View Full Version : Portrait lens focal length for 4x5: distortion, FOV and focusing distance
I'm looking for a portrait lens for a 4x5 Gowlandflex TLR I'm planning to buy, and I've narrowed the focal length of the lens between 240mm and 300mm. I'm new to LF (shoot MF film with a TLR and crop sensor digital 35mm) so the idiosyncracies of LF are mostly new to me. I'd be shooting mainly full-length in a spacious studio, but would also like versatility to do tight facials.
I've been looking at quite a few 4x5 photos online, and I've found the full-face shots with 240mm show too much distortion to my tastes. Head and shoulders are marginal, but full-length is good. It looks like the relatively long minimum focusing distance would make tight facials with the 300mm impossible, though. I assume this is due to the bellows length of the Gowlandflex?
According to Mr Gowland's website (http://www.petergowland.com/camera/index.html) a 240mm lens would focus at 1m. FOV calculator (http://johndudak.com/photographers/fov2.php) shows roughly 38cm x 30cm FOV at that distance - pretty much perfect for a facial. While there's no minimum focusing distance listed for a 300mm lens, it looks like it's well beyond 1.5m - and that would mean 48cm x 38cm, a head and shoulders shot.
So now I'm torn between two choices: the appealing perspective of the 300mm without the ability to shoot uncropped facials, or the versatility of the 240mm with (admittedly minor) distortion.
Do I have other options, or is there something I'm missing as an LF newbie? I would also appreciate some more examples of facials shot with a 4x5 and a 240/250mm lens - googling "240mm 4x5" shows mainly pictures of such lenses.
edit: found some 240mm shots on the portrait topics, and they confirm that the focal length shows a bit too much distortion for my taste.
Frank Petronio
26-Nov-2009, 18:18
Take a step backward and crop. You'll have better results with focusing accuracy too.
Ron Marshall
26-Nov-2009, 18:27
Using the lens formula I get a minimum focus distance with a 300mm on the Gowland of 6 meters.
One possible solution is two top-hat boards; you would need about 11 cm of extension to get it to focus at 1m.
Brian Stein
27-Nov-2009, 01:48
Well there is always 270 mm as a compromise focal length....
cjbroadbent
27-Nov-2009, 02:15
...found some 240mm shots on the portrait topics, and they confirm that the focal length shows a bit too much distortion for my taste...
For my taste, you need distortion, otherwise you are no better than a photocopier. Anything longer than a 180 squashes a face flat as a pancake and places the camera so remote from the subject that you have no handle on interpretation.
Frank Petronio
27-Nov-2009, 05:40
I'll second Mr. Broadbrent's view, I use a 135 on 4x5 most of the time myself. Where you stand plays a bigger role in creating unpleasant distortion imho.
But you probably want that short depth-of-field floating head that seems so popular these days, everyone is doing it (!) But the thought of hand-holding the Gowlandflex with a pair of racked out 300mm lenses seems ridiculous and if you end up tripod mounting the thing, you defeat one of the main reasons for using such a contraption.
You could get a pair of matching telephoto lenses though. They have wide apertures and since you won't use movements there won't be any wierdness... perhaps twin 360mm Schneider Tele-Artons or Tele-Xenars? Then the bellows would ony be racked out 10-12 inches (I think, please double check). Note they are usually vintage lenses so you'll need to shop around and maybe get them cleaned and adjusted.
If this is your first 4x5 you might want to get a cheap "basic" 4x5 to learn on, or at least put the beast on a tripod and shoot some still-life. Adding the Gowlandflex to the mix is hard enough even once you are an experienced large format shooter.
If your lens is racked out to 300mm, at whatever distance,
then it's acting like a 300mm lens-
that is, if you're used to comparing focal lengths between formats.
A small format shot, tight on a head, might add a few mm to the focal length,
on a larger format, it'll add a considerable percentage to your nominal focal length.
Frank is right, everyone is doing it, if they're not doing something else-
but I suppose that's the problem with instant mass communication,
as soon as something is seen, it's replicated immediately...
Regarding the floating heads, well, maybe they all float to some degree-
but at the scale that pictures are presented here,
it might be difficult to see, unless they're helped by big apertures and uncorrected coma...
Tight head shots are difficult on the larger formats-
they're essentially macros, and depth of field is extremely limited-
and there might be a limited number of sitters who will suit that interpretation anyway-
As Christopher mentioned ages ago, and as Frank demonstrates with every picture, using a wider lens and getting closer (but not too close)
allows the subject's attitude to show, and can make for more interesting compositions...
In my limited experience, I find 210mm long enough for 4x5, 300mm for 8x10-
and lately I've been using a little 180mm Petzval on 4x5, that doesn't nearly cover the format-
I've still got a few heads I need to see float...
Ken Lee
27-Nov-2009, 09:05
Some of us like longer lenses for everything, especially portraits.
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/img005a.jpg
Sinar P, 250mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar
4x5 TMY, Pyrocat HD
don't forget with the tlr you will have
a lower angle of view. unless you are standing on
something that makes you really tall, or you are really tall yourself
your pov will reflect this low-angle portrait.
Thanks for all the input! The massive minimum focusing distance calculated by Mr Marshall makes the lens all but unusable for my needs.
I think I'll be able to live with the distortion from a 240/250mm.
There won't be any distortion-
it's just perspective...
ic-racer
27-Nov-2009, 12:40
How about A pair of Fuji 300Ts. Flange Flocal distance 195mm.
Maris Rusis
27-Nov-2009, 13:23
There is another way to approach "distortion free" portraits. It does not start with the camera or lens but rather the distance.
When you look at good portraits they often seem to have been taken from the same distance. This is the distance from which two strangers look at each other when they are being attentive, interested, engaged, and respectful. They are close but not close enough to invade personal space. At this distance the proportions of the face, the nose to ear ratio, the neck to forehead proportions, and so on, look right. The "face looks right" thing is probably instinctive among humans who are used to looking at other humans.
The distance is about 1.5 metres.
In my studio I set this distance and use a long lens if I want a tight face portrait and a short lens if I want more of the body. Remember, anything closer than about 1.5 metres will look "bigger than it is" and anything further away will look "too small". That's where the apparent distortion comes from; not the lens. The 1.5 metre rule seems to work for me irrespective of film, lens, camera, or format.
cjbroadbent
27-Nov-2009, 13:55
Hurrah for Maris! He's got the words to say it right. That's another skill I envy.
Robert Fisher
27-Nov-2009, 14:10
Maris, does your 1.5 meter rule apply to still life's?
There is another way to approach "distortion free" portraits. It does not start with the camera or lens but rather the distance.
When you look at good portraits they often seem to have been taken from the same distance. This is the distance from which two strangers look at each other when they are being attentive, interested, engaged, and respectful. They are close but not close enough to invade personal space. At this distance the proportions of the face, the nose to ear ratio, the neck to forehead proportions, and so on, look right. The "face looks right" thing is probably instinctive among humans who are used to looking at other humans.
The distance is about 1.5 metres.
In my studio I set this distance and use a long lens if I want a tight face portrait and a short lens if I want more of the body. Remember, anything closer than about 1.5 metres will look "bigger than it is" and anything further away will look "too small". That's where the apparent distortion comes from; not the lens. The 1.5 metre rule seems to work for me irrespective of film, lens, camera, or format.
community1313
28-Nov-2009, 04:21
..Besides I have to mention the Soft Focus/Bokeh..Short depth of field effect that we mostly love in portraits and the main reason why I prefer a 10 inch/240mm lens for head and shoulders portrait but having a small studio I also use a 8 inch/180 mm to get more in the frame and I would not go for a longer focal for practical reason on a 4X5, bellow extention, weight, and if you want a modern lens I recommend Rodenstock over schneider for portraits as it as more gradients and a nice bokeh..actually the sharpest lens I have is a Sinar 180 macro on a copal 1 shutter, small lens and amazing in all terms even in the out of focus background, otherwise a 6 inch petzval will be cheap and a lot of nice swirls but no shutter..I think you need to now what kind of portraits you want to do and to remember like everyone here said: it's a large neg and you have a lot of space for composition!
Ken Lee
28-Nov-2009, 07:26
"When you look at good portraits they often seem to have been taken from the same distance".
Maris, this is an excellent observation - Could you point us to some portraits which you admire ?
The distance is about 1.5 metres.
Does that distance really fit the theory? When people stand talking, they don't naturally stand 1.5m or 5' apart. People who make dining room tables, at which a good part of our daily conversation takes place, don't make them 1.5m/5' wide.
If I accept the theory, I think that the correct distance is no more than a meter and commonly less, which means that the proposed distance is off by at least 50%. So what is the truth of this?
I think that the proposed distance may have mostly to do with some photographers' comfort zones. I once took a lighting class at which the instructor had to encourage the participants, almost all of whom were keeping their distance from the model, to get closer. The problem, whatever it was, was in the heads of the student photographers, not the model. On the near side, I've done photographs of people with the lens less than a meter away, and I've seen film footage of Richard Avedon doing the same. I do agree that closer is better, but for me it has to do with establishing communication with the subject, not with a theory that sounds enticing but which on the face of it does not square with the facts of human interaction. Who knows, perhaps Maris and Christopher are right, and there is so much latitude in how our brains interpret perspective that a 50% error isn't noticeable. If so, then the question is, at what point is it noticeable?
I've always had friends, people, etc. comment that my portraits and headshots look distorted or "not quite right" if I get in closer than about 6 feet. Indeed, 1.5 meters, 6 feet, somewhere in this general vicinity is a widely accepted view (I have read it from more than one source). I think it is, generally, a very applicable, educated rule.
The rationale I've read is that it takes about 6 feet to view a person from head-to-toe; that is the distance at which the human mind tends to visualize other people.
Reguardless if the rationale I've provided is correct or not, the rule itself is valid. I'm surprised at how many "experienced" people in this thread were not aware of it. If you type in the words "subject distance portrait" into google, then like hurling a dead cat, you will invariably run into posts from different boards discussing how the proper distance begins somewhere at 5 or 6 feet. I've read this rule in more than one portrait photography book (oh, please no one go making me look it up!)...
Like all rules, it can be broken in the name of creativity, IF you know what you're doing. And again, like all rules, if you break it haphazardly, you risk producing a poor image.
Gordon Moat
28-Nov-2009, 13:17
http://www.platonphoto.com/portraits/politics/index.html
This very successful photographer, would seem to dispel any notion of a fixed distance being the "best" choice. I really think it depends more upon the subject, than the lens and distance. There is a comfort zone, but that differs between Europeans, Asians, and Americans, so that aspect is more cultural than formulaic.
Avedon early in his career felt he was controlling the subject. Then later he felt that the subject had taken control of the image. Nearer the end of his career he stated that he learned there was an interaction and interplay between the subject and photographer; neither was really in control of the situation.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
Actually I think these photos make the point, particularily with Obama's closeup, how a large nose can change your sense of attractiveness/characature of the subject.
Course we dont really know distance from focal length from cropping with these photos.
Most subjects don't like a big nose, light modeling be damned.
Regards
Bill
http://www.platonphoto.com/portraits/politics/index.html
This very successful photographer, would seem to dispel any notion of a fixed distance being the "best" choice. I really think it depends more upon the subject, than the lens and distance. There is a comfort zone, but that differs between Europeans, Asians, and Americans, so that aspect is more cultural than formulaic.
Avedon early in his career felt he was controlling the subject. Then later he felt that the subject had taken control of the image. Nearer the end of his career he stated that he learned there was an interaction and interplay between the subject and photographer; neither was really in control of the situation.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
There seems to be a dichotomy here-
That's a very good example of the Portrait, Gordon-
and thanks for posting it, I had lost that bookmark ages ago...
In the terms of the original post, it's obvious that he's not looking to get up close-
his pictures are meant to flatter, and distortion was perhaps the wrong term to use,
in the context of a question concerning optics.
If the job at hand is to find a formula for a correct distance to subject, I'm sure you can read it in a book, or find it in google, as has been preached-
but it's a poor substitute for looking, making your own interpretation, and portraying.
Yes, it is likely to change with the subject, and what you want to say about them-
I suppose the knee high picture of Clinton is saying something less than statesmanlike about him, for example-
not seeking to flatter...
I would applaud those sitters for allowing the photographer to make the pictures he wanted to make-
the world would be a very boring place if everybody followed the same formula-
often it's the riskier pictures that are the more rewarding.
Strange how some people think that there's only one way to do things,
and call others ignorant if they don't comply-
However, this isn't an answer to the original question-
which was about translating specific focal lengths from small format to large format,
for specific crops-
Strange how some people think that there's only one way to do things,
and call others ignorant if they don't comply -
You know, it's hard to interpret that statement other than a crass shot at some of the people who have commented in this thread. Nobody called anybody ignorant, and hopefully we are all mature enough to take the expression of an opinion, expressed in good faith as part of a personal aesthetic view, for what it is, and to recognize that the person who expresses the opinion is not so stupid as to believe in artistic absolutes. Sometimes the clear expression of a view, uncomplicated by the baggage of layer on layer of nuance, helps people think through the issue and crystalize their thinking.
If the above comment was completely theoretical, unrelated to anything said in this thread, then what is the point beyond setting up a straw man for the pleasure of ridiculing straw?
"uneducated", if you prefer.
Gordon Moat
28-Nov-2009, 16:46
The OP asked the question "... Do I have other options, or is there something I'm missing as an LF newbie? ....." So basically I wanted to point out other options.
Specifically with equipment, there is only so much detail needed in a face for most viewers to take in that it is indeed a face. So I think cropping is a great choice when faced with limited gear (different lens than you wanted). Arnold Newman is a great example of someone who cropped, because he didn't have that many lenses early in his career:
http://www.arnoldnewmanarchive.com/
Of course the extreme would be Chuck Close, who printed quite huge at times. There are also some portrait specialists who still use 8x10, often to very interesting effect. So unless one has a commission doing only head shots, I think a different approach might be the way to go, but crop when needed.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
With the threat of stepping on a landmine: if the suggestion is to crop an LF image to get "proper" focal length, why don't I just stick with MF? Sure, getting from 4x5" to 6x6cm would be pretty drastic cropping, but still...
"uneducated", if you prefer.
I affirmed in the positive, that knowing the rule is an educated stance. I never called anyone uneducated, I believe.
I also EXPLICITLY mentioned that the "rule" can and should be broken creatively, but that knowing the rule BEFORE breaking it leads to better results—a statement that also applies to rule of thirds, or almost any generally accepted "rule" in photography.
If you don't like the tone of my posts or what I'm "implying" please say so directly. No need to dance around the issue only to actually say what you mean when someone else calls you out on it...
With the threat of stepping on a landmine: if the suggestion is to crop an LF image to get "proper" focal length, why don't I just stick with MF? Sure, getting from 4x5" to 6x6cm would be pretty drastic cropping, but still...
Harri,
There is no point in making portraits in 4x5 rather than 6x6 unless you want 20 square inches of negative rather than 5 square inches, and have a clear idea why you want it, plus an understanding of the disadvantages over smaller formats, which are considerable.
Nobody is suggesting that you shoot 4x5 in order to lop off 15 square inches of negative, and one of the issues in this discussion that is not exactly the subject of a consensus is the very idea of a "proper" focal length.
Gordon Moat
28-Nov-2009, 20:23
With the threat of stepping on a landmine: if the suggestion is to crop an LF image to get "proper" focal length, why don't I just stick with MF? Sure, getting from 4x5" to 6x6cm would be pretty drastic cropping, but still...
The crop would be more like 75mm by 110mm using a 240mm lens at 1m distance. However, I do think that if you are fine with medium format, especially for portraits that do not need much detail, then there is little point in you switching to 4x5.
Without using movements, your main advantage using 4x5 is that the larger negative allows you to make bigger final prints. If the maximum print you are doing is 32cm by 40cm (roughly), then there is almost no point to using 4x5 over medium format, even 6x4.5. What large format allows is much larger prints, and movements. I believe in using a format for the advantages it allows.
I affirmed in the positive, that knowing the rule is an educated stance. I never called anyone uneducated, I believe.
Yes-
However, before you edited your original post, the word 'educated' was written in all caps,
and the implication of the negative was clear.
The 'dancing around' began there.
Whatever your views, it was an unnecessary qualification, loaded with the capacity to offend and belittle those holding different opinions.
Though maybe I should have taken your reconsidered sentiment into account,
and just ignored it.
