Size lens needed for 8x10 close ups

[jeffballinger]

Just entering the world of LF from the realm of Polaroids. Bought a Burke and James camera and am looking for a lens that I can take head and shoulder shots. One of our esteemed members suggested I'd need a lens between 500-600mm, but another working pro who makes 4x5 tintypes suggested a 300mm would do the trick.

Who's right? What size lens would be best? I'd probably also be doing some full-body shots, as well. Cropping is not really possible, as I'd be shooting instant film.

Cheers,
Jeff

[E. von Hoegh]

Instant film in 8x10??

[Jim Noel]

A 300mm lens is perfectly adequate for head and shoulder portraits, as well as most general photography. For even closer work you can use an even shorter lens to avoid extreme bellows length. AS you are photographing with a 300mm anything less than about 8 feet from the camera you need to include bellows factor in you exposure computation.
There are many good books out there which will explain bellows factor, as well as other essentials to good exposure.

[Bob Salomon]

A 300mm lens on 810 is a normal lens so you need to watch out for forshortening, that is why a longer lens was suggested. You can end up with large noses, long chins, high foreheads with a normal or shorter lens. It would be similar to shooting head and shoulders shots with a normal lens on 35 or medium format.

[hiend61]

A 480 would be a good compromise to avoid the undesirable effects that Bob describes.
A 480 the equivalent to around 80mm in 35mm or 150mm in 6x6cm, both the classic portrait lenses.

[jeffballinger]

Instant film in 8x10??

Indeed. The Impossible Project (http://www.the-impossible-project.com/) is due to release its 8x10 instant film in the coming weeks.

Jeff Ballinger
jefflballinger@mac.com
www.jeffballingerphoto.squarespace.com

[E. von Hoegh]

Indeed. The Impossible Project (http://www.the-impossible-project.com/) is due to release its 8x10 instant film in the coming weeks.

Jeff Ballinger
jefflballinger@mac.com
www.jeffballingerphoto.squarespace.com

Neat! In that case I'd consider a 420mm/16 1/2" lens a minimumin 8x10 lens for head and shoulders, for reasons stated above.

[jeffballinger]

Thanks everyone for the helpful suggestions. The hunt begins.

Jeff

[ic-racer]

Not hard to figure this out.
Take a card with an 8x10 cutout.
Determine what perspective you want and stand that far away from the model (p).
Look through the cutout and see how far away from your eye looks best.
That is the distance your lens needs to be from the film (q).
Calculate your lens focal length needed (f) based on that measurement and your distance from the subject.
1/p +1/q = 1/f

[Armin Seeholzer]

am looking for a lens that I can take head and shoulder shots.

It is fine from 360mm up to 480mm for only head you should go longer then 400mm.

Cheers Armin

[lecarp]

Indeed. The Impossible Project (http://www.the-impossible-project.com/) is due to release its 8x10 instant film in the coming weeks.

Jeff Ballinger
jefflballinger@mac.com
www.jeffballingerphoto.squarespace.com

Jeff, From whom have you heard the 8x10 will be released in the coming weeks, any idea how soon ( not anxious or anything, I'm down to one case).

[lecarp]

I have learned directly from Impossible that the Polaroid 809 replacement from Impossible project will be release in the middle of 2012.

[Frank Petronio]

It doesn't matter what size lens you use as long as it covers 8x10. For hipster stuff like that the funkiness of using the "wrong" lens may be advantageous. A lens that vignettes and softens on the corners may actually be nice looking.

A 300-360mm lens is a lot more manageable and affordable, its slight "wideness" will add dimensionality. It's not that radical, Avedon used a 360mm for his American West portraits. So did thousands of other photographers for like 170 years or so.

While you spend next year (or a few more) waiting for the Impossible Project to possibly and hopefully make a workable film that won't fade, perhaps try something really great that is available and proven to work: regular film. It's a lot less expensive, better quality, etc.

I used plenty of 809-804 in the day and it wasn't that great, it was a proofing tool and it's loss is more hype from people who never appreciated it when it was readily available.

Look at it this way... you could use regular film to "proof" for your expensive instant materials. The world is upside down.

[rdenney]

A head-and-shoulders portrait on 8x10 will produce a face image that is about five inches tall, perhaps. That's about half the height of the real face, which means the portrait will be in the vicinity of 1:2 magnification. In that vicinity, you'll need 1.5-1.6 times the focal length in bellows draw. A 12" (~300mm) "normal" lens will need 18-20 inches of bellows draw, and a 24" lens (~600mm) will need 36-40 inches of bellows draw.

