8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

[Ron Marshall]

Ron, you're a good sport, but this isn't really a fair quiz. As I said, I don't think it's really possible to determine these things from a small jpeg, and it might be more difficult than some are willing to admit, even when viewing real prints.

I agree; but just for fun, what format and lens were used?

[Jay DeFehr]

Ron,

The film is TMY, the format is 35mm, the lens used was a 58mm f1.2. I think if you do the math, you'll find your guess was pretty close, relatively speaking.

[Ron Marshall]

Ron,

The film is TMY, the format is 35mm, the lens used was a 58mm f1.2. I think if you do the math, you'll find your guess was pretty close, relatively speaking.

The short depth of field led me to the 8x10, but of course f1.2 or thereabouts will also skin that cat.

Nice shot, by the way.

[Ben Syverson]

Indeed, great shot...

On the advice of Christopher Broadbent, I chose a 300mm for 8x10 portraiture. On 4x5 I use 127mm. He's right that a relatively short focal length creates a closer, more intimate feel -- you're as close to the subject as you'd be in conversation. In contrast, a long lens flattens the subject and can feel distant. To me, long lenses (2X normal and above) make the ears look too big, and square off the face in an unflattering way.

Short lenses have other advantages... When I started shooting 8x10 portraits, I thought I was so clever: I positioned the lens at eye level, and used front fall to reduce headspace until the composition looked good. What resulted was a portrait that was as straight and "correct" as an architectural photograph, but felt wrong. Since then I've started tilting the entire camera down, as you would with 35mm, and it has the effect of slimming the body and face, and emphasizing the eyes. That effect is more pronounced with shorter focal lengths.

[Accordionist]

Thank you guys, i have never expected so fast and relevant answers. And when are you posting photographs, could anyone post a photograph of closeup portrait made with
18"+ lens? Just as an example. (because everywhere are only photographs with shorter lenses..) Thank you again....

[Jay DeFehr]

Thank you, gentlemen, for your compliments and graciousness in excusing my little prank. I learn so much from you all, and the work you post is truly inspiring. Before I left home to come back to work here in Alaska, Julia and I exposed and processed 20 8x10 films, but didn't have time to print them before I left. I used two lenses; my 12" Turner Reich, and my 14-1/2" Verito. I wish I had examples I could contribute to this discussion. Both lenses are fairly short, and there's not much difference in FL between them, but they make different kinds of images. I found TMY is too fast to use with my Verito at wide apertures, due to the slow Studio shutter. Almost every sheet exposed with the Verito was overexposed. Next time I'll use ISO 100, or slower film with the Verito. Maybe I'll try some of that Rollei Ortho stuff from Freestyle, or some of that Chinese stuff from eBay, and save my TMY for sharp images. I digress, with apologies.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Richard Avedon in his famous portrait series "In the American West" used a 8x10" camera and a "standard" lens of 360mm.
The camera was located at about 1.80 metre (6 feet) from the subject.
But he framed what we call in France "le portrait Américain" or "le cadrage américain" i.e. not only a tight shot of head & shoulders !

if you want to see the results of using a standard lens at the 1:1 ratio, something in principe forbidden except with a mammoth camera and a focal length of 1 metre / 40 inches (hence at 1/1 with f=1m, the subjet distance is 2 metres same for the bellows draw, but your perspective will be "correct"), you have some examples here with a 7" (178mm) Aero-Ektar used wide open. @F/2.5 By Henri Gaud (this is a kind of provocative and experimental series going againts the good ol rules of what should be a "correct" perspective )
http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie...2010/02/20/Hug

Other examples close to 1:1 standard focal length 210mm in 5x7" (13x18cm) by Laurent Lafolie
http://www.galerie-photo.com/laurent-lafolie.html

An example of a Mammoth camera for portraits at the 1:1 ratio, by Susanna Krauss ; she uses direct reversal B&W paper.
http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Kun...gehbare-Kamera

[Accordionist]

Style of these linked photographs from Laurent Lafolie are exactly what i want to do Than you. So, 360mm will be ok

[mcfactor]

I did some 1:1 with a Caltar 300 f/5.6 and a deardorff this weekend. I took an image of a dead butterfly on the side of the road, that (I believe) was 1:1. And a portrait of my girlfriend that was pretty close to 1:1. The photos look amazing, the issues are: the bellows draw is long and the lens is right in the subject's face. I'll try to post them tonight.

[mcfactor]

Im having trouble embedding images so, here are links to the ones I mentioned: