Portraits on 8x10 using Fuji Fujinon W S 250mm f5.6 lens

[Kino]

Yes, it's probably not ideal for making portraits on 8x10, but it is what I have and will have to make do for now.

Seeing as this lens is relatively wide angle for 8x10, how close to the subject can I get before ugly facial distortions start to become noticeable?

Is this strictly a "full body" lens or can I push in to "Head to waist" size portraits without everyone becoming Jimmy Durante?

[Vaughn]

H&S should be fine -- with a wider lens like the 250mm (not that wide really) you might need to pay a little more attention to the relative height of the camera and keeping the back parallel to the subject to avoid distortion (obviously changing the relative sizes of various body parts and/areas of the figure). Unless wanted, of course...like making a brainiac's head a little bigger relative to the rest of their body.

[Kino]

Thanks, Vaughn. Very useful information.

[Vaughn]

With iPhone selfies, etc. being so popular, it seems a slightly wide lens is the new 'standard'.

[Peter De Smidt]

I try not to get closer than about 4 feet from the front of the camera to the subject.

[diversey]

Stephen Dirado have done a lot of nice 8x10 portraits using a 250mm lens. You may find his work on face book or his website
Stephendirado.com

[Drew Wiley]

Meyerowitz routinely did 8X10 full-body color portraiture with a equivalent focal length (10 inch) commercial Ektar. I had a 250/6.7 Fuji W that covered 8x10 just fine, in terms of image circle, but never liked working with wider angles of view in portraiture. Maybe in a larger enviro setting.

All that's standard with cell phone images and those little BB lenses, Vaughan, is that everyone now has a really big nose! My wife took that to a cute extreme with facial close-ups of our pet tree squirrel.

[Vaughan]

All that's standard with cell phone images and those little BB lenses, Vaughan, is that everyone now has a really big nose!

Wrong Vaughn. But yeah, phone selfies have changed what is acceptable for portraiture.

If a mod is reading this, feel free to change my username to Vaughaaaaaan.

[Vaughn]

Wrong Vaughn. But yeah, phone selfies have changed what is acceptable for portraiture.

If a mod is reading this, feel free to change my username to Vaughaaaaaan.

Yeah...over the years I have gotten use to my name being spelled Vaughan, Vaugh, and such things. Giving my name at pizza places and such, I have learned to say "Von," while giving the peace sign, and saying "V-O-N", but still listen for Bon, Ron, Don or whatever, just in case.

In addition to that, I do pronounce my name as "Von"...and many times I have to put up with folks in New Zealand, Oz, and the UK telling me I am pronouncing my own name wrong. I know that, f*%k off!

[bdkphoto]

Yes, it's probably not ideal for making portraits on 8x10, but it is what I have and will have to make do for now.

Seeing as this lens is relatively wide angle for 8x10, how close to the subject can I get before ugly facial distortions start to become noticeable?

Is this strictly a "full body" lens or can I push in to "Head to waist" size portraits without everyone becoming Jimmy Durante?

I would look to the work of Arnold Newman - he used wider lenses regularly for his portraiture - his placement of subjects will be instructive. One Mind's Eye is a great book of his work. For a contemporary look at wide angle portraiture Platon would be a great place to see work that accentuates the wide angle effect without it being goofy.