Can't get shallow enough depth of field!

[SergeiR]

That's why I used the word effects, which I guess means something different to me than it does to you. And lenses absolutely affect this, in the way they transition from the focus plane to the out of focus areas.

But it's likely an effect that only a non-photographer would articulate. Such as my wife, for example. She can pick prints from that lens out of a stack, and she has actually said stuff like, "the faces just project right out of the print"--that's a 3D-effect type of description, don't you think?

Rick "not guessing, even if it is subjective" Denney

And when it happens , if you look really close on print - you will see that it is b/c of light and shadow

I draw this example for same argument ages ago - as you can see, no matter how much you blur lines - it wont help you perceive circle as 3d ball. Shadows and light - will.


visual aid by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

(i need to remake it so lines would be of same lightness as circle.. but it was to illustrate some extra points on how to light things, sorry)

Anyway.. i am just neatpicking. In some level you right. People do often refer to combination of effects as 3D look.

And to answer original question - DOF calculator will help. I posted link before

[Mnmglobal]

At the same aperture, the longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field.

In broad terms, an 80mm f/2 lens has the same depth of field as a 150mm f/4, or a 300mm f/8 - no matter what format is used.

If your background is still too much in focus, move the subject (and yourself) away from the background - or choose a better background.

If it was only that simple I'm trying to get eyes sharp ears and nose soft

[rdenney]

And when it happens , if you look really close on print - you will see that it is b/c of light and shadow

I draw this example for same argument ages ago As you can see, no matter how much you blur lines - it wont help you perceive circle as 3d ball. Shadows and light - will.

visual aid by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

(Edit: Removed semi-snarky remark to thank you for the additional statements you added after quoting the above, with which I agree.)

Our brains interpret depth based on a variety of clues, some of which can only be hinted at on a two-dimensional surface, and the modeling of the light on the subject is just one set of those clues. The selective-focus effect provides a different set of clues, and the rendering of that selective focus makes a difference in how many people perceive it.

Rick "who never said modeling wasn't important, but who did assume it would be the same for all choices of lenses and therefore not a basis for comparing those choices" Denney

[Mnmglobal]

Isn't that a Medium Format film back? Isn't this the Large Format Photography forum?

Yes but it's on a sinar f1 currently so I suppose it's both

[Mnmglobal]

Something is a little fishy if they have access to this level of gear or are getting assignments of this magnitude but so little knowledge of photography....

Didn't realize my knowledge of photography was so little, just not that knowledgable on LF was just hoping to find a solution to a problem
My work taken with such little knowledge of photography can be seen here www.markmannphoto.com

[rdenney]

If it was only that simple I'm trying to get eyes sharp ears and nose soft

The 180mm f/2.8 lens I suggested will do that to a greater extent than the 150mm f/3.5 lens you were using on 4x5. The 80/2 lens won't match a 150/3.5--not quite.

Rick "it really is that simple" Denney

[Mnmglobal]

why don't you use your graflex, but instead of using sheet film
use a roll film adapter and 120 film.
you can buy the film at your location
and just bring your camera in a camera bag as
carry on ...
i have gone to france to visit family a few times over the years
and brought a graflex d and it wasn't any more trouble than bringing a leica.
just have your client pay for processing + skans, it really isn't that expensive considering
you're traveling a distance for them ...

otherwise, practice front focusing your sensor camera, or put a dirty, hazy, filter,
or celluloid, or saran wrap, or dried elmer's glue, or a handmade glass scrim, or pantyhose with a cigarette burn
or smokey glass or ??? until you get the look you want
at the aperture you need to shoot at ... it isn't really that hard (to goof around) to try to recreate a look from another camera ..

good luck!
john

That's a great option and I do have the adapter for medium format film but my 210 lens won't allow me to get back far enought to get the full head in the frame looks great if you just want lips to eyes but thank you!

[Mnmglobal]

yup.

Not fishy just not that experienced in LF

[SergeiR]

Rick - i am a bit dyslexic So sometime it gets me a while to type whole thing, specially when my brain goes into mode where i cant distinguish russian from english, and then i have to retranslate bits of what i typed
Didnt mean to offend anyone in some brutal way

[SergeiR]

That's a great option and I do have the adapter for medium format film but my 210 lens won't allow me to get back far enought to get the full head in the frame looks great if you just want lips to eyes but thank you!

Use exension rings It will move focus points closer. I routinely use rings with 150/2.8 on 645 body to get head shots.