PDA

View Full Version : Can't get shallow enough depth of field!



Mnmglobal
1-Oct-2012, 20:12
Hi All,
I usually shoot with a Graflex super D and a lovely old barrel lens F3.5, I've produced some portraits that have got some interest and a commission for an extensive portrait shoot but film is not an option because of cost and travel. So here's the question I'm trying to recreate the very shallow depth of field with a sinar f1 and a leaf aptus 33 mega pixel back but the 80mm lens is f4 and I can't seem to get a shallow enough depth of field.
Any ideas for a very fast lens that I could use on the sinar ideally around 80mm that might give me that beautiful fall off I get with the Graflex!
Thanks in advance.

Frank Petronio
1-Oct-2012, 20:25
Rent a digital Hasselblad, Leica, or Mamiya with a longer lens.

Portraits with an 80 and medium format digital on a F1 are going to be a nightmare to focus, and not gain you anything over a common medium format digital camera - in fact you'll miss most, if not all, your shots. Meanwhile a DSLR or Medium format shooter will nail it.

If they like the look or experience of your Super D photos, get them to spring for the film and scans. Using a digital back on a non-SLR 4x5 isn't anywhere close.

RawheaD
1-Oct-2012, 20:41
Yeah, you could try the Xenon 125mm F2, covers 6x9.

C. D. Keth
1-Oct-2012, 20:45
A mild value plus diopter, like a +1/2, on the lens will throw the background softer and will still let you focus to portrait distances.

RawheaD
1-Oct-2012, 20:47
Ah, so you're going to use crop MF digital? Then why use a Sinar? I'd think a Mamiya with the 80/1.9 or Contax with the 80/2 would be the best "shallow DOF" setup on MF.

Mnmglobal
1-Oct-2012, 21:47
Sounds interesting I'll look into that any specifics you could recommend?

Mnmglobal
1-Oct-2012, 21:51
I own the contax but really want my subject to feel likes there sitting in front of something special. I feel it changes there attitude maybe silly but it works for me.
Can't do film as we're looking at hundreds of portraits all over the place. Cost is prohibitive as well as how hard it is to travel with film these days.
Thanks
M

Ken Lee
2-Oct-2012, 02:11
At the same aperture, the longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field.

In broad terms, an 80mm f/2 lens has the same depth of field as a 150mm f/4, or a 300mm f/8 - no matter what format is used.

If your background is still too much in focus, move the subject (and yourself) away from the background - or choose a better background.

Armin Seeholzer
2-Oct-2012, 03:20
Rent or better buy a Nikon D800 with a 135mm f2 DC lens and all your problems are gone!

Cheers Armin

ic-racer
2-Oct-2012, 05:25
leaf aptus 33 mega pixel back

Isn't that a Medium Format film back? Isn't this the Large Format Photography forum?

Frank Petronio
2-Oct-2012, 05:48
Something is a little fishy if they have access to this level of gear or are getting assignments of this magnitude but so little knowledge of photography....

jnantz
2-Oct-2012, 06:06
why don't you use your graflex, but instead of using sheet film
use a roll film adapter and 120 film.
you can buy the film at your location
and just bring your camera in a camera bag as
carry on ...
i have gone to france to visit family a few times over the years
and brought a graflex d and it wasn't any more trouble than bringing a leica.
just have your client pay for processing + skans, it really isn't that expensive considering
you're traveling a distance for them ...

otherwise, practice front focusing your sensor camera, or put a dirty, hazy, filter,
or celluloid, or saran wrap, or dried elmer's glue, or a handmade glass scrim, or pantyhose with a cigarette burn
or smokey glass or ??? until you get the look you want
at the aperture you need to shoot at ... it isn't really that hard (to goof around) to try to recreate a look from another camera ..

good luck!
john

E. von Hoegh
2-Oct-2012, 06:52
Isn't that a Medium Format film back? Isn't this the Large Format Photography forum?

MF digital back. The op should be using an 8x10 with a 24" lens for shallow DoF.

E. von Hoegh
2-Oct-2012, 06:52
Something is a little fishy if they have access to this level of gear or are getting assignments of this magnitude but so little knowledge of photography....

yup.

SergeiR
2-Oct-2012, 06:58
Hi All,
I usually shoot with a Graflex super D and a lovely old barrel lens F3.5, I've produced some portraits that have got some interest and a commission for an extensive portrait shoot but film is not an option because of cost and travel. So here's the question I'm trying to recreate the very shallow depth of field with a sinar f1 and a leaf aptus 33 mega pixel back but the 80mm lens is f4 and I can't seem to get a shallow enough depth of field.
Any ideas for a very fast lens that I could use on the sinar ideally around 80mm that might give me that beautiful fall off I get with the Graflex!
Thanks in advance.


http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

rdenney
2-Oct-2012, 07:24
Pentax 645D or Mamiya with digital back, a 180mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena MC-Sonnar with the required adapter, an older Hasselblad Compendium Shade with the required 86mm adapter ring, a really battered Gitzo 3-series tripod, and an Arca-Swiss ballhead. Then, all the lighting and reflectors needed to make the light just what you need. If that doesn't impress the sitter, then a view camera won't add anything useful in the impressiveness department. Believe me, nobody will mistake this rig for a consumer DSLR. The view camera will, however, subtract something extremely useful: usability.

(Of course, a Sinar P3 or something similar that is designed to be precise enough for a digital back and short lenses is a different matter. Bring your checkbook.)

That old ex-commie Sonnar at f/2.8 will create narrower depth of field than anything mentioned so far (except the 24" f/9 lens on 8x10), and you'll get that three-dimensional effect you seek. As to the focal length being long, back up.

I just delivered a portrait made using a Pentax 200mm f/4 lens on a 6x7. That lens is excellent, but it's not as gorgeous in its rendering as the old Sonnar (and the extra stop makes a difference if you want narrow depth of field).

Rick "suggesting an impressive-looking rig that can be purchased for less than $10G" Denney

SergeiR
2-Oct-2012, 07:30
That old ex-commie Sonnar at f/2.8 will create narrower depth of field than anything mentioned so far (except the 24" f/9 lens on 8x10), and you'll get that three-dimensional effect you seek.

Sorry, but lenses do not create three dimensional effects , unless you manage to produce split colours on different planes and then watching results with special 3D glasses.
Light and shadows do.

rdenney
2-Oct-2012, 07:38
Sorry, but lenses do not create three dimensional effects , unless you manage to produce split colours on different planes and then watching results with special 3D glasses.
Light and shadows do.

That's why I used the word effects, which I guess means something different to me than it does to you. And lenses absolutely affect this, in the way they transition from the focus plane to the out of focus areas.

But it's likely an effect that only a non-photographer would articulate. Such as my wife, for example. She can pick prints from that lens out of a stack, and she has actually said stuff like, "the faces just project right out of the print"--that's a 3D-effect type of description, don't you think?

Rick "not guessing, even if it is subjective" Denney

Brian C. Miller
2-Oct-2012, 09:01
Something is a little fishy if they have access to this level of gear or are getting assignments of this magnitude but so little knowledge of photography....

It's not difficult to get work like this when the pay is room and board, and the digital equipment is loaned by someone else. One group came to me last year about shooting an event, and I told them sure, but they'd have to pay for film and processing, and here's what the costs are. They didn't have the budget for that.

SergeiR
2-Oct-2012, 09:01
That's why I used the word effects, which I guess means something different to me than it does to you. And lenses absolutely affect this, in the way they transition from the focus plane to the out of focus areas.

But it's likely an effect that only a non-photographer would articulate. Such as my wife, for example. She can pick prints from that lens out of a stack, and she has actually said stuff like, "the faces just project right out of the print"--that's a 3D-effect type of description, don't you think?

Rick "not guessing, even if it is subjective" Denney

And when it happens , if you look really close on print - you will see that it is b/c of light and shadow :)

I draw this example for same argument ages ago :) As you can see, no matter how much you blur lines - it wont help you perceive circle as 3d ball. Shadows and light - will.

visual aid (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/5133664156/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

SergeiR
2-Oct-2012, 09:05
That's why I used the word effects, which I guess means something different to me than it does to you. And lenses absolutely affect this, in the way they transition from the focus plane to the out of focus areas.

But it's likely an effect that only a non-photographer would articulate. Such as my wife, for example. She can pick prints from that lens out of a stack, and she has actually said stuff like, "the faces just project right out of the print"--that's a 3D-effect type of description, don't you think?

Rick "not guessing, even if it is subjective" Denney

And when it happens , if you look really close on print - you will see that it is b/c of light and shadow :)

I draw this example for same argument ages ago - as you can see, no matter how much you blur lines - it wont help you perceive circle as 3d ball. Shadows and light - will.

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1137/5133664156_29a1aee985_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/5133664156/)
visual aid (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/5133664156/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

(i need to remake it so lines would be of same lightness as circle.. but it was to illustrate some extra points on how to light things, sorry)

Anyway.. i am just neatpicking. In some level you right. People do often refer to combination of effects as 3D look.

And to answer original question - DOF calculator will help. I posted link before :)

Mnmglobal
2-Oct-2012, 09:09
At the same aperture, the longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field.

In broad terms, an 80mm f/2 lens has the same depth of field as a 150mm f/4, or a 300mm f/8 - no matter what format is used.

If your background is still too much in focus, move the subject (and yourself) away from the background - or choose a better background.

If it was only that simple I'm trying to get eyes sharp ears and nose soft

rdenney
2-Oct-2012, 09:11
And when it happens , if you look really close on print - you will see that it is b/c of light and shadow :)

I draw this example for same argument ages ago :) As you can see, no matter how much you blur lines - it wont help you perceive circle as 3d ball. Shadows and light - will.

visual aid (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/5133664156/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

(Edit: Removed semi-snarky remark to thank you for the additional statements you added after quoting the above, with which I agree.)

Our brains interpret depth based on a variety of clues, some of which can only be hinted at on a two-dimensional surface, and the modeling of the light on the subject is just one set of those clues. The selective-focus effect provides a different set of clues, and the rendering of that selective focus makes a difference in how many people perceive it.

Rick "who never said modeling wasn't important, but who did assume it would be the same for all choices of lenses and therefore not a basis for comparing those choices" Denney

Mnmglobal
2-Oct-2012, 09:11
Isn't that a Medium Format film back? Isn't this the Large Format Photography forum?

Yes but it's on a sinar f1 currently so I suppose it's both

Mnmglobal
2-Oct-2012, 09:15
Something is a little fishy if they have access to this level of gear or are getting assignments of this magnitude but so little knowledge of photography....
Didn't realize my knowledge of photography was so little, just not that knowledgable on LF was just hoping to find a solution to a problem
My work taken with such little knowledge of photography can be seen here www.markmannphoto.com

rdenney
2-Oct-2012, 09:15
If it was only that simple I'm trying to get eyes sharp ears and nose soft

The 180mm f/2.8 lens I suggested will do that to a greater extent than the 150mm f/3.5 lens you were using on 4x5. The 80/2 lens won't match a 150/3.5--not quite.

Rick "it really is that simple" Denney

Mnmglobal
2-Oct-2012, 09:22
why don't you use your graflex, but instead of using sheet film
use a roll film adapter and 120 film.
you can buy the film at your location
and just bring your camera in a camera bag as
carry on ...
i have gone to france to visit family a few times over the years
and brought a graflex d and it wasn't any more trouble than bringing a leica.
just have your client pay for processing + skans, it really isn't that expensive considering
you're traveling a distance for them ...

otherwise, practice front focusing your sensor camera, or put a dirty, hazy, filter,
or celluloid, or saran wrap, or dried elmer's glue, or a handmade glass scrim, or pantyhose with a cigarette burn
or smokey glass or ??? until you get the look you want
at the aperture you need to shoot at ... it isn't really that hard (to goof around) to try to recreate a look from another camera ..

good luck!
john

That's a great option and I do have the adapter for medium format film but my 210 lens won't allow me to get back far enought to get the full head in the frame looks great if you just want lips to eyes but thank you!

Mnmglobal
2-Oct-2012, 09:26
yup.
Not fishy just not that experienced in LF

SergeiR
2-Oct-2012, 09:31
Rick - i am a bit dyslexic :) So sometime it gets me a while to type whole thing, specially when my brain goes into mode where i cant distinguish russian from english, and then i have to retranslate bits of what i typed :)
Didnt mean to offend anyone in some brutal way

SergeiR
2-Oct-2012, 09:33
That's a great option and I do have the adapter for medium format film but my 210 lens won't allow me to get back far enought to get the full head in the frame looks great if you just want lips to eyes but thank you!

Use exension rings ;) It will move focus points closer. I routinely use rings with 150/2.8 on 645 body to get head shots.

Mnmglobal
2-Oct-2012, 09:37
Pentax 645D or Mamiya with digital back, a 180mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena MC-Sonnar with the required adapter, an older Hasselblad Compendium Shade with the required 86mm adapter ring, a really battered Gitzo 3-series tripod, and an Arca-Swiss ballhead. Then, all the lighting and reflectors needed to make the light just what you need. If that doesn't impress the sitter, then a view camera won't add anything useful in the impressiveness department. Believe me, nobody will mistake this rig for a consumer DSLR. The view camera will, however, subtract something extremely useful: usability.

(Of course, a Sinar P3 or something similar that is designed to be precise enough for a digital back and short lenses is a different matter. Bring your checkbook.)

That old ex-commie Sonnar at f/2.8 will create narrower depth of field than anything mentioned so far (except the 24" f/9 lens on 8x10), and you'll get that three-dimensional effect you seek. As to the focal length being long, back up.

I just delivered a portrait made using a Pentax 200mm f/4 lens on a 6x7. That lens is excellent, but it's not as gorgeous in its rendering as the old Sonnar (and the extra stop makes a difference if you want narrow depth of field).

Rick "suggesting an impressive-looking rig that can be purchased for less than $10G" Denney
Thank you, it's not the price of the rig that matters… I've found when I shoot with something unusual to the non photographer there curiosity allows the camera to become the star and I as the photographer don't have to perform as much. I'm using the sliding adaptor with the leaf back and I'm not having to much trouble focussing just want a narrower depth of feild.
The lighting is very simple just a tungsten ring.
Thanks again
Mark

Mnmglobal
2-Oct-2012, 09:42
Use exension rings ;) It will move focus points closer. I routinely use rings with 150/2.8 on 645 body to get head shots.
That's an idea thank you.

Frank Petronio
2-Oct-2012, 10:22
Thank you, it's not the price of the rig that matters… I've found when I shoot with something unusual to the non photographer there curiosity allows the camera to become the star and I as the photographer don't have to perform as much. I'm using the sliding adaptor with the leaf back and I'm not having to much trouble focussing just want a narrower depth of feild.
The lighting is very simple just a tungsten ring.
Thanks again
Mark

Sorry to question your experience, sometimes odd people post bogus questions like this and people go on to elaborate solutions when there is really no serious person behind the original question. One check of your website alleviates that concern.

Back to your original question, I understand the desire to use an interesting, large camera with more character to evoke interest from the subject compared to the typical SLR shooting that they're used to... even if it is an expensive Hasselblad instead of a lowly 5D, to most subjects it probably feels the same. Versus sitting for a view camera and the careful step by step process that goes into making a successful photo - I get that. I'm sure shooting with a Graflex Super D SLR creates some interesting interaction.

