yian nyc Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 (same question posted on "LF forum" a little while ago, but their opinions seem to tend towards LF, which I'm not surprised. Was looking for other opinions. Please excuse cross-post) Hi First a bit of background. I have been doing mainly reportage and have recently started doing portraiture. I love the work of Avedon, Greenfield- Sanders, Arnold Newman, Sally Mann; and Paolo Roversi's 8x10 polaroids. I am not quite ready to move up formats yet, and I rented a 45mm Tilt-Shift lens for my Canon this past week and love the selective-focus look. I will be returning it on Wednesday and will rent a 50mm/1.4 to try and shoot with even less DOF (although without tilts). Here is the question: Is it possible to emulate the LF "look" with either of these two lenses on 35mm format(full frame)? What are we missing in 35mm? Thanks, Yian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueworldstudios Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 If you're not used to LF, you're not going to miss anything. A TSE will get you the movements you'd use 80% of the time with LF. With LF portrature, 100% of the time. If you're looking for narrow DOF and mostly portraiture, I'd suggest the 90TSE over the 45TSE. If you want really narrow DOF, the 85 f/1.2 rules the world. Given your background, LF portrature doesn't seem like it would fit your style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Hi Yian, Like EJ said. I'd have thought the 90 would work better for your ideas. But, I got a 50 1.4 a couple of weeks ago to use on my second body at weddings for B&W, the results are fantastic, two weddings so far and the most popular pics from both shoots came from the 50, almost exclusively used at 1.4. If a 50mm gives you the framing you want then don't rent it just buy one! Take care, Scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 "Is it possible to emulate the LF "look"?" That depends on how you define the "large format look"? Is it enlargement scale, tonality, perspective control, a slower and more considered approach? The answer's yes for some, no for others. Avedon printed his 10x8 western portraits to huge dimesions. It would be difficult to replicate that scale of printing from 35mm. Furthermore you can develop each LF black and white negative individually, something that's difficult with roll film but irrelevant if you use Velvia. The movements available with the Canon T&S range are ample for portraits, they cover the majority of architectural needs, but they're a bit limiting for still-life work. However, T&S lenses still demand a tripod mounted camera and a deliberate, methodical approach. So in that respect the final "look" shares a lot with LF work, at best they're both meticulously crafted. I use both large format and the full range of Canon T&S lenses, IMO the Canon lenses are let down by the viewfinder. One of the magical aspects of LF is to see the image rendered in two dimensions on the ground glass, it's like building the final print in real time. But even with the (not very good) Canon angle finder it's just not the same experience. Finally, in terms of limiting depth of field. You'll get a very different look from a 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.2 than with a counter-swung T&S lens. It's difficult to be emphatic but I generally find that you can usually destroy a background more effectively with T&S. However, the T&S out of focus look is very different. It has an unreal dreaminess about it, like a dimly recalled memory. A wide aperture lens loses and gains focus in a more rational way that the viewer tends to understand. The counter-swung T&S shot looks more mysterious, as it's often difficult for the viewer to logically and visually grasp why some areas of the print are sharp and some are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 Yian, another option you may wish to try is the "Lens Baby" in a Canon mount. It's not very expensive, unsurprisingly as it's just a simple lens in a flexible rubber mount! You pull and push the front to gain focus, then you can twist and turn it to play with focus control. It's a fast, cheap and a more "hand-holdable" alternative to T&S lenses for that radically out-of-focus look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokkor fan Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 Hi Gary, can you post an example or two of what you are saying about the selective focus possible for portraiture? Cheers, Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yian nyc Posted August 17, 2004 Author Share Posted August 17, 2004 Thanks for your great answers. I had actually already ordered the lens baby as I knew I liked the 45TSE the day I started using it, but also knew that I could not (yet) justify the cost of that lens. Will rent the 50/1.4 and then decide to either buy it as my primary background-"destroying" lens and keep the lensbaby for fun, or skip the 1,4 and go straight for the TSE. Yes, I agree the v/f is pretty dismal on 35mm. FYI, I am not interested enough in huge blowups for that to be a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 "Hi Gary, can you post an example or two of what you are saying about the selective focus possible for portraiture?" I'll be away for the next couple of weeks. But if you drop me a note off-line as a reminder I'll be happy to send you some examples when I get back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awindsor Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 You never did say whether you were shooting with a digital body or with a film body. A 1.6x crop digital body makes the 45mm an ideal portrait length. The digital also makes it easy to deal with the inevitable metering difficulties though for portraiture you are probably using negative film anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 Avedon gets his "look" from a huge negative and a tremendous amount of post-processing (darkroom) work. A tilt-shift lens isn't going to get you anywhere close to that. You're going to have to learn to do really good post-processing just to get something similar without the benefit of the large negative. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 Avedon gets his "look" from a huge negative and a tremendous amount of post-processing (darkroom) work. A tilt-shift lens isn't going to get you anywhere close to that. You're going to have to learn to do really good post-processing just to get something similar without the benefit of the large negative. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yian nyc Posted August 18, 2004 Author Share Posted August 18, 2004 Alistair, I'm shooting with a fullframe sensor. However, could a 1.4x extender be used on the 45mm to give a 63mm field of view? does it physically fit? Jeff -- Roughly what kind of tremendous post-processing are we talking about? contrast and levels sort of thing (or their wet equivqlents), spotting, or some kind of blurring and sharpening thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 <u><A href = http://marktucker.com/plungercam/>Mark Tucker's 'Plungercam' </a></u> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now