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

About one week ago I raised the question of whether "telephoto-design" lenses produce pictures that look in any way different than "normal-design" lenses in the same focal length. The answer to my question was understandably universal: no. But in the course of answering the question some people pointed out that I was wrong in my perception of the effects of long lenses, in that LONG LENSES DO NOT COMPRESS FOREGROUND AND BACKGROUND, BUT (FOR LACK OF A MORE PRECISE WAY FOR ME TO PUT IT) MERELY "CROP THE IMAGE AND ENLARGE IT". Well, at the time I first read this, I didn't think much of it because I was much more concerned with the possible differences between telephoto and normal-design lenses. But since then, I have gone back and reflected on this other aspect of their answer, and simply can't understand, for the life of me, how this could possibly be true.

If long lenses do not compress foreground and background space then why is that when I have used a 105mm lens (or a 135mm, or a 200mm for that matter) in a 35mm format to photograph people, for example, did the space between the subject and the background seem to shrink, and the things in the background seem to move closer to the foreground subject--or vice versa? And why is it that when I am watching a movie that takes place in a city and the camera has a long lens focused on a busy sidewalk full of people walking in one direction, do all the people appear to be walking on top of each other? And why is it that if a long lens was focused on two cars in the distance following each in a car chase would the two cars--even if they were separated by a great distance, be seemingly brought closer together by a long focal length lens--and the longer the lens, the greater the closeness? Or is this effect due exclusively to the illusion of diminishing perspective (inherent in our own unaided eyesight), and the fact that the long lens merely crops the portion of this diminished perspective, and appears to heighten it by presenting just a small piece of it?

I am only really interested in answers to these questions, insofar as they relate to THE PROPER LENS SELECTION FOR LARGE-FORMAT CAMERAS.

Basically my problem is this: I own 150mm, 210mm, 240mm, and 305mm lenses for my 4 x 5 camera, but I would like to get a longer lens that hopefully will provide greater "compression of space" in my portraits, making my pictures of people "more dramatic" by "exaggerating their size or presence". So far, neither the 240mm nor the 305 have really accomplished this effect for me. Is it true that the 210mm will yield a perspective that is IDENTICALLY THE SAME, for example, as a 480mm, as long as I move close enough to create the same cropping between the two lenses? But if this were the case, then why do people recommend long lenses, such as the 300mm or 360mm for 4x5-format portraiture? Isn't it true that the longer lenses alter the space, volume, perspective (call it whatever you like) and "flatten" the face, reducing any possible exaggerations of nose and chin etc, thereby effecting a more complimentary look?

<p>

But, then again, I have become quite confused lately because I recently compared pictures taken of a person with a 360mm and a 210mm, and the pictures taken with both lenses DID look almost the same (or perhaps exactly the same, but I can't quite believe it nonetheless), if I simply moved closer to the subject when I used the 210mm.

<p>

Is there any point in purchasing a long lens if one is able to move close enough with a 210mm, to produce the same cropping with the shorter lens?

<p>

Am I wasting my money on a huge misapprehension--if this is all I "plan" to accomplish with a longer lens? (In this case, the 360mm lens in question is about $1400--so the answer is really important.)

<p>

Will a 420mm or a 480mm lens not produce pictures that are in any way more "dramatic" or "foreground-and-background-compressing" than say a 210mm lens positioned much closer (to produce the equivalent cropping)?

<p>

Is the purpose of a long lens merely to bring distant objects closer that might otherwise be too small because they are too far away (as in the case of a nature or sports photographer)--WITHOUT EFFECTING ANY CHANGE IN THE SPACE OR VOLUME BETWEEN FOREGROUND AND BACKGROUND?

<p>

I have taken pictures for many years--albeit with 35mm more than large-format--and I am really embarassed that I don't know the answers to these seemingly basic but admittedly elusive questions. Embarassingly, they have dogged me for some time, now that I am shooting exclusively in large format and seeking to achieve a certain "look" or "effect" with my portraiture--and I've yet to grasp it or come to a clear answer in my head still in all the hours I have spent studying my prints. The answer is important because it determines which lenses it is necessary--or pointless--to buy.

<p>

Anybody's help would be much appreciated.

<p>

Thanks again.

<p>

Nick Rowan

The spatial "compression" you are after is a perspective effect

determined by the distance of the lens from the objects being

photographed. A simple example: imagine two people 10 feet apart.

Case 1: position the camera 5 feet in front of one person and 15 feet

in front of the other and use a short focal length lens. In the

resulting photograph the people will look like they are at quite

different distances because of visual clues such as their relative

sizes.

<p>

Now position the camera 100 feet from the first and 105 feet from the

second person. Case 2A: select a long lens to include the same

cropping as in case 1 and take a photograph. The people will now

look to be at the same distance (the fractional difference in their

distance is 5% instead of 50%), except for visual clues such as the

front person perhaps blocking the view of parts of the second person.

This is the "telephoto compression" effect. The name is a misnomer

since the lens need not be a telephoto, nor, as the next case shows, a

long lens. Case 2B: imagine that you have extremely fine-grained

film and only one lens, the short focal length lens of Case 1. Take

the photograph and then enlarge a small portion of it to obtain the

same cropping as before. With perfect film the image would be the

same as Case 2A.

<p>

Perspective is controlled by camera position. The "compressive"

effects you seek are obtained by placing the camera far from the

subject. The compressive effects are associated with long lenses

because they are generally used to overcome the small subject size

created by the large camera/subject distance.

<p>

In your example of portraits with 210 and 360 lenses, the relative

distance we are considering is between the tip of the nose and perhaps

the ears. With these lenses you are far enough away that the change

in relative distances will be small. Now if you compared an image

taken with a 90 mm lens and a 210 lens, both with a camera position

filling the 4x5 negative, you should see a big difference.

<p>

If you want to experiment with what a long lens would produce,

position your camera at the distance you would use for that lens and

then use only the central portion of the negtive. E.g., to simulate a

600 mm lens with a 300 mm lens, move the camera twice as far away and

use only the central 50% of the negative (50% linear, 25% area).

Nick, you have it figured out, but think of it this way. If you stand

next to a buildiing and are looking at another building, doesn't the

nearer one looke bigger?even if it isn't physically bigger? and don't

they look far apart from one another? (think wide angle here) now, if

you are a mile away from both buildings, don't they look as it they

are right on top of each other? (think telephoto here).

<p>

The theory of using long lenses for portraiture still holds, if I am

one inch away from your nose and take a picture, and your nose sticks

out one inch from your face, then your nose is halfway between your

face and the lens. If I stand 20 feet away and take a pic, your nose

is still an inch away from your face, but is much further away from

the lens. Its all relational. You could do this with your naked eye

and get the same effect, only when you are far away from your subject

you can't crop out the useless areas like you can with a telephoto

lens.

<p>

So, yes to make a long story short (too late) the telephoto lenses

only crops out the extra space around the subject, the foreshortning

effect is caused by the distance from the subject.

<p>

So the longer lens purchase isn't pointless, you are seeing the cure

as the cause-- the telephoto lens doesn't cause the foreshortning, it

only makes you move back to get more in the picture--the moving back

is what causes the effect?

<p>

sometimes my explanations tend to ramble, so I hope that I didn't

confuse you even more.

Jeez Michael, you beat me to it, and I thought that I was going to be

the first to answer!

Thank you both for your very detailed answers, but I am still

struggling to understand what you said.

<p>

Are you saying that the "compression" one senses (and won't you at

least grant the fact that there is at least an APPARENT sense of

compression caused by the view-cropping effect of long lenses?) in a

photo taken with a long lens is due to the natural condition of

foreshortening which the human eye is subject to simply being

replicated--and, if you will, exaggerated--by the way a long lens

crops out the "outside" portion of a frame and highlights one "center"

portion, thereby removing the spatial-context for that center portion

to relate to, giving all objects at whatever distance (both from each

other as well as from the lens) within that central portion the

appearance/illusion of being compressed or brought closer together, in

relation to the lens/eye?

<p>

I'm sorry--that's probably way too convoluted...but I think I may be

getting it, I'm not sure--I've been conditioned to think about this

very simple idea very differently all these years, and I have to

"unlearn" it now (I never thought about it from the perspective of how

our eyes actually "do the compressing" naturally every time we see

distant objects and diminish their perspective), but I still have some

very practical questions, as they relate to lens purchases, which are

really the most important in the end.

<p>

Having said all that both of you said: can you both (or anyone else

for that matter) please offer me some guidance and recommendations as

to what focal-length long lens(es) you think I should get for trying

to achieve this "appearance" of compression that I am trying to

attain? I have now a 150, 210, 240, and 305. I don't feel that the

210, 240, or 305 are capturing enough compression; I have recently

considered purchasing a 360mm, aware that is the "high-end" of the

traditional spectrum of 4x5 portrait lenses, but have tried it out and

still feel it is too much like my 210mm (can barely see a difference

when I simply move closer with the 210--is that possible?). I also

tried out a 420mm (Red Dot Artar) and felt that focal-length came ALOT

closer in increasing the "claustrophobic effect" of compression I am

looking for--does that reaction make sense (it's only 60mm longer than

the 360, and yet seems to yield a bigger difference than exists

between the 210mm and 360mm [a 150mm difference])? And what about a

450mm, or 480mm? Would those be good choices too? (Forget about

issues of bellows requirement; I have enought for all up to at least

480mm) Have either of you ever heard of using such long lenses in a

studio setting to shoot a portrait with a 4 x 5 camera? Or SHOULD I

JUST ABANDON THE WHOLE PROSPECT OF PURCHASING THESE LONGER (ie 360,

420, 450, and/or 480mm) LENSES, AND SIMPLY PHOTOGRAPH AT A CLOSER

LENS-TO-SUBJECT DISTANCE WITH MY EXISTING 210MM or 305MM LENS?

<p>

Will I really capture the "dramatic" illusion of "compression" I am so

desiring with any of these longer lenses, filling all frames HALF-

FIGURE? Or do you think the effects will be inconsiderable, in

relation to simply moving closer with one of the focal lenths I

already have?

<p>

Thanks again--

<p>

Nick

Nick,

Generally, you probably won't get the dramatic telephoto shots with

large format that you can with smaller formats (e.g. 35mm) simply

because lenses proportionally as long for the formats aren't

available, practical or used very often. For instance, a 600mm lens

on a 35mm camera is equivalent to 1800mm on 4x5 (multiply your 35mm

focal lengths by 3 to arrive at a rough comparison). You just won't

find one of those beasts! However, there are lots of "longer" lenses

for LF in the 300 to 600+mm range. These are equivalent to 100-200mm

on 35 mm. This is about as long as practical and affordable for most

of us. So, when choosing your lenses, and in view of the above

discussions, (which should have you coninced by now that the so-

called "telephoto effect" is a function of distance and angle of

view, not lens design), and, taking into consideration that LF offers

lots of leeway to crop and still have relatively sharp and grain free

enlargements, I would suggest that you purchase shorter lenses at

first and crop when necessary for the shots that you need a really

narrow angle of view for. This has several advantages: First, shorter

lenses are cheaper. A 300mm Nikkor M or equivalent covers up to 8x10

and is downright affordable when compared to telephoto designs.

Second, extremely long normal design lenses require appropriately

longer bellow draw, requiring a larger, more cumbersome camera.(To

circumvent this problem there are telephoto designs for LF. These, as

you already know, trade shorter bellows draw for reduced performance

and increased price!)

Keep in mind that you can use one-half of your 4x5 sheet (i.e. crop

to 2x2.5 inches) with a 300mm lens and still have a nice telephoto

medium-format negative (equivalent to a 150mm lens on a 6x7 or a

100mm lens on 35mm)! Of course, if you find yourself cropping this

small regularly, then you should consider shelling out for something

longer and more exotic.

Remember, your camera position (camera-to-subject distance)

determines the perspective (large to small) relaionships in the scene

and the longer lenses just narrow the field of view (which is the

same as cropping). That means you don't "move closer" with a shorter

lens to get the desired effect, you set up the camera at a distance

where the perspective is correct and choose your lens or cropping to

give the desired framing (angle of view). A rectangular opening cut

in a piece of cardboard or a Zone VI viewing filter or the like can

be helpful when composing. Hope all this helps, ;^D)

I am losing it again...I don't get it...if what you say is true, then

all a longer lens does is CROP a view and make that portion of view

full-frame: so why is that cropped view DIFFERENT than if I simply

move closer to the subject and crop the picture to the same

dimensions?

<p>

I don't want to merely "crop a picture closer", I want to alter the

relationship between the ground and the subject--or the foreground and

the background--

<p>

Either a long lens does that or it doesn't--

<p>

If it doesn't do that, then I'd just as well use a shorter focal

length and move closer--

<p>

If it does do it, then I would like to find a lens longer than 360mm

that will accomplish this "effect"--

<p>

I think the central idea in all these explanations is getting lost,

that a long lens causes at least some perceived/relative--call it what

you like--CHANGE IN "RELATIVE SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE"--I like to call it

"compression", you may call it "cropping"--but "cropping" to me

implies NO SPATIAL/DIMENSIONAL CHANGE--and I just can't see how that

could be the case--

<p>

But if it is the case, then I don't see any argument for purchasing/

using a longer lens.

<p>

I mean: either a long lens produces a different-looking picture than a

normal focal length or it doesn't--

<p>

You have to concede that the relationship between foreground and

background within the frame undergoes SOME change by using a really

long lens, or not--

-------------------

<p>

On another note, I don't have the option to crop my 4 x 5 negatives,

as I am making mural-size prints and need to utilize the full frame--

to keep the enlargement ratio to a minimum (approx 12x).

<p>

I am already well aware of the bellows issues with regard to telephoto

vs. normal design--I am not concerned with that--but are you implying

that the view of a telephoto lens is DIFFERENT than a normal-design

long lens, AT THE SAME LENS-TO-SUBJECT DISTANCE? Ie: if I stand 7

feet from a person with a telephoto lens, and then stand 7 feet from

that same person with a normal-design long lens in the same focal

length, that the two "cropped views" are different?

Nick:

<p>

1. Forget the design of the lens... all that matters is focal length.

<p>

2. Compression is a particular perspective caused by long film to

subject distance ONLY. Focal length doesn't matter, only subject-film

geometry.

<p>

3. We usually use long focal length lenses for distant subjects, thus

we observe compressed perspective most commonly with long focal

length lenses.

<p>

4. If you take 2 shots of the same subject, from the same distance

with two focal length lenses, and crop the image shot with the

shorter lens to match the image made with the longer lens, the

perspective will be identical. Same subject-film geometry, thus same

compression for distant objects. Obviously, the cropped image will be

grainier and less sharp.

<p>

5. In addition to the geometric perspective issue, part of what you

see in long focal length shots is less depth of field which

accentuates the compression effect by rendering only a narrow range

of distances in sharp focus.

Glenn,

<p>

Are you saying that if I stand, for example, 10 feet away from a

person and point a 480mm lens at them and then stand 5 feet (or

whatever distance would be necessary to create the same cropping of

view as the 480mm creates) from the the same person and point a 210mm

lens, that the photographs taken with these 2 lenses at these 2

distances would be exactly identical?

<p>

Then why should I shell out $1500. for a long lens, when I can just

use the 210mm I have now, and simply MOVE CLOSER to my subject when I

photograph them?

Nick: Moving closer has the opposite effect on the "compression"

factor. The distance from the lens to the subject is what causes the

compressed look. As previously said, it is easier to achieve with

35mm than 4x5. A 360mm is not going to give you much more of a

compression look than a 300 on 4x5 film.

You would need to go above 500 mm and back off to get the compression

look you want.

The cropping that seems to be confusing you occurs after the image is

on the negative, not cropping in the camera. For instance, if you

make a photograph at 50 feet with a 300mm lens and a 90mm at the same

50 feet, naturally the 90 will take in much more area. However, if

you enlarge the full negative from the 300mm to 8x10 and a small

section of the 90 mm to match the print from the 300, the images will

appear identical.

Hope I haven't added to the confusion. Doug.

Nick:

<p>

No! I said that the image produced by different lenses given the SAME

subject-film geometry has the same perspective.

<p>

If you shoot with a shot with a 240, then move twice as far away and

shoot the same shot with a 480, the second shot WILL have a more

compressed perspective. But the REASON is that you moved twice as far

away, NOT that you used a longer focal length lens.

<p>

So, since we use longer focal length lenses at greater distances, we

associate them with compressed perspective.

Doug,

<p>

Thank you for saying what you did about long lenses on 35mm vs.long

lenses on 4 x 5.

<p>

I have noticed the same difference--but correct me if I'm wrong in

what I am about to say.

<p>

Part of my frustration over this whole issue stems from the fact that

I am conditioned to being able to achieve a certain amount of

"compression" using long lenses in a 35mm format, which I have been

consistently unable to achieve in a 4 x 5 format.

<p>

Long lenses in 35mm seem to produce greater compression--or at least

the feeling/appearance of greater compression--than long lenses in a 4

x 5 (or 8 x 10) format.

<p>

But is this exactly right? I mean if I compare the "compression

effect" of a 105mm lens vs a 50mm lens in a 35mm film format, against

the "compression effect" of a 360mm lens vs.a 180mm lens in a 4 x 5

film format, are the two "compression effects" the same? Or would the

photos taken with the 105mm on 35mm film cause greater compression

than the photos taken with the 360mm on 4 x 5 film, as long as the two

lenses were positioned at exactly the same distance from the subject?

<p>

If a smaller compressive change would occur between doubling the focal

length within the 4 x 5 format vs. doing the same within a 35mm

format, is this one reason why large-format cameras (in this case, 4 x

5 ones) are routinely built with such "short bellows"--ie bellows that

usually only accomodate lenses up to about 300 or 360mm in focal

length--because there is a recognition that using longer lenses

doesn't alter a picture as radically as they do when used on 35mm

cameras?

<p>

-----------------------

<p>

Also, do you think that I should avoid contemplating purchasing any

lenses longer than the 305mm lens I already have, to create the effect

of compression I am so desiring? (I mean I don't think I want to get

a lens that's longer than 480mm--or should I? Ie: does anyone ever

use such long lenses--lenses over 500mm--to shoot simple studio

portraits?!)

Glenn,

<p>

Thank you for the clarification; I think that may have crystallized an

understanding in my mind.

<p>

I still have more questions, but I hesitate to pose them, for fear

that they are going to further confuse me--

Nick: The reason it looks different on 35mm is because of the

negative size. If you put your 305mm lens from your 4x5 on your 35mm

camera, the look will be the same as with your 300 telephoto from the

same distance. Try this: set up your 4x5 next to your 35mm, both on

tripods, and shoot the same subject with a 210 lens on the 4x5 and a

zoom set at 210 on the 35mm. Shoot a negative with each. Then take

the scissors and cut out a 35mm section of the 4x5 negative. The

photos will be identical in size and perspective.

400 mm on a 4x5 is just about pushing the limits of the bellows even

on studio stand cameras for head and shoulders portraits. To fill the

negative, you will need 800mm of bellows extension if you go to a 1-1

ratio. It becomes impractical. I learned studio portraiture on a

stand camera which had about 36 inches of bellows. We used a 12"

(305) or 14" lens (360) for head and shoulders. It took quite a bit

of bellows extension.

Doug.

Think about it this way. Perspective is essentially a function of

relative sizes of objects at different distances. Something further

away looks smaller than something closer. The ratio of their

'apparent' sizes is in direct proportion to the ratio of their

distances to the lens (object A to lens divided by object B to lens).

Focal length only alters magnification. A longer focal length will

give you more magnification than a shorter focal length. However, the

relative distances between the two objects (object A to lens divided

by object B to lens) remains unchanged and therefore the ratio of

their apparent sizes remains unchanged i.e., perspective does not

change and all that the longer lens is doing is allowing you to

crop out portions of the scene 'in camera' (which is why you will get

the same effect by cropping the center of the image from the negative

taken with the wider i.e., shorter lens while printing).

<p>

The 'compression effect' you refer to is a function of many things 1/

typically long lenses in 35mm are used to isolate specific

elements i.e., to isolate one subject and crop out the rest of the

scene (by doing that, you of course delete depth cues associated with

those things you've cropped out like the foreground) 2/ smaller DOF

which essentially does the same - if it is not sharp, your eye has

trouble focusing on the edges to separate figure from ground 3/ most

importantly, you use long lenses at a distance and therefore all the

objects in the picture are at more or less the same distance to the

lens i.e., there are not much perspective cues in the picture.

<p>

Technically, the compression effect of a 300 vs 150 on 4x5

should be similar to the 100 to 50 on 35mm but keep in mind that their

aspect ratios are somewhat different which may play a role also. In my

opinion, the whole thing is moot. The biggest depth cues in a picture

are the relative sizes of various objects that you want in the

picture. If a particular element does not add to the picture, it

should probably not be there anyway. Now, if you graph the apparent

size i.e., size of image on ground glass against distance to object

(i.e., as you back away from it), you see that size diminishes rapidly

and approaches an asymptote quite rapidly i.e., you need to back off

huge distances to reduce the size appreciably. In other words, the

relative sizes of two same sized objects at different distances to the

camera rapidly approaches 1 as you increase the distance to both of

them. There is really not too much to gain beyond this by backing

off even further and using even longer lenses because they are so

close to being the same size as makes no difference. So the

'compression effect' levels out quite quickly also. Longer lenses in

35mm are really more for reach i.e., because you cannot get closer to

the bird or the lion and are forced to shoot at a distance - and not

so much for the perspective compression they produce. In other words,

if you're using a 300mm lens for portraiture on a 4x5, thats pretty

close to what you're going to get. The relative sizes of nose (which

appears bigger since it is closer than the ear)and ear are pretty

close at the kind of ditance you would use a 300 at and you're going

to have to go to huge increases in focal length to equalize them

further (and its doubtful that you can make out this further

equlaization anyway). If a 135mm is regarded as an ideal portraiture

lens in 35mm, its equivalent is roughly a 15" lens. A 300mm lens on

4x5 is roughly a 105mm on 35mm and I think it should allow you to

operate far enough back as to prevent any unpleasant 'large' noses. DJ

Hi Nick,You are struggleing with one of the problems I have found on

this site; and that is every one wants to get too precise with all

this. We are making pictures, that's all. Why make it sound like a big

deal. Doremus above has it right. 4X5 AND 35mm are different animals.

A long lens on a 35mm is a long lens indeed, and the compresson of the

image is great. This is a 35mm "thing". This is part of the

"distortion" 35mm is famous for. 4x5 has not the long lens "thing" and

this is why the same effect is not possible.

<p>

When someone askes a question on this page, we need to answer as

simply as possible. This is not a time to show off all the knowledge

we have (or have not!) of large format. I have seen too much trying to

"out do" the next guy or gal! Lets "Show off" our work and not try to

impress each other with our expertise (or lack thereof). Come on

Photography is Fun, Fun, Fun. Lets not turn it into an intellectual

exersise!!

Nick,

Here's something to try to get your brain around this, and overcome

the misinformation you were fed (before coming here). Take a piece

of paper and make a side view of your camera and scene. Put a

foreground and background object, and a large simplified camera.

Draw lines from the top of the frame (highest point in the final

picture) to the bottom of the film plane, and another from the bottom

of the frame to the top pf the film plane through the middle of the

lens. (These should be symmetrical about the camera). Now draw

similar lines for the tops and bottoms of the foreground and

background objects. This should enable you to construct a rough

guess at what the picture will look like (and get an idea about the

'compression effect'.

<p>

The angle between the first two lines you draw represents the focal

length of the camera.

<p>

Now if you can make more pictures varying the size of the film plane,

subject to camera distance, and focal length. This should give you a

visual means of comparing different changes.

<p>

You should find that 1) moving the camera closer and farther from the

subject changes the 'compression'; 2) Changing the focal length

enables you to move to the appropriate distance to get the

'compression' you want, and still not have to crop the picture to the

point of graininess, 3) increasing the film size means the longer

focal length is needed to get the same level of cropping (not

compression).

<p>

Hope This Helps,

<p>

--

Topher

Nick, If you take a piece of cardboard and cut a frame into it and then place it before your eyes, you will

be able to view exactly what effect the different lenses will produce on your subject by simply moving the

frame back and forward. Now, if you take a picture with, say a 90 mm and then decide to crop it, the

result will be exactly the same as if the shot had been taken with a longer lens provided it was taken

FROM THE SAME POINT! But of course, if you move forward to your subject to restrain the image, the

picture you will get WILL HAVE AN OTHER PERSPECTIVE than the cropped image from the first place. This

is simply because a lens is made to include a certain angle of view. Whatever your distance from the

subject, this angle will always remain the same. If you take a portrait with a 90 mm wide-angle from a

distance of 3 meters, the person will be entirely included in your shot, and the background will be included

with an angle of 83 degrees. So you will see on each side of your subject a lot of scenery, sky, ground,

other people, which can produce a very rich picture, but can also be very disturbing. Now, you move

forward to your subject to a distance of 1 meter and with the same lens take a half body portrait. The

way your subject looks in the picture will change dramatically! The person will fill half of your image, but

if you look at the background, it will still be there included with the same angle as before. But now

yourimage looks very DYNAMIC for the relation between the subject and the background has changed. The

relation between different parts of the body will change also, producing some impression of distortion in

your subject's face (big nose).If the background was disturbing in the first place, it might still be

disturbing now even the subject has filled more space in your image. Now, if instead of moving forward

from your initial 3 meter stand, you take the shot with your 90 mm and once back home, decide to crop

it to include only a half body portrait, you will do exactly the same as if you changed your 90 mm for, say

a 300 mm. The space occupied by the subject on your image will be the same as when you had moved

closer, but the background will then only be included with an angle of 30 degrees instead of the previous

83. So taking a shot with a 90 and cropping will give the SAME PERSPECTIVE and SAME IMAGE as a the

shot taken with a 300 mm except for one thing: the DEPTH OF FIELD. Your shot taken with the 90 mm at

3 meters will probably look sharp all the way through. Now, with the 300 mm, and although the

THEORETICAL DEPTH OF FIELD REMAINS THE SAME, you will be able to make your subject sharp and keep

the background out of focus by using selective focus and larger apertures. Also, if the background

included is the same, being out of focus ISOLATES your subject, and concentrates the viewer attention on

it. A way to take benefit of this rule is by using a roll film! Your same 90 mm will be approx. equivalent to

a 24 mm small format lens on 4x5 and to a 35 mm on 6x9.

<p>

All this will certainly be obvious to you so far, but here is a word on the effect lenses have on

perspectives. Imagine the face of your subject if you place your 90 mm 10 inches afar. You will see a

huge nose, large chicks, large eyes, but as you move from the center to the edges of the face, the parts

will be reduced in great proportions: small chin, small ears, small forehead, small body. Never take a

picture of your girl friend this way unless she has a great sense of humor! At the opposite, if you use a

very long tele for a portrait, the nose will be COMPRESSED and you will have large ears, a large neck, kind

of a "Rambo look". Of course, in your 210-360 case, the differences are probably very subtle and would

produce perhaps an overall impression rather than a clear difference. An other case of figure is group

photography. I once had taken a group with a 90 mm. The people in the center of the image where looking

fine, but all the faces near the edges where STRETCHED WIDE resulting in a quite embarrassing situation.

However, none of these three situations can be qualified of DISTORTED. It is simply a MATTER OF

DISTANCE. A shot taken close should be viewed close, that means with the same angle it was taken, and a

shot taken from far should be viewed from far (something I have learned in this forum thanks to great

contributors!). My 5x7 print from the group taken with a 90 mm on 4x5 looks good if viewed from a 5

inches distance! That means also an image should be taken according to the future enlargement and

viewing distance it is designed to match. In this regard, portrait photographers have established that a

focal of between 65 and 135 but usually 85 mm for small format, 150-200 for medium and 210-300 for

4x5 will give acceptable results for a normal size normal viewing distance photograph. When you move

beyond, you may make the viewer experiment some distortion. I hope this is of some help! Did I get your

question right?

<p>

To all,

<p>

I truly appreciate all that everybody has written in on this most

vexing of subjects (at least it is to me), but I think it will take me

literaly several days for me to digest and process everything that you

have written. I confess that I don't understand quite alot of it on

first reading. My head is literally reeling with dizziness; I have

more questions now than answers...

<p>

Barring a full understanding of all the technical aspects to your

answers, can someone simply provide some simple, practical advice. I

currently have a 305mm lens as my longest lens for my 4 x 5 camera.

Will I gain ANYTHING in terms of "drama", "impact", "compression",

"heightened presence", "exaggerated imminence" --all non-technical

adjectives I would use to describe the quality of a good 35mm "long-

lens shot"--by stepping up to a lens LONGER THAN 300mm, such as a

360mm, 420mm, 450mm, or 480mm lens, and shooting from a greater

distance? Yes or no?!!!!! (Remember: I am trying to produce in

these pictures the most dramatic, eye-popping, half-figure portraits

possible, that look like they are literally jumping out at you--) If

the answer is yes, would the difference be 1) great, 2) medium 3)

negligible, or 4) none. And if the answer is "great", "medium", or

even "negligible", is there a particular focal length among the focal

lengths I have mentioned above which YOU would choose--all issues of

bellows requirement aside? Would you choose the highest focal length,

or would the "dramatizing effects" level off after a certain focal

length? Please accompany your choice with a brief explanation. Thank

you!

