PDA

View Full Version : Seeking solid advice and LF camera kit



Mr Macgee
4-Jan-2006, 20:01
Seeking solid advice and camera kit,

I have a project requiring LF format, my experience is in Medium format. I need to be able to travel from city to city to take tight head shots and from the knees up. The amount of distance between camera and subject is approx. 6-8' max. due to the space restraints, I can't go farther. The client wants 8x10 negs & polaroids ($$$) for drum scans.

My question is what kind of lens & bellows do I need for both type of shots? The client wants the finished shot to have a narrow depth of field & vintage look.

I am also seeking to purchase a complete LF kit for this purpose/project and would like to know where I can find one soon. I've already been looking at eBay.

Thanks

Mr Macgee

Bill_1856
4-Jan-2006, 20:13
I thought that trolls were only on photo.net.

Jim_6220
4-Jan-2006, 21:30
A friend of mine is selling a Sinar F2 outfit with everything you would need (lenses, tripod, bag bellows, film holders - the works) -- It's in absolutely pristine, like-new condition. Let me know if you might be interested.

John Kasaian
4-Jan-2006, 21:57
IMHO Deardorff V8 with a 14" Commercial Ektar and a 10" WF Ektar would do the job. If you needed to use more modern lenses 360mm and 240mm G Clarons would also work, as would the brand new mc offerings from Rodenstcok in equivalent focal lengths.

Cheers!

John O'Connell
5-Jan-2006, 09:18
John is right about the 14"/360mm lens for the headshot. Although it seems short compared to focal lengths in other formats, the limitations of 8x10 leave you with few other options. You'll need a camera with at least 24" of bellows to allow for comfortable extension, 28" if you can get it.

The slightly longer option would be a 450, but the required bellows draw for someone with a small noggin would be in the 36" range, and you might not fit that setup into an 8' length (distance to background + depth of subject + 36" to lens + 36" to film + room you need to compose).

You'll need some way to verify and maintain subject distance after composing, and you'd be surprised at how much light you need. Expect to be exposing your film at effective f/32 or f/45 after factoring in the extension---even if you work fairly wide open for 8x10. Search the archives for details on what works for people who attempt 8x10 closeup work.

Tough to recommend a wideangle without knowing why your space is so limited. Are you shooting inside a van? Does your rear end need to fit within that 6-8 feet? Wideangles are the bane of 8x10, as they tend to be either ancient, rare, expensive, and/or huge outside of the common 240mm/10" focal length.

Mr Macgee
5-Jan-2006, 11:31
Great info, Thank You

I have to apologize for asking such dumb questions (trying not to be a troll, sorry Bill)) but large format is a different animal than MF and I'm trying to be respectful and not waste your time but I'm brand new to Large format. The info your giving me will be very useful.

With the info above and to answer the question, I think the max distance will be approx 6' from front of lens to subject which will hopefully give me enough working room for the camera and extension. I can probably achieve about 9' of total working room and I'm working on getting more room from the client. It's not in a van but in a booth at a convention going from city to city.
It's definitely an "off the wall" assignment & unconventional but it's actually for a fun documentary project.

I think I can achieve enough light for f45 but that's a lot of light. The problem is trying to get a set-up for getting the knees up to head shot with such minimal distances. I knew this would be a problem but I'm hoping of some way to solving it. I'll try searching for LF 8x10 close up's.

So far, it looks like I need a camera with about 24+" of bellows and a lens of approx. 240 mm to 360mm or 10" to 14" and lots of light. I'll be shooting B+W and will not need a super sharp lens but more an older lens like a Voigtlander.

Does this sound right?

Ole Tjugen
5-Jan-2006, 12:35
Knees to head will be about 5 feet or 150cm. Since the film is 25cm, that gives a magnification of 1:6. So your lens should be 6 times as far from the subject as from the film plane. That again means you're looking for a lens with a focal length around 1/7 of your working distance - or about 210mm.

In that focal length I'll recommend an "antique": The 210mm f:6.8 Angulon. Don't laugh until you've tried one, please!

For headshots you'll need a longer lens, and a lot more bellows. It's about 1:2, so ideally you should have 60cm of bellows extension. A 480mm will do nicely. 360mm is a little short, but good for "head and shoulders". On the other hand - if your camera has rear focusing, it might be convenient with a lens that gets you the correct framing without moving either subject or camera, so a little bit longer than 480mm? Front focusing goes the other way - you might find it easier with a 300mm...

One of the major differences between MF and 8x10" is that with the latter, just about everything indoors is in the macro range. And so the bellows factor and reproduction ratio get important.

Bill_1856
5-Jan-2006, 15:31
My apologies, Mr. Macgee. First time poster asking about a fairly technical matter involving buying 8x10 camera, several lenses, and 8x10 Polaroid system. You gotta admit that it broadcasts "Troll" at the top of it's voice. Good luck. Incidentally, since you're already familiar with MF, to get the equivilant 8x10 focal lengths for a given perspective, just multiply by 240/56=4.3 (the ratio of negative long side size between 8x10 and 6x6). So if your 'Blad required an 80mm lens, then your Deardoff would need an80x4.3=344mm lens (approximately 14").

John Kasaian
5-Jan-2006, 16:01
What model Voightlander as you considering? I don't know for sure but a Heliar in the 14" range may not cover 8x10. If you're looking for a soft portrait lens there are lots of Wollensaks floating around, each with it's own "look" ---maybe some Wolly fans will chime in to guide you down that road. If you like the Karsh look, I think you'll find that the 14" Commercial Ektar or a late model Ilex (or Congo) copy will deliver the goods.

Good luck!

Ted Harris
5-Jan-2006, 16:19
Another thought,

You might want to consider showing your client some samples from 4x5,both regular film and polaroids (T55 negs for scanning and T72 for prints) scanned with a drum scanner. Unless the client has some specific reason for 8x10 then the 4x5's should give you excellent results with a drum scan. OTOH assuming the client is bearing the cost and knows the cost of 8x10 polaroids then the client is always right <smile>.

Paul Fitzgerald
5-Jan-2006, 20:22
Mr.Macgee,

Not being funny but for the tight shots you might consider a process prism and turning the camera, should give you an extra 3 - 4 ' and use a longer lens. I haven't noticed any problems with a 14" / 36cm Heliar on 8X10 for coverage. The 42cm is a large and heavy lens, the 48cm must be a monster.

Good luck with it.

Frank Petronio
5-Jan-2006, 20:36
You should hire a good nerdy large format buff as an assistant to set things right. Avedon did and Leibowitz still does. At least Dick knew what he was doing, but his assistants still focused the camera. As for Annie, I hear she leaves all technical matters to a staff of well paid RIT grads.

John O'Connell
6-Jan-2006, 09:40
I was afraid that the math would work out to requiring a 210mm for the wideangle so I didn't do the computation. I've been looking for a good 210 for a while . . .

In modern-ish lenses you can use the Sironars (the Apo-Sironar N/Sironar MC barely cover), the Super Angulon (huge), the Grandagon (huge and rare), or the newer Schneider SS-XL. Only the Sironars are small and affordable. If you've ever picked up a 210 Super Angulon, you can appreciate small and affordable.

In oddball modern lenses, the 210 Computar and G-Claron are known to cover. I don't know if they cover wide open, however, and for the kind of work you're talking about I'd stick with something that you know reaches the corners when you focus and compose. (Several other graphic arts lenses in this focal length cover, but the two I've listed above screw right into modern shutters.)

Older lenses that cover include the 210 Angulon, some of the ~8" Dagors, and probably others which are rather rare anyway. Older shutters vary greatly in my experience, and would not be my first choice for a convention booth gig unless I had a backup lens.

I'd think twice about an older normal lens. The modern plasmats are common and affordable used (though large) and in generally reliable shutters. If you really want an older look, there is a 360mm Congo tessar that comes in a Copal 3.

Older shutters can be a killer. Fine for landscape, where you might never need anything but bulb, but often randomly finicky. Of course you'd get an older shutter serviced before use, but some just don't like to stay working, like my Synchro-Compur.

If you have enough lights to get to f/45, you'll be able to stop down to a little below f/22 for headshots. That's about as good as you can expect, but you'll need a system to keep those heads in place because your depth of field will still be thin. Methods I've heard of include a wire frame with an assistant watching, a headrest, and a slide projector set up to throw a narrow slit of light across the plane of focus.

Paul Fitzgerald
7-Jan-2006, 09:00
Mr. Macgee,

Another thought, an 8" lens on a 8x10 would be the same as a 24 mm on a Nikon. Try some test shots at 6 - 8 feet and have them blown-up to 8x10. I think you will not like the results, they will look like pregnant pin-heads from the physical distortion of the field of view. I think you will need at least 12 feet from lens to subject for this.

Have fun with it.

Ole Tjugen
7-Jan-2006, 09:26
An 8" lens on 8x10" will not be like a "24mm on a Nikon", but more like a 30mm. That is - assumint infinity focus. But in a studio you're worlink close, so the extension will be longer. The net effect is that it's about comparable to a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Since perspective is dependent on the distance from lens to subject, the distortion won't be so bad as you might expect. Just scaling up only works when you're at or close to infinity.

Old shutters:

Most of my old 8x10" lenses - the ones that have shutters at all - are in #3 Compound shutters. These are among the most reliable of all shutters, and I wouldn't hesitate one moment trusting one for an important shoot. I prefer the big old Compound shutters to the equally old smaller Compurs!

Paul Fitzgerald
7-Jan-2006, 17:19
Sorry Ole,

Nikon is 24 x 36mm, Lisco 8x10 holders are 204 x 245mm, it's exactly the same as a 24mm on a Nikon at any distance.

The problem is not the lens but the distance. Trying to get approx. 6' of image from 6' out is approx. 60* angle of view. At this distance there will be approx. 12% magnification difference between the center of the film and the top, these people will look like bowling pins.

Dropping back to 12' will change this to 3%, 15' to 2% and 18' to 1%, that's why process cameras and studio portrait cameras use longer lenses.

I seriously suggest Mr. Macgee test this out before he takes it on the road and compares them to the normal perspective head shots. No one like surprises.

Ole Tjugen
7-Jan-2006, 17:40
Paul:

The 35mm negative is 36mm long, the 8x10" negative is 240mm. That's a 3:20 ratio. Your "24mm on a Nikon" corresponds to a 160mm on 8x10".

6' of subject at 6' of distance is 53°, not 60°. Field of view of a "normal lens" at infinity. But what Mr. Macgee wants is 5' of subject: 5' of subject at a 6' distance is not 60°, but 45°. That's an 8% difference which is far less objectionable.

Does a person look more or less "normal" when viewed from 6' distance? I agree that 12' is better for portraits, but 6' is not unreasonable. One of the reasons for suggesting a 210mm WA lens was to get the camera position high, allowing the use of lens drop. That makes the head more significant that the belly - exactly how we see people.

"Normal perspective head shots" do not cover 6', but more like 1½'. Your arguments didn't touch on that at all.

Criticise my calculations if you wish, but at least do the correct calculations.

Paul Fitzgerald
7-Jan-2006, 21:18
Ole,

"but at least do the correct calculations."

I did.

In portrait mode the Nikon is 24mm wide, the view camera 8" wide. I think we are transposing landscape to portrait AND aspect ratios. The Nikon would work out to 24 x 30mm, cropping off the bottom of the frame. A 55mm on 6X7(8,9), 100mm on 4x5, 127mm on 5x7 and 210 on 8x10 at 6 feet will all have the same perspective, 5x7 will need to be cropped for an 8x10 print.

"The amount of distance between camera and subject is approx. 6-8' max. due to the space restraints, I can't go farther."

Distance is another problem. Moving from MF to 8x10 I don't know if Mr. Macgee realises the space an 8X10 focused this close takes up, plus room for the photog and is measured from the lens to the sitter. The camera/tripod/photog will take 3 - 4 feet.

Even at this distance I don't know if a 210 can throw enough useful image circle to allow enough lens drop.

""Normal perspective head shots" do not cover 6', but more like 1½'. Your arguments didn't touch on that at all. "

No, but a normal perspective head shot with a 14" Voigtlander or Ektar will instantly show the distortion to the sitter, they encompass a much smaller field of view. The sitter will be comparing apples to apples right there and then, which is the problem I forsee with this setup.

Ole, I'm not criticising your calculations or choice of lenses. I'm criticising the physical situation of trying to make a 3/4 length protrait with an 8x10 camera within 6 - 8 feet, I don't think it can actually be done to anyone's satisfation. Only actual setup and testing will show Mr. Macgee and his client if they will be satisfied but he hasn't bought the camera yet.

It wasn't an arguement.

Ole Tjugen
8-Jan-2006, 03:41
Ah.

For portraits I did the alculations in portrait orientation, since that would seem most relevant. Thus the use of the long dimension of both film sizes.

Since the image part of the 10" dimension is measurably less than 10", we end up at about 240mm which is what I compared with the 36mm length of the Nikon film.

I have done full figure shots from very close with a "135W" back on a Bronica ETRS with a 75mm lens, giving 24x54mm negatives. I didn't crop these on printing, but instead made the print narrower and used the full length. Client very happy. :)

I agree that Mr. Macgee's distances are short, and may be too short for comfort.

Checking my classical reference (H. Schmidt: "Photographisches Hilfsbuch für ernste Arbit", 1910), I find the following advice:
"Rule 1: by head and shoulders portraits the lens should be at least 1.75m from the face of the sitter.
Rule 2: By full figure and knee portraits the lens should be at least 3m from the face of the sitter."

1.75m is about 5'8", 3m is 10'.

In the following tables, based on head size on the negative, we find the "Royal" format with a height of 235mm: Head and chest: 8.5cm; under knee: 3.75cm.

That head size is then carried to the next table, giving focal lengths from head size and working distance: 8.5cm from 1.75m: 480mm, and 3.75cm from the same distance: 270mm.

But that table gives extension, not the focal length which gives that extension...

As for the 210mm coverage: The later 210mm Angulon has a 382mm image circle at f:16, infinity. That allows 5cm rise/fall in portrait orientation on 8x10", still at infinity.
Pre-WWII Angulons had greater coverage but poorer sharpness. My sample covers 12x16" at infinity; more than enough for any rise/fall on 8x10"!

I agree with Paul Fitzgerald that Mr. Macgee should try this in practice before committing to the shoot. Rent or borrow a camera and lenses - he may well find it impossible to get good results in such a confined space.

Paul Fitzgerald
8-Jan-2006, 11:09
Ole,

Gotta love internet email.

This exchange brought up another thought:

6 feet brings a combined distortion of 20 - 25% and 12 feet drops this to 5 - 6%

THAN

8.5 - 9 feet should bring a combined distortion of 10 - 12%.

A 300mm Dagor should do a full length at this distance and have enough rise.

Leave the model light at 5 feet and camera at 9 feet for a shadow line.

I think Mr. Mortensen was on to something here. By moving the optical center up you increase the model's bustline by 10%, head's a little smaller, waist's a little smaller, hips smaller and legs go on forever. You think this is what Playboy was doing before P.S., they used to use 8X10.

I think this require investigating, lots of it.

Ole Tjugen
8-Jan-2006, 12:16
Mr. Mortensen was definitely "on to something" in my opinion.

As to the Playboy shoots - it's "always" been recommended to shoo full figure shots from chest height (even my 1910 reference recommends that). Until now I never thought there could be an "ulterior motive" to this, but I don't think I've ever met someone who disliked an "expanded chest shot". :)