Actually I think these photos make the point, particularily with Obama's closeup, how a large nose can change your sense of attractiveness/characature of the subject.
Course we dont really know distance from focal length from cropping with these photos.
Most subjects don't like a big nose, light modeling be damned.
Regards
Bill
Originally Posted by Gordon Moat
There seems to be a dichotomy here-
That's a very good example of the Portrait, Gordon-
and thanks for posting it, I had lost that bookmark ages ago...
In the terms of the original post, it's obvious that he's not looking to get up close-
his pictures are meant to flatter, and distortion was perhaps the wrong term to use,
in the context of a question concerning optics.
If the job at hand is to find a formula for a correct distance to subject, I'm sure you can read it in a book, or find it in google, as has been preached-
but it's a poor substitute for looking, making your own interpretation, and portraying.
Yes, it is likely to change with the subject, and what you want to say about them-
I suppose the knee high picture of Clinton is saying something less than statesmanlike about him, for example-
not seeking to flatter...
I would applaud those sitters for allowing the photographer to make the pictures he wanted to make-
the world would be a very boring place if everybody followed the same formula-
often it's the riskier pictures that are the more rewarding.
Strange how some people think that there's only one way to do things,
and call others ignorant if they don't comply-
However, this isn't an answer to the original question-
which was about translating specific focal lengths from small format to large format,
for specific crops-
You know, it's hard to interpret that statement other than a crass shot at some of the people who have commented in this thread. Nobody called anybody ignorant, and hopefully we are all mature enough to take the expression of an opinion, expressed in good faith as part of a personal aesthetic view, for what it is, and to recognize that the person who expresses the opinion is not so stupid as to believe in artistic absolutes. Sometimes the clear expression of a view, uncomplicated by the baggage of layer on layer of nuance, helps people think through the issue and crystalize their thinking.
If the above comment was completely theoretical, unrelated to anything said in this thread, then what is the point beyond setting up a straw man for the pleasure of ridiculing straw?
Arca-Swiss 8x10/4x5 | Mamiya 6x7 | Leica 35mm | Blackmagic Ultra HD Video
Sound Devices audio recorder, Schoeps & DPA mikes
Mac Studio/Eizo with Capture One, Final Cut, DaVinci Resolve, Logic
"uneducated", if you prefer.
The OP asked the question "... Do I have other options, or is there something I'm missing as an LF newbie? ....." So basically I wanted to point out other options.
Specifically with equipment, there is only so much detail needed in a face for most viewers to take in that it is indeed a face. So I think cropping is a great choice when faced with limited gear (different lens than you wanted). Arnold Newman is a great example of someone who cropped, because he didn't have that many lenses early in his career:
http://www.arnoldnewmanarchive.com/
Of course the extreme would be Chuck Close, who printed quite huge at times. There are also some portrait specialists who still use 8x10, often to very interesting effect. So unless one has a commission doing only head shots, I think a different approach might be the way to go, but crop when needed.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
With the threat of stepping on a landmine: if the suggestion is to crop an LF image to get "proper" focal length, why don't I just stick with MF? Sure, getting from 4x5" to 6x6cm would be pretty drastic cropping, but still...
I affirmed in the positive, that knowing the rule is an educated stance. I never called anyone uneducated, I believe.
I also EXPLICITLY mentioned that the "rule" can and should be broken creatively, but that knowing the rule BEFORE breaking it leads to better results—a statement that also applies to rule of thirds, or almost any generally accepted "rule" in photography.
If you don't like the tone of my posts or what I'm "implying" please say so directly. No need to dance around the issue only to actually say what you mean when someone else calls you out on it...
Harri,
There is no point in making portraits in 4x5 rather than 6x6 unless you want 20 square inches of negative rather than 5 square inches, and have a clear idea why you want it, plus an understanding of the disadvantages over smaller formats, which are considerable.
Nobody is suggesting that you shoot 4x5 in order to lop off 15 square inches of negative, and one of the issues in this discussion that is not exactly the subject of a consensus is the very idea of a "proper" focal length.
Arca-Swiss 8x10/4x5 | Mamiya 6x7 | Leica 35mm | Blackmagic Ultra HD Video
Sound Devices audio recorder, Schoeps & DPA mikes
Mac Studio/Eizo with Capture One, Final Cut, DaVinci Resolve, Logic
The crop would be more like 75mm by 110mm using a 240mm lens at 1m distance. However, I do think that if you are fine with medium format, especially for portraits that do not need much detail, then there is little point in you switching to 4x5.
Without using movements, your main advantage using 4x5 is that the larger negative allows you to make bigger final prints. If the maximum print you are doing is 32cm by 40cm (roughly), then there is almost no point to using 4x5 over medium format, even 6x4.5. What large format allows is much larger prints, and movements. I believe in using a format for the advantages it allows.
Yes-
However, before you edited your original post, the word 'educated' was written in all caps,
and the implication of the negative was clear.
The 'dancing around' began there.
Whatever your views, it was an unnecessary qualification, loaded with the capacity to offend and belittle those holding different opinions.
Though maybe I should have taken your reconsidered sentiment into account,
and just ignored it.
I see you have a habit of shouting particular words, so perhaps I just read it the wrong way.
I won't be adding more to this, unless it's on topic,
but I would expect not to have to deal with double standards here.
Apologies for veering off topic-
as r.e. quite rightly said-
"Sometimes the clear expression of a view, uncomplicated by the baggage of layer on layer of nuance, helps people think through the issue and crystalize their thinking."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks