F Stops For Portraits Questions

[ColonelKurtz]

Hello,
I'm wondering if the information I was given is correct, and that is that f11 in large format is the equivalent of f2.8 in 35mm...? Also, wondering what f-stop everyone has been making their portraits at, lately? I'm guessing that making portraits at f11 and "higher" (f16, etc) is a good rule of thumb...? (I realize there are no rules, but I haven't made many large format portraits, yet, and am trying to get a feel for where everyone is at, regarding these, f-stop wise). Thanks

[BLATT LAB]

the conversion depends on the size of your negative not just "in large format". So it matters if you use 4x5, 8x10, 11x14 etc. and also the Focal length. A 150mm on 4x5 is roughly equivalent to a 50mm on 35mm Film but has the depth of field of a 150mm on 35mm. lets say this lens has a aperture of 5.6 then the depth of field is equivalent to a 150mm 1.8 on 35mm Film but with a the same angle of view as a 50mm. To get the same angle of view on 8x10 you need a 300mm. When this lens also has an Aperture of 5.6 the depth of field is like a 300mm 0.9 on 35mm with the same field of view as a 50mm. The math goes on like this with bigger/ small formats and different lenses.
I have seen people use F5.6 on 8x10 but also F45 on 4x5 for portraits. Its only depends on your preferences what you use.

[Dann Corbit]

Naturally, all the answers are going to be "it depends."
If you have a fast lens and you are going for the creamy dreamy bokeh and he lens can do it, then open it up all the way. What if a gentleman is sitting at a grand piano and he is keen to have the instrument in the shot?
Or perhaps a lady has a really spectacular outfit and rhinestone shoes and tilt won't get everything into focus well enough?
If it is a family portrait and the lens is really fast, you won't get everything in focus opened all the way up.

A big reason for large format stuff is all the choices that you have. If there were a single answer for all things we could use a great big box camera with no focus, aperture, or tilt and just call it good.

So don't let the camera boss you. You boss the camera.

[lenicolas]

I'm wondering if the information I was given is correct, and that is that f11 in large format is the equivalent of f2.8 in 35mm...?

Assuming you mean 4x5, the math isn’t too far off.

My easy and oversimplified rule of thumb is this :
4x5 is 2x the focal length and aperture compared to 6x7
6x7 is 2x the focal length and aperture compared to 24x32 (I crop all my small format to a 4/3 ratio)

So a 210 @ f/11 on 4x5 would give the same-ish field of view and dof as a 105mm @f/5.6 on 6x7 and a 55mm @f/2.8 on 24x32.


That being said, my most often used apertures for portrait on 4x5 are f/8 and f/11.
On the one hand I don’t want to overwork my 360w strobes (even though recycling time is not a problem with large format) and if I’m mixing ambient light I want to keep my shutter speeds reasonable. I took a portrait of my son and there was a window in the frame : at f/8 I had to slow the shutter to 1/15s so the daylight outside would match my flash exposure inside.

[Bob Salomon]

Assuming you mean 4x5, the math isn’t too far off.

My easy and oversimplified rule of thumb is this :
4x5 is 2x the focal length and aperture compared to 6x7
6x7 is 2x the focal length and aperture compared to 24x32 (I crop all my small format to a 4/3 ratio)

So a 210 @ f/11 on 4x5 would give the same-ish field of view and dof as a 105mm @f/5.6 on 6x7 and a 55mm @f/2.8 on 24x32.


That being said, my most often used apertures for portrait on 4x5 are f/8 and f/11.
On the one hand I don’t want to overwork my 360w strobes (even though recycling time is not a problem with large format) and if I’m mixing ambient light I want to keep my shutter speeds reasonable. I took a portrait of my son and there was a window in the frame : at f/8 I had to slow the shutter to 1/15s so the daylight outside would match my flash exposure inside.

Except the smaller the negative the greater the magnification for a given print size thus the smaller the negative the smaller the circle of confusion.

[ic-racer]

f11 in large format is the equivalent of f2.8 in 35mm?

f11 on a 300mm lens is a bout 27mm
f2.8 on a 50mm lens is about 17mm

So, to answer the question; No. You would need to stop the 8x10 lens down to about f16 to get a similar aperture size.

[ColonelKurtz]

Sorry, should've specified: Using a 4x5 camera with a 150mm lens for portraits. Would love to see examples of portraits anyone has shot with a 4x5 camera, and the corresponding data for each. Thanks

[MAubrey]

If you want to experiment with how film format, aperture, distance, and magnification affects background out of focus blur, this website is fun:

https://www.howmuchblur.com/

Of course, you can't account for how lens design affects the quality of said out of focus backgrounds!

[ColonelKurtz]

Thanks for sending... Although that looks to be for 35mm cameras, I'll have a look. I'm really interested in 4x5, as that is what I use. Thanks

[Bob Salomon]

Sorry, should've specified: Using a 4x5 camera with a 150mm lens for portraits. Would love to see examples of portraits anyone has shot with a 4x5 camera, and the corresponding data for each. Thanks

For head and shoulders to ¾ a 150 on 45 is much too short unless you like large noses, shoulders, foreheads, etc.

[ColonelKurtz]

Yeah, I'm working with the limitations of that focal length for portraits, in order to use the fstop offered by that lens...

[lenicolas]

Sorry, should've specified: Using a 4x5 camera with a 150mm lens for portraits. Would love to see examples of portraits anyone has shot with a 4x5 camera, and the corresponding data for each. Thanks

150 is not my favourite lens for portraits, for the reasons listed by BS above, but I do use that lens on kids.
I have found that kids -and overweight adults- are less affected by the exaggeration of facial features caused by a short lens.

210749
150mm @f/8 - roughly 1m distance.

[Bob Salomon]

Yeah, I'm working with the limitations of that focal length for portraits, in order to use the fstop offered by that lens...

Why is that stop different then on a 210 or 240?

[ColonelKurtz]

Exactly what I was looking for... to see your subject's eyes in focus (as they are on the same plane), as well as getting a sense of the distance from camera to subject, and subject to background while getting a sense of what will be out of focus at that f stop. Perfect example for what I was trying to get an idea of... Thanks!

[ColonelKurtz]

Why is that stop different then on a 210 or 240?

I'm using f2.8 on a Xenotar 150mm. Quite different from the usual offerings on large format lenses... but wanted to see what f8 and f11 were looking like, before I go and do the test, anyway...

[lenicolas]

Yeah, I'm working with the limitations of that focal length for portraits, in order to use the fstop offered by that lens...

I have resolved to artificially light my 4x5 portraits. I’d rather be free to use a “slow” lens of the right focal length than limit myself to a short lens because it’s faster.
When the setup time for the camera is considered, it doesn’t make that big a difference to also setup a strobe.
And as long as you’re shooting B&W, lighting a portrait with one strobe isn’t too complex.

[ColonelKurtz]

Oh I see... I'm using the Xenotar in dim light (at the beginning and the end of the day) for portraits, and shooting it at f2.8, but will also start to use it at f8, 11, and 16. I'm never close than your example, and am happy with the results so far...

[ColonelKurtz]

210750 Xenotar 150mm at f2.8. Image is cropped a bit.

[Ulophot]

My approach to 4x5 portraiture has become primarily location lighting, supplemented artificially only if necessary. I shoot HP5 at 400 or 200, depending on the development needs. My primary lens is 210; a 135 added recently for including more environment.

I agree that 150 is short for head and shoulders; with the 210, I generally start at upper body, about 5 ½ to 6 feet from the subject. Closer is certainly possible but needs careful consideration of the perspective. I have seen many closer portraits with the 210 that worked well.
Examples of the 210 are on my Flickr page: Dana (cropped) , Friend Reading, and the four studio portraits from years ago.

[ColonelKurtz]

Great to see all the different approaches, here. Of course a 210 or a 240 even, is what most of the people I know are using for portraits, but I'm after the 2.8 f stop, and I also don't mind the possibility of slight distortion of the 150mm lens, if it does happen. I spent years making traditional portraits with the usual focal lengths (35mm, medium format, and now large format), but have moved into different territory now, not to say that I won't revisit. Thanks again!

[Ulophot]

Addendum: Just a note. I have never fully grasped the science, but there appears to be some evidence that the effects of perspective from closer distances are somewhat less pronounced in a print from large format than from, say, 35mm, a property owing to the degree of enlargement and typical viewing distance to the print. In many cases, however, it is hard for the viewer to immediately perceive a "pronounced" close perspective (within limits) without knowing the subject; immediately, that is, because scrutiny might indicate proportions that suggest the closer distance. However, a face can be slimmed, from some angles, from closer up as compared with a greater distance, and broadened a bit from further away. In any case, the totality of the portrait in and what it conveys is what counts, and in this, we certainly have a great deal of freedom -- and a great deal of challenge!

[Bob Salomon]

Addendum: Just a note. I have never fully grasped the science, but there appears to be some evidence that the effects of perspective from closer distances are somewhat less pronounced in a print from large format than from, say, 35mm, a property owing to the degree of enlargement and typical viewing distance to the print. In many cases, however, it is hard for the viewer to immediately perceive a "pronounced" close perspective (within limits) without knowing the subject; immediately, that is, because scrutiny might indicate proportions that suggest the closer distance. However, a face can be slimmed, from some angles, from closer up as compared with a greater distance, and broadened a bit from further away. In any case, the totality of the portrait in and what it conveys is what counts, and in this, we certainly have a great deal of freedom -- and a great deal of challenge!

There is a better chance that it doesn’t seem as pronounced as people have become used to seeing foreshortening from TV broadcasts, especially of interviews on TV.

[Ulophot]

Perhaps. I certainly agree with you regarding the ubiquity of the wide-angle close-up, which, as I recall, came in big-time in the late '60s with the psychedelics. Computer lens design andother tech developments facilitated it, I would guess -- something about which you know infinitely more than I.

Walter Rosenblum told me back in the '70s that the trick to using wide-angle lenses is to use them so that the short focal length does not draw attention to itself.

[ColonelKurtz]

Perhaps. I certainly agree with you regarding the ubiquity of the wide-angle close-up, which, as I recall, came in big-time in the late '60s with the psychedelics. Computer lens design andother tech developments facilitated it, I would guess -- something about which you know infinitely more than I.

Walter Rosenblum told me back in the '70s that the trick to using wide-angle lenses is to use them so that the short focal length does not draw attention to itself.


That's interesting about the wide-angle closeup in the late 60's, because maybe a part of what I'm doing with the Xenotar 150mm lately, was motivated by the Acid Western genre of movies, among other influences (Cormac McCarthy, Jim Thompson, etc...)

[Bernice Loui]

There are no real hard set rules on what f-stop should be used for portraits, same applies to focal length used. While there are what is considered "professional" standards of portraiture, is this the look and image goal you're after?

As for wide angle portraits, this rather famous cat lady fight scene from Clock Work Orange was made using a 9.8mm Kinoptik Tegea. Stanley Kubrick applied this wide angle lens to this scene very, very, very effectively. The resulting images are very much portraits in motion. As for f-stop used in this scene, the 9.8mm Kinoptik Tegea has a full aperture of T2.3 or f1.8, what aperture might have been used for this scene?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjlq92tQHVk

I'm not convinced portraits made using a view camera should be limited to what tradition has dictated, other portraits methods should be considered from other imaging media including film, video, painting and more... Some can be adapted to view camera images, others cannot.

It all goes back to your print image goals, once this is mostly established, figuring how to achieve it can begin.


Bernice





That's interesting about the wide-angle closeup in the late 60's, because maybe a part of what I'm doing with the Xenotar 150mm lately, was motivated by the Acid Western genre of movies, among other influences (Cormac McCarthy, Jim Thompson, etc...)

[ColonelKurtz]

There are no real hard set rules on what f-stop should be used for portraits, same applies to focal length used. While there are what is considered "professional" standards of portraiture, is this the look and image goal you're after?

As for wide angle portraits, this rather famous cat lady fight scene from Clock Work Orange was made using a 9.8mm Kinoptik Tegea. Stanley Kubrick applied this wide angle lens to this scene very, very, very effectively. The resulting images are very much portraits in motion. As for f-stop used in this scene, the 9.8mm Kinoptik Tegea has a full aperture of T2.3 or f1.8, what aperture might have been used for this scene?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjlq92tQHVk

I'm not convinced portraits made using a view camera should be limited to what tradition has dictated, other portraits methods should be considered from other imaging media including film, video, painting and more... Some can be adapted to view camera images, others cannot.

It all goes back to your print image goals, once this is mostly established, figuring how to achieve it can begin.


Bernice

I'm at the point of breaking some of the rules that I learned, after 10 years of photo assisting for some of the bigger commercial photographers in "the biz". I was assisting during the film days, into the digital age. I recently transitioned from shooting with the Pentax 67 105mm 2.4 lens, to large format with the Xenotar 150mm, and am very happy with the results I'm getting from it at f2.8. What I was looking for in my original post was satisfied with the member who posted the black and white photo of a young boy, photographed at f8. It is a perfect example of what I was looking for. I'm going to do a film test anyway, but wanted to see if anyone had any examples they could post, and luckily someone did. I do agree with getting outside of the box, so to speak. I love the cinematography of Robbie Muller, and he was one of the biggest rule breakers of 'em all. Thanks

[Bernice Loui]

If you're happy and good with the results of a taking aperture of f2.8 with the 150mm Xenotar, KEEP AT IT.

At this point, the rules can become of significantly lesser value in your portrait making goals. Know rules tend to limit creativity and possibilities of developing your own style of Portrait making. Much like learning to play a musical instrument where the student practices exercises and pieces of music intended to develop their skills and abilities on a given musical instrument for hours and hours each day, over weeks, months and years of the music student's life. At some point the music student gives up on practice of this stuff, once enough mastery has been achieved and needs to make each piece of music their own rendition of their creative interpretation and personal expression of the work. Photography is no different in this way, once enough mastery of the art-craft has been achieved, it is up to the artist-photographer to use what has been mastered-learned as a means of creative expression... and this will not happen by following the ..... Rules. Question becomes where did these "Rules" come from and why?


Bernice



I'm at the point of breaking some of the rules that I learned, after 10 years of photo assisting for some of the bigger commercial photographers in "the biz". I was assisting during the film days, into the digital age. I recently transitioned from shooting with the Pentax 67 105mm 2.4 lens, to large format with the Xenotar 150mm, and am very happy with the results I'm getting from it at f2.8. What I was looking for in my original post was satisfied with the member who posted the black and white photo of a young boy, photographed at f8. It is a perfect example of what I was looking for. I'm going to do a film test anyway, but wanted to see if anyone had any examples they could post, and luckily someone did. I do agree with getting outside of the box, so to speak. I love the cinematography of Robbie Muller, and he was one of the biggest rule breakers of 'em all. Thanks

[ColonelKurtz]

If you're happy and good with the results of a taking aperture of f2.8 with the 150mm Xenotar, KEEP AT IT.

At this point, the rules can become of significantly lesser value in your portrait making goals. Know rules tend to limit creativity and possibilities of developing your own style of Portrait making. Much like learning to play a musical instrument where the student practices exercises and pieces of music intended to develop their skills and abilities on a given musical instrument for hours and hours each day, over weeks, months and years of the music student's life. At some point the music student gives up on practice of this stuff, once enough mastery has been achieved and needs to make each piece of music their own rendition of their creative interpretation and personal expression of the work. Photography is no different in this way, once enough mastery of the art-craft has been achieved, it is up to the artist-photographer to use what has been mastered-learned as a means of creative expression... and this will not happen by following the ..... Rules. Question becomes where did these "Rules" come from and why?


Bernice

So true... I started out in the back of the rental department at Samys Camera in Los Angeles, cleaning and checking every single piece of equipment that was returned to rentals. Within about 5 months, I knew basically every camera and strobe pack inside and out (we had it all). I then assisted for 10 years (back in the large format days, and through to digital, testing the Nikon DCS 620 (a $15,000 TWO megapixel camera) when it first arrived in Samys rental department), and somewhat learned the actual skill of picture making (from photo assisting), then went out on my own. The portrait lenses used the most back then (if I remember correctly) were: Contax 645 120mm, Pentax 67 105mm to 165mm, Mamiya RZ 110mm, 4x5 210mm or 240mm... and on and on... At this point, I'm more interested in the experience of making portraits, letting one picture "carry" me to the next. The equipment is secondary (in a way), these days... In a way trying to simultaneously forget alot of what I learned, in order to do something (hopefully) a bit more "poetic" or "lyrical"... Excellent technique and the "right" equipment can make for great photographs, but it doesn't guarantee a great "picture." Two very different things.