I suspect that the longest bellows a B&J might have is in the 30" range. That would be adequate for a 19" lens (~480mm), if the bellows are supple enough to be fully extended. 19" lenses seem to be generally regarded as ideal portrait-length lenses for 8x10, considering all the competing limitations (including the size of the camera at close focus).

Rick "hoping the instant film you use is better than indicated by some recent reports on the Impossible Project materials" Denney

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah once you get the bellows racked out is when you find the pinholes, especially on an old B&J like that. Use an LED flashlight to check in a dark room, wait for your eyes to adjust. If they aren't too bad, just throw a focusing cloth over the bellows while exposing.

[Jim Galli]

It doesn't matter what the number on the lens says, for head and shoulder on 8X10 you're going to be pushing towards 1:1, maybe 1.5:1 so the 300 lens is going to be 450mm with bellows factor and a 15" lens is going to be more like a 28" lens with bellows factor. If you buy a 24" 600mm lens you will run out of bellows before you get to a head and shoulders shot. 14" -15" is ideal.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

14"lens is nice. Proof with x-ray film. Very cheap!

[lecarp]

While you spend next year (or a few more) waiting for the Impossible Project to possibly and hopefully make a workable film that won't fade, perhaps try something really great that is available and proven to work: regular film. It's a lot less expensive, better quality, etc.

I used plenty of 809-804 in the day and it wasn't that great, it was a proofing tool and it's loss is more hype from people who never appreciated it when it was readily available.

Look at it this way... you could use regular film to "proof" for your expensive instant materials. The world is upside down.

Frank, My post about the Polaroid replacement was meant to be helpful and the information was direct from the source. I have more specific details as well.

Granted the material is mainly in demand by artists so I can see why it would be of no concern to you. Though you may not have achieved successful results with the Polaroid materials many have.

Yes, the film was and will be expensive but it has its financial rewards as well.

[rdenney]

Granted the material is mainly in demand by artists so I can see why it would be of no concern to you. Though you may not have achieved successful results with the Polaroid materials many have.

I'm not sure you intended that to be as insulting as it came out. Frank is as much an artist as anyone else on this forum. Or did you mean "artistes"?

I think Frank's concern was for a material that demonstrated most of the basic requirements of any film: even and reasonably accurate color devoid of streaks and splotches, and an image that lasts more than a day or two.

Or something like that.

Rick "well, they did say it was impossible" Denney

[Frank Petronio]

No he is right, I try to lower people's expectations of Impossible Project materials. Personally I think it is a sham, based on marketing shoddy, over-priced products to gullible artists.

[ic-racer]

Looking forward to trying the 8x10 Impossible film. Does one need a Polaroid roller to process it? Does it need a special film holder?

[E. von Hoegh]

Impossible Project? - they must be making it. There's one of those horrid "How it's Made" videos out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw4rttFGHiM

[r.e.]

Apparently Impossible Project has a shop in New York on Broadway just up from Canal St. Has anyone been there? Worth checking out?

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Jeff,

"Who's right? What size lens would be best? I'd probably also be doing some full-body shots, as well. Cropping is not really possible, as I'd be shooting instant film."

Something no one has mentioned is the distance to the sitter = focal length.

a 300 will bring you in too close for lighting and/or comfort for a head shot.
a 600 will move you too far away for a full body shot.
360 - 480 works out easiest.

Have fun playing with it all.

[Ole Tjugen]

Something no one has mentioned is the distance to the sitter = focal length. ...

Not entirely correct. Head&shoulders on 8x10" Is a reproduction ratio of about 1:3, which is close enough that you need to apply a little bit of "macro range corrections".


If it were at 1:1 then distance to sitter (D) = 2x focal length (2xF) = bellows extension (B).

At 1:3 then D=3xB, and it just so happens that a 300mm lens with 400mm bellows will give you a lens-to-sitter distance of 1200mm, or 1.2m, or (for the metrically challenged) 4 feet, at a ratio of 1:3. A 450mm lens will give you the same result at a working distance of 1800mm, or 6 feet.

ic-racer's suggestion is also a little bit off at close distances - you need to hold the card still and move your head back until it looks right, and THEN calculate the focal length not as a direct measurement, but the length that will give you the desired ration with the bellows exension and sitter distance you have just determined.

Macro can be difficult. Depending on your max possible working distance (length of studio space plus distance to backdrop plus a little breathing room behind the ground glass), find a focal length that will give you a chance of a decent full-figure shot. Then move closer for closeups.

[axs810]

135922

135923

135924


All shot with a Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 (on paper negatives)

[StoneNYC]

135922

135923

135924


All shot with a Fujinon W 300mm f/5.6 (on paper negatives)

A little late to the party... Haha :)

[axs810]

OOPS X_X

I apologize for commenting on a 4 year old thread...I got mixed up between two threads. *facepalm*