a problematic portrait

[Frank Petronio]

Front tilt wouldn't help you in any way that I can see.

Unless the guy was laying down perpendicular to your camera.

The feet are nearly in the same plane as his face, just keep the camera parallel to him and you'll be fine.

To see a real difference I'd go for a 12" or 300mm lens. Old Kodak Ektars are nice, any of the 1950s-era American lenses in Acme shutters really ~ $150 and go. Old Symmars are fine, as are Xenars. I'd probably worry about the shutter more than the lens!

[D. Bryant]

But I just did the same type of shot with a girl and her rack looked tremendous. YMMV

Frank,

You crack me up some days.

Don Bryant

[sully75]

Front tilt wouldn't help you in any way that I can see.

Sorry to be dense, but I thought I could have the camera high, drop the front, tilt the front standard to be vertically plumb and then have everything in focus?

I'll drop this shortly, thanks for entertaining my questions...

[eddie]

I think this is it. The only issue (I think it's an issue) is that my camera doesn't have front tilt, so it ends up making me stop the lens down a lot tighter than I'd like to get sharpness into the feet.


Thanks
Paul

read what frank says below. use back tilt....not front. also shooting high up and then lowering the front lens board is the same as shooting from a lower angle..... you are defeating the purpose....might as well just shoot from a lower angle.

Front tilt wouldn't help you in any way that I can see.

Unless the guy was laying down perpendicular to your camera.

The feet are nearly in the same plane as his face, just keep the camera parallel to him and you'll be fine.!

Sorry to be dense, but I thought I could have the camera high, drop the front, tilt the front standard to be vertically plumb and then have everything in focus?

I'll drop this shortly, thanks for entertaining my questions...

tilting the camera down and then tilting the back perpendicular is basically like having front tilt.

BUT, i think you should use a longer lens to focus the viewer on the subject and to blur out the background so it is not as distracting.....OR control your back ground so it is not distracting which means no more environmental portraiture..... try a longer lens. you may be surprised.

eddie

[sully75]

Got it. Longer lens. Will have to sell some other junk. Nothing on ebay looked too cheap. Is 300mm the consensus suggestion? I'm happy with this lens for environmental portraiture, money is tight but I'd like to have one lens to be able to do the kind of picture I attempted above.

Thanks
Paul

[Frank Petronio]

General rule is to keep the back (the film) parallel to whatever you think needs to be straight.

Straight verticals (ie wine bottle) = Tilt back straight up and down

Straight horizontals (ie long Walmart facade) = swing back to be parallel to front of the building

Once you get the back right, use rise/fall and shift to get the composition you want.

Of course if you stand right in the middle, you don't need to use any corrective movements at all - and neither would you with your 35mm camera.

THEN you futz around with the front tilt and swings to get optimal focus. But for a lot of things -- other than Ansel Adams landscapes with a sharp foreground and sharp horizon when you use a little front tilt -- there is nothing to do. You just stop the aperture down a lot if you want sharp and leave it open if you want it artsy-fartsy.

[Mark Sawyer]

I tend to find that using swings and tilts for straightening lines always works exactly opposite from what I need for getting things in focus, but that's just because the universe doesn't like me...

What bothers me about the second image is that you seem to look straight on into his torso, up at his face, and down at his feet. That's normal to human vision, but we're only looking at one place at a time in the real world. When you condense it down to a photograph, it's small enough that you can see all three perspectives at once, and that's when things seem off...

A longer lens would help out. I agree with Frank; try a 300mm.

[Henry Ambrose]

Careful when reading all the great comments. Everyone is not using the same words.

Here I use "plumb" to mean perpendicular to the floor or "vertical". As in holding a string with a weight on it - a plumb bob.

If you were shooting the guy standing with a monorail with tons of movements you'd start with the camera level on the leveled tripod head with all movements at zero. (you should always zero any camera when you put it away, so you start out neutral - IMO) The back would be plumb as would the front. You'd point the camera toward the subject by panning the tripod head, then frame by raising the back or dropping the front. You wouldn't have to use both because you'd have plenty of DIRECT adjustment. Or you could use both if you wanted too.

With the camera you own you are probably having to use all the front fall and then point the whole camera down to get the framing you want. (I'm guessing about your camera) When you point the camera down, the front and back become tilted along with the rest of the camera. You can move the back to plumb because it has tilt adjustment. The front standard of your camera does not have tilt so you have to leave it tilted, so his feet are out of focus. If you could plumb the front standard the plane of focus would include his feet with just a little stopping down.

I've only shot a very little 5x7 but I used a 300mm lens and it seemed long. I'd look at a 240 if I were you. (likely perfect for what you are doing) Maybe even a 210 (the difference from a 180 will be noticeable). You might find a 210 for not to much money and likely find it quicker than a 240. There's lots more 210s out there, I think.

[jnantz]

i think mark tucker likes to ( or used to like to ) twist his 4x5 up like a pretzl when
taking portraits, you might go to his website and see some of his work ..

[jp]

You could take some steps back and get the 200-300mm perspective and crop the negative when printing/scanning. If you are using a reasonably fine grain film and not making monster enlargements, that will be fine until you get the lens that's right.

I have a 203mm optar which I like. Other people have Kodak Ektar 203 which is also good. If it doesn't need to fold into the camera, you have many 210-240 choices like Fujinon, Schneider, Nikon, etc... Can't hardly go wrong as long as the shutter is fine. If you are on a budget get something that doesn't need a CLA right away. I'd buy on here first, then KEH, then Ebay.

If you think you might do 5x7 or 8x10 eventually, it might be worth comparing your choices coverage to see if it might be suitable for that work as well, so you don't have to re-purchase if you figure on going that route.