Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, even uncropped. I think it's because you're working at a greater distance with the bigger format, but I've never seen a completely satisfactory explanation.
Cheers,
R.
getting in close with a normal lens for portraits
- Thread starter msbarnes
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 32
- Views 8K
Cheers,
R.
lynnb
Veteran
Roger, just out of curiosity I plugged in the subject distance and subject size numbers into the required focal length calculator over on Cambridge in Colour. Here's what I got:
Fixed parameters:
Subject Distance = 4 feet
Subject Size = 18x27 inches (my estimate for the typical 'frame' of a head and shoulders portrait at that distance)
Variable parameter, and calculated required focal length:
35mm -> 60mm
6x6 -> 98mm
6x7 -> 112mm
4x5in -> 190mm
8x10in -> 329mm
These are the focal lengths required for each format to photograph an 18x27 inch subject at a distance of 4 feet, i.e. same camera position.
Assuming the same aperture is used on each format, why would you need to work at a greater camera to subject distance with 8x10 using a normal 300mm lens? Wouldn't field of view and dof be identical to using a 60mm lens on 35mm film?
Am I missing something?
Cheers,
Lynn
gsgary
Well-known
Ive just picked up a 135 for my Mamiya not had chance to try it yet, hope to try it at Whitby next Friday
williams473
Well-known
In my opinion the longer the lens gets the more of a graphic designer you have to become in post production. A long telephoto really highlights your composition skill set, forcing you to work surfaces that have less depth and stronger graphical presense - Never my cup of tea because it's a favorite of ad guys but as you point out it's a tactic used by many artists as well - check out the work of Aaron Siskind... VERY graphic (literally...)
Matt
Matt
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Lynn,
Possibly. But then, it is entirely possible that it is I, and not you, who is missing something. As I said, I've never seen a satisfactory explanation. And I've always found that a 58mm lens is very good indeed for portraiture on 35mm -- closer to your 60mm than to the usual 50mm 'standard' focal length for 35mm.
No, I don't think DoF is the same. I've seen arguments for and against. Empirically, and with my feeble grasp of the mathematics, the DoF is actually rather different with the apertures you actually use.
EDIT: See also the brilliant following post.
Cheers,
R.
Dwig
Well-known
True; this is because when framing a tight portrait on an 8x10 camera using a 300mm lens you are shooting at something between half life size and life size. The extension from infinity is rather substantial and the effective angle of view is similar to using a 450-600mm lens at infinity. When shooting with smaller formats, the extension is substantially less. With 35mm the necessary extension with a 50mm lens is only 10-15% of the focal length (~5-8mm).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Brilliant! The best explanation I have heard so far! And, of course, blindingly obvious as soon as it is pointed out -- like any work of genius. Thanks very much indeed.
Cheers,
R.
Indeed, Dwig's explanation makes sense... the "macro effect" due to lens extension. I had noticed the difference but had no explanation like this, obvious in retrospect. Thanks! 🙂
msbarnes
Well-known
This kind of blows my mind, lol. What is the macro effect?
Any photographers out there known for doing close-up face shots with 8x10 or something larger? I know a lot of fashion photographers used 8x10 but not so much for headshots. I would perhaps want to look into a large volume of work done this way.
Any photographers out there known for doing close-up face shots with 8x10 or something larger? I know a lot of fashion photographers used 8x10 but not so much for headshots. I would perhaps want to look into a large volume of work done this way.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Wouter
Well-known
very beautiful
S
squareshooter
Guest
I used to have a Rollieflex with a Rolleikin, a 35mm film adapter that fit into the camera. It shot portrait-style (vertical) pix on 35mm. I used Pantomic-X or Kodachrome and got some fantastic portraits. The 75mm lens is perfect for portraits on 35mm, too.
andre mueller
Member
I love my Rolleiflex for portaits. The 75mm is just a bit shy a normal field of view.
The minimum focus distance of 1 meter is great for head and shoulders.
And the Rolleinar 1 is amazing, as said before.
No visible distortion.
No loss of light due to bellow extension that you would get from Mamiya C series or RZ/RB.
The only reason why I have an RZ its viewfinder.
With Rolleinar 1:
The minimum focus distance of 1 meter is great for head and shoulders.
And the Rolleinar 1 is amazing, as said before.
No visible distortion.
No loss of light due to bellow extension that you would get from Mamiya C series or RZ/RB.
The only reason why I have an RZ its viewfinder.
With Rolleinar 1:
Similar threads
