Long Lenses Don't Compress Foreground and Background?:Still Confused.

Nick - try using a cutout frame to simulate the 'effects' of

different focal lengths. If you use one size you just move it closer

or further in relationship to your face. The relationship of focal

length and image size = a lens of twice the focal length doubles the

size of every obnject you see in the frame. Keeping your position

unchanged, the 'perspective' will remain the same. -

Good shooting - Josh

Nick:

<p>

I agree that the LF will look different, mainly due to less grain and

smoother tonal scale, not geometric factors such as perspective.

<p>

While I love German glass, particularly Rodenstock wide angles, the

Fujinon C series is tack sharp and more "germanic" in terms of

contrast than the Nikkor M series, although I love the resolution and

tonal scale of the Nikkor M, the Fujinon seemed to produce

contrastier images.

<p>

I agree that the telephoto designs are not optimal for close working

distances... but they are the only practical way to go beyond 500mm

if you want that much compression.

<p>

Good luck on your decision

Nick, what type of film are you using? ever tried tech pan? extreme

resolution. If you haven't, try it out.

Nick: One other note... we often use a factor of about 3 between LF

and 35mm... but if you compare just the short side of the film, the

ratio is closer to 4 (95mm/24mm). So your 305mm is much closer to an

85mm than a 105mm in 35mm. The factor of 3 allows for lots of slop

around the edge of the 4x5. I use 3.5 as a more realistic factor if

you are making 4x5 ratio prints.

Glenn,

<p>

Yes, exactly: Fuji lenses are more "Germanic" than NikkorM lenses, in

terms of their contrast and overall "look". At least that is what I

felt after studying prints I made with the Fuji 240 A vs. the Nikkor

300M--so I WOULD like to try the Fuji 450C. The only problem is that

Fuji lenses are not available to rent in any of my local rental

houses--and are sold in just a few places nationally--so it makes it a

little difficult to try out as a possibility.

It is just a ratio of the area seen by the lens, the 3x or 3.5X factor when comparing a lens for a 35mm camera to a lens for a 4x5. The visual effect of a

300mm remains a 300mm whether you use it with a 4x5 or a 35mm or an 8x10 format camera, what alters is how much horizonal and vertical coverage of the

subject you get. If you are going to equate a 105mm lens on a Nikon or Canon or whatever to a 300mm lens used on a 4x5 you will also have to acknowlege

that depth of field at anny given f/stop will change too. My feeling is that this is often negated by what is a prime f/stop for a lens for a 35m system is often

something in the f/5.6 to f/8 range whereas with a lens for a large format camera the prime f/stop will be in the f/16 to f/22 range.

Mark,

<p>

I have never really tried Tech Pan film extensively--I tried it once

or twice awhile back and felt its exposure latitude was too narrow for

the way I work, and perhaps too contrasty (although I do like bold

tones), as is common with slow-speed films.

<p>

I use mostly Ilford Delta 100--and occasionally HP5+320--and feel the

Delta is sufficiently fine-grained.

Photography is the same as life.

Perspective depends on viewpoint

Here is a simple test to get the visual end of this down for you.

Take your widest lens and your longest lens and shoot the same

subject with each, without moving the tripod. Then, crop & enlarge

the negative from the wide angle lens to an exact cropped match of

the longer lens.

Next, move back with the longer lens until the subject on the ground

glass is the exact match of what you shot with the wide angle lens.

Now print & compare all 3 shots.

Shoot each image with the same aperture to eliminate some problems

that can crop up if you change much of anything other than camera

location and film. Shutter speed won't matter much.

Try to have some objects in both foreground and background to help

with depth and perspective when viewing the prints. This should show

you, quickly and easily, in a repeatable fashion, just what you get

from the lenses you use.

After looking and enlarging the center of the wider shot to match the

longer lens you will also get a good sense of whether or not working

with the wider lenses will fit your needs and wants for the highest

quality.

As an aside, portraits using large and mammoth camera formats have

their own 'feel'. I shoot 5x7 and 8x10 portrait work and find it is

worth the effort. A good friend just gave me one shot on 12x20 and

the contact print in that size is excellent. Not quite the same as

shooting with a 6x7 and enlarging. If you want to use 4x5, go for it.

Nick - I think by now you've had enough "perspective vs. focal

length vs. subject distance" info. Now I'm going to throw a wrench

in the works by suggesting that you're making matters worse instead

of better (in terms of achieving your stated goals) by going with a

long lens. I think you should at least experiment with shorter

lenses (and consequently closer distances). Here's why: You say

you're looking for images with dramatic impact, that leap off the

paper at you, etc. You won't get that by backing off and using a

long lens. Quite the opposite - compression "flattens" perspective,

creating emotional as well as physical distance from your subject.

The "palpability" of the person in the image is reduced rather than

increased. My theory on this: the mind, consciously or

unconsciously, learns to equate a flattened perspective with distance

because that's the way it is in nature. Therefore, the image seems

less compelling. When someone is distant from you it's easy to

ignore them. Try that with someone looking at you from, say, two

feet away, directly in front of you. Almost impossible to ignore,

for anthropological reasons (survival instinct, among others).

<p>

I suggest you get close to your subjects. Get involved. Your images

will be involving. HOW close is up to you. You might not want the

distortion that comes from being very close with a wide lens, but a

few test shots will tell you. Also, being close will elicit a

response from your subjects which will show up in the print and

effect the viewer, hopefully giving the impression you're looking for.

<p>

Your project sounds very interesting. Please tell us more about it

when it's done. I'd also like to hear about the mechanics of making

10'x12' prints.

<p>

Best of luck!

In a nutshell: the only thing that determines the relationship

between objects in a photograph (that is, persepective) is the

location of the lens taking the picture. You can see the exact

relationships by using your eyes. A long, or telephoto lens,

magnifies a smaller part of the image to full-frame (in effect,

it "crops") than a short, or wide-angle, lens.

Old thread but a new perspective from what has ben offered. I've

been wrestling with this same question and although it is

explaned here ad nasuem, and to definete explanation, what

one needs to consider, and which I don't recall reading, is that

the reason we shoot larger film is for more detail; So, in our

(presumed) choice of filling the frame with our subject instead of

cropping to it, we are in effect giving rise to the fact that yes there

is to our eye a difference in spatial compression between

different focal length lenses for the SAME exact scene on film,

and it is to our advantage to use this ability to convey our artistic

conception of the scene. I personally prefer the compression of

a 100mm lens to that of a 50mm lens for the same exact picture.