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

[Ellis Vener]

It is just a ratio of the area seen by the lens, the 3x or 3.5X factor when com paring a lens for a 35mm camera to a lens for a 4x5. The visual effect of a 300mm remains a 300mm whether you use it with a 4x5 or a 35mm or an 8x10 format camera, what alters is how much horizonal and vertical coverage of the subject you get. If you are going to equate a 105mm lens on a Nikon or Canon or whatever to a 300mm lens used on a 4x5 you will also have to acknowlege that depth of field at anny given f/stop will change too. My feeling is that thi s is often negated by what is a prime f/stop for a lens for a 35m system is ofte n something in the f/5.6 to f/8 range whereas with a lens for a large format camer a the prime f/stop will be in the f/16 to f/22 range.

[nick rowan]

Mark,

I have never really tried Tech Pan film extensively--I tried it once or twice awhile back and felt its exposure latitude was too narrow for the way I work, and perhaps too contrasty (although I do like bold tones), as is common with slow-speed films.

I use mostly Ilford Delta 100--and occasionally HP5+320--and feel the Delta is sufficiently fine-grained.

[Garry Edwards]

Photography is the same as life. Perspective depends on viewpoint

[Mark_437]

Nick - I think by now you've had enough "perspective vs. focal length vs. subject distance" info. Now I'm going to throw a wrench in the works by suggesting that you're making matters worse instead of better (in terms of achieving your stated goals) by going with a long lens. I think you should at least experiment with shorter lenses (and consequently closer distances). Here's why: You say you're looking for images with dramatic impact, that leap off the paper at you, etc. You won't get that by backing off and using a long lens. Quite the opposite - compression "flattens" perspective, creating emotional as well as physical distance from your subject. The "palpability" of the person in the image is reduced rather than increased. My theory on this: the mind, consciously or unconsciously, learns to equate a flattened perspective with distance because that's the way it is in nature. Therefore, the image seems less compelling. When someone is distant from you it's easy to ignore them. Try that with someone looking at you from, say, two feet away, directly in front of you. Almost impossible to ignore, for anthropological reasons (survival instinct, among others).

I suggest you get close to your subjects. Get involved. Your images will be involving. HOW close is up to you. You might not want the distortion that comes from being very close with a wide lens, but a few test shots will tell you. Also, being close will elicit a response from your subjects which will show up in the print and effect the viewer, hopefully giving the impression you're looking for.

Your project sounds very interesting. Please tell us more about it when it's done. I'd also like to hear about the mechanics of making 10'x12' prints.

Best of luck!

[Charlie Stracl]

In a nutshell: the only thing that determines the relationship between objects in a photograph (that is, persepective) is the location of the lens taking the picture. You can see the exact relationships by using your eyes. A long, or telephoto lens, magnifies a smaller part of the image to full-frame (in effect, it "crops") than a short, or wide-angle, lens.