the downside is the person with the lens won't sell it and get your $$.. !Just a thought, what about if I just move the camera closer and extend the bellows to gain focus then if need be add bellows factor to get the correct exposure?......any downside of doing that?
Neil
Must be an an American thingthe downside is the person with the lens won't sell it and get your $$.. !
Distortion?Just a thought, what about if I just move the camera closer and extend the bellows to gain focus then if need be add bellows factor to get the correct exposure?......any downside of doing that?
Neil
The most important factor when shooting portraits is that you choose a working distance that results in flattering perspective.Just a thought, what about if I just move the camera closer and extend the bellows to gain focus then if need be add bellows factor to get the correct exposure?......any downside of doing that?
Neil
id get a 20" lens
the convention learned was
the "headshot/portrait" for x format is
the "normal" for the next size up ...
depending on the "look" you want, if you need a flash sync &c
you might find a 20/24/28 triple convertible ( turner reich or wolly 1a &c )
that won't totally colapse your monitary fund.. and they will work great
on a 11x14 when you "upgrade"
I have read many times people multiplying the standard 35mm film portrait lens focal lengths and coming up with 600-800mm suggestions as correct for 8x10 format portrait shooting. The standard focal lengths used by most 8x10 portrait shooters were 14” to 18” (350-450mm), the Wollensak and Kodak portrait lenses for instance. Shooting 8x10 portraits is simply not the same as shooting 35mm or 6x6 and multiplying. I like my 375mm Ilex Caltar and 405mm Kodak for head and shoulders portraits.
I'd go along with your suggestion of a 20" lens, I have a nice 20" RR that's sitting on my 12"x10" camera at the moment. I have a post WWII Gitzo front mounting shutter, one speed - probably 1/50 and T, with flash sync, it's just a fraction to small to fit the lens hood but I should be able to make an adapter. If not I could use a Thornton Pickard roller blind shutter between the lens and lens board.
Ian
Yes, it's not as simple as multiplying 35mm focal lengths you have to take the reproduction ratio into account.I have read many times people multiplying the standard 35mm film portrait lens focal lengths and coming up with 600-800mm suggestions as correct for 8x10 format portrait shooting. The standard focal lengths used by most 8x10 portrait shooters were 14” to 18” (350-450mm), the Wollensak and Kodak portrait lenses for instance. Shooting 8x10 portraits is simply not the same as shooting 35mm or 6x6 and multiplying. I like my 375mm Ilex Caltar and 405mm Kodak for head and shoulders portraits.
maybe i've seen some beauties for not too much money and without separation ...Like John said, I've heard of people using Turner Reich triple convertibles.
They are inexpensive but you might expect some balsam separation. I've heard they all have a little.
A converted Symmar does a fine job on partraits.LOL im still trying to figure out how not dumping 300$ to 4000$ on a new lens
is an "american thing" if i already have a lens that can be used for a head and shoulders portrait ..
maybe its less of an "american thing" than someone with no "gas" or who doesn't have $$ to spend on stuff he don't need thing LOL
maybe i've seen some beauties for not too much money and without separation ...
symmar convertibles too with working shutters and usable 8x10 head/shoulders focal lengths ...
like the dreaded and inconsequential "schneideritis" 1/32" of separation isn't going to amount to much of a difference in image quality
judging from the imagery he OP has in his gallery he's not the kind of person to shoot a cropped h/s 8x10 portrait ...
with a 18" aero ektar wide open so only the subject's nostrils are in focus. >>> or with the "seasick swirlies"
me? i'd rather have a little bit of pre 1980s je ne sais quoi OOFA than uber sharp ( maybe a tessar? formerly cheap brassie or vesta )
... and to be honest i'd most likely save my $$ and walk a few steps to turn my 14" into a head and shoulders lens considering 8x10 film is not pennies a pop..
to each their own as they say
maybe i've seen some beauties for not too much money and without separation ...
symmar convertibles too with working shutters and usable 8x10 head/shoulders focal lengths ...
like the dreaded and inconsequential "schneideritis" 1/32" of separation isn't going to amount to much of a difference in image quality
This is a really nice portrait.I'm using a 375mm (14.75") lens for head and shoulder shots on 8x10. Yes, I'd prefer something slightly longer, but I'm maxed out at 24" of bellows draw, so it would be a matter of new lens and camera for me. But I'm happy with what the 375 can do.
View attachment 211818
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?