Focusing range of Goerz Dagor 305mm 6.8 for portraits?

[Pere Casals]

I don't see an over exaggerated nose in the sample but maybe you guys do?

This is Emily's "regular" face:



She has a tiny nose, so foreshortening does not show "an over exaggerated nose". If it was Streisand then we would have another effect. Nose jobs are a YMMV.

The other thing would be to simply crop into a more "normal F.O.V" shot, essentially making it a longer" lens...
Could this be possible?

Yes, of course you can crop, but you can also use a reducing back to 5x7 or to 4x5, so you don't waste film.

Any guesses as to what focal length might have been used for the sample image I originally posted?

I guess that image has some foreshortening, given his "regular" face.

We don't know the format and edition, my guess is that if it was a 8x10 shot then focal could be around normal focal, perhaps around 360mm, but this is only a guess from the face deformation I perceive compared to her distant shots.


Just use a DSLR with a zoom to see the face deformations you have at different distances, then take the equivalent focal for 8x10.




https://www.fireflyphotography.co.nz...oreshortening/


If you like the 50mm then take that dagor and shot close. If you like the 100mm then use around 600mm and shot from 2m to 3m far.

[reddesert]

If one uses an 8x10" camera to image a 16x20" subject, which is kind of like a tight head and shoulders composition, one is working at a reproduction ratio of 1:2. That means a lot of bellows extension. A 300mm lens will be working at 450mm extension (and the lens to subject distance will be 900mm). At this point we have to stop talking about the 300mm lens as "normal" lens because the extra extension counts. From a perspective point of view, you have the same perspective as any other lens at 900mm subject distance.

I don't have an 8x10 camera, but it seems to me that the way to address this question is to figure out where you want to position the camera for the desired perspective, and then ask how much bellows extension you have / can afford. You will need a lot of bellows to focus a 600mm lens at 1:2.

[Corran]

With large format, the magnification of the image becomes significant. Obviously with smaller formats, you aren't anywhere near a 1:1 mag for a headshot, because the film is not large.

Perhaps this interesting thread from Ken Lee is relevant here:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-than-infinity

[Jim Galli]

To the OP, I think the original image you showed could have been done with 12" Dagor. Lot's of good advice here, but sometimes you have to be careful not to let all the helpers cause analysis paralysis. Gearheads, (or lensheads as it were) we err on the side of overthinking stuff. Put the lens on the camera and get to work. You'll do fine.

[wallpaperviking]

Have just posted in another thread, so hope I am not overlapping too much but am just wondering if anybody knew if I could use one of these "single focus solutions"

https://www.rapidotechnology.com/pro...iopter/fvd-35a

attached in front of my Goerz Dagor 12 and not have the need to rack out the bellows so much?

Thanks in advance!

[Dan Fromm]

A shorter lens, even a Dagor, would cost much less.

[Will Frostmill]

Thanks so much for all your replies, greatly appreciated!

Any guesses as to what focal length might have been used for the sample image I originally posted? It is taken by Paolo Roversi and shot on 8 x 10 polaroid, back in the day when it was still produced.. I was under the impression he used a Goerz Dagor 305mm 6.8 by seeing images he has taken himself of his camera/lens setup but to be honest, he could be using anything....

I don't see an over exaggerated nose in the sample but maybe you guys do? The other thing would be to simply crop into a more "normal F.O.V" shot, essentially making it a longer" lens...

Could this be possible?

Thanks again!

You've gotten some great advice in this thread.

Three things:
1. How big noses appear in a picture (Leslie Strobel calls it "strong perspective") depends on how close the lens is. Set up your shot, but focus with the back standard, not the front standard. Moving the front standard moves the lens closer to the subject. Don't do that when you focus, do that when you frame.
Try it: set up a dummy at a distance you like for the framing you want. Use the back standard to get it into focus. Then try it the other way.

2. How much magnification you get depends on how far you have to rack out the bellows to get the picture. This is weird, because it doesn't show up as much of a factor with smaller cameras, and it mixes with our understanding of how focus works.

I've seen people get into fights just talking about it. If you really want to understand it, spend some time googling "focus breathing","unit focusing lens", and "close range correction" . The shortest possible version is this: your "normal angle of view lens", a 300mm on 8x10, has that normal angle when focused at infinity. By the time you've racked it out to 450mm from the lens to the film, what you see on the ground glass is a narrower angle of view. One like a 450mm lens at infinity.

3. Speaking of racking out the bellows, once you've got the lens that far away from the film, the light is noticeably dimmer. One way to understand it, is to realize that the aperture on your 300mm lens hasn't gotten any bigger to compensate for suddenly being on that 450mm lens. Or, alternatively, you could think of it from the film's perspective: gee, that bright circle way over there got smaller.

Jim Noel knows what he's talking about with calculating bellows. Make it easier. Put down painter's tape next to the tracks your rear standard rides on. Mark infinity focus. Then mark each focal distance you want to use, and do the math, once, for the fstop for each distance, and write it on the tape.

Finally, notice that classic 8x10 portrait photographers like Karsh and Avedon were often using 14" lenses for portraits. Not 24" lenses. On smaller formats, we'd double the focal length from 42.5mm to 85mm, or from 50mm to 100mm. But not for large formats. It's a puzzlement!

-----
References: Leslie Strobel's "View Camera Technique", 1976
Franke's notes on his Depth of Field and Angle of View calculator, which includes both real formulas at the link and a very very nice interactive calculator which covers both large format film as well as pretty much every digital format. Fun to play with.

[Bernice Loui]

Hint on 8x10 portraits, Kodak made their 16" Portrait Ektar for 8x10, consider why the folks at Kodak decided on 16" focal length or head/shoulder and similar 8x10 portraits.

2" difference in focal length might not appear to be that much, yet it DOES make a difference for 8x10 portrait work like this. Beyond lens focal length, lighting, composition and related is often equally or more important than just focal length.

Back in te 8x10 days, one of my faves was a 480mm f4.5 Schneider Xenar and 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar for these types of images. 480mm (~19") is about the upper limit and 14" (~360mm) the lower limit for focal length.


Bernice

You've gotten some great advice in this thread.

Finally, notice that classic 8x10 portrait photographers like Karsh and Avedon were often using 14" lenses for portraits. Not 24" lenses. On smaller formats, we'd double the focal length from 42.5mm to 85mm, or from 50mm to 100mm. But not for large formats. It's a puzzlement!

[lungovw]

I was tired of doing always the same calculation whenever I was asking myself "what can I do with this lens in this camera", so I made an online simulator that I can check in my mobile phone. One has to enter lens' focal length, film format and type of portrait, and immediately get the key figures providing a pretty good idea of how things will match up: bellows extension, lens to subject distance and exposure compensation. Recently I added depth of field in case also the intended aperture and admitted Circle of Confusion are informed according to film format. I have used it, many people I don't know have, and it works fine for a first appraisal. It is a way to bypass the "overthinking" Jim Galli pointed out, but also a way to avoid wild experimentation. I consider it a good compromise for those not having yet a good intuition, built over extensive experience with certain lenses and formats. The link is:https://apenasimagens.com/en/focal-l...s-and-framing/