8x10 H&S Portrait Lens?????

[Pawlowski6132]

So, I'm struggling trying to get an 8x10 H&S setup. I'm currently using a Symmar. It's a 240 convertible to 420.

If I want to get even a 3/4 length shot using the 240, I have to get right in the subjects face. If I convert to 420, I have to roll back the camera to about 15 feet just to be able to focus a 3/4 length. I'm not sure I can even get any closer to focus at any bellows length.

So, what the hell do I have to do to be around 6 to 8 feet away from my subject and get a H&S shot?

Curious to know what focal length lens (and style) and bellows length, for 8x10.

Thanx in advance folks.

Joe Pawlowski

[E. von Hoegh]

Try a 300 or 360. At the working distance you want, I'm thinking 360, most any lens that will cover should work OK fine.

[Pawlowski6132]

Try a 300 or 360.

That's what I thought but, then why doesn't the 420 work? Does is have to with the lens design? Being that it's a convertible and the lens is behind the shutter?

[E. von Hoegh]

That's what I thought but, then why doesn't the 420 work? Does is have to with the lens design? Being that it's a convertible and the lens is behind the shutter?

Having the glass behind the shutter increases the flange focal length a bit, but you'd have the same issue with any 420. Sounds like you don't have a lot of bellows.

Edit. I use a 420 Artar as a portrait lens, the camera has 30" of bellows, I use up most of that with a head and shoulders portrait.

[Pawlowski6132]

Hmmm. I have over 30". I can get the subject in focus but I must be 15ft away. And then I'm only getting 3/4 to full length. It's pretty confusing.



Having the glass behind the shutter increases the flange focal length a bit, but you'd have the same issue with any 420. Sounds like you don't have a lot of bellows.

Edit. I use a 420 Artar as a portrait lens, the camera has 30" of bellows, I use up most of that with a head and shoulders portrait.

[E. von Hoegh]

I rarely use my Symmar converible at the longer focal length. I think it needs more bellows than the marked length. Focus the camera at infinity, with the lens converted, measure from the GG to the lensboard. This will give you a number to start with. But either way, a 420 is a long lens. To get a head and shoulders portrait with mine, I'm using around 25 - 26" of the bellows extension, IIRC.

[Pawlowski6132]

Do you remember the distance to subject?

[E. von Hoegh]

Do you remember the distance to subject?

I don't, really. It's been 15 years or so since I did portraits with an 8x10. Say 8 or 10 feet for a head and just the tops of the shoulders. I think. About. Sorry.

[cdholden]

Joe,
I think some of the old Voigtlander or Wollensak docs have what you're looking for in table form. I just can't remember which booklet I saw it in, though I'm pretty sure it was on Camera Eccentric's web site.
Maybe it was antiquecameras.net?

Chris

[mikanystrom]

I rarely use my Symmar converible at the longer focal length. I think it needs more bellows than the marked length. Focus the camera at infinity, with the lens converted, measure from the GG to the lensboard. This will give you a number to start with. But either way, a 420 is a long lens. To get a head and shoulders portrait with mine, I'm using around 25 - 26" of the bellows extension, IIRC.

It seems to me that technically speaking...

since a H&S of a small person, like the example subject at the beginning of this thread, is rather close to 8x10 inches, you're looking at nearly a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

SO... why not screw the rear element out of the back of the shutter and screw it into the front of the shutter? At 1:1 reproduction, it doesn't matter which way the lens is pointing...

[mdarnton]

Or just take out the back, and use the front cell. For this purpose, that should work fine. Anyway, it seems like 30cm is more like what's needed. 25cm is a wide angle, and who uses W/As for head shots? And if your camera can't focus 42cm close enough, you're out of business with that.

I'm confused, though. You say H&S, and then use 3/4 length examples. Which one is it, then? If you expect one lens to do all the work, you'll need to be doing a lot of walking, in a very long room, and have lots of bellows--that's just the way it is.

[Jim Galli]

When this kind of photography was the order of the day, the engineers at Kodak settled on 16" 405mm for what you're trying to accomplish, but, they also assumed a 9X9" lens board and 32 inches of usable bellows which was the common denominator at the time with the Century 9a and 10a cameras on semi-centennial stands.

Those cameras float around the room and make any size and length adjustments a matter of seconds. The guys that did the glamour era photography were no dummies. It's still the very best scenario for portraits on 8X10 film. Brute force.

[Tracy Storer]

You say "head and shoulders", shall we approximate a 20" high space around the subjects head and shoulders? Shall we call that "One-Half-Life-Size"?
With a 420mm lens, you should be getting that with the lens a little over four feet from the subject, with a little over 2 feet of bellows(which is what EVonHough said as well). Taking that it's a convertible into account, your bellows will have to be longer, and the lens a little closer to the subject.
With the Schneider convertibles, you are supposed to remove the front cell and use the rear cell in place, in the rear of the shutter, another poster suggested moving the rear cell t the front, which is a non-starter if it's a #1 shutter, different threads front and back.

[Tin Can]

When this kind of photography was the order of the day, the engineers at Kodak settled on 16" 405mm for what you're trying to accomplish, but, they also assumed a 9X9" lens board and 32 inches of usable bellows which was the common denominator at the time with the Century 9a and 10a cameras on semi-centennial stands.

