perspective on 8*10?

[Ole Tjugen]

No, perspective is determined by the position of the lens entrance pupil.

Focussing with the lens standard changes perspective but not scale; focussing with the film standard changes scale but not perspective.

[Peter K]

No, perspective is determined by the position of the lens entrance pupil.

Focussing with the lens standard changes perspective but not scale; focussing with the film standard changes scale but not perspective.

This is only true with the hypercentric perspective with a loupe. The telescope and the camera uses the entocentric perspective. So the most far subject looks smaller as the same subject not so far away.

The image formed by a lens on the film in a camera is a perspective projection of the scene viewed by the entrance pupil of the lens. But the perspective can be controlled in the camera by use of the various camera movements. The principle is the same for all movements of the back of the camera, also the distance from the subject.

[Helen Bach]

There has been a thread (or more) about this before,
I can't remember if it was one I dug up myself, or if it was a recent one-

It makes sense that it is the entrance pupil that determines perspective,
at least for the in-focus areas-

It's already been answered by Ole and Peter (with slightly different meanings of the word 'perspective') but it applies to the whole image, not just the in-focus areas. In fact that's why it is the entrance pupil and not the front nodal point.

Best,
Helen

[audioexcels]

I don't see why "any" lens that is not some super wide on an 8X10 cannot be considered a portrait lens. Bellows is there for macro work and can be used to make portrait type shots with shorter focal lengths than "classic/traditional" lengths used on 35mm. At the same time, I have shot portraits with 21mm lenses on 35mm, and would consider a 35-50mm lens as plenty long enough for portrait based work.

You can always crop out whatever you don't want from the final image to give it more rectangular type shape=portraiture to me, or you can even do 8X8 for total square format if you like the absolute square aka Hassy type of shot.

There's many ways of approaching it, though if you are absolutely dead set on one focal length, one shooting distance, bellows used at a specific distance, etc. etc. then you would be best shooting with a Fujinon 600C...

[erie patsellis]

Hmm, I was thinking 19" Artar, mostly because I have one sitting here. Just goes to show, ask 10 photographers opinions on something, you'll get 11 answers.


erie

[Don Hutton]

I don't see why "any" lens that is not some super wide on an 8X10 cannot be considered a portrait lens.

It's because different focal lenghs render perspective in dramatically different ways. Some of these are less flattering than others. Do some reading - there is so much information available there's no reason to remain ignorant.

At the same time, I have shot portraits with 21mm lenses on 35mm, and would consider a 35-50mm lens as plenty long enough for portrait based work.

If you like portraits of people with huge noses and tiny ears, perhaps a wide angle may be suitable - you'd be in the extreme minority with that sort of choice. Most photographers avoid wides because they increase the relative size of foreground subject matter which tend not to render subjects in a flattering way... It has nothing to do with having to crop or not crop.

There's many ways of approaching it, though if you are absolutely dead set on one focal length, one shooting distance, bellows used at a specific distance, etc. etc. then you would be best shooting with a Fujinon 600C...

I've actually used the Fuji 600C lens for portraiture - I'd never recommend it - it's slow (so focus is pretty tough under studio conditions especially if you get a lot of bellows extension) and very sharp in an almost harsh way - very unflattering in general.

My current favorite portrait lens for 8x10 is the 305mm Kodak Portrait lens - cheap, fast, in an Ilex 5 shutter and has excellent oomph. It's probably a little shorter than I would prefer for portraiture on 8x10 (it's pretty much perfect on whole plate), but it's other features win the day for me.

[stehei]

ok, so there is no difference in the use of lens/distance just because it is 8*10 inch?
So a 50mm in 35mm for total shots, 70mm for shoulder shots, 85 for head shots.

I originally came to this question because I made a shoulder shot with a 12,5 inch wollensak which I expected to be less flattering in perspective than it turned out.
but that's just me, no difference in the fysics of the matter

gladly the wollensak is a convertible, so I have a 20 inch at hand too Needs a
lot of bellows!

thanks for all the info,

stefan