Portrait lens focal length for 4x5: distortion, FOV and focusing distance

[jb7]

There won't be any distortion-
it's just perspective...

[ic-racer]

How about A pair of Fuji 300Ts. Flange Flocal distance 195mm.

[Maris Rusis]

There is another way to approach "distortion free" portraits. It does not start with the camera or lens but rather the distance.

When you look at good portraits they often seem to have been taken from the same distance. This is the distance from which two strangers look at each other when they are being attentive, interested, engaged, and respectful. They are close but not close enough to invade personal space. At this distance the proportions of the face, the nose to ear ratio, the neck to forehead proportions, and so on, look right. The "face looks right" thing is probably instinctive among humans who are used to looking at other humans.

The distance is about 1.5 metres.

In my studio I set this distance and use a long lens if I want a tight face portrait and a short lens if I want more of the body. Remember, anything closer than about 1.5 metres will look "bigger than it is" and anything further away will look "too small". That's where the apparent distortion comes from; not the lens. The 1.5 metre rule seems to work for me irrespective of film, lens, camera, or format.

[cjbroadbent]

Hurrah for Maris! He's got the words to say it right. That's another skill I envy.

[Robert Fisher]

Maris, does your 1.5 meter rule apply to still life's?

There is another way to approach "distortion free" portraits. It does not start with the camera or lens but rather the distance.

When you look at good portraits they often seem to have been taken from the same distance. This is the distance from which two strangers look at each other when they are being attentive, interested, engaged, and respectful. They are close but not close enough to invade personal space. At this distance the proportions of the face, the nose to ear ratio, the neck to forehead proportions, and so on, look right. The "face looks right" thing is probably instinctive among humans who are used to looking at other humans.

The distance is about 1.5 metres.

In my studio I set this distance and use a long lens if I want a tight face portrait and a short lens if I want more of the body. Remember, anything closer than about 1.5 metres will look "bigger than it is" and anything further away will look "too small". That's where the apparent distortion comes from; not the lens. The 1.5 metre rule seems to work for me irrespective of film, lens, camera, or format.

[community1313]

..Besides I have to mention the Soft Focus/Bokeh..Short depth of field effect that we mostly love in portraits and the main reason why I prefer a 10 inch/240mm lens for head and shoulders portrait but having a small studio I also use a 8 inch/180 mm to get more in the frame and I would not go for a longer focal for practical reason on a 4X5, bellow extention, weight, and if you want a modern lens I recommend Rodenstock over schneider for portraits as it as more gradients and a nice bokeh..actually the sharpest lens I have is a Sinar 180 macro on a copal 1 shutter, small lens and amazing in all terms even in the out of focus background, otherwise a 6 inch petzval will be cheap and a lot of nice swirls but no shutter..I think you need to now what kind of portraits you want to do and to remember like everyone here said: it's a large neg and you have a lot of space for composition!

[Ken Lee]

"When you look at good portraits they often seem to have been taken from the same distance".

Maris, this is an excellent observation - Could you point us to some portraits which you admire ?

[r.e.]

The distance is about 1.5 metres.

Does that distance really fit the theory? When people stand talking, they don't naturally stand 1.5m or 5' apart. People who make dining room tables, at which a good part of our daily conversation takes place, don't make them 1.5m/5' wide.

If I accept the theory, I think that the correct distance is no more than a meter and commonly less, which means that the proposed distance is off by at least 50%. So what is the truth of this?

I think that the proposed distance may have mostly to do with some photographers' comfort zones. I once took a lighting class at which the instructor had to encourage the participants, almost all of whom were keeping their distance from the model, to get closer. The problem, whatever it was, was in the heads of the student photographers, not the model. On the near side, I've done photographs of people with the lens less than a meter away, and I've seen film footage of Richard Avedon doing the same. I do agree that closer is better, but for me it has to do with establishing communication with the subject, not with a theory that sounds enticing but which on the face of it does not square with the facts of human interaction. Who knows, perhaps Maris and Christopher are right, and there is so much latitude in how our brains interpret perspective that a 50% error isn't noticeable. If so, then the question is, at what point is it noticeable?

[theBDT]

I've always had friends, people, etc. comment that my portraits and headshots look distorted or "not quite right" if I get in closer than about 6 feet. Indeed, 1.5 meters, 6 feet, somewhere in this general vicinity is a widely accepted view (I have read it from more than one source). I think it is, generally, a very applicable, educated rule.

The rationale I've read is that it takes about 6 feet to view a person from head-to-toe; that is the distance at which the human mind tends to visualize other people.

Reguardless if the rationale I've provided is correct or not, the rule itself is valid. I'm surprised at how many "experienced" people in this thread were not aware of it. If you type in the words "subject distance portrait" into google, then like hurling a dead cat, you will invariably run into posts from different boards discussing how the proper distance begins somewhere at 5 or 6 feet. I've read this rule in more than one portrait photography book (oh, please no one go making me look it up!)...

Like all rules, it can be broken in the name of creativity, IF you know what you're doing. And again, like all rules, if you break it haphazardly, you risk producing a poor image.

[Gordon Moat]

http://www.platonphoto.com/portraits...ics/index.html

This very successful photographer, would seem to dispel any notion of a fixed distance being the "best" choice. I really think it depends more upon the subject, than the lens and distance. There is a comfort zone, but that differs between Europeans, Asians, and Americans, so that aspect is more cultural than formulaic.

Avedon early in his career felt he was controlling the subject. Then later he felt that the subject had taken control of the image. Nearer the end of his career he stated that he learned there was an interaction and interplay between the subject and photographer; neither was really in control of the situation.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography