Long Lenses Don't Compress Foreground and Background?:Still Confused.

[Glenn Kroeger]

Nick:

Just equate things back to 35mm terms. Shooting distances will be the same with either 4x5 or 35mm since the proportionally longer focal lengths just fit the proportionally larger film.

Your 305mm is about the equivalent of a 90-100mm lens on 35mm. Slight "telephoto" perspective, but not the dramatic compression of a 300mm.

One way to get more compression would be to use your 305 from a greater distance, and crop the image down or use a roll film back. But you seem to want enormous enlargments and feel you need to use the entire image. That is a problem since this is not what LF excels at.

A 450 (Fujinon C for example) would be more like a 135mm lens in 35mm. A bit more compression, but not the dramatic effect you seek. A 600mm lens would be about like a 180mm, pretty good compression, but now you need LOTS of bellows and probably a rail camera with 2 tripods for stability. This is not what most folks think of as a handy portrait setup.

A final choice (expensive)for compression would be the Nikkor T 800mm f/12 telephoto which would be like 250mm on 35mm. That about the limit of practicality (if you consider a $2800 lens and a yard of bellow practical).

You could use a 450mm and a roll-film back, and enlarge the 6x7cm image accepting the resulting grain. You are probably going to have to make a choice between sharpness/grain and cost/compression.

[nick rowan]

Mark,

I am working in 4 x 5 because I am making 8 feet x 10 feet (24x) fibre-base BW enlargements, and need the larger negative. I have tried 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9--and the negative is not big enough to produce enough clarity and resolution. If anything, I am considering moving to an 8 x 10 format, but the cost--among other things--has so far deterred me--but I am quite happy with what 4 x 5 can do. As far as the act of shooting goes, I arrange for my subjects to remain still or within a certain restricted physical zone, and use strobe to freeze any possible movement. Believe me, I have thought this through! But what has defied my understanding so far is this notion of a "long lens" for the 4 x 5-- Any suggestions?

Nick

[nick rowan]

Glenn,

Thank you--this time I understood every word!

I have considered telephoto-design lenses in the past, but decided against them, because some people told me that they do not produce optimally sharp pictures at close ranges (in my case, about 5-12 feet, depending on the focal length). Would you agree? Recently, I have come around to the notion of using long-focal-length copy/process lenses, under the assumption that they are optimized for 1:1 to 1:5 or so, and generally among the best quality/sharpest lenses available. I have thought about the Fuji 450C, but am somewhat aesthetically biased in favor of German glass, so at the moment I am thinking alot about going with a Red Dot Artar. But, at the risk of sounding contradictory, I also do not want to reduce my depth of field to something little or none, by going with such a long, long lens (say beyond 480mm)--but maybe I'm looking for a lens that just doesn't exist, given all the large-format optical perameters you and everyone else have already laid out--

[nick rowan]

Glenn,

I forgot to mention, you wrote in your last post: "just equate things back to 35mm terms". You see it is something that simple that I have been having so much trouble with, and which caused me to start this whole discussion in the first place. It is my feeling--and maybe it is just my own feeling--that the two formats are NOT visually "interchangable" like that, because it seems like the pictures taken with a 105mm in 35mm-format look different than a 300mm or 360mm taken in a 4 x 5-format--I know people have written that they are convertible like that, but when I look at my pictures taken with a 300mm they just don't look as dramatic as when I did the same with a 105mm in 35mm-format. So I sense a "gap" when comparing the two, even just conceptually--although, in the end, I do use 35mm as a general, albeit approximate, reference point. But I've gone on too long about this, and don't want to beat a dead horse.

[Michael S. Briggs]

Four example photographs to illustrate persective vs focal length and camera position are on pages 48 to 49 of "A User's Guide to the View Camera" by Jim Stone in the section "More About Perspective". Perhaps in this case 4 photographs will be worth more than 4000 words?

[Josh DunhamWood]

Nick - try using a cutout frame to simulate the 'effects' of different focal lengths. If you use one size you just move it closer or further in relationship to your face. The relationship of focal length and image size = a lens of twice the focal length doubles the size of every obnject you see in the frame. Keeping your position unchanged, the 'perspective' will remain the same. - Good shooting - Josh

[Glenn Kroeger]

Nick:

I agree that the LF will look different, mainly due to less grain and smoother tonal scale, not geometric factors such as perspective.

While I love German glass, particularly Rodenstock wide angles, the Fujinon C series is tack sharp and more "germanic" in terms of contrast than the Nikkor M series, although I love the resolution and tonal scale of the Nikkor M, the Fujinon seemed to produce contrastier images.

I agree that the telephoto designs are not optimal for close working distances... but they are the only practical way to go beyond 500mm if you want that much compression.

Good luck on your decision

[mark lindsey]

Nick, what type of film are you using? ever tried tech pan? extreme resolution. If you haven't, try it out.

[Glenn Kroeger]

Nick: One other note... we often use a factor of about 3 between LF and 35mm... but if you compare just the short side of the film, the ratio is closer to 4 (95mm/24mm). So your 305mm is much closer to an 85mm than a 105mm in 35mm. The factor of 3 allows for lots of slop around the edge of the 4x5. I use 3.5 as a more realistic factor if you are making 4x5 ratio prints.

[nick rowan]

Glenn,

Yes, exactly: Fuji lenses are more "Germanic" than NikkorM lenses, in terms of their contrast and overall "look". At least that is what I felt after studying prints I made with the Fuji 240 A vs. the Nikkor 300M--so I WOULD like to try the Fuji 450C. The only problem is that Fuji lenses are not available to rent in any of my local rental houses--and are sold in just a few places nationally--so it makes it a little difficult to try out as a possibility.