Those cameras float around the room and make any size and length adjustments a matter of seconds. The guys that did the glamour era photography were no dummies. It's still the very best scenario for portraits on 8X10 film. Brute force.

I agree with Jim and the 3 wheeled Semi-Centennial stand is the fastest way to move a portrait camera into any position, for portraits. And of course Jim's favorite camera is the best camera for that stand, bar none. I have used an Ansco copy. Big lens board is necessary and big starts at 7x7 and goes to 12x12 from my reading.

I use a Linhof on a dolly which is almost good enough, as one needs to jockey a camera to fir the sitter. Sitters don't adjust themselves very well, unless they are professional.

Op, you have plenty of room and great light!

[Jim Noel]

Hmmm. I have over 30". I can get the subject in focus but I must be 15ft away. And then I'm only getting 3/4 to full length. It's pretty confusing.

It is a matter of the rules of optics.

[Tracy Storer]

It is a matter of the rules of optics.

Actually, I feel what the OP is saying DOESN'T ADD UP. I did the math, see my post above.

UNLESS, the convertible lens places the node THAT far back inside the bellows? I no longer own any Schneider convertibles, so I can't check.

[Will S]

Are we talking a 240 G-Claron here? I just removed the front for grins and it focuses on a target about 6 feet away at 23" bellows.

[Tracy Storer]

Are we talking a 240 G-Claron here? I just removed the front for grins and it focuses on a target about 6 feet away at 23" bellows.

The OP states it's a Symmar. They made convertible Symmars in several configurations including 210/370, 240/420, and several others, longer, and shorter.

[mikanystrom]

With the Schneider convertibles, you are supposed to remove the front cell and use the rear cell in place, in the rear of the shutter, another poster suggested moving the rear cell t the front, which is a non-starter if it's a #1 shutter, different threads front and back.

#2 I think. At least on my old Compur the two threads are the same. At 1:1 it can't matter which way you face the element, right?

[Tracy Storer]

If the shutter IS the one we refer to as a Compur #2, then I think you're right, and the OP COULD try using the rear cell in the front of the shutter. If the problem is the single cell node placement then that WILL fix his problem. (it's better to use them behind the shutter, but sometimes.........)

For that matter, if it's NOT a Compur #2, but a #1, and he can mount his lensboard backwards (inside out) then he can see if that fixes the problem, it's not a practical solution, but will answer the question.

[Dave Wooten]

Tracy....your head and shoulder and those full face portraits on 20 x 24 are sure stunning! Macro. I might go back and look at those again , if I can find them, hint hint....lens, bellows, light, subject to lens distance?

[mdarnton]

If the shutter IS the one we refer to as a Compur #2, then I think you're right, and the OP COULD try using the rear cell in the front of the shutter. If the problem is the single cell node placement then that WILL fix his problem. (it's better to use them behind the shutter, but sometimes.........)

For that matter, if it's NOT a Compur #2, but a #1, and he can mount his lensboard backwards (inside out) then he can see if that fixes the problem, it's not a practical solution, but will answer the question.

Is there any reason not to just use the front cell, as I suggested previously? At least to try. Since the original versions worked with either cell, front or back, we don't really know if they simply stopped suggesting that for their own reason (for instance, the better position for the iris should be in front of the lens, theoretically) or if they did something to the formula to make it absolutely bad. My Rodenstock Caltar works about the same, front or back, for instance. OP won't know for sure until he gives it a try.

[Jim Galli]

A 240 / 420 Schneider convertible will 99% be found in the classic but obsolete Compur 2. It's a nice shutter to have because a couple of barrel lenses that are neat also fit it. Early dagor type 305mm G-Claron for one, and also the 150 f2.8 Xenotar fits that shutter. Very late 240 / 420's are sometimes seen in early Copal 3 or sometimes Compur 3, but they are still the #2 thread both elements with bushings to size 3. So, yes, he can switch the front to the back etc. etc.

As far as just using the front cell alone . . it's an unknown. The convertible symmars weren't symmetrical. The front group should make a usable image but it isn't going to be 420mm. It may be in the 550mm range. It only takes seconds to find out though.

[Tracy Storer]

Tracy....your head and shoulder and those full face portraits on 20 x 24 are sure stunning! Macro. I might go back and look at those again , if I can find them, hint hint....lens, bellows, light, subject to lens distance?
Thanks Dave. I have a couple in the "Gallery" section of www.mammothcamera.com, and a few more in the 20x24 Portraits album on my personal Facebook page. I have used a lot of different lenses over the years, the tight shots will have been done with lenses ranging from 300 to 480. If you have questions about specific images email me directly and I'll do my best to remember the details.

I DO hope the OP will check back in after confirming trying the rear cell, hopefully both in the front and back of the shutter. As jim Galli noted, the rear cell left in the rear position is the intended usage of the convertible Symmars, though in certain shutters, it CAN be moved to the front.

EDIT: SON OF A BITCH, I can't believe, once again, that I have invested effort trying to help someone in another ZOMBIE thread.

[Will S]

urgh...

[Jim Galli]

EDIT: SON OF A BITCH, I can't believe, once again, that I have invested effort trying to help someone in another ZOMBIE thread.

Ha ha ha got me too. :rolleyes: