Walk in Camera Obscura!

[Asher Kelman]

I need help with long lenses for super ULF portraits. Most of my photography work has been with portraits and the majority full length in in the studio with my Canon 5DII.

I'm so impressed with the giant prints made by Richard Learoyd I saw last week in San Francisco that I want to do my work without any post processing in Photoshop, just shoot and then develop the paper. However, I don't know enough about lens coverage and the choices available.

I realize that it would be simple to put a hole in a wall between two rooms and one would be for hanging Ilfochrome paper and the other for the models. So I need a nice bellows to fit on the wall for fine focus and lenses to project 40x72 or thereabouts on to a vertical easel in the "camera" room.

So what lenses are the best options. I'd like to have both soft focus and sharp focus choices with sufficient coverage. Lighting will be by strobes with large close light sources.

The camera room is 12 ft wide.

Your guidance will be much appreciated!

Asher

[Marc B.]

Is he not answering your personal inquiries, or have you not tried?

www.richardlearoyd.com

Studio +44-(0)20-737-1750
Mobile +44-(0)7958-390133

UK Time Zone...don't forget.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

That is a pretty big piece of paper and would require ~82" of coverage. However, I would guess since you will be working portraits you will be in the 1:1 or above range, so a 47" Apo Artar or 1200mm Apo Ronar or Nikkor would probably cover and work well. Depending on magnification, a 35" Artar or equivalent might also work.

Soft focus? Maybe just a huge achromat bought from an optics house.

[Mark Woods]

Hello Asher, Instead of bellows, why not set up a calibrated movable stand for the paper. This wouldn't be so different from AAs enlarger.

[Dan Fromm]

According to the Rodenstock Process Lens Handbook, at 1:1 the 1200/16 Apo Ronar covers 40"x50" and the 1800/16 covers 60"x80". Per Nikon long Apo Nikkors cover a bit less than the comparable Apo Ronars. I doubt that Apo Artars cover more.

With an 1800, at 1:1 will the film will have to be 3.6 m from the lens' rear node, which is ~ 15 mm behind the diaphragm. 3.6 m is .18' short of 12'. The subject will have to be 3.6 m from the lens' front node, which is ~ 15 mm in front of the lens' diaphragm. How big is the room the subject will be in?

When designing something like Asher's fantasy of the day there's no way around doing the calculations. Doing the calculations requires, among other things, having the lenses' specifications. Rule of thumb guesses based on wishful thinking just won't do.

[Asher Kelman]

That is a pretty big piece of paper and would require ~82" of coverage. However, I would guess since you will be working portraits you will be in the 1:1 or above range, so a 47" Apo Artar or 1200mm Apo Ronar or Nikkor would probably cover and work well. Depending on magnification, a 35" Artar or equivalent might also work.

I was imagining I could use from 24 " (for head and shoulders) to 400" for full body with some vignetting. These larger lengths would be great too.

'll try to find out what Richard Learoyd used here. I'll call the Fraenkel Gallery. Some are H&S, others are reclining nudes and there's wonderful vignetting!

So the image circle might be not more than about 50-70 inches it seems.

Soft focus? Maybe just a huge achromat bought from an optics house.

Maybe! There's a rumor to that idea. I am checking with the folk at the Fraenkel Gallery. Otherwise I'll try to call the mother country tomorrow!

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

...
With an 1800, at 1:1 will the film will have to be 3.6 m from the lens' rear node, which is ~ 15 mm behind the diaphragm. 3.6 m is .18' short of 12'. The subject will have to be 3.6 m from the lens' front node, which is ~ 15 mm in front of the lens' diaphragm. How big is the room the subject will be in?

Dan,

Thanks for helping out. The subjects room is just over 12 foot wide and the camera room is actually closer to 15 1/2 feet.

When designing something like Asher's fantasy of the day there's no way around doing the calculations. Doing the calculations requires, among other things, having the lenses' specifications. Rule of thumb guesses based on wishful thinking just won't do.

Without the fantasy, there's no need for science, without the fantasy, there are no questions!

Asher

[Dan Fromm]

Asher, there's no science here, just a desire to do something. Given what's known and what you say you want to accomplish, its an engineering problem. Straightforward one, too.

[Asher Kelman]

It would be interesting to get some guestimates on what were used in Richard Learoyd's pictures.
here. I've called the Fraenkel Gallery just now and they are not sure but one curator thought that he used "8x10 lenses".

It turns out that the photographer spends all day on a shoot and has tape and draws on models to shape how they will pose and where their hands are etc.He's very skilled in lighting it seems and has a great sense of esthetics and beauty. But also he's a cold realist, with nothing, not even a bump removed or hidden!

It could be that the images are with wider lenses than I imagined for full length shots. What do you think?

Asher

[Mark Sampson]

If you're going to channel Mr. Learoyd's method, why not approach him directly?
If you don't intend to clone his work, he may be willing to share.