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..

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 http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 18:30:01 up 41 min, 4 users, load average: 5.33, 5.36, 4.73

In article 45kbi.3485$1o.3289@trnddc01,
Jean-David Beyer 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.

"Colyn" wrote in message
...
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

"Colyn" wrote in message
...

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 :-)

In article ,
"Andrew Koenig" wrote:

"Colyn" wrote in message
...

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...

"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. :-)

* 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" wrote in message
news
"Colyn" wrote in message
...

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 :-)

"otzi" 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?

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1030184
http://spectacle.berkeley.edu/~fiori...cs/bijin3.html

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
. net...
"otzi" 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?

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1030184
http://spectacle.berkeley.edu/~fiori...cs/bijin3.html

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.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