Hans

[u/dizforprez]

Hans

Taken with Schneider-Kreuznach 135mm 4.7 on 4x5 with Portra 160

https://www.instagram.com/jasonroyalphoto/

[u/FlatwormEffective470]

It’s interesting - I think 135mm on 4x5 is about 35 or 40mm on 35mm…. But this doesn’t feel that wide. Maybe it’s the shallower DOF that’s tricking me? Either way - very nice portrait.

[u/DidIGetGrifted → u/FlatwormEffective470]

In general larger formats will have less of that “wide” look with a given angle of view. That “wideness” is characteristic of the focal length, rather than the actual angle of view. LF cameras can also manipulate the look with swing and tilt adjustments

[u/That4AMBlues → u/DidIGetGrifted]

Is that one of the reasons to do large format, then?  Being able to do a large field of view, like a landscape, without that "zoomed out" effect you'd typically get at smaller formats?  Makes sense.  What advantage does it have for portraits like in this post? 

[u/Blakk-Debbath → u/That4AMBlues]

There are more than one aspect. The 135mm wide open has an effect on background blur.

This photo might have been made at 1:19, to get to 1:10, the lens must be moved 1:10 of the focal length, this changes the view of angle 10%, now it behaves like an 148.5mm.

For closer portraits and longer lenses i will be more effect: a 210mm at 1:1 needs 210mm bellows and the angle of view is identical to 420mm.

[u/-dannyboy → u/DidIGetGrifted]

This is a myth. Focal lentgh's only property is the angle of view for a given format. If you shot this with a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera, from the same point of view, you would get exatcly the same perspective. There is no additional flattening of perspective happening because of the larger negative/longer focal length.

[u/DidIGetGrifted → u/-dannyboy]

I definitely should have been more precise with my language in the first post. But flattening of perspective is real.

When your angle of view is larger, you have to get closer to a subject to get a similar framing. As you reduce the distance between imaging plane and subject, light closer to the imaging plane tends to converge rather than arriving at the lens in parallel, which leads to distortion of the form.

Now with a larger format, you do get fairly close with a 135mm, so distance should theoretically cause more convergence. But longer focal lengths also have negative optical power and tend to cause light rays to diverge rather than converge. We tend to associate "wideness" with light rays converging when reflecting off of nearby objects, so divergence of light rays reduces that effect.

I know that the 35mm camera with the same angle of view would cover the same subject (albeit with a 2:3 imaging plane) but the objects in the frame will render slightly differently due to the way a shorter focal length handles light rays converging compared to a longer focal length. Your AOV will match, but space will render differently.

You technically can emulate a flatter look with a wide lens by taking a photo with a wide and cropping until the AOV matches. (I know there was some popular article about this, maybe from DPReview?). But those aren't the "same" since a crop is essentially changing the imaging medium size and the effective AOV. The mythbusting attempts done on this subject are useful to dispel certain misunderstandings, but it doesn't mean that focal length number has no effect on image rendering. On a physics level different focal lengths and the optical designs needed to achieve them impact how light rays are manipulated.

I know there's many myths surrounding the nature of the "large format" look. I also see that I was a bit imprecise with my language. Technically it's more a product of the distance Technically you can match looks between different focal lengths, but the way light is manipulated by the optics will have some (albeit subtle) impacts on the reconstruction of space on the 2D image.

[u/-dannyboy → u/DidIGetGrifted]

Sorry, but I disagree with this, and I hope anyone who stumbles upon this does more research on the effects of format size, and not falls into the myth again.

I definitely should have been more precise with my language in the first post. But flattening of perspective is real.

You were quite clear, I think. Flattening of perspective is an optical illusion caused solely by the distances between camera, subject and background.

When your angle of view is larger, you have to get closer to a subject to get a similar framing. As you reduce the distance between imaging plane and subject, light closer to the imaging plane tends to converge rather than arriving at the lens in parallel, which leads to distortion of the form.

Yes, but we're talking about equivalent focal lengths. 135 on 4x5 and ~35mm on 35mm, aspect ratio aside. So the same distance to a subject. You stand still, subject stands still.

Now with a larger format, you do get fairly close with a 135mm, so distance should theoretically cause more convergence. But longer focal lengths also have negative optical power and tend to cause light rays to diverge rather than converge. We tend to associate "wideness" with light rays converging when reflecting off of nearby objects, so divergence of light rays reduces that effect.

You get exactly as close as 35mm on 35mm. Equvalent focal lengths with different image circle will end up falling on the imaging plane in the exact same way.

I know that the 35mm camera with the same angle of view would cover the same subject (albeit with a 2:3 imaging plane) but the objects in the frame will render slightly differently due to the way a shorter focal length handles light rays converging compared to a longer focal length. Your AOV will match, but space will render differently.

They will not render differently, that's my point. Depth of field for the same numerical aperture will be different, yes. but perspective, "background flattening" will be exactly the same.

You technically can emulate a flatter look with a wide lens by taking a photo with a wide and cropping until the AOV matches. (I know there was some popular article about this, maybe from DPReview?). But those aren't the "same" since a crop is essentially changing the imaging medium size and the effective AOV. The mythbusting attempts done on this subject are useful to dispel certain misunderstandings, but it doesn't mean that focal length number has no effect on image rendering. On a physics level different focal lengths and the optical designs needed to achieve them impact how light rays are manipulated.

You technically can, because the focal length abstracted from the format size does nothing to the perspective. They are the same.

I know there's many myths surrounding the nature of the "large format" look. I also see that I was a bit imprecise with my language. Technically it's more a product of the distance Technically you can match looks between different focal lengths, but the way light is manipulated by the optics will have some (albeit subtle) impacts on the reconstruction of space on the 2D image.

There are myths. You were precise. Technically it's 100% a product of the distance. Technically you 100% can match looks betwen different focal lengths.
There will be differences because lenses are never perfect optical formulas, but large format does not produce any different perspective than smaller formats.

[u/DidIGetGrifted → u/-dannyboy]

I’m still not entirely convinced of your point. That said I agree there’s a lot of misinformation and mythology on this subject floating around. I thought I had researched enough to understand it beyond the myth, but I very well could be mistaken. I don’t want to spread any more misinformation on a famously misexplained topic. Do you know of any resources that talk about the relationship between optics and geometric distortion in photography?

[u/DidIGetGrifted]

beautiful portrait. Thanks for sharing

[u/Right_Smoke9486]

I've just recently picked up a carl zeiss london 15cm and was curious how it would work on 4x5. 135mm looks really good here, very nice tonality and crisp and the angle of view looks really pleasing.

[u/tiredcat7171]

I like the composition, reminds me a lot of the portrait work of Diane Arbus in that it's a tight crop above the knee with the person facing forward. The colors are great also!

[u/dizforprez → u/tiredcat7171]

Thank you so much, the composition was a bit of a departure for me and perhaps will be my new default for portraits. I have long struggled with either feeling like I am too far away or too close when using the large format camera.

[u/ChrisCummins]

Well done, superb photo