![[Your Site Name]](/storage/WideOpen%203%20tst2.jpg "[Your Site Name]")
A Classic Portrait revisited...
A rule exists that says doing head/shoulder portraits with a standard focal length (Diagonal of the used film format) should not be tried or done. Working with the AeroEktar/SG combo lately, I've come to learn this is just a rule to be ignored!
What really matters is your intention and motivation to capture the "soul" in a portrait. While doing a series on a model together with Leo, I decided to try it with my 8x10 on Polaroid. In the midst of the session, something inside me told me the time was now...! The model was ready and accustomed to the lights and... the photographers. I did setup the Wisner TF 810 and loaded the cassettes with Polaroid 809/804. You all might know, doing a portrait with a viewcamera is a tiny bit different, compared to shooting with an Eos 5D or even a Hasselblad V.
FYI: The lens used was a Doctar 300mm/f5.6 , Aperture halfway f5.6 and f8 (Bellows draw 1 stop), the distance well under 1 meter.
Actually technical details are not that important or relevant, the magic goes beyond! "When you use a camera, not as a machine but as an extension of your heart, you become one with your subject."
Moreover, I never make a photograph, I ask for a photograph!
Resume: "In his ordo est ordinem non servare"
Regards,
John D.
Driebergen-R, Netherlands
John D
in 300mm Docter, AeroEktar, Polaroid, Polaroid 804, monochrome
|
8 Comments
Reader Comments (8)
Hi John
I totally agree that 'whatever works' absolutely trumps anything else, and you've gotten a very dramatic expression from Wendy, a great looking lady!!
Hi John,
I like the catch light on the hair. The amount of diffusion is just right.
I'm not certain about this, someone will possibly know --
Because of bellows extension a standard lens on a 5x4 or 10x8 has less distortion when used for a portrait.
Yes, I never hesitate with using a lens that's the diagonal with 8X10. I would not use a 150 on a 4X5 though. Striking portrait!
Jim can you explain the difference with using a 150 on 5x4 for a portrait for a head shot and using a 300 for a 10x8 for the same head shot?
Aren't, apart from the square inches, all things equal?
I would imaging DOF is greater for the 5x4?
Is the bellows extension the same for both cameras?
I'm probably missing something though?
Steve
There's distortion that looks bad, and distortion that isn't all that noticeable/doesn't make any difference. I've done full length portraits w/my 65mm in MF, and felt like I got away w/it, that's up very close, and looked for something looking bad when I first set up the shot(distortion/foreshortening and so forth).
The position of the subject matter in the frame in relation to what gets out of 'whack' when something is near the framelines when using a certain focal length at a certain distance, is something I've watched for in my shots/looked for when I'm shooting w/the Aeroektar.
In terms of John's shot, this shot, I was surprised at the shot being done within a meter, looking at the shot though, the way it's set up, there's black on the right and left, the shoulder's coming at you, but there's nothing out of whack/'looks' out of whack about it.
I'm saying this not to answer any questions, just my take on the shot, it is an excellent bit of risk taking w/a work around by john in terms of close in w/that focal length, that may not have been accomplished by a less skilled shooter.
One thing about shooting w/the 178mm AeroEktar w/4x5, you do look for this, take my shot of my daughter asleep, there's some distortion in one of the corners(in the bottom corner w/the pillows), I looked for it, saw it, didn't care about it because it didn't look bad to me, in fact, I liked it, because I thought it kind of reached out and got the viewer into the shot(LOL at the sound of what I just wrote!! some 'good sounding' MACARONI aint it 8^) !!).
Now if it looked lousy to me, I would've had to rethink the shot.
The rules are for folks(including me most of the time), who haven't yet figured a legitimate way to break 'em. Shooting w/the AeroEktar has convinced me that I can get away w/far more than I thought I could shooting tight heads up real close.
Jonathan, you're right about breaking the rules...
But you have to be cool at 15 greens per shot :-)
I knew it could be done as you can recall my "Veteran Shot" (earlier post). Distance was only about 65cm and the focus was just there where I wanted.
Admitting the aero is slightly tele but nevertheless.
The only thing I can say, Wendy was very, very pleased.
Who am I to think different?
Regards,
JohnD
P.S Coming this close with a big camera boosts the concentration of the sitter also....It seems much more serious than a DigiCam for sure.
JohnD
John, I don't understand everything I know about this :~')) But there is something that happens when the size of the object approaches the size of the film that changes how the dynamics work. IOW I believe that at around 150 on 4X5 I begin to see the usual "orange on the end of a pencil" type of distortion working. With 305 on 8X10 I don't see that. There's still magnification involved in the 4X5 picture where the 8X10 is nearing 1:1 with a head and shoulder shot. And I'm not the only one, the most common old time lenses for portraiture in the 8X10 format work on either side of 14 inches. So 12 is perhaps a tad under the old norm and 16 is a tad over. I'll go post this at Jonathan's site since you forced my hand here and made me say "I dunno" Maybe some of the smarter guys can explain the phenomenon. I'm at work now but will give your site a good look after I get back home. Cheers. Jim