Portrait focal length

[Noeyedear]

My reason for asking the following question is, it's been a while since I shot LF and I have never done any LF portraits. If I was using 35 mm for Portraits I would be looking around the 100 mm mark, MF about 150 mm. If I was shooting 10x8 this would put me into the 600-700mm range and 5x4 300mm. So what is the experience here of those shooting LF portraits, I know nothing is set in stone, I'm also aware of perspective being a result of viewpoint , etc.
My limited experience (landscape) of a longer lens on 5x4 which was 240 mm had a "feel" or "look" longer than a 100 mm on 35 mm.
Which lens would make a good head shot on 5x4 and which lens on 10 x 8.
Thanks,

Kevin.

[Joanna Carter]

To get an idea of LF lengths, simply multiply 35mm lengths by anything between 3 and 3.6, depending on how you measure the film area/sizes.

[Noeyedear]

Hi Joanna,
I'm aware of the maths on paper and theory, I'm wondering in practice with the larger format does that hold true to the final look of the picture.

Regards,

Kevin.

[Walter Calahan]

For head and shoulders, think in the 180, 210, to 240 mm range.

The translation from 35 mm to 4x5 or 8x10 isn't as simple as multiplying because the films have different aspect ratios.

An old 4x5 SLR Graflex does nice portraits with its standard 190 mm lens.

On 8x10, I like making full-length portraits, so a 240 mm (slightly wide from normal) works for me, and gives a little more 'feeling' of depth-of-field.

If you have the chance to borrow a few different focal lengths, before buying, do it to discover what works with how you see.

[Ash]

180mm is a good length for portraits on 5x4. I found that 150mm can be too wide (but it's my standard lens on one setup I use most, so I crop) but 180mm can give you the added zoom you need for a nice straight shot.
Then again for MF I use around 80mm, so I'm always going a bit wider than you. I shoot 35mm portraits on 50mm lenses and rarely on 90mm.

[jb7]

You're going to get a lot of answers,
so you'll be right back where you started-
210-300 on 4x5, though longer or shorter depending on the picture,
would be my less than helpful suggestion-

joseph

[Ransom]

My "standard" portrait lens is a 210 but I shoot portraits with other lenses for effect etc.

Edit: 4x5

[Peter K]

As an equivalent to an 100mm 35mm lens a 360mm lens the Tele-Xenar 1:5,5/360mm is a good choice. Also a such a tele-lens needs a shorter bellows-extension, 213mm at infinity. And for 8x10 the Apo-Tele-Xenar 1:9/600mm with a bellows-extension of 461mm ant infinity. Both lenses can be used with "normal" LF cameras.

[Frank Petronio]

Lately I've been using 135 on 4x5. It's wrong of course and my photos suck ;-)

In general you can go shorter with larger formats. I like 50-85mm range on 35mm/APS cameras, not that it matches...

[lenser]

This is a chart published in Kodaks old 'Photography with Large Format Cameras'.

Hope it helps.

Tim

[Ash]

That's alright Frank, I'm loving your recent stuff! :)

[Jim Galli]

What you're hinting at is a phenomenon where at 8X10 a head is nearing 1:1 ie. it's almost the same size on the film as it is in person. Where a 35mm would be magnified 10X and a 4X5 maybe 3-4 times. That seems to be the reason the rules of multiplying 3+ and 6+ X whatever you liked in 35mm breaks down partially at 4X5 and totally at 8X10. There are also mechanical restrictions. If you lived by the 6X35mm rule you'd have a 24 inch lens on the 8X10 and nearing 1:1 for a head and shoulders your bellows would be somewhere out near 44 inches. Possible perhaps with an old Century #8 and a reducing back but not practical. The Kodak chart presented reflects what I have found through seat of the pants testing as I've attempted portaiture. In the studio I have a bit more latitude with big cameras on stands. An 18" lens on 8X10 is easily used. In the field with my trusty old Kodak 2D, 12 - 14" is the rule. A 12" f3.8 lens is about maximum for a 6X6 lens panel. I've squeezed a 14" f4 and a 15" f4.5 into service at different times. You just physically run out of room after that. And the 15" lens had the poor old Kodak gasping at about 28 1/2" bellows extension. Everything was maxed out.

[Scott Davis]

COMMON focal lengths for portraits on 4x5 are 210-240, with 300 getting in to the long end of things. The big advantage with the 210-240 is that even in a relatively small studio, you have the option of shooting full or 3/4 length figures with the same lens you'd shoot the head-and-shoulders portrait shot with, without running into major bellows compensation factor at closeup range. As Jim pointed out, the longer you get, to maintain a decent maximum f-stop, the lenses start going up exponentially in size, and most 4x5 cameras aren't built to handle them (a 14" (360mm) f5.6 is a MUCH bigger lens than an 8 1/4" (210mm) f5.6).

[David A. Goldfarb]

The big advantage with the 210-240 is that even in a relatively small studio, you have the option of shooting full or 3/4 length figures with the same lens you'd shoot the head-and-shoulders portrait shot with, without running into major bellows compensation factor at closeup range.

Actually, bellows compensation factor for this sort of image will be the same no matter what the focal length, because the magnification factor is the same for the same composition, independent of focal length.

A shorter lens lets you use less bellows extension, which is an advantage if you have a short bellows, but it doesn't mean you get a shorter exposure.

[douglas antonio]

depending on what the individual considers to be a portrait/ head and shoulders/head and torso/up to half length thighs ...i have experienced good results from 150mm right up to 300mm for 4x5.
300mm gets a bit flat in a head and shoulders-shot. the threedimensionality is slightly lost. i have not shot with any longer lens than that. but even shorter lenses (90mm) have their expression if you know how to use them.

[Leonard Evens]

This has been discussed lately, and I think I worked it out properly. It isn't necessary to guess if you are willing to make some simple calculations.

First decide the scale of reproduction. For example, my shoulders are about 22 inches. For that to fill the short dimension of a 4 x 5 frame would require a reproduction ratio of 4:22 = 1:5.5. (You don't have to get it exactly right.)

Next, determine how far you want the subject for a pleasing perspective. For me, that would be 6 to 8 feet, but you may prefer another distance. Let's assume it is 6 feet or 72 inches.

Take the reciprocal of the reproduction ratio and add one to iit. (That is the ratio of the subject distance to the focal length that you need.) Divide the subject distance by that number and you get the focal length.

In my example 5.5 + 1 = 6.5., so the focal length should be 72/6.5 which is a little over 11 inches. Multiply the focal length in inches by 25.4 to get the answer in mm. In this case, it is about 281 mm. Probably, anything in the range 250 to 300 mm would work.

Let me try to counter the inevitable response: "That's too complicated." You asked a quantitative question, so you need a quantitative answer. Instead of trying to adapt a rule of thumb from another format, you should use a rule based on what you are trying to accomplish. This is not higher mathematics, and anyone who can do simple arithmetic or has a calculator should be able to do it. It leaves the crucial decisions to you rather than just letting them fall where they may.

[Noeyedear]

What you're hinting at is a phenomenon where at 8X10 a head is nearing 1:1 ie. it's almost the same size on the film as it is in person. Where a 35mm would be magnified 10X and a 4X5 maybe 3-4 times. That seems to be the reason the rules of multiplying 3+ and 6+ X whatever you liked in 35mm breaks down partially at 4X5 and totally at 8X10. There are also mechanical restrictions. If you lived by the 6X35mm rule you'd have a 24 inch lens on the 8X10 and nearing 1:1 for a head and shoulders your bellows would be somewhere out near 44 inches. Possible perhaps with an old Century #8 and a reducing back but not practical. The Kodak chart presented reflects what I have found through seat of the pants testing as I've attempted portaiture. In the studio I have a bit more latitude with big cameras on stands. An 18" lens on 8X10 is easily used. In the field with my trusty old Kodak 2D, 12 - 14" is the rule. A 12" f3.8 lens is about maximum for a 6X6 lens panel. I've squeezed a 14" f4 and a 15" f4.5 into service at different times. You just physically run out of room after that. And the 15" lens had the poor old Kodak gasping at about 28 1/2" bellows extension. Everything was maxed out.

Jim,
Thanks that's more of what I was getting at, not the maths of converting from one format to the other, more the actual look. The Kodak chart answers well what I was thinking, from my limited longer lens experience on 5x4, I had a feeling the lenses would be shorter than the multiplication factor from standard you need on smaller formats. I liked 100mm for heads on 35mm, that would be 300mm ish on 5x4.
Thanks all, I was asking so I could choose the camera format for the lens I just bought, it's going to be 5x7.

Kevin.