are 8x10 platinum prints.


** a lie...I hid out safely in my van, high above the dust, and marveled at the view of dust clouds climbing 1500 feet above Stovepipe Wells.

[mathieu Bauwens]

Fuji 300mm f5,6 @ 5,6 or 8

[bobbotron]

The first of these is really quite heartwarming!

Fuji 300mm f5,6 @ 5,6 or 8