Wrong lenses for portraiture?

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I ask, would the 180mm be considered normal for portraiture and the 210mm considered normal for landscape ?

In portraiture we usually give bellows extension to the 180mm because the near subject, thus lowering the angle of view like if it was perhaps a 210 at infinite?
I would use at least a 240 on 57 to minimize foreshortening which would result in large noses, foreheads and shoulders. Probably would use a 360 if I had the chance.
At the end the 57 diagonal is 208mm, so by general definition of "Normal" the 210mm nails it for 57, but a close subject projects bigger than expected on film because bellows extension, so would the 180mm be the normal ?

[LabRat]

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

[Alan Gales]

Good control of lighting will mold the face to flatter and reduce or eliminate unwanted shapes and details. It takes more then a lens and distance for portraiture.

Sure, the right lighting can really help. Retouching can also help. I know George Hurrell's 8x10 Hollywood portraits were highly retouched. I don't think anything in Hollywood is real.

If scanned, photoshop can help too.


The best photographers are masters of lighting.

[William Whitaker]

I've suggested this before and I still think it's good advice:

Search out the monthly portrait thread under the Image Sharing (LF) & Discussion forum. Then take note of what people are using for images that appeal to you.

[jnantz]

Except a 180 is the normal lens for 57.

oops
i always thought 210 was normal on a 5x7
( i've never seen a 180mm lens before )
i use a 14" for 5x7 portraits ..

[Alan Gales]

( i've never seen a 180mm lens before )

I own a Fujinon 180mm f/5.6 lens. I bought it on Ebay from Japan. It only cost me $160.00 including shipping. I got it for 4x5 but it will cover 5x7. Some even use it for 8x10 but you would probably get some vignetting. I need to try it sometime and see.

[Pere Casals]

oops
i always thought 210 was normal on a 5x7
( i've never seen a 180mm lens before )
i use a 14" for 5x7 portraits ..

well, I'd say that the 210 it's the 5x7 normal for distant subjects, while for near subjects the normal is shorter than 210, because the impact of additional bellows draw in the AOV.

[jnantz]

I own a Fujinon 180mm f/5.6 lens. I bought it on Ebay from Japan. It only cost me $160.00 including shipping. I got it for 4x5 but it will cover 5x7. Some even use it for 8x10 but you would probably get some vignetting. I need to try it sometime and see.

hello alan
that 180 sounds like a nice ride !

well, I'd say that the 210 it's the 5x7 normal for distant subjects, while for near subjects the normal is shorter than 210, because the impact of additional bellows draw in the AOV.

yeah normal lens is kind of a funny expression in photography, pretty much anything can be your normal lens
... my uncle, does/did a lot of product work over the years
he used to laugh and tell me his "normal" was 210 on his 4x5

[Pere Casals]

yeah normal lens is kind of a funny expression in photography, pretty much anything can be your normal lens
... my uncle, does/did a lot of product work over the years
he used to laugh and tell me his "normal" was 210 on his 4x5

John, what's not normal is we using view cameras when we can shot with an iphone

But speaking a bit more seriously "normal lens" it's just a useful reference that helps to compare AOV between formats and a bit with human vision, the thing it's not perfect because aspect ratio, but a focal matching the diagonal of the format is something very informative.

What is true that a 210mm for 57 portrait frames like a bit longuer than normal, I would expected it works like a 60mm in a 35mm SLR.

In LF we use unit focus and hence that "Focus breathing", something that cinematographers hate in a lens, when in a dialog they move focus from an actor to another one... they would show growing heads.

Some small format lenses also have that effect, for example my Nikon 50mm 1.8AFD (an excellent glass!) is unit focus type, and also breathes when focusing near, so for protrait it behaves like if it was bit longer than normal.

Anyway normally it's the lens that may have a problem with a bad potographer like me, and not the counter

[jnantz]

hello pere

i've never heard of focus breathing before ..
i have heard of the diagonal=normal rule ..
but i also know that it is a rule of thumb and not in stone
and i don't really pay much attention to conventions, unless
they are a clown convention then i steer clear !
speaking of clowns and conventions ... years ago i was in basel switzerland
for a trade show for people who did building &c
and at 1pm there was a noise and then, a parade of clowns marched through
the building. if i had my 5x7 camera with me, i would have thrown on a 127 tominion
and shot portraits wide open ( 4.7 ) to give a nice creepy and vignetted look ...
any lens can be a portrait lens as long as it projects light and gives you the look you want

YMMV