Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Best portrait lens focal length
Best 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..
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
Colyn wrote:
> 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."
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey * counter.li.org
^^-^^ 18:30:01 up 41 min, 4 users, load average: 5.33, 5.36, 4.73
Colyn wrote:
> 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."
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey * counter.li.org
^^-^^ 18:30:01 up 41 min, 4 users, load average: 5.33, 5.36, 4.73
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
In article <45kbi.3485$1o.3289@trnddc01>,
Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon . net > wrote:
> Colyn wrote:
> > 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."
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.
In article <45kbi.3485$1o.3289@trnddc01>,
Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon . net > wrote:
> Colyn wrote:
> > 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."
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.
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> 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"?
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> 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"?
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
MangroveRoot wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>> 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.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey * counter.li.org
^^-^^ 19:45:01 up 31 days, 23:07, 3 users, load average: 4.32, 4.29, 4.17
MangroveRoot wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>> 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.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey * counter.li.org
^^-^^ 19:45:01 up 31 days, 23:07, 3 users, load average: 4.32, 4.29, 4.17
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
"Colyn" <jcg13@swbell . net > wrote in message
news:jcg13-2D82AB.11390411062007@news.dallas.sbcglobal . net ...
>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..
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.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com
"Colyn" <jcg13@swbell . net > wrote in message
news:jcg13-2D82AB.11390411062007@news.dallas.sbcglobal . net ...
>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..
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.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
"Colyn" <jcg13@swbell . net > wrote in message
news:jcg13-2D82AB.11390411062007@news.dallas.sbcglobal . net ...
>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 :-)
"Colyn" <jcg13@swbell . net > wrote in message
news:jcg13-2D82AB.11390411062007@news.dallas.sbcglobal . net ...
>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 :-)
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
In article <D4Zbi.82753$Sa4.73104@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att . net >,
"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:
> "Colyn" <jcg13@swbell . net > wrote in message
> news:jcg13-2D82AB.11390411062007@news.dallas.sbcglobal . net ...
>
> >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'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...
In article <D4Zbi.82753$Sa4.73104@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att . net >,
"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:
> "Colyn" <jcg13@swbell . net > wrote in message
> news:jcg13-2D82AB.11390411062007@news.dallas.sbcglobal . net ...
>
> >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'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...
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
"Colyn" wrote
> 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. :-)
"Colyn" wrote
> 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. :-)
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
* 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.
--
Otzi
"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote in message
news:D4Zbi.82753$Sa4.73104@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att . net ...
> "Colyn" <jcg13@swbell . net > wrote in message
> news:jcg13-2D82AB.11390411062007@news.dallas.sbcglobal . net ...
>
>>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 :-)
>
>
* 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.
--
Otzi
"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote in message
news:D4Zbi.82753$Sa4.73104@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att . net ...
> "Colyn" <jcg13@swbell . net > wrote in message
> news:jcg13-2D82AB.11390411062007@news.dallas.sbcglobal . net ...
>
>>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 :-)
>
>
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
"otzi" <xx@xxx.xxx.au> wrote
> 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?
* photo . net /photodb/photo?photo_id=1030184
* spectacle.berkeley.edu/~fiorillo/texts/topictexts/artist_varia_topics/bijin3.html
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
* w w w .darkroomautomation . com /index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
"otzi" <xx@xxx.xxx.au> wrote
> 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?
* photo . net /photodb/photo?photo_id=1030184
* spectacle.berkeley.edu/~fiorillo/texts/topictexts/artist_varia_topics/bijin3.html
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
* w w w .darkroomautomation . com /index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig . com > wrote in message
news:JWeci.95$iz5.42@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink . net ...
> "otzi" <xx@xxx.xxx.au> wrote
>> 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?
>
> * photo . net /photodb/photo?photo_id=1030184
> * spectacle.berkeley.edu/~fiorillo/texts/topictexts/artist_varia_topics/bijin3.html
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> * w w w .darkroomautomation . com /index.htm
> n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
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.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig . com > wrote in message
news:JWeci.95$iz5.42@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink . net ...
> "otzi" <xx@xxx.xxx.au> wrote
>> 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?
>
> * photo . net /photodb/photo?photo_id=1030184
> * spectacle.berkeley.edu/~fiorillo/texts/topictexts/artist_varia_topics/bijin3.html
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> * w w w .darkroomautomation . com /index.htm
> n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
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.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com
Re: Best portrait lens focal length
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote
> 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.
* 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.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
* w w w .darkroomautomation . com /index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote
> 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.
* 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.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
* w w w .darkroomautomation . com /index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
Next: Labo Grand Format sur Clermont Ferrand
Previous: To A Profitable Part Time Digital Photography Income
