11x14 lens for huge enlargements of furniture

[brighamr]

"A 210mm lens will only shorten the working distance"

the OP said that he would be 4 m from the 3m wide object so a 450mm or above lens will not cover the shot
a 210mm will foreshorten the furniture but camera movements will be able to deal with the geometry of the furniture

for work I do a lot of location lifestyle room product photography on 35mm format and the 18,21,25mm focal lengths get used a lot
I seldom have the option of backing away far enough to use a long lens as we normally want as wide as possible
the OP did not say what depth the objects had or if the priority was everything had to be tacksharp
it is possible to shoot this at f22 on a 210mm and get a "pretty" shot nothing like Kens photo (not that Ken is not pretty)

My definition of pretty may differ from yours

Kens photo of the big nose effect is not really relevant to product photography as a full hight person at 4m on a 210mm would be about a third of the frame high not a full head close up

regards

robin

[Ken Lee]

Please, I found that photo on the web somewhere - it's not me. It's hard to find photos which illustrate foreshortening.

I was just trying to make the OP aware of the issue, but apparently he already is since he stated something I previously missed: "I thought the [600mm] Apo Ronar... wouldn’t distort the lines of the furniture." and he's right.

[David A. Goldfarb]

f:22 with any lens in this situation is going to yield about 1/2 m of DOF range. Most likely, movements will only help with framing and perspective, but not with the plane of focus (unless you can shoot from a high angle and use tilt--the Deardorff 11x14" studio camera did have a 12 foot high stand), because the typical room setup involves perpendicular objects that aren't in the same plane. If the subject is the furniture, it probably all has to be in focus.

The solution, I think, is just to stop down and not be so concerned about diffraction. f:90 is not really such a small aperture given the format.

Another option would be to shoot a smaller format, but I suspect that the furniture studios traditionally shot 11x14" for a reason. If you're selling furniture, you've got to render the texture of the fabric and the grain in the wood with fine detail. Furniture stores are big spaces where it is possible to hang huge photos for promotional purposes. If the sales banners are hung over a couch, that's a way to keep the viewing distance reasonable. The advantage of reduced enlargement factor by shooting a larger format pretty much always trumps the disadvantages of diffraction, and a small aperture is the only way to overcome the challenge of DOF, given the likely arrangement of objects in the scene.

[Drew Wiley]

Your battle with a neg this big is going to be with depth of field and lack of flatness of the film itself in the holder. Some ULF photographers used a little tab or two
of removable double-faced tape behind the center of the film to help this, though it's no substitute for a true vac holder.

[DurbinLewisLtd]

Hi all,

Thank you for your replies. Robin, I will indeed be shooting in London.

I will be shooting in a large studio, primarily for moving image with a ceiling rig. I will have much more distance than 4 metres available to me - I should have added that 4 metres was my minimum at a guess as not to be too close to the lights. See attached photo in the same space I did recently on 8x10.

[IMG][/IMG]

I expect the depth of the furniture to be no more than 1.2 metres - although I'll aim to be showing mostly the front face of a wardrobe, for example, rather than its depth at an angle.

In an ideal world I would use a 550 xxl - would this particular lens aid any potential diffraction problems compared to say a 480 symmar - s MC or my 450 nikkor M? If the aperture is at f64 - f90.

On a historical level I do want to follow along the lines of the furniture studios using 11x14 - and apart from this one exhibition showing it as a large Duratrans - the image will mostly be shown as a contact print from the Portra/Delta.

Will def use double sided tape then - any potential drawbacks of using it I should be aware of?

Best,

John

[Ken Lee]

Will def use double sided tape then - any potential drawbacks of using it I should be aware of?

Some adhesive tape emits light when peeled away.

See Triboluminescence: "Triboluminescence can be observed when breaking sugar crystals and peeling adhesive tapes."

Be sure to test it in the dark before spoiling a sheet of film etc. Both on the film and the holder.

[Oren Grad]

In an ideal world I would use a 550 xxl - would this particular lens aid any potential diffraction problems compared to say a 480 symmar - s MC or my 450 nikkor M? If the aperture is at f64 - f90.

No. There may be very modest differences as a result of different optical designs, but the existence of an absolute resolution limit is a fundamental constraint of optics and applies to all lenses. As a rule of thumb, 1600 divided by the f-number gives you an approximation of the maximum resolution you can expect in lp/mm. So f/64 implies no more than about 25 lp/mm, f/90 implies no more than about 18 lp/mm. These numbers apply only at the plane of focus - because of the circle of confusion, they get progressively worse as you move away from the plane of focus, even within the theoretical zone of "good enough" sharpness that you have calculated based on your specified acceptable CoC.

When you divide these numbers by 10 to reflect the intended enlargement for your Duratrans print, will that provide an adequate subjective impression of sharpness and detail for your viewers? As you can see, a lot will depend on your assumptions about how close they can get and how acute their visual perception will be. Since you will be drum scanning and working from a digital file for the enlargements, you obviously have the option of sharpening for output; it will be a subjective call on your part as to how much and what kind of sharpening will help rather than harm whatever subjective impression you would like to create.

For the contact prints, you should be able to pull this off even for a reasonably critical eye. All the potential trouble here is with the enlargements, and everything depends on the criteria for "good enough".

[Andrew Plume]

yes, this is a really interesting (and different) thread

Ken - I knew that wasn't you...........

Stone, you're starting to suffer from the 'dreaded GAS' - thought that you were happy with 10 x 8, yes you certainly show 'all of the symptoms'................yes, indeed

regards to all

andrew

[Bob Salomon]

To get the kind of DOF you need to photograph a room set, where tilt and swing aren't going to help enormously, and you've just got to stop way down, I doubt you'll see much difference in resolution among relatively modern, and even not-so-modern lenses.

I've read about studios doing this kind of work on 11x14" in Hickory, North Carolina, which is a historic center of the U.S. furniture industry. They would shoot tests in black and white to process them quickly in a darkroom adjacent to the studio before shooting in color.

David,

The big one was in Highpoint, NC.

[StoneNYC]

yes, this is a really interesting (and different) thread

Ken - I knew that wasn't you...........

Stone, you're starting to suffer from the 'dreaded GAS' - thought that you were happy with 10 x 8, yes you certainly show 'all of the symptoms'................yes, indeed

regards to all

andrew

Hah! I don't OWN an 11x14, I was borrowing it from a friend to test a lens or two.

Before I got into 8x10 I was going to jump right from 4x5 to 11x14 and had been gifted an 11x14 holder, I had built a home made pinhole camera for 11x14 and so I had some film already for it etc.(x-ray stuff) so I'm just taking advantage of the opportunity to shoot while I have the camera.

When the time comes I may pass on the holder to another to encourage them or use it to upgrade, I think if I'm going to go ULF it will be 14x17 or 16x20, the 11x14 isn't significantly big enough over 8x10 to warrant both sizes, but I'm glad I had some experience with ULF, it certainly helped me with handling of large print paper etc.

I'm actually working on eliminating my GAS.

I'm hoping once I'm finished with a personal project I've been working on that I'll be able to sell my gear. The hardest one to justify is the 35mm gear, it all holds special value that's emotional, but takes up space.

I really like 8x10. I've already sold my 4x5 camera, but I have so much EFKE IR820 in 4x5 that I want to shoot so I'm getting a reducing back.

I know I'll still be left with a bunch of cameras but I'm trying to get rid of the unused ones. The Mamiya7 and the 8x10 are the only two I'm sure I can't sell. The rest I'm on the fence about.