How can i do this? [Lewis Hine]

Noctilux at f1 or another 50 at f1.2 and fine grain film. Also try a very pale blue filter to emulate the spectral response.


But you can get a Speed Graphic 4x5 for a traction of the cost....
 
Save large format, I do think you could get near that effect by using some post processing. It won't give you exactly the same look, but would probably be easier. Photoshop CS6 and some of the plugins (onOne FocalPoint 2 for example) will get you a lot closer without going to LF. Will it be the same, no, but you can do it a lot cheaper then using a Noctilux or faster than using LF IMO.
 
Harry Lime said:
Noctilux at f1 or another 50 at f1.2 and fine grain film. Also try a very pale blue filter to emulate the spectral response...
Click to expand...


... and if printed conventionally you should only use a diffusion enlarger to emulate as much as possible the tonaliy.

Also, the bokeh is very much a Tessar or double-Gauss (e.g. Planar, ...) style. You would want to avoid anything resembling a Sonnar like the plague.

It looks very much like the perspective produced by using a "normal" FL lens (~40mm in 35mmFF terms) but since it was shot fairly close with a very large format camrea the lens would have been extended significantly from its infinity position. This narrows the field of view substantially making a 50-60mm lens on 35mmFF a better match.
 
Harry Lime said:
Noctilux at f1 or another 50 at f1.2 and fine grain film. Also try a very pale blue filter to emulate the spectral response.


But you can get a Speed Graphic 4x5 for a traction of the cost....
Click to expand...

A Noctilux (or Aero Ektar) would be grossly exaggerated - the picture has the entire face in focus, where the above, fully open, are famous for their out-of-focus eyebrows and noses.

Besides it is quite evident that it was not made that way - no lens that fast existed at that point in time (at least not without dramatic optical errors). The picture would, given the habits of the time and photographer, probably have been shot on what then was a "normal" and would today be considered a slightly long lens on 5x7", i.e. something around 240-280mm. By the relatively modern, fast looks a Tessar, Heliar or Cooke Triplet (the fastest sharpest lenses of the period), which would make it as fast as f/4.5 to f/6.3. It won't be that far off that mark as the edge performance still falls off, but probably it was not all the way there either, or the hair would be even less in focus. f/8-f/11 is a good bet. The picture was shot with the camera pointed downwards (given that the focal plane goes through face and chest) with no movements (which would have corrected the focal plane to be vertical), probably on a pier, as the background (water and pillars?) is uniformly far away and obviously at a much greater distance than whatever the girl is standing on.

Given that the lenses and films of that period did not have that much resolution, the image can today be pretty accurately approximated in small format. You'd have to pick a fine-grained film, lens of slightly narrower angle and higher speed (to make up for the format difference in DOF), and a lens formula with pronounced sharpness and quiet OOF areas.

Personally I'd pick a Nikkor 105/2.5, Acros and add a green filter for the colour response. Or of course the Mentor SLR with 210mm Heliar...
 
Thanks, Sevo.
Understood, that Hine didn't have access to a fast lens. And that the plane of focus is as you describe. I think it's a wooded area behind her, though — and not so far behind. Seems more like the angle of the LF lens is keeping her had in focus, but her sleeve at the bottom of the image is already falling away like the background....

Someone recommended a polaroid conversion 4x5 with 150mm 5.6 and 6.3 lenses.... But, i'm also considering a 645 with tilt/shift adapter. FP4 in Rodinal, maybe? I just haven't seen 35mm results with telephoto lenses that work this way, with no compression effect, but i'll have another look at 105/2.5 images.

Thanks.
 
sevo said:
A Noctilux (or Aero Ektar) would be grossly exaggerated - the picture has the entire face in focus, where the above, fully open, are famous for their out-of-focus eyebrows and noses.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you are shooting f1 at 1 meter. Then you get less than a 1/2 inch of focus. This girl is not standing 1 meter from camera.

I agree that the original looks like it was shot around f5.6-f8 with a 210-270mm on a 5x7. Basically the equivalent of a 135 format 50mm-90mm in 5x7 format. My guess is that it's a glass plate negative.

I used to own a Noctilux 1/50 and given the distance of the girl from camera I would say that a Noct or other fast lens set at f1- f2 would be about right to emulate the DOF and FOV, when using a 135 format camera.

The FOV does not remind me of a lens that is much longer than a normal 50mm in 135 format. I think anything longer than a 75mm. maybe 85mm, would compress the perspective too much

Besides it is quite evident that it was not made that way - no lens that fast existed at that point in time (at least not without dramatic optical errors).
Click to expand...

The point is that you need to shoot at a smaller f-stop than the original was made at, because 135 is a much smaller format and there is a big discrepancy in DOF. So you may need all of the speed you can get and that means f1-f1.4.

There are plenty of DOF calculators out there can calculate which fstop in a given format will give you the equivalent amount of DOF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom