What 8x10 lens do I need for full face portraits like this?

Hi guys,

I'm thinking of getting into 8x10 and my prime interest would be to make razor-sharp full face portraits like martin schoeller.

This is an example of what I'm thinking of:

http://www.artnet.com/artwork/425554...imberlake.html

I see that the perspective is kind of distorted, the faces look a little bit unnatural but with a beautiful dof falloff.

Could anyone with experience tell me with which focal length one could achieve this look? Also, considering the minimal dof at these telephoto ranges in this format, what f-stop would I need to shoot to get a similar dof?

Finally, what are the sharpest modern lenses in this focal length?

Thank you very much for any pointers,

Paul

The perspective looks allright, but the lighting is a little intentionally unnatural. You see in the eyes big light sources on each side of the camera. Hard to tell from the jpeg, but the nose looks a little out of focus, so I'd guess the aperture would be f16 or less and it would be a slightly long lens. Your options are tiny depth of field or slight depth of field. You don't need any super sharp lens for brutally sharp portraits in 8x10. Anything that's not "soft focus" will show every single pore and whisker at non-wide open apertures.

Look for a Nikon/Nikkor 450M or a Fujinon 450C.

If you want more space between the camera and the subject (and have the bellows for it), look for a Fujinon 600C.

Focus on the eyes and close down to f22 or f32.

Wow thank you guys!

I'll look out for those japanese lenses!

Kind regards

Paul

With a tight headshot on 8x10 you are pretty close to 1:1, so in reality nearly any lens 300mm or longer would provide a fine perspective. The issue, as pointed out above by Gem is how much room you want between you and your subject. A 19" lens would mean about 38" between lens and subject at 1:1, but of course this also means 38" of bellows. Make sure your camera has the bellows. A 24" lens will give you a bit more space (48"), but with this much extension you are going to face lots of other issues, such as probably having to use an intermediate standard (with a studio camera) and probably need orangutan arms (or a assistant) to adjust the lens while looking through the glass.

The lighting looks like two big softboxes on either side of the camera, as well as some background lights. DOF is running from mid-nose (tip is out of focus) to sideburns, so this is probably (again as Gem writes) around f32, to get much more with big softboxes at 1:1 you are going to need some serious power (>4800ws per light).

Bear in mind that the sort of magnification you're looking at is near 1:1, and a 450mm/18-inch lens needs 36 inches of bellows extension to focus at 1:1. That is more than many 8x10 cameras can handle. I'd check your maximum bellows extension and get a lens that's half that, or maybe even a little less.

Jason beat me to it!

A much bigger problem than the lens will be finding people to sit for you, once word gets out. I dont expect many women have the confidence to allow themselves to be photographed in that way. Do you have any Angelina Jolie's in your life. You could concentrate on ugly sweaty hetrosexual men who have given up and dont care or dont realise what they look like. The soul laid bare, definately has value.

Personally, I feel a kinder (less honest?) approach could be more appropriate and offer more utility to everyone concerned.

David

There are videos of Martin Schoeller online, I saw one linked from "A Photo Editor" last year. I think but am not 100% sure that he uses a 360 Rodenstock Sironar-S but it would hardly matter whether it was that or the Schneider APO-L version.

If you can afford to do it his way, go to NYC or LA and simply rent an 8x10 Sinar and two high-powered Profoto heads and packs, an couple of assistants, the small studio space at Industria SuperStudio, and 50 holders or so of 8x10 Portra 160 Color Neg and have a go at it.

Figure about a grand for the camera, a couple for the lights, assistant, space, and couple more for film and processing.

That's the level guys like that work at, Gregory Crewdson, big fashion togs, etc.

Not to slam Martin, by all accounts he is a nice guy, but the funny thing is that a lot of the hobby retired dentist photographers on this site can outshoot him with their broken-down fifty year old cameras set-up out beside the barn in open shade....

To put it mildly: overkill! You don't need an 8x10 Sinar to make razor-sharp mugshots like that. Get something used that's good, and then get a 300mm lens. My Calumet/Cambo 8x10 monorail has 600mm (2ft) of bellows, and you can pick them up for pretty cheap these days. Excellent used lenses are cheap, too.

300mm or 360mm sounds likely. The lens is somewhat wide for portraiture, based on the shape of the face. The lighting is pretty obvious from looking in the eyes, two huge soft lights very close to the face, serving as both a wash of very even, shadowless light and eyelights (the "window to the soul").

Save money and shoot it on 4x5! You'll need 1/4 the light and film will be cheaper, too. (Just saying this since I don't have an 8x10.)

Cheaper and more fun: 8x10 and an Aero-Ektar wide open:

http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie...otesqueBaroque

Martin Schoeller used neon lights for his book close ups and he told in a interview he was always only "exakt 63,5 Zentimeter" 63,5cm from the faces away wis hes lens!
He use shorter then normal lenses if I remember correctly!

Cheers Armin

there is a video of him shooting one of
the female body builders

... in an interview with smithsonian
he mentions that some of those portraits
are done with a medium format camera .

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2008/08...-schoelle.html

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/arou...s-photography/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Armin Seeholzer

Martin Schoeller used neon lights for his book close ups and he told in a interview he was always only "exakt 63,5 Zentimeter" 63,5cm from the faces away wis hes lens!
He use shorter then normal lenses if I remember correctly!

---

Not much shorter.

If the subject distance is 635 mm and the magnification is 1 the focal-lenght is approx. 300mm. ;)

Peter

I'd look for a Kodak Commercial Ektar either the 12" or 14" version. Super-sharp lens where you need it to be, and beautiful transitions to creamy out-of-focus areas.

Why not give it a try.

I have a studio outside of Toronto. You can try it here if you like. I have an 8x10, a selection of lenses and could come up with a couple softboxes in the cupboard somewhere.... give it a try.

Just bring a model.

I would suggest a shorter lens though.... bellows extension/factor would make it hard to manage.

-rob

I take back my previous comment after looking through the video, Strobist commentary, and then Smithsonian article. After reading I see that the catch lights are clearly not softboxes, but florescent banks. In the video they are some sort of strip light (not sure which). Considering the small room he uses in the video, I can't imagine he could use anything but a 300mm or shorter lens. His back is pretty much up against the wall.

His technique of flipping through 8x10 holders (see the assistant in the back reloading in a changing tent?) and rapport (constant chatter and comforting questions) with subject are really great. I have no great love of his style, but his expertise is unquestionable.

If you want that look of roundness in the face, you should use a 10 lens. Longer lenses will flatten out the face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Struan Gray

Cheaper and more fun: 8x10 and an Aero-Ektar wide open:

http://trichromie.free.fr/trichromie...otesqueBaroque

---

fun to scroll down fast... nice shots!

just to "clear the water" a bit...

most of these "close-up" portraits were shot with a rz67(medium format) camera, with the tilt-shift extension module, and a 140mm macro lens(probably the sharpest in the rz line-up of lenses).

this allows him to tilt the lens to help throw things out of focus, and back onto the eyes. shooting wide-open(or close to it) with the CONTINUOUS lighting(kino-flo's in this case, the daylight-balanced variety). Generally using 160 speed color neg films, he gets them drum scanned and printed large.

some of the close-ups(but not big face pictures), like this one here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZTGXhWjAf4

are shot with an 8x10 camera(in this case a Sinar monorail, with a DB-mounted lens, see him flip the lever on the left side to open the lens to focus @ 3:05 in the video link above). Having a small army of assistants helps too ;).

with the 8x10, he uses strobes(Profoto) to ensure enough light output for a smaller aperture for increased DOF due to the close proximity to hi subjects in the frame.

-Dan

The ears are back behind the edges of his face. I would have guessed slightly shorter than normal ... I guess I'm not used to 8x10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp498

The perspective looks allright, but the lighting is a little intentionally unnatural. You see in the eyes big light sources on each side of the camera. Hard to tell from the jpeg, but the nose looks a little out of focus, so I'd guess the aperture would be f16 or less and it would be a slightly long lens. Your options are tiny depth of field or slight depth of field. You don't need any super sharp lens for brutally sharp portraits in 8x10. Anything that's not "soft focus" will show every single pore and whisker at non-wide open apertures.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp498

... but the nose looks a little out of focus ...

---

There are other portraits where it is easy to see that the nose is out of focus. He focuses on the subject's eyes and mouth, and that's it.

Here's a PopPhoto interview where he mentions his equipment. He doesn't say what lens length he uses with his Sinar, though.

Looks like he shot these with an rz67 and 140mm lens on portra. Not so expensive after all!

16 to 18 inch lens. with the longer FL you do not have to be at 1:1 to get a tight head shot.

for wet plate this is great so you do not loose as much to reciprocity.

for film you get to stop down to get the DOF you like. with a longer lens you get "a bit better DOF" IMO as you are not so close to your subject.

i do not like the super shallow nose and ears OOF area.

i dunno. i would try 18 inch lens at f11 or 16. focus on the eyes. BTW i love my 15 inch lens on 5x7 and 4x5 head shots as well....

oh! and use a studio camera. all my century studio cameras can do this type of a head shot with a 16-18 inch lens.

eddie

Eddie,

Re-examine your comment. To achieve a specific image size (such as filling the frame with a head) in any given film format, the lens focal length has no effect at all on the reproduction ratio (in this case, around 1:1). You could use a 120mm or a 600mm, 1:1 is still 1:1. Only the subject distance will change.

I would suggest something like a 480 at about f11 will achieve what you are after, this set of portraits here http://aluncrockford.com/portrait2.html were done on such a combination with cross polarisation

The only snag with using large format with people is keeping the iris in focus ,which is why in the 19c one of the standard items of the portrait studio was a head stand. and when you try and get your subjects to stay still you will wish you had one

I use a 14-inch Commercial Ektar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aluncrockford

I would suggest something like a 480 at about f11 will achieve what you are after, this set of portraits here http://aluncrockford.com/portrait2.html were done on such a combination with cross polarisation

The only snag with using large format with people is keeping the iris in focus ,which is why in the 19c one of the standard items of the portrait studio was a head stand. and when you try and get your subjects to stay still you will wish you had one

---

Thanks for that link! I thought your Small Gods series exceptional and liked the nature series too. I really enjoyed looking at your photographs.

David

http://aluncrockford.com/

Thanks for coming onto this forum, your work is inspiring.

Or use a Rolleiflex/80mm like the 'guy' that popularized this style of portraiture back in the 60s ;)