PDA

View Full Version : What is the difference in VIEW from 35mm to 8 x 10 with normal lens?



ReginalsSMithe
24-Jun-2018, 08:05
I've only used 35mm and MF cameras for years. When looking at photos made with an 8 x 10 there seems to be some effect on the perspective and view that I am trying to understand.

Given a 35mm with normal lens (say, 45mm), and an 8 x 10 with normal lens like 300mm, what happens to a scene in terms of perspective of elements from f/g to b/g? Are they different? How? Any help understanding this would be appreciated. Two pics to compare would be extraordinary!

Thanks in advance.

Luis-F-S
24-Jun-2018, 09:26
None, prespective has to do with camera position, not angle of view.

Ted R
24-Jun-2018, 10:11
Differences will be present in depth of field, depth of focus, light fall-off in the corners, sharpness in the corners, but perspective will be the same. Sorry no examples.

Jac@stafford.net
24-Jun-2018, 10:15
I've only used 35mm and MF cameras for years. When looking at photos made with an 8 x 10 there seems to be some effect on the perspective and view that I am trying to understand.

Instead of getting into the science first: after doing smaller formats for years I found the aspect ratio of LF, for example 8x10 and 4x5 to be oddly unfamiliar. The shorter dimension seemed wider because I was accustomed to 2:3 (for example).

LabRat
24-Jun-2018, 10:26
At distance, it is the same, except that in nature, if you cropped a let's say a 300mm normal lens view on an 8x10 camera to a 35mm frame size, you would see the same perspective "compression" you would see with your 35 or digital as distance flattens perspective...

WA lenses have some natural distortion across the FOV, and is more pronounced...

But normal to long lenses are the same perspective, just a different cropping of the FOV...

Steve K

Jeff Keller
24-Jun-2018, 10:38
LF format cameras enable you to tilt/swing your lens to change the plane of sharp focus. You are also able to tilt/swing the film plane changing the vanishing point (eliminate/exaggerate keystone effect).

jeff

photog_ed
24-Jun-2018, 10:48
LF format cameras enable you to tilt/swing your lens to change the plane of sharp focus. You are also able to tilt/swing the film plane changing the vanishing point (eliminate/exaggerate keystone effect).

jeff

You can also use rise/fall to prevent vertical lines from converging, as will happen when you point your 35mm up to capture tall trees or buildings.

Drew Bedo
24-Jun-2018, 11:49
Umm . . .did the OP mean to ask: " what is considered to be a "normal focal length" for LF?"

Is the op asking what lens is "normal"?

if that is the question, then that would mean something like 150mm for 4x5 and ~300mm for 8x10, I think.

Bernice Loui
24-Jun-2018, 12:14
What is "Normal" perspective aka normal lens..

Common answer, the size of objects in the foreground -vs- background as perceived by the unaided human eye. This can be achieved by altering the lens focal length -vs- format size and format ratio does have an effect on this to a limited degree. If set up properly, foreground to background object size ratio can be achieved with not too much difficulty. Essentially there is no difference in view between 35mm or other to 8x10 or other when lens focal length is properly chosen.

What is different, depth of focus, depth of view between smaller formats like 35mm -vs- 8x10 for a given lens focal length and aperture.


Bernice

David Lobato
24-Jun-2018, 12:46
Re-reading the OP, let's use the example of a modern well corrected 45-50mm lens for 35mm format and a 300 mm lens for 8x10. Doing a head and shoulders portrait at 3-5 feet distance with a lens set to f4 for both formats, the depth of field will be very different. The 45mm lens on 24x36mm will render most of the subject in focus. The 300mm lens also at f4 (lets say it's a fast Petzval type) will have severely limited DOF. Sharpness drop off will be very steep both front and behind from where focus is at. This is one reason for the unique look of the 8x10 format. As subject distance increases, say 15-30 feet there will be less of the steep drop off of OOF areas, given the same lens apertures. For infinity focus, example being setting up a photo from atop a butte looking down to the valley, there will be little difference and the whole subject will be very far away and DOF differences will be slight. Also any perspective differences will be minimal - if there are no camera movements made for the 8x10 photo.

Another thing people new to LF see, but sometimes can't put a finger on, is the extended tonal range from the big change in negative area. Shapes and objects can look smoother. But this is dependent on b&w film developing times and temperatures and film ISO settings.

Hope this helps.

Pere Casals
24-Jun-2018, 14:35
I've only used 35mm and MF cameras for years. When looking at photos made with an 8 x 10 there seems to be some effect on the perspective and view that I am trying to understand.

Given a 35mm with normal lens (say, 45mm), and an 8 x 10 with normal lens like 300mm, what happens to a scene in terms of perspective of elements from f/g to b/g? Are they different? How? Any help understanding this would be appreciated. Two pics to compare would be extraordinary!

Thanks in advance.


As Luis said, perspective has to do with camera position. If you shot with 35mm and LF from same position, with lenses framing the same, you get the same image if not considering defocus.


I'd say that what you see different in the 8x10 is the DOF field transition to the Out Of Focus (OOF) range. This is the way in what the Circle of Confusion grows beyond DOF limits.

An example I like for this is (Avedon's) Dovima with Elephants (http://100photos.time.com/photos/richard-avedon-dovima-with-elephants), the way OOF areas are rendered in that image have the LF footprint. That footprint is not better or worse than the one from an smaller format, but it is unique resource that I feel very powerful.

...and as LF images are less common than

Jim Jones
24-Jun-2018, 15:40
Post 4 mentions the aspect ratio, which can be changed by cropping so the two images are more similar. Another important consideration is the entrance pupil of each lens at the aperture used. They should be identical for a valid comparison. If images from both cameras are made from the same position with identical entrance pupils and presented at the same size with identical cropping, there remains differences in films and processing. We shouldn't quibble over such differences without getting all the facts unless we like quibbling more than informing.

ReginalsSMithe
24-Jun-2018, 16:48
Thank you all for the great answers. My ignorance is showing, but let me ask it slightly differently using an example - if you have the patience!

When I look at a Stephen Shore photograph from say, Uncommon Spaces (Places?), it seems immediately obvious, no matter what physical size image I am looking at, that it was NOT taken with a 35mm or 120 camera. The "view" looks entirely different in a way I want to understand. Different than any of my 10,000 small format photographs. The structures look very flat and very wide, and yet without any distortion and the edges. So even looking at a 4" x 6" online image of it, or in a book, one can feel this difference. If I am nuts, have no fear about telling me! I have a thick skin, and I always believe I can learn from questions - no matter how lame!

Sincerely,
Thinking of Getting Into 8X10

Jac@stafford.net
24-Jun-2018, 17:09
When I look at a Stephen Shore photograph from say, Uncommon Spaces (Places?), it seems immediately obvious, no matter what physical size image I am looking at, that it was NOT taken with a 35mm or 120 camera. The "view" looks entirely different in a way I want to understand.

As mentioned earlier, LF, view cameras in general provide the ability of perspective control. Search scheimpflug and be happy.

ReginalsSMithe
24-Jun-2018, 17:20
scheimpflug!

danke sehr!

Pere Casals
24-Jun-2018, 17:27
Thinking of Getting Into 8X10

Think it twice... if you look through a 8x10 ground glass you will be lost. This is addictive :)

If wanting genuine optical prints then 8x10 requires a monster enlarger, while 5x7 and 4x5 enlargers are not as oversize. If wanting to scan then 8x10 it's easier to deal with.

ReginalsSMithe
24-Jun-2018, 18:11
Think it twice... if you look through a 8x10 ground glass you will be lost. This is addictive :)

If wanting genuine optical prints then 8x10 requires a monster enlarger, while 5x7 and 4x5 enlargers are not as oversize. If wanting to scan then 8x10 it's easier to deal with.

I'd be very happy with contact printing.

ic-racer
25-Jun-2018, 01:07
You can make every parameter between the two cameras the same, except magnification.

Jeff Keller
25-Jun-2018, 01:39
Many of the images I see online have significant rise (no converging verticals but much more sky than ground, a common aspect of large format).

He also seems to minimize shadows and use a slightly longer than normal focal length.

With an enlarger you could burn and dodge a print from 35mm film but people who manipulate the print are drawn to large format.

jeff

Pere Casals
25-Jun-2018, 02:12
I'd be very happy with contact printing.

Contact printing delivers amazing prints, one has to use a x10 (or more) magnifier to realize how much detail is there beyond what human eye can see. When I make a 8x10 contact print I can spend an hour enjoying the print with the magnifier.

Problem with contact printing is that when you want a larger print you require that monster enlarger or going hybrid.

4x5 and 5x7 have more than the usually max needed resolving power, usually 8x10 is an overkill. 4x5 and 5x7 cameras have the same movements, are way fieldable, way lighter and way cheaper. IMHO for some shots the same can be obtained in 8x10 than in 4x5, but in some conditions (when playing with defocus) the 8x10 footprint can be amazing.

IMHO it's better to start with 4x5, this allows for a faster learning curve as you simply shot more, you make more custom N+/- developments and you can try more lenses for a fraction of the expense. As being me a newcomer to LF, and from my own mistakes, I can recommend to explore well what one wants from a LF camera and from glasses. It is true that a "general usage" lens can do all, but IMHO it is very useful to practice with a cheap 4x5 monorail before purchasing gear. It happened to me that the glasses I desired the more are the ones that I'm not using !

Probably you will be purchasing LF used gear, and this is a particular science, used LF gear always includes special surprises and not all are nice.

Metering LF is another issue, with rolls if I've a doubt I bracket. In LF you may make two shots of the same scene with exactly the same exposure (to have a backup) after an accurate spot metering that includes the special development, the actual shutter speed vs the marked speed, the bellows extension correction and perhaps the reciprocity failure. Beyond the Zone System book is highly recommended to take advantage of custom processing.

Nothing wrong if starting directly with 8x10, but 4x5 allows for a more friendly engagement.

rdenney
25-Jun-2018, 06:19
To summarize: Camera position and camera position alone determines the relative size between foreground and background subjects, which is what we usually define as perspective.

The angle of the film with respect to the subject will change the way shapes are projected. If the film is plumb, then vertical lines will also be plumb when projected onto the film. This keeps the sides of the buildings vertical instead of converging. This can be done with small format using perpective-control lenses, or it can be done in software. It can even be done by tilting the print-paper easel under and enlarger, or tilting the film carrier within an enlarger. But most large format cameras have the ability to adjust the film to be whatever angle it needs to be. This effect would be noticeable even in small online displays.

The size of subjects as projected onto the film is entirely controlled by focal length and distance. Given the same subject distance, that 45mm lens on small format will make a face the same size on 35mm film or 8x10 film. (The small-format lens will only illuminate a circle about 2 inches wide in the middle of the 8x10 film, but that's about coverage, which is another matter). Focal length is focal length is focal length, and a given focal length magnifies the same on any format. After all, the lens does not really know how big the film is behind it.

To achieve a subject of the same absolute size on different formats, one uses the same focal length. But to achieve a subject of the same relative size, as in how much of the format frame the subject covers, one has to change magnification (focal length). If a face is half the long dimension of 35mm, it will be 18mm tall on the film. To make a face that is half the height of 8x10 film (10" is 250mm, and half that is 125mm tall), one needs (125/18=) 6.9 times the magnification. If a 45mm lens made the face 18mm tall, one would need a 312mm lens to make it 125mm tall. That is true no matter what the format of film. But an 18mm face will be too small on 8x10, and a 125mm face will show only the left nostril on small format.

So, if one chooses the focal length that provides the same relative size on the format, and if one is using the same camera position for both formats, there will be no difference in the way perspective is rendered between the two formats that will be noticeable in a small online display.

Given that depth of field goes with aperture ratio (f/stop) and aperture ratio goes with focal length, the longer lenses that create the same relative subject size on larger formats result in narrower depth of field at the same f/stop. Large format cameras provide a range of tools for adjusting the focus plane (ref: Scheimpflug) and large-format photographers are accustomed to using very small apertures to increase depth of field. Or, they are using large format to emphasize the selective focus effect. That can give images a very different sense of three dimensions that would be noticeable even in small online displays.

Mostly what makes large-format images look different is that large-format photographers often view the scene differently. It's easy to put a 200mm lens on a 35mm camera, but the equivalent lens on 8x10 will be nearly 1400mm--54" in focal length--and a lens that long that will cover 8x10 is, well, unlikely to be available. And we don't think of 200mm as being particularly long for 24x36. Likewise, one can find rectilinear wide-angle lenses for 24x36 down to 10-12mm. This allows one to move in close to get the same scene, or to cover a vast sweep of scene. On 8x10, one would need an 85mm lens to get the same field of view from the same camera position. The point is that 8x10 photographers tend not to explore the limits of focal lengths in the way that small-format photographers can easily do. And thus they tend to make focal lengths closer to "normal" work, and use other tools to give their photographs a unique look. It's not uncommon these days for portrait photographers using small format to go really long on the lens--300mm on 24x36 isn't uncommon for portraits and fashion shoots, and 200mm is even more common. These will greatly magnify the background with respect to the subject compared to lenses available for 8x10.

I wouldn't be too afraid of 8x10, depending on what you want to do. If you just have one kind of photo you want to make from the start, then a simple 8x10 view camera and one lens might do the job for you. 8x10 film is easier to handle. You can develop it more easily in trays (but you have to work in complete darkness to do it), and you can make contact prints of usable size. You can also scan them even in consumer flatbeds and get richly detailed digital files. The risk, though, is that 8x10 is a disease that can infect you, with expensive results. I tend to want quite a range of different focal lengths and capabilities, and for me 4x5 is more versatile and less costly.

Rick "not that being expensive is much of a deterrent" Denney

ReginalsSMithe
25-Jun-2018, 08:49
Contact printing delivers amazing prints, one has to use a x10 (or more) magnifier to realize how much detail is there beyond what human eye can see. When I make a 8x10 contact print I can spend an hour enjoying the print with the magnifier.

Problem with contact printing is that when you want a larger print you require that monster enlarger or going hybrid.

4x5 and 5x7 have more than the usually max needed resolving power, usually 8x10 is an overkill. 4x5 and 5x7 cameras have the same movements, are way fieldable, way lighter and way cheaper. IMHO for some shots the same can be obtained in 8x10 than in 4x5, but in some conditions (when playing with defocus) the 8x10 footprint can be amazing.

IMHO it's better to start with 4x5, this allows for a faster learning curve as you simply shot more, you make more custom N+/- developments and you can try more lenses for a fraction of the expense. As being me a newcomer to LF, and from my own mistakes, I can recommend to explore well what one wants from a LF camera and from glasses. It is true that a "general usage" lens can do all, but IMHO it is very useful to practice with a cheap 4x5 monorail before purchasing gear. It happened to me that the glasses I desired the more are the ones that I'm not using !

Probably you will be purchasing LF used gear, and this is a particular science, used LF gear always includes special surprises and not all are nice.

Metering LF is another issue, with rolls if I've a doubt I bracket. In LF you may make two shots of the same scene with exactly the same exposure (to have a backup) after an accurate spot metering that includes the special development, the actual shutter speed vs the marked speed, the bellows extension correction and perhaps the reciprocity failure. Beyond the Zone System book is highly recommended to take advantage of custom processing.

Nothing wrong if starting directly with 8x10, but 4x5 allows for a more friendly engagement.

Thanks. My thinking was like this: Ultimately, I want a print to handle, view, ogle, and ponder. 8 x 10 would be the minimal size for that purpose. I reasoned that I might be able to make those 8 x 10 prints as a simple contact print* eliminating the need for an elaborate darkroom with enlarger. A 4 x 5 print just wouldn't satisfy me. I may, however, have way underestimated the general complexity of working in 8 x 10.

*nothing is ever as simple as first imagined!

ReginalsSMithe
25-Jun-2018, 08:56
Thanks Rdenney for an excellent tutorial there. Indeed, I asked the wrong question originally. But, since the differences have now been teased out, I have learned how those LF pictures look so different.

Pere Casals
25-Jun-2018, 09:14
I may, however, have way underestimated the general complexity of working in 8 x 10.

I'd not say that working in 8x10 is more complex, it's just the same technique, simply it's harder. You have to haul a lot of weight, gear is more expensive, you have way less choices for the glass. Then each shot is x4 times more expensive, so spending sheets for testing and adjusting your process will make you think that you are wasting your money. For $100 to $200 you can get a CAMBO SC 4x5 monorail, this is less than the cost of a box of 8x10 sheets, so only considering the savings in film while you test and learn the 4x5 monorail pays back. For little money you can practice all movements and learn what you want in a more refined or a larger camera, and later you can sell the 4x5 monorail if you are not to use it.

archphotofisher
25-Jun-2018, 10:39
For me it’s the size of the negative, just think about all the information on that small negative crammed on to the 36 x 24 mm rectangle, compared to an 8x10 negative surface.

Willie
25-Jun-2018, 11:56
Instead of getting into the science first: after doing smaller formats for years I found the aspect ratio of LF, for example 8x10 and 4x5 to be oddly unfamiliar. The shorter dimension seemed wider because I was accustomed to 2:3 (for example).

Shoot 5x7 and you find 35mm vision generally translates well.

Bernice Loui
26-Jun-2018, 09:04
Beyond the ratios similar to 35mm, 5x7 has the broadest selection of lenses. From 72mm SAXL offering about 110 degree angle of view to about a long a telephoto as one could consider (1200mm or more) and at more moderate cost than 8x10. Many lenses that cover and do well on 4x5 can be used on 5x7 and the film holders are smaller, easier to process and the post processing is no where near as huge as 8x10.

Once the step is made to 8x10 the lens choices shrink very significantly and the cost goes up significantly. Beyond 8x10 there is further lens choice shrinking with non proportional const increase. Add film cost, film holder bulk and process issues to all this.

While there could be a visual wow factor to 8x10 initially, that does fade after burning a few hundred boxes of 8x10 film. The 8x10 wow factor does fade and the harsh reality of what 8x10 can moderate one's motivation for producing work on 8x10. For some 8x10 IS their calling.. just be sure that is your calling.



Bernice



Shoot 5x7 and you find 35mm vision generally translates well.

consummate_fritterer
26-Jun-2018, 09:40
If I could afford a good 8x10 camera I'd only use the full format for color images I expect to have drum scanned. For all B&W and most color, I'd have film holders with 5x8 sheaths and use half sheets of film. Why? Because the film cost is halved and a Zone VI enlarger can enlarge the full 5x8 image area. Since the Z6 enlarger is far more easily attainable/affordable than any 8x10 model, it makes 5x7/5x8 a very nice compromise. Why use sheaths instead of half-dark-sldes? For shooting simplicity. I know I wouldn't like using rise/fall to center images nor would I like fiddling with flimsy cut darkslides. As others stated, far more affordable lenses are available to cover 5x7/5x8. Why 5x8 instead of 5x7? Because I tend to like longer formats, and it's only one cut from 8x10 film. Why not a dedicated 5x8 camera with 5x8 film holders? Because there's no way I could afford that option. As others wrote, 5x7 is nearer to 135 ratio and if one crops 5x8 to 5x7.5, it's identical.

goamules
26-Jun-2018, 10:56
One shoots 8x10 differently than 35mm, so the costs are not as bad as "shooting hundreds of boxes of 8x10 film" for most. I am on a trip now and have 5 rolls of 35mm film. I'll shoot a lot of snapshots I would never do in large format. When I shoot LF, I might do 4 sheets. And I might do that once a month. About the same cost as a couple rolls of 35mm plus it's development.

Mark Sawyer
26-Jun-2018, 15:03
What is the difference in VIEW from 35mm to 8 x 10 with normal lens?

Standing behind an 8x10, the view will be upside-down. Can't really help with the "normal lens" part, all mine are abnormal...

Bernice Loui
26-Jun-2018, 16:30
Been there done this, "few hundred boxes of 8x10 film."... that happened about two decades ago when 8x10 film was not too difficult to do. That also convinced me 8x10 was -not for me- the bulk, logistics, post exposure and all convinced me the grandeur of 8x10 was not my sheet of film.. That initial grandeur of 8x10 film completely lost it's appeal once the overall image creation process got balanced out for what the image making goals needs to be.

IMO, 8x10 and larger should be used for contact prints.

The more important aspect of view camera experience is learning how to see the 3D world then flatten this into a 2D artistic expression. This is independent of sheet film format size, which is why a good starting point for the view camera journey is 4x5. There is a image making discipline that can come with extended VC experience that can translate into any image making tool. This can mean making a single exposure on any image making device from s-phone to 20x24 and larger view camera to achieve the image in mind.



Bernice



One shoots 8x10 differently than 35mm, so the costs are not as bad as "shooting hundreds of boxes of 8x10 film" for most. I am on a trip now and have 5 rolls of 35mm film. I'll shoot a lot of snapshots I would never do in large format. When I shoot LF, I might do 4 sheets. And I might do that once a month. About the same cost as a couple rolls of 35mm plus it's development.

John Kasaian
26-Jun-2018, 16:58
Lad, If you want to shoot an 8x10, shoot an 8x10!
Don't look back---commit and be done with it.
Same for any other format. These aren't shoes that you'll somehow grow into.

8x10 mistakes are more expensive, sure, but you'll make a lot less of them because they are more expensive.
8x10 film is more expensive, sure, but you'll think long and hard each time you trip the shutter.
Go for it!