Wrong lenses for portraiture?

[Bob Salomon]

Mainly, the old portrait rule is that a shorter FL lens would show more modeling/roundness of a face, but in some cases maybe too much up very close (almost like a distortion), esp if the sitter had a big nose or a narrow face that protrudes toward the camera (the old term is a "horsey" face), but to "flatten" out a deep face, some compression from a longer FL is used...

The problem with too long FL's is that the face can be too flat on the plane (called "moon faces"), and can destroy the depth and roundness of the faces/features, so different subjects would require different FL's...

And at close camera to subject distance, you would choose a comfortable camera to subject distance for the sitter, and enough room for you to have space to light well, and have room to work...

Most slightly longer than "normal" FL's are a good compromise for different faces + working distances...

Steve K

The old portrait requirement for head and shoulder through ¾ portraits was that the depth of field had to cover from the tip of the nose to the base of the ear. That requirement was fulfilled, on the film, by focal length, f stop and subject to lens distance.
So the focal length could be anything that met this criteria.

Yes, exceptions were made for effect but if you look at classic portraiture these conditions were universal. And meeting them meant marks on the floor for where the subject and camera were placed and a knotted cord hanging on the camera that was used to place the face in the proper position.

Today, not usually done, through the 60s and perhaps the early 70s in the USA this was very common.

[Pere Casals]

knotted cord hanging on the camera that was used to place the face in the proper position.

Nice AF subsystem, electronics made easy. It like it !!

Most slightly longer than "normal" FL's are a good compromise for different faces + working distances...

Steve, IMHO portrait FL is chacun à son goût, but accepted general rule is 1.5x the normal FL for half body and 2x for head and shoulders.

In LF we have some controversy because the other controversy about if 4x5 normal FL is 135mm or 150mm. That controversy disapears if considering unit focus breathing.

What's clear is that some 3m nose to glass distance is good, to have a relaxed subject and non grotesque faces.

Anyway if Karsh liked the 14" for 810 this is an strong reference for a kind of LF portraiture.

[john_vandale_]

Yep... this subject is very interresting.

300mm should work with many people and not with others.

I think the first picture I showed was taken from a bad pov: too high. That maybe why she misses a neck!

[A Almulla]

Kinda late to this post.

Thinking away from the lens and camera combo. Depends if the images are made for you or a client. If its for you then there is no right answer and depends on the case of the moon, the alignment of the stars and whether you had coffee or not. Whatever makes you feel good.

If its for a client then keep in mind there has been an increase in nose jobs due to selfies (yes thats a thing) and if you get a client thats too self conscious then a shorter focal length could send them for a nose job.

Had friends who would swear by a 200mm on a 35mm format, yet others would shoot 85 to 110mm and some down to 50mm (till they buy an 85mm).

I don't believe any focal length to be too long, just depends on the DOF and background compression.

[Pere Casals]

keep in mind there has been an increase in nose jobs due to selfies (yes thats a thing) and if you get a client thats too self conscious then a shorter focal length could send them for a nose job.

well explained !