I see you have a habit of shouting particular words, so perhaps I just read it the wrong way.
I won't be adding more to this, unless it's on topic,
but I would expect not to have to deal with double standards here.
Apologies for veering off topic-
as r.e. quite rightly said-
"Sometimes the clear expression of a view, uncomplicated by the baggage of layer on layer of nuance, helps people think through the issue and crystalize their thinking."
Without using movements, your main advantage using 4x5 is that the larger negative allows you to make bigger final prints. If the maximum print you are doing is 32cm by 40cm (roughly), then there is almost no point to using 4x5 over medium format, even 6x4.5. What large format allows is much larger prints, and movements. I believe in using a format for the advantages it allows.
Thanks again everyone for very helpful input. I'm not entirely sold on LF, so this is all valuable insight!
Big prints is exactly what I would be looking to do. I have a very particular direction with full-length glamour I'm going for, which would require the choice to make much larger prints than mentioned. Another is having the access to shallow DOF, and achieving gorgeous bokeh in background - though both are quite possible with the Mamiya C220 I use.
Movements might be useful for some shots, but from my understanding shooting people with a non-TLR LF camera when there's any chance of subject movement is iffy at best. The descriptions I've found here of using small apertures with deep DOF and the acompanying (massive) continuous light sources, or large apertures by pre-focusing on strings where the subject is placed at the last moment, are not exactly suitable for the type of shooting I do. I'm not talking about spray and pray (for the right shot), but posed but dynamic poses. TLR would be perfect for this reason - and the reason why Mr Gowland created his cameras -, although I would lose movements.
Having the choice for tight facials is mainly a nice-to-have feature, but the more I think about it, I could just stick with MF for those, as they are not part of the very particular direction mentioned :)
Yes-
However, before you edited your original post, the word 'educated' was written in all caps,
and the implication of the negative was clear.
The 'dancing around' began there.
Are you serious?!
First of all, there is a reason people can edit their posts. I thought better of myself, and made an edit. The capitalized "EDUCATED" was up for, maybe, two minutes. Next are you going to jump on the typos I miss and then edit out two minutes later, as well?
And if the "negative" was "clear," why didn't you point it out at first? Perhaps because you realized how silly it was to pick up on something that was "negative" for all of two minutes? But alas you couldn't quite help yourself, and so the "dancing" began?
I see you have a habit of shouting particular words, so perhaps I just read it the wrong way.
And I see you have a habit of picking fights over nearly inconsequential issues. Perhaps from now on we would both do well to give each other the benefit of the doubt...
I won't be adding more to this, unless it's on topic,
but I would expect not to have to deal with double standards here.
Double standards? What? Non sequitur... But I do appreciate the fact that you won't "be adding more to this..."
Are you serious?!
<snip>
I know I'm new here, but I would appreciate if you could take this elsewhere.
rdenney
30-Nov-2009, 11:20
Some basic truths that may be hiding in previous posts:
1. Perspective is entirely controlled by the distance from the camera to the subject. Lenses do not distort (at least most lenses don't), but some focal lengths are more suited to the distance we want more than others.
2. Basing the proper distance from camera to subject on how we meet each other isn't necessarily all that accurate. Our eyes and brains are highly adept at interpreting three-dimensional space, and as such don't notice the perspective effects that become quite visible in photographs.
3. Each photographer has his own view of what constitutes a good portrait. Arguing about these differing viewpoints isn't going to help the OP much.
4. The difference between 240 and 300 isn't exactly huge. A 300 mm lens focused at 1600 mm will be at 1:5.3, and the subject plane will be 21x23". A 240mm lens focused at the same distance will be at 1:6.7, and the subject plane will be 27x33". That has the effect of cropping off 20% of each dimension, turning 4x5 into 3.2x4. That's not exactly the same as going to medium format. The effect on the cropping, by the way, is the same ratio of the lens focal length. So, to turn 4x5 into, say, 6x7 medium format, would require using about a 165mm and then cropping it down to what a 300mm lens would have covered. Were it me, I would use the 240 to provide more flexibility for focusing, and if I needed to crop a bit, I would crop a bit.
Rick "who'd rather be faced with cropping then tearing out a wall" Denney
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.