11x14, 600mm, portraits

[John NYC]

Opinions about shooting portraits with this gear?

- 11x14 Chamomix
- Fujinon C 600mm f/12.5

Would the bellows draw be sufficient? Does the Fuji have a pleasing rendition of OOF areas? I know it would be modern but that is my aim.

[karl french]

I would think you'd want something closer to a 450 for portraits. Sort of like how a 300 ends up working very well for portraits with an 8x10.

[John NYC]

I would think you'd want something closer to a 450 for portraits. Sort of like how a 300 ends up working very well for portraits with an 8x10.

Yes I could see that. But wanted to know if the longer is even a realistic option.

Seems like at 450mm the Fuji would not be excellent. I often frame people not in the center and on my 8x10, the Fuji is noticeably soft outside the center sweet spot. Or maybe the sweet spot is just so wicked sharp the other areas of the frame are duller by comparison.

Maybe it would not make a bit of difference on a contact print anyway. Probably should not have sold my 450.

[Mark Sampson]

Portraits with a 600 will take a lot of bellows... and as your reproduction ratio approaches 1:1 your effective f/stop gets smaller too. I'm sure you know that already. But if you have enough extension, studio space, and strobe power, you should get some spectacular results. I'd like to try something like that myself someday, so I say go for it.

[36cm2]

Interesting thread John. What sparks this interest? Did you get tempted back toward ULF by that 8x10 vs 4x5 thread? If you end up doing this, I'd love to see the results. Wouldn't mind seeing that Chamonix in action either. Good luck.
Leo

[John NYC]

Interesting thread John. What sparks this interest? Did you get tempted back toward ULF by that 8x10 vs 4x5 thread? If you end up doing this, I'd love to see the results. Wouldn't mind seeing that Chamonix in action either. Good luck.
Leo

Yeah I got a 4x5 again already. But I am really intrigued to try 11x14 as I have moved almost exclusively to B&W for film work, and I have settled on working with smaller print sizes. So 11x14 contacts MIGHT actually be doable in my little apartment. Looking at the bathroom (darkroom) everyday to see if I am crazy or not. :-)

[jnantz]

hi john

don't forget with that long lens you will need a lot of space between you and your subject.
i use a wolly triple ( 13/20/25 ) and often shoot 11x14 portraits with the 20" ( 500-510mm )
its good for tight cropped images. last night i used the 13" ( 330 ) and it worked out pretty well.

have fun !
john

[John NYC]

hi john

don't forget with that long lens you will need a lot of space between you and your subject.
i use a wolly triple ( 13/20/25 ) and often shoot 11x14 portraits with the 20" ( 500-510mm )
its good for tight cropped images. last night i used the 13" ( 330 ) and it worked out pretty well.

have fun !
john

Yes. The working space is not quite as much of an issue in my place. But how far away do you need to be for just at the waist level up?

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

If you are doing just waist up you can easily get by with a shorter lens, a 450mm or even a 360mm. At ULF magnification ratios for portraits a slightly wide (say a 360mm) ends up acting like a much longer lens. I used a 360mm f5.6 Symmar for 11x14 head and shoulders and was very pleased with its rendering.

[John NYC]

Interesting Jason. That is somewhere around 35mm equivalent on 35mm film. How close to the subject were you to get head and shoulders with that? If closer than 5 feet, I can't see how you did not get some noticeable distortion.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Thinking in terms of 35mm lenses is a mistake because 35mm rarely runs into magnification issues (AKA bellows factor), especially in portraiture.

At a 1:2 ratio your 360mm lens becomes effectively a 540mm, and at 1:1 it is a 720mm. The closer you move your camera to the subject the longer it becomes. Odd, but true. I don't know what 5ft translates to using a 360mm lens with 11x14, but I would imagine it is pretty close to 1:2.

[John NYC]

I don't know what 5ft translates to using a 360mm lens with 11x14, but I would imagine it is pretty close to 1:2.

Yes, this is what I really want to know... If the lens was 5 feet from the subject (using 600mm and 11x14) what framing would this be of the subject? Same question for 7 and 10 feet away.

[John NYC]

Yes, this is what I really want to know... If the lens was 5 feet from the subject (using 600mm and 11x14) what framing would this be of the subject? Same question for 7 and 10 feet away.

Actually, I found a great solution to my problem... using the Viewfinder Pro app on my iPhone.

Can anyone give me the true image area dimensions of 11x14 film?

[Monty McCutchen]

91529John,

One of the interesting things about the ULF is as you move up in format what is considered wide angle does not render distortion on faces as does in 35mm. Wisner wrote an article years ago about the anomaly that you might find on line. All of my head and shoulders on my 20 x 24 are shot with 550 Schneider Fine Art lens. Many of the two times life size that you see done on the 20 x 24 Polaroid are done with a 355 G-Glaron inches from their face. This old picture I've posted in several threads (please forgive the re-post) exemplifies the point. 20 x 24 with the above mentioned Schneider 550 wide open f-11 about 20 inches from the my son's face. This photo is bigger than he is I would say about 1 and half life size. As you can see there is no distortion at all. Look for shorter focal lengths and you also save on bellows reciprocity failure due to the lesser bellows extension to get to your desired 1:1 ratio, thus making your sitter less likely to move over long exposures.

Hope that helps,

Monty

[Monty McCutchen]

Sorry John,

Jason beat me to the point! There's an example anyway for you.

good luck,

Monty

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I often use shorter lenses for portraits as well. With my 11x14 I use a 15" Darlot. Now generally this is done with my Century 8A Studio camera and I have plenty of bellows to work with.

As far as bathroom developing goes I do everything in mine up to and including 14x17. Space problems in my two bedroom apartment you bet but I just deal with it somehow. Go for it.

[John NYC]

91529John,

One of the interesting things about the ULF is as you move up in format what is considered wide angle does not render distortion on faces as does in 35mm. Wisner wrote an article years ago about the anomaly that you might find on line. All of my head and shoulders on my 20 x 24 are shot with 550 Schneider Fine Art lens. Many of the two times life size that you see done on the 20 x 24 Polaroid are done with a 355 G-Glaron inches from their face. This old picture I've posted in several threads (please forgive the re-post) exemplifies the point. 20 x 24 with the above mentioned Schneider 550 wide open f-11 about 20 inches from the my son's face. This photo is bigger than he is I would say about 1 and half life size. As you can see there is no distortion at all. Look for shorter focal lengths and you also save on bellows reciprocity failure due to the lesser bellows extension to get to your desired 1:1 ratio, thus making your sitter less likely to move over long exposures.

Hope that helps,

Monty

I know the distortion seems LESS as you move up in formats, but at least in 8x10, I still did see distortion quite significantly when you came in close enough to get head and shoulders with a 14" lens.

So, the general consensus is that 450mm would get me to head and shoulders on 11x14 with no distortion of noses, shot straight on? Using ViewFinder Pro, this tells me I would be 24" or so away from the subject to get a head and shoulders framing. That just doesn't sound right to me.

[C. D. Keth]

Yes, this is what I really want to know... If the lens was 5 feet from the subject (using 600mm and 11x14) what framing would this be of the subject? Same question for 7 and 10 feet away.

It's pretty easy math, just algebra and trig.

At 5 feet you'll need 989mm of bellows out, 7 feet will need 834mm, and 10 feet will need 747mm.

Using a little trig, those translate to diagonal angles of view of 25.6 degrees, 30.2 degrees, and 33.6 degrees. Compare those to the 41 degree angle of view of that same 600mm lens at infinity

Look those up on a table and they're equivalent to something like a 95mm, an 80mm, and maybe a 75mm on 35mm film.


Edit: One quick addition. with the chamonix's maximum bellows draw of 850mm, you could focus a 600mm lens in to about 2 meters (2040mm calculated)

[John NYC]

It's pretty easy math, just algebra and trig.

At 5 feet you'll need 989mm of bellows out, 7 feet will need 834mm, and 10 feet will need 747mm.

Using a little trig, those translate to diagonal angles of view of 25.6 degrees, 30.2 degrees, and 33.6 degrees. Compare those to the 41 degree angle of view of that same 600mm lens at infinity

Look those up on a table and they're equivalent to something like a 95mm, an 80mm, and maybe a 75mm on 35mm film.


Edit: One quick addition. with the chamonix's maximum bellows draw of 850mm, you could focus a 600mm lens in to about 2 meters (2040mm calculated)

Great info. Thank you!

[C. D. Keth]

Great info. Thank you!

Very welcome. Just note that was all done with the thin lens formula. Since real lenses have distance between front and rear nodes and some other things, there is a small amount of wiggle room in those calculations. They're far better than a guess but they're also not going to be millimeter for millimeter accurate in the real world.

[Ken Lee]

Given a 600mm lens and a distance of 2040 mm, how much magnification do we get ?

M = F / (D-F)
where M = magnification ratio, D = distance, F = focal length

F = 600mm
D = 2040mm

M = 600 / (2040-600)
M= 600 / 1440

Magnification = 41%

Given 11x14 inch film, your subject size will be 27 by 34 inches in size: head and shoulders if the camera can shoot in vertical orientation.

[Corran]

91529Look for shorter focal lengths and you also save on bellows reciprocity failure due to the lesser bellows extension to get to your desired 1:1 ratio

Quick question. I've read this statement a number of times, and it confuses me. Assuming we have a 12" and a 16" lens, both giving a life-size repro at 1:1. For the 12" lens we'd need 24" of bellows draw, and for the 16", we need 32". Using the formula for bellows extension compensation - (bellows draw / focal length)^2 , both of these lenses focused at 1:1 would have the same compensation factor (4), right? Therefore, there should be no difference with a wider lens in regard to the amount of compensation, at the same magnification ratio.

[Drew Wiley]

I dunno about 11X14, but I gotta take exception to what John said. The 450 Fuji has huge coverage and absolutely nothing
is "soft" off-center on 8x10 film size. Such results might be from film sagging in the holder. It sure ain't the lens' fault! It's
a spectacularly sharp lens clear across the field of coverage. The 600 is nearly as good, just has a tad more vibration risk due
to the bigger shutter. Both are utter overkill in terms of detail rendition. But it would seem to my way of seeing 600 would be better suited to portrait use than 450 on 11X14, namely, it would get you in closer. I think "normal" focal lengths are way too wide for this kind of application. Might be a little harder to focus a long lens if your arms are short however!

[John NYC]

Given a 600mm lens and a distance of 2040 mm, how much magnification do we get ?

M = F / (D-F)
where M = magnification ratio, D = distance, F = focal length

F = 600mm
D = 2040mm

M = 600 / (2040-600)
M= 600 / 1440

Magnification = 41%

Given 11x14 inch film, your subject size will be 27 by 34 inches in size: head and shoulders if the camera can shoot in vertical orientation.

If I plug in numbers for a 35mm camera, an 85mm lens gets you about the same magnification. That doesn't seem right to me.

[John NYC]

I dunno about 11X14, but I gotta take exception to what John said. The 450 Fuji has huge coverage and absolutely nothing
is "soft" off-center on 8x10 film size. Such results might be from film sagging in the holder. It sure ain't the lens' fault!

Looking at some of my negs... It might have been the varying distances of the buildings I was shooting in the urban landscapes that caused this effect.

[Ken Lee]

If I plug in numbers for a 35mm camera, an 85mm lens gets you about the same magnification. That doesn't seem right to me.

As a quick rule of thumb, 450mm is normal length on 11x14, and 600mm is portrait length: 3/2 x normal. On a 35mm camera, 3/2 normal length is 75mm - but that's a crude approximation.

We need to be careful when comparing formats of different aspect ratio. See Rui Salgueiro's field of view calculator (http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html). I always consider horizontal rather than diagonal measurement.

Christopher's calculation of 2040 mm distance is correct.

1/F = 1/D + 1/B
where F = focal length, D = distance, B = Bellows Draw

F = 600mm, B = 850mm

1/600 = 1/D + 1/850
1/D = 1/600 - 1/850
1/D = 0.0017 - 0.0012
1/D = 0.0005
D = 2000mm, which is exactly what Christopher got, with greater precision than my calculation.

[Monty McCutchen]

Quick question. I've read this statement a number of times, and it confuses me. Assuming we have a 12" and a 16" lens, both giving a life-size repro at 1:1. For the 12" lens we'd need 24" of bellows draw, and for the 16", we need 32". Using the formula for bellows extension compensation - (bellows draw / focal length)^2 , both of these lenses focused at 1:1 would have the same compensation factor (4), right? Therefore, there should be no difference with a wider lens in regard to the amount of compensation, at the same magnification ratio.


You got the wrong guy!! My Literature degree precludes me from answering this! I'm mathematically hopeless. All I know for my wet plate images when I use that 12 inch lens and the necessary two feet of bellows draw and then switch to longer lenses the Dallmeyer 3A for example with the same f-stop my exposure are longer. I look forward to hearing the math from others but that has been my experiential knowledge base that I mentioned above.

Monty

[C. D. Keth]

Christopher's calculation of 2040 mm distance is correct.

Thanks for checking me. It's been a while since I did any amount of optical math.



If I plug in numbers for a 35mm camera, an 85mm lens gets you about the same magnification. That doesn't seem right to me.

These calculations won't work well for 35mm type lenses. These equations are for "thin lenses" which have the front and the rear node in the same place. In reality, this is almost never the case, though. View camera lenses aren't usually that far from a thin lens but a 35mm type lens is, as are tele design lenses for view cameras. Since 35mm cameras don't usually use a bellows to focus and since the flange focal depth must always be the same, they are designed so the lens nodes are in strange places. The formula should tell you the right numbers but interpreting them can be very difficult.



Quick question. I've read this statement a number of times, and it confuses me. Assuming we have a 12" and a 16" lens, both giving a life-size repro at 1:1. For the 12" lens we'd need 24" of bellows draw, and for the 16", we need 32". Using the formula for bellows extension compensation - (bellows draw / focal length)^2 , both of these lenses focused at 1:1 would have the same compensation factor (4), right? Therefore, there should be no difference with a wider lens in regard to the amount of compensation, at the same magnification ratio.

Bryan, you're right. If you're shooting identical magnification with two different focal lengths, the bellows compensation will be the same. The likelihood of the longer lens simply being slower is pretty good, though.

[Corran]

Okay, that's what I thought. I've seen it stated that larger formats inherently have more bellows compensation by virtue of the longer lenses, which seems completely wrong to me. Assuming, as Ken mentioned, a standard prime lens, non-tele design, for the given Field of View and magnification amount (which will be the same regardless of 4x5 or 20x24, using equivalent lenses), bellows compensation should stay constant.

This concept of longer extension changing the FoV or whatever might be the cause of this statement??

[C. D. Keth]

This concept of longer extension changing the FoV or whatever might be the cause of this statement??

That one is true. Imagine a normal lens focused at infinity. It will be throwing something like a 45 degree cone of light out the back and onto the film. As you focus closer, the lens is still throwing that same angular cone of light (we know this because a lens gives greater room for movements as we focus closer than infinity) but the film, being further away, is using less and less of that cone. Just picture that the angle between the edges of the film and the lens in back of the lens is roughly the same as the angle of view in front of the lens.

[Corran]

Right, I understand all of that, but what about the broad statement of larger formats (and longer lenses) having inherently more bellows extension compensation factors? Shouldn't a 150mm lens on 4x5, 300mm lens on 8x10, and a 450mm lens on 11x14, all focused to the same magnification ratio, all have the same FoV and bellows compensation amount?

[C. D. Keth]

Right, I understand all of that, but what about the broad statement of larger formats (and longer lenses) having inherently more bellows extension compensation factors? Shouldn't a 150mm lens on 4x5, 300mm lens on 8x10, and a 450mm lens on 11x14, all focused to the same magnification ratio, all have the same FoV and bellows compensation amount?

At the same stop, yeah they should, with error due to those focal lengths not being exactly, perfectly equivalent. In reality, though, if you were to set up the same frame of the same subject with those three cameras and lenses, you would not be using the same magnifications nor the same stops.

[John NYC]

Ken and C.D., thanks for those clarifications on the magnification calculations.

[Corran]

Well, yes I suppose given DOF considerations you'd likely be at a smaller stop, and 11x14 isn't the same ratio as 4x5/8x10 (so substitute a 600mm lens on a 16x20 camera for the third camera), but that's not really the point - Would they or would they not have the same "bellows extension factor" when focused on the same object, say, 15 feet in front of them, and would they not also have the same magnification amount?

[C. D. Keth]

Well, yes I suppose given DOF considerations you'd likely be at a smaller stop, and 11x14 isn't the same ratio as 4x5/8x10 (so substitute a 600mm lens on a 16x20 camera for the third camera), but that's not really the point - Would they or would they not have the same "bellows extension factor" when focused on the same object, say, 15 feet in front of them, and would they not also have the same magnification amount?

They would not have the same magnification amount if you wanted the same frame on all three cameras. Remember that we're generally more concerned with making a pleasing picture than getting a particular amount of magnification. Say you're making a picture of a baseball, which is about 3 inches in diameter, and you want to roughly fill the frame with it. The 4x5 will be at about 1:1 magnification to accomplish that. The 8x10 will need double that magnification, or 2:1, to get a 6 inch baseball on film. The 11x14, meanwhile, will need about 1.5 times what the 8x10 needs or something like 3:1 to give you a 9 inch baseball on that big sheet of film. If you want to go with a 16x20, that would need double what the 8x10 needs, so 4:1 magnification to put a 12 inch baseball on film.

[jnantz]

Yes. The working space is not quite as much of an issue in my place. But how far away do you need to be for just at the waist level up?

i was maybe 3-4 feet from my subjects ... maybe 5" tops ( i was shooting 7x11 11x14 might be a little closer )

[John NYC]

So thinking about all this... a 600mm on 11x14 placed roughly two meters from the subject gives you a head and shoulders. That actually sounds like the PERFECT focal length. A few more steps back and you'll have waist up. Further back than that and it will start feeling weird. So substitute a 360mm and you will get your full body without getting too far away from the subject.

Just as on 35mm where I use 35mm and 85mm for portraits, and on 4x5 where I use 135mm and 210mm for portraits, it seems 360mm and 600mm are the similar choices on 11x14. So, why would I want a 450mm for portraits? Seems like a 'tween lens for that use?

[Corran]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. That makes perfect sense. I will have to reflect some on the connection between framing and magnification ratio, and the resulting image vs. film size.

I think my original idea was correct, that any lens at a 1:1 magnification ratio would have a 2-stop compensation, whether a 100mm or 1000mm, but I did not consider the difference in framing for a given format.

Sorry to somewhat derail the thread John.

[C. D. Keth]

I will have to reflect some on the connection between framing and magnification ratio, and the resulting image vs. film size.

I think my original idea was correct, that any lens at a 1:1 magnification ratio would have a 2-stop compensation, whether a 100mm or 1000mm, but I did not consider the difference in framing for a given format.

That's exactly the key. Larger film needs larger magnification ratios. For distant subjects this means longer lenses. For close subjects it can mean very, very long bellows along with long lenses. I thought it odd when Weston wrote in his daybooks about shooting the peppers and having exposures hours long and that sometimes cars going by would ruin the exposure by vibration. Then it dawned on me, those peppers on 8x10 film were somewhere between 1:1 and 2:1. Then you consider slow film, deep stops, and in some cases probably dwindling light at the end of the day.