Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: 8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

  1. #1
    Accordionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    27

    8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

    Hello, as I have read and as i have seen on photographs, there is maybe no need for an telephoto lens for 8x10 portraiture work. Is that true? And if yes, WHY? As I have tried with another smaller formats at close distances, there is always a need of using a mid telephoto at minimum for good otput. (6x7, 4x5) Why is it in 8x10 different?

  2. #2
    David de Gruyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    278

    Re: 8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

    Well, you don't have problems getting small depth of field with just about any moderate wide to normal lens in 8x10. (for example, the depth of field of a 240mm lens at f/5.6 is only a couple of inches).

    On the other hand, you do still have to put the camera close to the subject to fill the film.

    Why do you need a telephoto lens for smaller formats? Once you've answered that question, I think we can tell you if you need a long lens or not. Personally, I use the 240mm, but would love a 360 to 450mm lens.

  3. #3
    Accordionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    27

    Re: 8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

    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?

  4. #4
    David de Gruyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    278

    Re: 8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

    Clearly, you have more a problem with this than I do. While the effect is reduced on 8x10, it is still there. The 240mm lens works fine for taking pictures of people, but not so close that the face fills the frame. I am usually far enough back that the upper half of the body is visible (in portrait layout).

    If your intention is to flatten the face, I would recommend using a longer lens. Something in the 450-600mm range.

    Of course, this was why I asked what the problem was.

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,614

    Re: 8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

    If you are sure of what you want for camera position (and therefore perspective), then all formats work the same. The difference you have read about stems from the different way many photographers see the image when using larger formats.

    There are also several practical issues. It takes a 24" lens to give you the same effect as a 180 on 6x7, and those aren't particularly abundant. And not every camera has sufficient draw for a 24" lens focused at 1:2, the magnification of a tight facial portrait on 8x10. That requires around 36" of bellows draw. And then there is depth of field. At the apertures you need for even a little depth of field, you'll need lots of light to allow a short enough shutter speed to be tolerable to the sitter.

    Rick "thinking long telephotos are the domain of smaller formats" Denney

  6. #6
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,729

    Re: 8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

    Perspective on the face (or any subject) is related to subject distance only. So, how far from you subject do you need to be to get your favorite relationship of nose to the rest of the face?? Just put your 8x10 camera at the same subject distance; then select a lens that gives you the angle of view you want.

    Obviously as you focus in close the angle of view changes (thats why the usual conversion factors between formats are just an estimate if you are not at infinity). But this has nothing to do with perspective on the face.

    Also, most 8x10 cameras have bellows long enough to focus a non-telephoto lens in the 'portriat' length range. Which is good because I know that none of the Fuji Teles cover 8x10 at infinity.

  7. #7

    Re: 8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

    "there is maybe no need for an telephoto lens for 8x10 portraiture work. Is that true? And if yes, WHY?"

    It is true, because : they make normal lenses in long focal lengths AND most tele-photo lenses for 8x10 are for aero work at inf.

    It is subject-to-lens distance that changed perspective so place the camera and select the lens you like. For head shots 500mm/20in works well but you need the bellows for it. 600mm/24in starts to flatten the features but can be useful.

    Have fun with the hunt.

  8. #8

    Re: 8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

    I don't know if you want to do waist-up portraiture or headshots. Waist-up you don't need a telephoto for in 8x10; headshots you might.

    I've done full-face work with a 210mm and a 355mm in 8x10, and the perspective distortion problem exists, just as it does in smaller formats. That said, 8x10 work is so static that you can take the time to compose something with a normal lens that minimizes the distortion.

    If you really want a portrait lens in 8x10 to do headshots, there are a couple of 600mm telephotos that would give you the right reproduction ratio at 28" to 36" inches of extension.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Ind.
    Posts
    589

    Re: 8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

    Quote Originally Posted by Accordionist View Post
    Is that because in 8x10 is that actually 1:1?
    To a degree, yes. ic-racer gave the key point "how far from your subject do you need to be to get your favorite relationship of nose to the rest of the face?". If you prefer an 85mm lens with a 35mm camera then your preferred subject distance for a head & shoulders portrait would be approximately 1.5m. I calculate that you will be able to frame the same subject from 1.5m with an 480mm lens on an 8x10 camera.

    Obviously with larger formats you use longer lenses. 1.5m is long compared to an 85mm lens so the lens extends very little when you focus at that distance. 1.5m is not long compared to the 480mm lens and so the bellows must extend significantly from its infinity position to focus there. So at this distance a 480mm lens (2.5X the negative width) does for 8x10, what a 85mm lens (3.5X the negative width) does for 35mm.

    Note also that you seem to be using the term "telephoto" to mean any long lens, while most LF photographers reserve the term for its technical meaning, i.e., a lens designed to be substantially shorter from flange to film than its focal length. This appears to be causing some confusion.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    3,020

    Re: 8x10 and focal lenght for portraiture

    Hello Accordionist,

    When I moved up to LF I shared your concerns about Focal Lengths for portraits. I was familiar with the recommendation that a portrait lens should be 2X the FL of a normal lens for a given format, and then learned of another that suggested the sum of two sides of the format should equal the FL of a portrait lens, for example, 4" + 5" = 9" FL for 4x5 portraits, 8" + 10" = 18" FL for 8x10 portraits, etc. This second rule seems more reasonable than the first, and I've come to appreciate even shorter lenses for portraits, even in smaller formats. Shorter lenses give a rounder look I find more natural and 3 dimensional, but this is a matter of taste, and I tend to include more in the frame with shorter lenses, keeping my lens to subject distance more or less similar whatever FL I'm using. I paid dearly to have a 17-1/2" Kodak Ektar mounted in a Copal shutter believing in the rule I noted above, and I find I use that lens very rarely, preferring the looks I get from my 12" Turner Reich, and my 14-1/2" Verito lenses. I have since added a 16" Turner Reich, but haven't used it much, yet. Keep an open mind, and experiment. Above all, enjoy yourself!

Similar Threads

  1. Shortest Focal Length for 8x10 Film
    By felix5616 in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16-Apr-2010, 15:02
  2. 8x10 SLR with Graflex Focal Plane shutter
    By Henry Suryo in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 22-Mar-2009, 10:26
  3. good focal length for 8x10 portraiture
    By nick rowan in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-Mar-2001, 21:15
  4. Coverage of short focal length lens on 8x10 at close focusing
    By Scott A. Wells in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-Aug-2000, 11:42
  5. Good focal length lens for 8x10 still life photography?
    By Ron Whitaker in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 4-Mar-2000, 00:48

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •