Wrong lenses for portraiture?

[john_vandale_]

Hi there!

I'm a bit confused today... I earn my first LF camera with a standard lens. It's a 4x5 Linhof with a 150mm lens.

I wanted to make head and shoulders portraits and I was aware that I'll need a longer lens for this purpose.

So I get a 300mm one and it works. Sometimes... and sometimes not...

Those 3 pics were made with two different lenses. The one on the left, whitch I found a lot too compressed, is the 300mm one. Apprx. 3m...

The two others are made with a 150mm lens, approx. 1m. I believe they feel much more natural in fact...

What do you think?

175767

Thank you so much for your help!

[mdarnton]

Probably somewhere between is best. I use 210mm for 4x5 portraits and am happy with that. The old standard was film length + width, which would mean about 225mm. However, I think most everyone would agree that 150 is too short and 300 is long, for a natural look.

[Pere Casals]

IMHO first shot cannot be compared to the 2 and 3, very different light, aperture ?

The focal you use for a certain framing imposes a subject distance, so a perspective. This is a completely personal choice.

Human mind remembers how people look from some 3m, under 3m nose starts to grow https://www.olivier-chauvignat-workshops.com/tutoriels/distance-de-prise-de-vues-et-deformations

Yousuf Karsh favourite was 14", some 360mm for 8x10, so a 180 for 4x5, https://www.google.es/search?rlz=1C1AOHY_esES708ES708&biw=1920&bih=993&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=ORulWvqEBYniUf6zgfgP&q=yousuf+karsh&oq=yousuf+karsh&gs_l=psy-ab.3...15413.16786.0.17742.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.85QG1ysYs8s

:) think that normally it's the lens that has a problem with the photographer, and not the counter.

You have the 150 and 300... as Michael said perhaps something in the middle it would be also good, but no doubt that both 150 and 300 focals are able to make incredible protraits, just each can be used in a different way, specially when using tilt-swing... at the end the 300mm in 4x5 its like a 105mm or 135mm focal in 35mm format, so delivering not a rare perpective for portrait, "perhaps" in LF there is some tendence to frame a bit more open, that's a personal thought...

[mdarnton]

If you google "effect of focal length on portraits" you will get quite a few sets of photos shot of the same subject with different lengths (most on 35mm, but you can recalculate for 4 x 5) and articles to go along with the pictures. That will show you what you can expect.
https://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+focal+length+on+portraits&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS774US774&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_6qyBoeTZAhUH8IMKHZBLC78QsAQIKA&biw=1242&bih=579#imgrc=s_98YfZq69jTLM:

[jnantz]

hello john

there really is no right or wrong lens to use for portraits. some suggest
the "normal" for the next format up, so 210/250 for 4x5 would be about right ..

john

[cowanw]

For me the first portrait on the left has far more modeling and three dimensionality.

[Tobias Key]

I think most people gravitate towards a 210mm for portraits, but that is partly because that is the longest lens that is 5.6 and comes in a no.1 shutter. It's actually comparatively short for a portrait lens. It's important to remember that different face shapes look better at different focal lengths, so there is no one answer to this question.

[chassis]

Agree with John. It is your own taste that is important. Making portraits with shorter lenses is in style at the moment. It could be, the portraits you made with the shorter lens, look better to you because this is what is popular at this time.

[mdarnton]

Wider lenses are more popular maybe because of cell phone selfies, but that doesn't mean people like the look. I saw an article the other day about how more people are asking for plastic surgery because they think their noses look large, and the Dr has to discourage them because they are basing their opinion of their appearance on cell phone shots, selfies being the worst because the camera is too close. W/A lenses as on phones widen a nose about 20-30%, and so the people looking to have their noses fixed are wrong about how they look. I think the 150mm shots are grotesque, myself. Which does the subject prefer?

When people are asking to alter their bodies to fix bad photography, there's a problem with the photography, not the subject! Not the article I saw: https://nypost.com/2017/02/15/people-are-getting-plastic-surgery-to-take-better-selfies/

[Tin Can]

Image #1. The face is slimmer. The sitter seems more comfortable without a camera too close.

I think a Schneider Tele-Xenar 360mm f/5.5 is nice for face on 4X5.

I use a Nikon 135mm DC f2 on 35mm. I like distance from the sitter.

[Ken Lee]

Another way of looking at this is that our sense of compression is determined by distance from the subject. Our choice of lens merely allows us to fill the frame accordingly.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/150.jpg

The above image was shot with a 150mm lens. It doesn't feel compressed.

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/240.jpg

This image was made from the same location and has a greater sense of compression.

Was it shot with a 240mm lens or is it simply a crop of the above image ? Resolution aside, is there any way to tell ?

[Tin Can]

Angle of view is a crop

DOF is real

Bellows flare?

[Pere Casals]

Resolution aside, is there any way to tell ?

Well, not for your sample shot, but perhaps we can see it very well in the DOF vs OOF roll off.

At /5.6 and 3m dist portrait the 150mm has 4x more DOF than the 300mm, 0.43m vs 0.1m.

If we stop the 300 to /22 then we have simlar 0.41m DOF.

Then we can compare the crop from the 150 at /5.6 and the entire sheet with the 300mm at f/22, both having same DOF, but... is OOF blur to roll off in the same way ? will CoC grow in the same way beyond DOF range ?

175768

[Ken Lee]

Well, not for your sample shot, but perhaps we can see it very well in the DOF vs OOF roll off.

At /5.6 and 3m dist portrait the 150mm has 4x more DOF than the 300mm, 0.43m vs 0.1m.

If we stop the 300 to /22 then we have simlar 0.41m DOF.

Then we can compare the crop from the 150 at /5.6 and the entire sheet with the 300mm at f/22, both having same DOF, but... is OOF blur to roll off in the same way ? will CoC grow in the same way beyond DOF range ?

175768

The poster's question was about compression. If he likes to experiment, he can easily simulate various focal lengths before making a lens purchase. If cropping is acceptable, he can... crop.

[Pere Casals]

Yes, Ken, compression it's the same, but your question was "Resolution aside, is there any way to tell ?"

The OP sample shots show very different DOF, IMHO regarding Depth there is much more in the DOF management and shading than in the compression, at least in portraiture...

of course OP has the choice to shot the 150 at the 210 distance and later cropping to frame like if it was the 210.

[Alan Gales]

Here are examples of portraits shot at various focal lengths on a full frame DSLR.

https://mcpactions.com/2010/07/21/the-ideal-focal-length-for-portraiture-a-photographers-experiment/

As you can see, the longer the lens, the more compression there is. A 150mm lens on 4x5 would be similar to a 50mm lens on the full frame DSLR. A 300mm would be similar to a 100mm.

There is no right or wrong answer with which focal length is best but a longer lens will slim the face more and a shorter lens will round the face. Some portrait photographers try to match the focal length to the shape of the face. Everyone wants to look good! :)

[Bob Salomon]

hello john

there really is no right or wrong lens to use for portraits. some suggest
the "normal" for the next format up, so 210/250 for 4x5 would be about right ..

john

Except a 180 is the normal lens for 57.

[Bob Salomon]

Here are examples of portraits shot at various focal lengths on a full frame DSLR.

https://mcpactions.com/2010/07/21/the-ideal-focal-length-for-portraiture-a-photographers-experiment/

As you can see, the longer the lens, the more compression there is. A 150mm lens on 4x5 would be similar to a 50mm lens on the full frame DSLR. A 300mm would be similar to a 100mm.

There is no right or wrong answer with which focal length is best but a longer lens will slim the face more and a shorter lens will round the face. Some portrait photographers try to match the focal length to the shape of the face. Everyone wants to look good! :)

Good control of lighting will mold the face to flatter and reduce or eliminate unwanted shapes and details. It takes more then a lens and distance for portraiture.

[BrianShaw]

Except a 180 is the normal lens for 57.

John rounded up. ;)

Or doesn’t consider 5x7 to be a viable format worth mentioning. :)

[Pere Casals]

Except a 180 is the normal lens for 57.

Bob, I ask, would the 180mm be considered normal for portraiture and the 210mm considered normal for landscape ?

In portraiture we usually give bellows extension to the 180mm because the near subject, thus lowering the angle of view like if it was perhaps a 210 at infinite?

At the end the 57 diagonal is 208mm, so by general definition of "Normal" the 210mm nails it for 57, but a close subject projects bigger than expected on film because bellows extension, so would the 180mm be the normal ?

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, I ask, would the 180mm be considered normal for portraiture and the 210mm considered normal for landscape ?

In portraiture we usually give bellows extension to the 180mm because the near subject, thus lowering the angle of view like if it was perhaps a 210 at infinite?
I would use at least a 240 on 57 to minimize foreshortening which would result in large noses, foreheads and shoulders. Probably would use a 360 if I had the chance.
At the end the 57 diagonal is 208mm, so by general definition of "Normal" the 210mm nails it for 57, but a close subject projects bigger than expected on film because bellows extension, so would the 180mm be the normal ?

[LabRat]

Mainly, the old portrait rule is that a shorter FL lens would show more modeling/roundness of a face, but in some cases maybe too much up very close (almost like a distortion), esp if the sitter had a big nose or a narrow face that protrudes toward the camera (the old term is a "horsey" face), but to "flatten" out a deep face, some compression from a longer FL is used...

The problem with too long FL's is that the face can be too flat on the plane (called "moon faces"), and can destroy the depth and roundness of the faces/features, so different subjects would require different FL's...

And at close camera to subject distance, you would choose a comfortable camera to subject distance for the sitter, and enough room for you to have space to light well, and have room to work...

Most slightly longer than "normal" FL's are a good compromise for different faces + working distances...

Steve K

[Alan Gales]

Good control of lighting will mold the face to flatter and reduce or eliminate unwanted shapes and details. It takes more then a lens and distance for portraiture.

Sure, the right lighting can really help. Retouching can also help. I know George Hurrell's 8x10 Hollywood portraits were highly retouched. I don't think anything in Hollywood is real. :)

If scanned, photoshop can help too.


The best photographers are masters of lighting.

[William Whitaker]

I've suggested this before and I still think it's good advice:

Search out the monthly portrait thread under the Image Sharing (LF) & Discussion forum. Then take note of what people are using for images that appeal to you.

[jnantz]

Except a 180 is the normal lens for 57.

oops
i always thought 210 was normal on a 5x7
( i've never seen a 180mm lens before )
i use a 14" for 5x7 portraits ..

[Alan Gales]

( i've never seen a 180mm lens before )


I own a Fujinon 180mm f/5.6 lens. I bought it on Ebay from Japan. It only cost me $160.00 including shipping. I got it for 4x5 but it will cover 5x7. Some even use it for 8x10 but you would probably get some vignetting. I need to try it sometime and see.

[Pere Casals]

oops
i always thought 210 was normal on a 5x7
( i've never seen a 180mm lens before )
i use a 14" for 5x7 portraits ..

well, I'd say that the 210 it's the 5x7 normal for distant subjects, while for near subjects the normal is shorter than 210, because the impact of additional bellows draw in the AOV.

[jnantz]

I own a Fujinon 180mm f/5.6 lens. I bought it on Ebay from Japan. It only cost me $160.00 including shipping. I got it for 4x5 but it will cover 5x7. Some even use it for 8x10 but you would probably get some vignetting. I need to try it sometime and see.

hello alan
that 180 sounds like a nice ride !


well, I'd say that the 210 it's the 5x7 normal for distant subjects, while for near subjects the normal is shorter than 210, because the impact of additional bellows draw in the AOV.

yeah normal lens is kind of a funny expression in photography, pretty much anything can be your normal lens
... my uncle, does/did a lot of product work over the years
he used to laugh and tell me his "normal" was 210 on his 4x5 ;)

[Pere Casals]

yeah normal lens is kind of a funny expression in photography, pretty much anything can be your normal lens
... my uncle, does/did a lot of product work over the years
he used to laugh and tell me his "normal" was 210 on his 4x5 ;)

John, what's not normal is we using view cameras when we can shot with an iphone ;)

But speaking a bit more seriously "normal lens" it's just a useful reference that helps to compare AOV between formats and a bit with human vision, the thing it's not perfect because aspect ratio, but a focal matching the diagonal of the format is something very informative.

What is true that a 210mm for 57 portrait frames like a bit longuer than normal, I would expected it works like a 60mm in a 35mm SLR.

In LF we use unit focus and hence that "Focus breathing", something that cinematographers hate in a lens, when in a dialog they move focus from an actor to another one... they would show growing heads.

Some small format lenses also have that effect, for example my Nikon 50mm 1.8AFD (an excellent glass!) is unit focus type, and also breathes when focusing near, so for protrait it behaves like if it was bit longer than normal.

Anyway normally it's the lens that may have a problem with a bad potographer like me, and not the counter ;)

[jnantz]

hello pere

i've never heard of focus breathing before ..
i have heard of the diagonal=normal rule ..
but i also know that it is a rule of thumb and not in stone
and i don't really pay much attention to conventions, unless
they are a clown convention then i steer clear !
speaking of clowns and conventions ... years ago i was in basel switzerland
for a trade show for people who did building &c
and at 1pm there was a noise and then, a parade of clowns marched through
the building. if i had my 5x7 camera with me, i would have thrown on a 127 tominion
and shot portraits wide open ( 4.7 ) to give a nice creepy and vignetted look ...
any lens can be a portrait lens as long as it projects light and gives you the look you want

YMMV

[Bob Salomon]

Mainly, the old portrait rule is that a shorter FL lens would show more modeling/roundness of a face, but in some cases maybe too much up very close (almost like a distortion), esp if the sitter had a big nose or a narrow face that protrudes toward the camera (the old term is a "horsey" face), but to "flatten" out a deep face, some compression from a longer FL is used...

The problem with too long FL's is that the face can be too flat on the plane (called "moon faces"), and can destroy the depth and roundness of the faces/features, so different subjects would require different FL's...

And at close camera to subject distance, you would choose a comfortable camera to subject distance for the sitter, and enough room for you to have space to light well, and have room to work...

Most slightly longer than "normal" FL's are a good compromise for different faces + working distances...

Steve K

The old portrait requirement for head and shoulder through ¾ portraits was that the depth of field had to cover from the tip of the nose to the base of the ear. That requirement was fulfilled, on the film, by focal length, f stop and subject to lens distance.
So the focal length could be anything that met this criteria.

Yes, exceptions were made for effect but if you look at classic portraiture these conditions were universal. And meeting them meant marks on the floor for where the subject and camera were placed and a knotted cord hanging on the camera that was used to place the face in the proper position.

Today, not usually done, through the 60s and perhaps the early 70s in the USA this was very common.

[Pere Casals]

knotted cord hanging on the camera that was used to place the face in the proper position.


Nice AF subsystem, electronics made easy. It like it !!



Most slightly longer than "normal" FL's are a good compromise for different faces + working distances...



Steve, IMHO portrait FL is chacun à son goût, but accepted general rule is 1.5x the normal FL for half body and 2x for head and shoulders.

In LF we have some controversy because the other controversy about if 4x5 normal FL is 135mm or 150mm. That controversy disapears if considering unit focus breathing.

What's clear is that some 3m nose to glass distance is good, to have a relaxed subject and non grotesque faces.

Anyway if Karsh liked the 14" for 810 this is an strong reference for a kind of LF portraiture.

[john_vandale_]

Yep... this subject is very interresting.

300mm should work with many people and not with others.

I think the first picture I showed was taken from a bad pov: too high. That maybe why she misses a neck!

[A Almulla]

Kinda late to this post.

Thinking away from the lens and camera combo. Depends if the images are made for you or a client. If its for you then there is no right answer and depends on the case of the moon, the alignment of the stars and whether you had coffee or not. Whatever makes you feel good.

If its for a client then keep in mind there has been an increase in nose jobs due to selfies (yes thats a thing) and if you get a client thats too self conscious then a shorter focal length could send them for a nose job.

Had friends who would swear by a 200mm on a 35mm format, yet others would shoot 85 to 110mm and some down to 50mm (till they buy an 85mm).

I don't believe any focal length to be too long, just depends on the DOF and background compression.

[Pere Casals]

keep in mind there has been an increase in nose jobs due to selfies (yes thats a thing) and if you get a client thats too self conscious then a shorter focal length could send them for a nose job.

:) well explained !