8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

[John Berry]

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....

This might be what some are looking for.
10" TTHC Series II
11.5 verito
305 kodak portrait
19" red dot Artar

[John Berry]

Reverse 1&2

[Daniel Unkefer]

I Like to use a 59cm Zeiss Apo Planar for 8x10 portraiture. It does tend to provide an extremely pleasant perspective. Bellows extension tends to be great, but my Sinar Norma is infinitely extendable, so it's not an issue.

Now I have even longer lenses, including a 760mm F11 Apo Ronar. That should be great for tight facial portraiture.

[jnantz]

i think it all depends what you want your portrait to look like.
and how close you want to be to your subject.
cropped tight head / shoulders longer than 14" on a 8x10 ...
14" is about right for a 5x7. more environment / setting
wider lens ...

[charleshenryosborne@netxe]

Why? Due the perpective. When i try to take a close up portratit photograph with 6x7 and 110mm normal lens, the face will look very ugly. But when I use 180mm mid telephoto lens, everithing looks fine. When i have tried this with 4x5 this efect was still there. (but a little bit less - maybe due the symetric construction) I have just found on photo.net this sentence: One of the strange things about 8x10 is that you don't need your portrait lens to be twice the length of normal if what you're want are to avoid bulbuous noses and have a pleasantly blurry background. And how can you "avoid bulbuous noses" without changing the perpective? Is that because in 8x10 is that actually 1:1?

Quite right, and all the books say that the right length for head and shoulders to fill the image is about 1.5 x normal, or a bit more--at 8 feet from subject.

One of the Deardorff boys published an article years ago about correct perspective (what the eye sees) and gave this formula. Regardless of format or other proportions, for any picture to give normal perspective, multiply the focal length of the lens (I will use inches) by the degree of enlargement of the end photograph. For instance, a 14" lens on 8x10 would give correct perspective of a face (or anything else), without oversized nose and small ears, etc., if printed x1 (14" print) and viewed at 14". Seen at 5 inches it will take on the wide-angle distortions, and seen at 3 or 4 feet it will lose sense of depth and become flatter.

This works when I experiment with it, but professional portrait studios take negatives to be printed at all sizes--and so do most photographers. Since learning about the Deardorff formula, I have taken into account how the photo will be printed and shown, when I choose the lens. Most of my work is merely shown as 8x10 or 11x14 by hand, so the perspective is normal at 1x. Note that the same shot on the 14" lens but with 4x5 film would be enlarged 2x--so it is normal only when you back up twice as far.

The formula works also in 35mm (smaller lens but greater enlargement).

If you want to hang a large photo, sofa-size, you might hang it behind a piano (or sofa and table) so that people must stand the proper distance to look at it. If you want a portrait to sit on a desk at around 3 feet, try the formula.

This ruins the idea that a short lens distorts perspective (long one too). It is all a question of how close or far you are from the final print when you look. A very wide angle shot may (if your eyes can focus) look rather normal at 3 or four inches, preferably with the print curved around your face.

[rdenney]

One of the Deardorff boys published an article years ago about correct perspective (what the eye sees) and gave this formula. Regardless of format or other proportions, for any picture to give normal perspective, multiply the focal length of the lens (I will use inches) by the degree of enlargement of the end photograph. For instance, a 14" lens on 8x10 would give correct perspective of a face (or anything else), without oversized nose and small ears, etc., if printed x1 (14" print) and viewed at 14". Seen at 5 inches it will take on the wide-angle distortions, and seen at 3 or 4 feet it will lose sense of depth and become flatter.

Given that the print is planar and the elements portrayed keep their same relative size, I think this would be hard for me to swallow. And it doesn't seem to match my own experience of looking at prints.

But I agree that people look most natural when viewed from a distance of 6-8 feet. Given that distance, the choice of focal length is really just a choice of how much of the surrounding terrain one wants in the picture.

Rick "for whom the wide-angle effect is only apparent when the camera is close to the subject, not when the viewer is close to the print" Denney

[Asher Kelman]

This might be what some are looking for.
10" TTHC Series II
11.5 verito
305 kodak portrait
19" red dot Artar

The 19" RDA looks the most real!

Asher