However, have you ever shot portraits with a regular, non-SLR view camera like the Sinar? Where you are not able to view the subject right before the moment of exposure to fine tune focus and capture the optimal gesture? Because it is far different to shoot this way - you are detached and looking from a slightly different point of view than the camera lens, and there is a time lag between closing the shutter, pulling the slide, and making the exposure - and anyone who has done this knows that people move slightly even if it is only in a few seconds - so shallow depth of field portraits are fairly difficult to achieve and require practice and concentration.

If you use a sliding back adapter and ~36x44mm sensor on a 4x5 Sinar F1 you will have a similar delay to inserting a holder and pulling the slide (plus closing and cocking the lens). Getting speedy and confident at this - while maintaining concentration on your subject so you know they haven't flinched or moved - takes some skill and practice. Like Avedon skill ;-p

There are also some practical concerns with the choice of camera. The 4x5 cameras are rather coarse geared and clumsy to focus accurately with such a small sensor. Most professionals who want view camera movements with medium format digital backs opt to use a dedicated digital view camera like the Sinar P3 because it has much finer gearing and can focus more accurately because of it. Especially when you want to control the focus plane as you do. A Simnar F1 is pretty clumsy in this regard, it'd be low on my list of cameras to use.

As to lenses, there are vintage Schneider Xenotars in 80/2.8 and 100/2.8 sizes. On a Sinar F1 you will need to use a bag bellows with these. Most of the faster 4x5 lenses are a bit longer, in the 135-150 range, like the Xenotar 135/3.5 and 150/2.8. Then there is an entire world of older Brass lenses, dedicated portrait lenses, a real wealth of options. On such a small sensor those longer lenses are going to be very long and even harder to focus than a nice contrasty modern lens.

With any older lens on a digital, you have to test as some are not going to handle color well or interact with the sensor well for a variety of optical reasons. With all of this you have to test and verify. I wouldn't be surprised if some focused the red in a different plane than the green or if they did weird fringing with the sensor's lenses.

It would, to be practical, make a lot more sense to use a digital SLR body with a choice vintage medium format manual lens - there were many great ones, such as the Hasselblad 110/2 or some of the East German speed lenses. Mamiya made a fast 80/1.9 lens. But if you want the slow, methodical view camera approach with a digital back... well, that is pretty uncommon because it will be painful, tedious, and probably not worthwhile ~ I bet you'll miss focus most of the time ~ but go for it and prove me wrong! In which case I'd spring for the real digital view camera (Linhof, Rollei, Sinar, etc.) and maybe a selection of lenses so your butt is covered. And some practice days.

rdenney
2-Oct-2012, 10:26
That's a great option and I do have the adapter for medium format film but my 210 lens won't allow me to get back far enought to get the full head in the frame looks great if you just want lips to eyes but thank you!

A lens of a given focal length and a given distance from the subject will provide exactly the same depth of field no matter the format, as long as the enlargement ratio is the same. Enlargement to the same print causes a further decrease in depth of field for the smaller format.

But with a smaller format and the same focal length, you have to increase the distance to keep the same relative subject size in the frame. Doing that increases the depth of field around the focus plane significantly. For example, doubling the distance increases depth of field around the focus plane by a factor of four--a much bigger change than a raw change in format without moving the camera. These factors compete, so here are some depth of field comparisons, all assuming an 8x10 print, and all assuming the same size face relative to the frame (comparison based on the short dimension, with wider formats cropped to 4x5 aspect):

4x5 format, 210/3.5 lens at 10 feet: 0.46 feet
645 format, 210/3.5 lens at 21 feet: 0.95
645 format, 180/2.8 lens at 18 feet: 0.75 feet
645 format, 80/1.9 lens at 8 feet: 0.50 feet
35mm format (nikon D800), 50/1.4 lens at 10 feet: 1.02 feet
35mm format, 50/1.2 (still available as a manual focus Nikkor) at 10 feet: 0.86 feet
35mm format, 135/2 lens at 26 feet: 1.33 feet
(for my own fun, and that's my only reason for doing this investigation!)
8x10 format, 420/9 lens at 10 feet: 0.54 feet

So, of all the suggestions given, the Mamiya camera with the 80/1.9 has the least depth of field, and is closest to a 210/3.5 on 4x5. My suggestion of the longer 180mm Sonnar at 2.8 is next-best. Putting the roll-film back on your Graphic requires backing up so much that you lose the advantage of being close. Can't come close to this with small format. If that Leaf back is smaller than 645, then you are getting further from your goal.

