Best Film/Lens/Camera combo for Indoor Portraits?

[anandi]

This might seem like a strange thread, but I've been mulling over what the best combination of film, camera and lens is for shooting portraits, mostly indoors.

I've got a new baby, the second in the family, and I was never totally satisfied with the Digital pix used with my firstborn. So I'm keen on rectifying this with the new kid with RFs and film.

I figure for a camera can't go wrong with the RFs for quietness and generally fast lenses on the fixed ones I've got, but here's a rub: I've got 35-45 mm lenses on the XA, QL17, Yash Electro GT and doesn't that end up distorting features a little?

So what about using a Barnack Leica with a 100/4? Damn that's slow. So I start thinking of fast films - never used anything above 800 before. What does that Delta 1600 do for you?

So you see my conundrum, all this stuff is interelated and holistic. So far the 50mm shots of him minutes old with my Canon A-1 loaded with 400CN are the best I've got, but I've got a few rolls to develop yet.

What do you folks think? Cheers -A.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

If you find the 100/4 slow, then you should consider a 90 Summicron (f/2). Then again, there's the Canon 85 f/1.8 (or is it 1.5? I can't think clearly right now -- allergy attack).

I would say that perhaps the Canon 50 f/1.4 or f/1.5 should serve you well, even the f/1.8, although all of those focus down to 1 meter (~ 3' 4"); the Summilux pre-asph 50 f/1.4 focuses as close as 0.7 meters, but it's just too much cash.

I'd say if you're really looking for "portrait" lenses, and you want "fast" and "cheap" (compared to the other options), perhaps you should look at the CV 75 f/2.5, the Canon 85, or any of the fast Canon 50mm; they are all good lenses, and the Canons are superb.

 

[Doug]

Hi there, Anandi, congratulations on the new arrival! I'll trot out my "backwards" logic for portraiture in general... Start with the distance. Perspective depends on distance alone. Some subjects due to their features are better at shorter or longer distances, but in general the range will be about 1m - 2.5m. And 1.5m is a good starting point for a pleasing perspective.

Ok, now decide how much of the subject you want in the pic. Face only? Head and shoulders? Torso up? Seated with legs curled under? Full length standing or reclining? This is how you pick your lens focal length.

At fairly close distance like 1.5m, you'll want to avoid parallax error, so I'd suggests an RF camera with viewfinder parallax compensation, or an SLR (which has no parallax in the first place). Certainly avoid using an accessory viewfinder atop the camera.

The light level will affect your choice of film and lens speed... Of course with fast film you get grain. Of course slow film will force a wide aperture where depth of field is limited. You'll want to keep a reasonable shutter speed to avoid blur & shake, and a tripod is another consideration that would allow a slow shutter speed and therefore slower film and smaller aperture, but has its own drawbacks in convenience. I dislike flash, but that's another obvious solution, and bouncing or other clever uses of flash could be useful.

For film, I'd suggest either black and white or color negative film as offering more flexibility than slides. Color neg films up to ISO 800 seem amazingly good these days, and it seems to me the move from there to 1600 brings a load of grain with it. With the fastest black & white neg films like Delta 3200 the true speed is lower than the name suggests by a stop or stop and a half. And the grain is very obvious. Maybe a better solution is to pick times to shoot when you have pleasant window light sufficient for more modest film speed. Natural window light can be very lovely.

Hope this will help get you started toward your choice of solution! 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

Depends alot on the light you can have indoors, i would say. Sometimes grain can be nice, even on small children, so don't be afraid of iso1600-3200. Try them. Neopan 1600 can give quite good results, shot even at iso 1000 allows with an f/2 lens for reasonable shutter speeds. But it can get very contrasty depending on the scene and the development. Delta3200 is also nice even at 3200, and less contrast, i have some results i like alot, but grain is big.
Another option - better IMO - would be to use medium format; you could get a folder rf and use delta3200 in it, or a newer fuji 6x4.5 etc if you can afford them; the results on 6x6 delta3200 are excellent. Also colour neg of 400 or 800 speed looks much better in 6x6, imo, even on smaller prints.

Camera/lens: i wonder what your budget is on this - the equipment you've used so far indicates a restricted budbet but the options you are considering are more costly. So, how about a Jupiter-9 85/2 lens on something it fits? I think it is fast long and good enough if you get ome that is correctly working.
Otherwise, using a louder slr might have the advantage that the small model will get used to the sound early enough and you will have no problems photographing him (her?) later on when teenager😀

 

[anandi]

Doug, gabrielma,
Thanks for the suggestions, parallax error at close distances isn't something I'd actually thought of, since I don't usually use RFs at such close distances. I'm not fond of flash photography and setting up the tripod is only I'll do when the kids are sleeping and I've got the time. Any pictures of Delta 3200 in action? I forsee some more LTM lenses in my future...

 

[Pherdinand]

here are some examples on delta3200 shot at delta3200 in extreme conditions (i.e. very high contrast). Scan is a bit sloppy, parallel lines are artifacts and the colour depth is not too good, but the grain is as on the film. The detail kept in the highlights is amazing, and the shadows are ...well, shadows🙂

another delta3200 result in broad daylight with an ultrawide, rated at iso1600-ish.

The last exampe is about 42x magnified (for 1200 pixel screen width) part of the first image, using a microscope and a digital camera. Just to show the details and grain in case of serious enlargements. Hope it helps.

 

[raid]

Congrats on your baby. When my wife and I had our first baby, I arranged eight cameras with lenses on a table, with two flashes and extension tubes, and I was "ready". You need a fast 50/90 lens for available light B&W photography, and consider also using slower color film with carefully reflected flash. I even used a Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 lens with extension tube for closer focus to get medium format facial shots of the baby. For other fingerprints, I tried using a Contaflex camera with a Tessar lens and of course, my workhorse was a Canon T90 with a 85mm/1.2L lens. Later on, when the baby was bigger (physically), I went to Leica cameras with 50 and 90 lenses. What I am trying to explain is this: try out whatever you have and enjoy your baby.

 

[Alec]

Congrats Anandi!

My pick for that particular job is (horresco referens) a SLR plus 100mm macro plus all the lighting you can get plus 100 ISO film. Not digital, the files will be lost by the time your child is 10, film.

In my case, that would translate into a Minolta Dynax 9 + grip + 2.8/100 Macro + 3 big Minolta cobra wireless flashes triggered by the built-in flash for indirect lighting + Provia 100F. (I have a ring flash but haven't tried it yet on my babies 😀)

But for portraits of quieter individuals a Leica M + Summilux 75 + Superia 800 is more faithful to the original mood!

 

[JohnL]

For babies, a close-in perspective is perhaps more representative of a typical viewpoint than it would be for adults. Don;t be afraid of going in close, but don't use direct flash on babies -- can damage their eyes.

 

[raid]

For babies, a close-in perspective is perhaps more representative of a typical viewpoint than it would be for adults. Don;t be afraid of going in close, but don't use direct flash on babies -- can damage their eyes.

Someone told me that babies have a protective layering covering and protecting their eyes, so even some flash would not be harmful. I did not use any direct flash on my babies, and maybe it is better to be one the cautious side than be sorry.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I second the recommendation for a fast 50 in the F1.4 range and a fast 85 or 90 in the F2 range. Most "Classic" Fast RF '50's can only get to 3'~3.5'. The Nikkor 5cm F1.4 is the exception, 18". The RF short telephoto's also close focus to 3'~3.5', so you can get in close with the 1.7x magnification, is it equivalent to a 50mm lens at 2'.

 

[Pherdinand]

Alec - I thought the Dynax 9 has NO built-in flash! Am i completely out of phase?

Sorry for the detour.

 

[RObert Budding]

How large a print do you intend to make? If generally 8x10 with an occasional 11x14, stay with 35mm. But if you shoot really fast films and want to contrlo grain, then medium format may make sense.

For 35mm, I'd pick up a nice used Contax RX from KEH for less than $500 (or the 167MT for about $250). The lens is easy - either a Zeiss 85/2.8 Sonnar (about $250 - $300) or the Zeiss 85/1.4, if you can find one and it fits in your budget. The N1 is a nice body, too, but I'd skip it as there are few lenses available and the zooms are slow.

For medium format, the Mamiya 645 Pro TL is an excellent value, and there is an 80/1.9 lens available. The 150/3.5 is superb, but you'll need faster film in low light. You could get a very nice start for under $1,000.

I've recommended SLR's because they are much easier to use for tight shots. In addition, you can check the DOF before shooting.

Congratulations!
Robert

 

[anandi]

Folks,
Thanks for the suggestions, Pherdinand the scans are great - the grain makes for an impressionistic effect when enlarged. Robert, I typically will make an 8x10 enlargement for the best shots as gifts to family. I had recently used MF for a job shoot for the first time really liked it, but can't really justify shelling out the shekels for a Mamiya or Hasselblad right now(I rented a 500C with a 65mm and loved it, but "pick up and grab the moment, it's not") . I have a couple of Canon FD bodies (A-1, T-70, AE-1P in the shop) a couple of lenses but nothing outstanding. I was looking at the Contax SLRs (and Yashica that accept contax mount) and drooling over the lenses there, but was wondering how much better the Zeiss lenses on the Contaxes would be than good FD primes. I might pick up an 85/1.8 in an FD or even a 50/1.2-1.4 (depending on bucks) for portraiture. Raid, I would love to have an 85/1.2...

So anyone open to offers for their unused fast Canon FD primes that are gathering dust? Also anyone got any extra fast-ish LTMs they want to part with? Don't have to be super sharp, or collector grade. I'll try with some Delta3200 maybe at 1600 to start with. I'll see if I can live with the grain. Thanks everyone.

 

[Alec]

Alec - I thought the Dynax 9 has NO built-in flash! Am i completely out of phase?

It has. The 9xi doesn't have one, and requires a dedicated IR flash to trigger the slaves (sorry Californian friends, secondary units), but the latest (last 🙁 ) 9 has a beautiful metal housing atop the prism for a reasonably powerful flash. Plus a gorgeous viewfinder, but you knew that already.

Really a beautiful picture-taking machine.

http://konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/camera-peu/slr/dynax9/

 

[RObert Budding]

Good call t0 stay with 35mm - no need to deal with the additioanl expense of medium format if you plan to print 8x10 or smaller.

Robert

 

[ErnestoJL]

Anandi, congratulations on the New baby!!
IMO there are two approaches for the same problem: RF or SLR?
If SLR, it´s damn easy. A fast normal plus 2x extender or a fast 90/100 mm and minimum ISO 400 either B&W or colour negs.
For RFs with interchangeable lenses, a fast 75 / 100 mm will do the trick.

If fixed lens RFs.... that´s serious business....
If you have a YE35, then it´s easy as long as light is not coming just from a single candle... but even that is not a bad idea... this camera will go for up to 30 full sec and if the baby is sleeping ... then it´s done! You´ll get beautifull pictures in a very particular undisturbing lighting condition.
The Canonet is another issue as the lens is fast enough but the auto exposure range won´t be enough for really dim dim light, then you should go manual.
Avoid flashes as there is some risk of disturbing the baby´s sleep. I do prefer a stable lighting from any direction rather than difused light.
Lens distortion wouldn´t be serious as you cannot get closer than 0.9 / 1 m. and the subject won´t fill more than half or a third of the negative.
For film, I allways use either ISO 400 B&W or colour neg film. I didn´t test Delta 1600 or 3200 but that´s for very very poor light.
Good luck!!

 

[Nick R.]

Funny, I was just sorting slides that I'd taken of my son when he was a baby. He's 24 now. Most were taken with a plain old 50 on 35mm film. After going through them, I'd recommend the 50. It's a natural. The other lens I used when he got a little older was the nikkor 85mm. 75, 85, 90 are all good lengths for portraits.

Film: With flash, I'd use one of the wedding films by kodak or Fuji. Without, I'd use kodak 800 speed.

 

[SalmanA]

Congrats on the new addition to your family!

I was in the same position as you a few months back, and I decided to go with Canon 35mm SLR and a fast 50mm prime - the Canon EF mount 50mm f/1.4. I've shot pics of my newborn daughter with both this 50mm and a compact P&S's 35mm lens, and have noticed no distortion or otherwise adverse perspective effects from the 35mm.

The 50mm is great for candid close-up shots but a lot of the times I prefer the 35mm as it's more inclusive. But I guess it's a matter of personal taste and preference.

As long as you stick with a fast prime lens i.e. f/2.0 at least, you should be good to go with ISO 400 films in indoors lighting conditions. I have rarely used ISO 800 for my indoors shots.

You can check out my baby shots taken with the above mentioned combo at my PBase site.

Good luck with your decision!
Regards,

 

[anselwannab]

Not to dis on the the RF rationale, but if you already have a Canon A1, a 85/1.8 I think fits the bill perfectly. I have a Canon New F1 and my 85/1.8 lives on it. I shoot indoors with Tmax 400, set it at f1.8 and usually get usable handhold speeds.

I would think the same lens, maybe even a 90 would work better with a baby, since they are small. I use by 50/1.4 on my 20D, which chould act like a 80mm, and to get full face shots, I'm bumping up against the miniumum focus distance.

I think an 80-90mm F2 faster lens and 400 speed film, maybe HP5+ for better skintones.

Pricewise it seems like your options are somewhere between a Leica 90/2 and a Jupiter 85/2. I don't know all the options inbetween.

Mark