 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / September 2007Best portrait lens focal length
I have several lens for my 4x5 view camera and was wondering what focal length is considered best for head and shoulders portraits and which for full length portraits? My lens include a 90, 127, 135, 150, 210, and 250mm.. > I have several lens for my 4x5 view camera and was wondering what focal > length is considered best for head and shoulders portraits and which for > full length portraits? > > My lens include a 90, 127, 135, 150, 210, and 250mm.. I would say it is a matter of artistic taste. I usually prefer my Nikon M 300mm for face or head-and-shoulders shots. But it depends on the size of your studio (if indoors), and what you have. I would not bother to buy a new lens with those you have already. Try the 250 and the 210 and see how you like them. For full-length, try something shorter, like 210 and 150. You can try the others, too, but you will probably not like what 19th century photographers called "the drawing."  Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 18:30:01 up 41 min, 4 users, load average: 5.33, 5.36, 4.73 > > I have several lens for my 4x5 view camera and was wondering what focal > > length is considered best for head and shoulders portraits and which for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > try the others, too, but you will probably not like what 19th century > photographers called "the drawing." I almost bid on a 300mm this past weekend but waited too long. I haven't really done much 4x5 work in the last several years but want to get back into it. I'm going to try the 210 and 250 for head and shoulders and see which looks best. I'll also try the 150 for full length. I have a willing subject in my daughter. > You can > try the others, too, but you will probably not like what 19th century > photographers called "the drawing." Okay, I'll bite: What was it that 19th century photographers called "the drawing"? >> You can >> try the others, too, but you will probably not like what 19th century >> photographers called "the drawing." > > Okay, I'll bite: > What was it that 19th century photographers called "the drawing"? They were talking about the "distortion" that results from wide-angle lenses. They wanted the image to look like what was in front of the camera and viewed from conventional distances. I.e., they wanted a normal perspective which required very slightly longer lenses. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 19:45:01 up 31 days, 23:07, 3 users, load average: 4.32, 4.29, 4.17 >I have several lens for my 4x5 view camera and was >wondering what focal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > My lens include a 90, 127, 135, 150, 210, and 250mm.. The rule of thumb is to use a lens with a focal length of 2 to 3 times the long dimension of the film. Another is to use double the diagonal. Actually, the idea is to avoid "distortion" to the sitter's face due to the viewing distance of the print being too far. This is done simply by backing the camera off and the image on the film made larger by using a longer lens. So, you can use a "normal" lens if you are willing to crop the negative when making the print. The key is that the important thing is the camera distance and perspective. Of the focal lengths you list I would use the 250mm. Even through the "rule" is for head and shoulder shots it also works for full body shots. A little experimenting with a patient subject will make the decision easier. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com >I have several lens for my 4x5 view camera and was wondering what focal > length is considered best for head and shoulders portraits and which for > full length portraits? I think you're asking the wrong question. Instead, I think you should be asking how far you want the camera to be from the subject. The point is that the camera-subject distance contributes greatly to the feeling of intimacy, or lack thereof, in the picture. If you want the viewer to feel like being part of a conversation with the subject, choose a conversational distance -- 3 to 4 feet. If you want things to be more formal and remote, a greater distance might make more sense. Usually, if you get closer than about three feet, the unusually close perspective looks distorted because people are not used to viewing people with whom they are not emotionally close from such an intimate perspective. Once you know how far you want the camera to be from the subject, choosing the lens is easy :-) > >I have several lens for my 4x5 view camera and was wondering what focal > > length is considered best for head and shoulders portraits and which for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Once you know how far you want the camera to be from the subject, choosing > the lens is easy :-) I've been trying out the 210 and 250mm lens with a Polaroid back for quick shots and so far the 210 has won out for portrait head and shoulder shots taken from 4 ft. The 250 does good from around 6 ft though. I'm going to try full length next... > I've been trying out the 210 and 250mm lens with a Polaroid back for > quick shots and so far the 210 has won out for portrait head and > shoulder shots taken from 4 ft. The 250 does good from around 6 ft > though. 4 ft. is generally considered to be too close for a proper perspective. At 4 ft. things begin to take on the wide-angle effect. 5 - 6 ft. is usually the minimum. However, artistic taste dictates here, so you're in charge. :-) * the camera-subject distance contributes greatly to the feeling of intimacy, or lack thereof, in the picture. * Maybe but also...., For a time I was using on a portraite series, a 180 on a 35mm for face only framing. Camera was still a fair way back but the shallow depth gave a certain look/feel that stood out or if-you-will glamed out. LF of course will offer this with consumate ease. SignatureOtzi >>I have several lens for my 4x5 view camera and was wondering what focal >> length is considered best for head and shoulders portraits and which for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Once you know how far you want the camera to be from the subject, choosing > the lens is easy :-) > a 180 on a 35mm ... a fair way back but the shallow depth gave a certain > look/feel that stood out 300mm lenses on 35mm cameras were/are used for portraiture in Japan. Maybe the flattened perspective was felt to be similar to Japanese painting? http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1030184 http://spectacle.berkeley.edu/~fiorillo/texts/topictexts/artist_varia_topics/bij in3.html SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> a 180 on a 35mm ... a fair way back but the shallow depth >> gave a certain look/feel that stood out [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1030184 > http://spectacle.berkeley.edu/~fiorillo/texts/topictexts/artist_varia_topics/bij in3.html The key to this is the viewing distance of the print. When a print is viewed from a distance equivalent to the lens focal length the perspective looks right. Of course, for an enlarged print this distance is the focal length times the enlargement magnification. The distance the portrait is taken from should result in a reasonable viewing distance for the print. Most "normal" focal length lenses have a FL about equal to the diagonal of the format but, except for rather large prints, the viewing distance of a print is typically more than this. For common size prints, say 8x10 or smaller, the viewing distance will usually be around twice the diagonal of the print, for small prints even more. The perspective can be used to deliberately modify the proportions of a face. Moving further makes the nose look smaller and the ears look bigger, close up, the nose looks bigger but ears are diminished. All a matter of taste and judgment. Actually, a normal focal length or even wide angle lens will produce the same perspective if the camera distance is the same. The difference is in the amount of the negative or transparency the desired image occupies. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > The key to this is the viewing distance of the print ... and the print size. For 'undistorted viewing the subject should subtend the same angle it did in real life. But... A telephoto shot enlarged (reduced?) to postage stamp size and viewed at 'normal' distances so the perspective is 'correct' defeats the purpose. The exact same result can be had using a normal lens, making a normal print and then cutting out the postage-stamp-size 'telephoto view'. The distorted perspective is what is normally desired from using a WA or tele lens and is the whole purpose of using the lens. An exception would be using a WA lens to make mural size prints that are viewed from close distances. Unfortunately, I have never seen this done. Just the opposite seems the norm: to take a macro pic with a 200mm lens and 35mm camera, blow it up to 6x9 feet, hang it so the bottom is at baseboard height and use it as wallpaper in a corridor. The IWICoP (idjits what in charge of photography) at the Cleveland Botanical Gardens/Society are deft (daft) hands at this. If a picture were taken with a 65mm lens and 4x5 camera (15mm for 35mm), blown up to 6 feet tall and viewed from 3 1/2 feet I think the effect would be striking. The picture would, of course, have to be hung so the center of the picture is at eye level. Certainly should relieve corridor claustrophobia. The effect can be simulated by viewing a pic taken with a very wide angle lens through a 5" magnifying glass so that it fills the field of view. All the 'distortion' goes away and you have the whole panoramic view in front of you. So back to the original premise: is the distorted perspective of classical Japanese portrait paintings the reason 300mm lenses are considered ideal for portraiture in Japan???? Western paintings often have a wide angle perspective. Tromp d'oeil being the example of the WA corridor photo in old times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trompe_l%27oeil_Narbonne.jpg Unfortunately the photo was taken from the wrong eye-point: the sidewalk line on the left should be in-line with the painting's line. Now: what is the shape of the wall(s) on which the painting(s) is(are) made? Note the perspective of the blue information sign (?) stuck to the wall at the far left. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.