If that Mamiya 80/1.9 lens and a full 645 sensor isn't in the solution space, compromise is in order.

Rick "who has DOFMaster on his iPhone" Denney

unixrevolution
2-Oct-2012, 11:12
Rent or better buy a Nikon D800 with a 135mm f2 DC lens and all your problems are gone!

Cheers Armin

Except for the fact that you now own a Nikon.

BrianShaw
2-Oct-2012, 11:14
If it was only that simple I'm trying to get eyes sharp ears and nose soft

Why? That is a style that I blame on a guy from Tonopah... and I never found it all that interesting or effective or pleasant to look at. But many others seem to like it so perhaps I should be more open-minded.

jnantz
2-Oct-2012, 12:36
get a pc lens ( or a lensbaby ) for your digital camera can swing/tilt your front element
to get whatever effect you want ...

Frank Petronio
2-Oct-2012, 13:17
I just saw some of Mark's work with the F1 and Leaf back and I have to eat some crow here. I haven't used a similar set-up so I really shouldn't discount it, and having seen his results I am impressed. And wrong. I bet with a little experimentation and fine tuning he'll nail it and have a great project as a result.

Good Luck Mark!

And the rest of you gawkers, make note of this one, single, solitary error in judgement ;-)

SergeiR
2-Oct-2012, 14:49
It works just fine with Technika and Chamonix for me Leaf back. But then i never look for tiny DOF :)

Mnmglobal
2-Oct-2012, 15:00
I just saw some of Mark's work with the F1 and Leaf back and I have to eat some crow here. I haven't used a similar set-up so I really shouldn't discount it, and having seen his results I am impressed. And wrong. I bet with a little experimentation and fine tuning he'll nail it and have a great project as a result.

Good Luck Mark!

And the rest of you gawkers, make note of this one, single, solitary error in judgement ;-)
thanks Frank..
im close but nothing compares to the Xanar 21cm f:3.5 on the super d..
thanks again.

mark

marfa boomboom tx
3-Oct-2012, 07:16
thanks Frank..
im close but nothing compares to the Xanar 21cm f:3.5 on the super d..
thanks again.

mark

and while I respect the 'in camera' efforts, in the wild days of foho, we used to accept the touch of the retoucher.

perhaps the digital capture can help you in this project. there are more than one "digital lens" products available --

for example:topaz lens effects

(there are several others)


best of luck

RawheaD
3-Oct-2012, 09:25
thanks Frank..
im close but nothing compares to the Xanar 21cm f:3.5 on the super d..
thanks again.

mark

Beg to differ. Nothing compares to the Aero Ektar 178mm f2.5 on a Speed Graphic (as well as a modified 3x4 Graflex D)

http://goo.gl/WxWGn

Mnmglobal
3-Oct-2012, 15:08
Beg to differ. Nothing compares to the Aero Ektar 178mm f2.5 on a Speed Graphic (as well as a modified 3x4 Graflex D)

http://goo.gl/WxWGn

checked out your feed, lovely work..how did you modify your graflex D?

Mnmglobal
3-Oct-2012, 15:09
and while I respect the 'in camera' efforts, in the wild days of foho, we used to accept the touch of the retoucher.

perhaps the digital capture can help you in this project. there are more than one "digital lens" products available --

for example:topaz lens effects
will check that out thank you..
(there are several others)


best of luck

RawheaD
3-Oct-2012, 15:10
checked out your feed, lovely work..how did you modify your graflex D?

Sorry to mislead you; I only shoot with my Speed Graphic; however, I do know that there's one person who does the mod as a specialist :)

Aero Liberator:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48246025@N07/7049617853/