DOF in LF portraiture

[Jay DeFehr]

If used wide open, I suppose you are correct ;-)

Many of my vintage portrait lenses are fairly fast, even by modern standards, and I fail to see how faster lenses have anything to do with increased dof, in any case. Faster films, on the other hand, could allow the use of smaller apertures for a given exposure, and therefore, greater dof. I think the use of fast lenses on large format, slow films conspired to limit dof in vintage portraits. Modern fast films, and smaller formats allow much greater dof, even without considering flash lighting. For me, dof is an important creative tool, and no single approach is right for every portrait or image.

Jay

[Jim Galli]

A couple of other things not mentioned can also severely limit depth of field in the type of shooting I love. I have 2 giant 15" f4 Petzval's that were magic lantern lenses. F4 is the only choice. Nearing 1:1 for a head shot you end up with around a 26" at perhaps f9. Depth can be 5/8 inch so you literally have to make that choice. Then if your subject mmoves a quarter of an inch it can make a big difference in what's in focus and what isn't. In lenses like Wollensak Verito, Pinkham visual quality, Gundlach Hyperion and a host of others usually in the 13 - 16" range for 810, the show's over at f7 - f8. So you paid big bucks to use a lens that has a particular effect but if you stop down past f7 it just becomes another semi sharp lens. Then you stretch out the bellows to fill a frame with head and depth can be phenomenally shallow. If all we were doing was shooting faces with a Kodak Ektar there'd certainly be no reason not to shoot at f16. Brian's complaint is valid. Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Capocheny]

A couple of other things not mentioned can also severely limit depth of field in the type of shooting I love. I have 2 giant 15" f4 Petzval's that were magic lantern lenses. F4 is the only choice. Nearing 1:1 for a head shot you end up with around a 26" at perhaps f9. Depth can be 5/8 inch so you literally have to make that choice. Then if your subject mmoves a quarter of an inch it can make a big difference in what's in focus and what isn't. In lenses like Wollensak Verito, Pinkham visual quality, Gundlach Hyperion and a host of others usually in the 13 - 16" range for 810, the show's over at f7 - f8. So you paid big bucks to use a lens that has a particular effect but if you stop down past f7 it just becomes another semi sharp lens. Then you stretch out the bellows to fill a frame with head and depth can be phenomenally shallow. If all we were doing was shooting faces with a Kodak Ektar there'd certainly be no reason not to shoot at f16. Brian's complaint is valid. Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too.

Well Jim,

Judging from the look of those gorgeous portrait images you have posted over on the other forum... you certainly have mastered the fine art of balancing what can be, and what can't be, done with a particular lens for this purpose!

Kudos to ya!

Cheers

[BrianShaw]

Depth can be 5/8 inch so you literally have to make that choice. Then if your subject moves a quarter of an inch it can make a big difference in what's in focus and what isn't.

Yikes, that's not much DOF! My favorite subject is my 8-year old son. I couldn't even think of working with that little DOF.

Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too.

Isn't that the truth. Given a choice of cake or no-cake, I'd choose eyes in-focus and let the nose be OOF. But chocolate would be better!!

[Paul Metcalf]

Then if your subject moves a quarter of an inch it can make a big difference in what's in focus and what isn't.

One of the things that really impresses me is how Jim gets sharp eyes using any lens at wide aperture (via by choice or no choice) on a large format camera precisely because of what Jim has said about subject movement. Reading about the old days when portraits took minutes to make because of film speed it's amazing that anything looks good (aside from the stoic poses necessary to remain still for so long). Fast lenses and increase film speed and studio lighting saved the day, but I'm much more impressed with one's ability to create a shallow DOF portrait of people taken with LF equipment that has anything worthwhile (i.e. eyes) sharply in focus.

[Jim Galli]

The little series that may have generated this discussion or at least fits Brians description pretty well is here. The photos are loaded from my site, so non APUG members won't have any trouble seeing them. #2 is interesting as I recall focusing on the bridge of his nose and he did not move. You can actually see the sacrificed sharp focus at both the tip of his nose and his eyes. Neither are sharp.

[BrianShaw]

Jim, Just to clarify... my question here is certainly not intended to be a critique of your work, especially this series of portraits. I did see it and, yes, there are a couple of example that describe the generic concern/issue I raised.

This series of portraits that you made is definitely a sensitive treatment of a gut-wrenching situation. Having had many members of my family made bald by chemo, I can only assume that I too will eventually be bald. When that happens, can I call you to have a portrait taken?

[Jim Galli]

Jim, Just to clarify... my question here is certainly not intended to be a critique of your work, especially this series of portraits. I did see it and, yes, there are a couple of example that describe the generic concern/issue I raised.

This series of portraits that you made is definitely a sensitive treatment of a gut-wrenching situation. Having had many members of my family made bald by chemo, I can only assume that I too will eventually be bald. When that happens, can I call you to have a portrait taken?

You betcha. But...not for a long, long time.

[Jonathan Brewer]

So much of what you get from a soft focus/portrait lens, is selective focus/the plane of focus going out of focus with a drastic brake, an illusion that the lens is doing most of this when it's there anyway,................the normal lens does that, establish a sharp plane of focus, at wide open that goes OOF, you use a soft focus lens to MESS all this up, and you try impossibly to do it so it looks pleasant, this whole discussion is why the learning curve of these lenses is so tough.

I always found that getting the eyes just right, goes a long way to giving the illusion that the nose is sharper than it really is, the trouble is with a soft focus lens, with no 'carry' at wide open, is tough.

On head and shoulders I tend to shoot wideopen regardless, I'll get close for a tight head, and then if the nose is still out in an objectionable way, I'll pull back some, shoot the head and shoulders for the benefit of depth of field and 'crop in' for the tight head giving me the benefit of the carry on focus from farther away.

In fact I do this almost as a rule with paying clients, taking more chance on the nose and close in, w/my personal work.