[LargeFormat] Wista technical and Schneider lenses II, portrait

[Karl Wolz]

We of wee brains gotta stick together, eh?

With the 360, I would shoot midchest to a few inches above the top of the
head.  I kinda prefer the portraits that get in pretty tight, like neck to a
bit below head top (or perhaps a bit tighter).  One thing that I've found is
that getting in that tight with a LF camera really limits your depth of
field.  Any subject movement and the shot is  .  .  .  well, shot.

Old time shooters used a head restraint to keep the subjects from moving
during the exposure.  I've kinda considered using a similar device to keep
the subject still after I've focused and installed the film holder, etc.

Karl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Wilkes" <Don.Wilkes@gems9.gov.bc.ca>
To: <largeformat@f32.net>
Cc: <largeformat@f32.net>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Wista technical and Schneider lenses II, portrait


> At 12:56 PM 8/17/01 -0700, Karl Wolz wrote:
>
> >BTW) with credible results.  I think you might find the 270 to be a bit
> >short for tighter portraits.  I thought the 360 was about as short as I
> >wanted to go, and a 500 would be a bit better.
>
> Hmm...I don't know, Karl; 500 sounds rather long to me.  When I'm doing
> head-and-shoulders portrait shots on 35mm, my 105 is about ideal, and
reall
> close to being the equivalent of your 360.  Now, if you want to go really
> *tight* on the head, I can see going a bit longer, but 500 sounds like a
lot.
>
> On second thought, that'd be roughly a 150 on 35mm, wouldn't it?  So,
> perhaps it's not as much as I thought -- it just *sounds* like a whacking
> great lens!
>
> Please forgive the thinking out loud...it's much too warm in here, for a
> photographer of little brain.
>
> Cheers,
> \dw
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat
>