Nick, I would like to know why you are going to 4x5 for portraits and

not 2 1/4 ? 4x5 can be such a pain for portraiture (in many cases)

and especially with as long of a lens as you want ( a 4x5 470mm only

equals a 135mm lens on a 35mm camera). You would have to go into 8x10

lenses to get the focal length you want $$$$$$$ and how are you going

to keep the shot composed correctly with such a static camera? My

advice is against large format for what you are trying to do.

Nick:

<p>

Just equate things back to 35mm terms. Shooting distances will be the

same with either 4x5 or 35mm since the proportionally longer focal

lengths just fit the proportionally larger film.

<p>

Your 305mm is about the equivalent of a 90-100mm lens on 35mm.

Slight "telephoto" perspective, but not the dramatic compression of a

300mm.

<p>

One way to get more compression would be to use your 305 from a

greater distance, and crop the image down or use a roll film back.

But you seem to want enormous enlargments and feel you need to use

the entire image. That is a problem since this is not what LF excels

at.

<p>

A 450 (Fujinon C for example) would be more like a 135mm lens in

35mm. A bit more compression, but not the dramatic effect you seek. A

600mm lens would be about like a 180mm, pretty good compression, but

now you need LOTS of bellows and probably a rail camera with 2

tripods for stability. This is not what most folks think of as a

handy portrait setup.

<p>

A final choice (expensive)for compression would be the Nikkor T 800mm

f/12 telephoto which would be like 250mm on 35mm. That about the

limit of practicality (if you consider a $2800 lens and a yard of

bellow practical).

<p>

You could use a 450mm and a roll-film back, and enlarge the 6x7cm

image accepting the resulting grain. You are probably going to have

to make a choice between sharpness/grain and cost/compression.

Mark,

<p>

I am working in 4 x 5 because I am making 8 feet x 10 feet (24x)

fibre-base BW enlargements, and need the larger negative. I have

tried 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9--and the negative is not big enough to produce

enough clarity and resolution. If anything, I am considering moving to

an 8 x 10 format, but the cost--among other things--has so far

deterred me--but I am quite happy with what 4 x 5 can do. As far as

the act of shooting goes, I arrange for my subjects to remain still or

within a certain restricted physical zone, and use strobe to freeze

any possible movement.

Believe me, I have thought this through! But what has defied my

understanding so far is this notion of a "long lens" for the 4 x 5--

Any suggestions?

<p>

Nick

Glenn,

<p>

Thank you--this time I understood every word!

<p>

I have considered telephoto-design lenses in the past, but decided

against them, because some people told me that they do not produce

optimally sharp pictures at close ranges (in my case, about 5-12 feet,

depending on the focal length). Would you agree? Recently, I have

come around to the notion of using long-focal-length copy/process

lenses, under the assumption that they are optimized for 1:1 to 1:5 or

so, and generally among the best quality/sharpest lenses available.

I have thought about the Fuji 450C, but am somewhat aesthetically

biased in favor of German glass, so at the moment I am thinking alot

about going with a Red Dot Artar. But, at the risk of sounding

contradictory, I also do not want to reduce my depth of field to

something little or none, by going with such a long, long lens (say

beyond 480mm)--but maybe I'm looking for a lens that just doesn't

exist, given all the large-format optical perameters you and everyone

else have already laid out--

Glenn,

<p>

I forgot to mention, you wrote in your last post: "just equate things

back to 35mm terms". You see it is something that simple that I have

been having so much trouble with, and which caused me to start this

whole discussion in the first place. It is my feeling--and maybe it

is just my own feeling--that the two formats are NOT visually

"interchangable" like that, because it seems like the pictures taken

with a 105mm in 35mm-format look different than a 300mm or 360mm taken

in a 4 x 5-format--I know people have written that they are

convertible like that, but when I look at my pictures taken with a

300mm they just don't look as dramatic as when I did the same with a

105mm in 35mm-format. So I sense a "gap" when comparing the two, even

just conceptually--although, in the end, I do use 35mm as a general,

albeit approximate, reference point. But I've gone on too long about

this, and don't want to beat a dead horse.

Four example photographs to illustrate persective vs focal length and

camera position are on pages 48 to 49 of "A User's Guide to the View

Camera" by Jim Stone in the section "More About Perspective". Perhaps

in this case 4 photographs will be worth more than 4000 words?