[pure-silver] Re: Depth of Field (35mm vs. 4x5 or 8x10)
- From: Gregory W.Blank <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:36:20 -0400
On Oct 29, 2004, at 2:52 AM, Michael Healy wrote:
> I'm wondering whether someone might be able to confirm or elaborate
> upon a couple
> questions I've been kicking around, regarding depth of field and lens
> length.
>
> About a year ago, I shot a 35mm image of a piece for my my partner's
> portfolio. This was
> cast glass, of several boat-like objects, each about 8-9" long, which
> she attached to a
> sheet of glass about 1 foot wide by 1.5 feet deep. I shot this piece
> on a sheet of black
> velvet, on 35mm film, using a 100mm lens. Depth of field was hairy,
> but I managed to
> get enough of it. The piece fills the frame very tightly. It is very
> dramatic and disturbing,
> and it has sufficient depth of field. One of the better images I've
> shot for an artist's
> portfolio.
>
> Some months later, I finally was able to purchase a 210mm lens for my
> 4x5 camera. I
> wanted very badly to replicate this image for my own portfolio. So I
> tried to reshoot it on
> 4x5. It was a disaster. I spent several days replicating the shot, but
> I could NOT, for the
> life of me, achieve the depth of field I'd gotten on 35mm. After doing
> some research, I
> think I realized a couple things. The main problem seems to be that to
> achieve the same
> DofF in 4x5 as in 35mm, assuming a 4x5 lens that is equivalent to the
> one used in
> 35mm, one must station the 4x5 at the same distance from the object as
> was used in
> 35mm. IE, when I chose a 210mm lens (4s5) to replace the 100mm lens
> (135), I was
> wrong to move the 4x5 closer to equivalently fill the frame. I was
> wrong to conclude that
> this would produce the same result. Rather, the same result will be
> achieved by
> maintaining the same camera-to-subject distance. Of course this means
> that the object
> will appear no larger or smaller on the 4x5 image as it did on the
> 35mm image. As soon
> as one moves the camera closer (to fill the frame), one starts losing
> DofF. Those of you
> who have worked with 4x5, can you confirm this one way or the other?
Realistically what your seeing is a result of the difference in format
dimension. If you want
to duplicate the thirty five mm look you need to first print out a scan
from the thirty five
slide at the maximum size that will go into the 4"x5" box. Then
position the camera where
that image area corresponds. The fact the 35mm framing will not
duplicate the crop
factor within the 4x5 will always be an issue, at best you can mask the
4x5 Trans down
to give a similar look. Black Tape or some other method (custom cut mat
?).
My thought and the easier approach would be to dupe or have it
duped//from "the 35mm"
onto 4x5 duping material then mask the resulting image.
If you have to do the 4x5 routine. Stop down the lens and use Poloroid
to confirm the DOF matches
what you want. I find it unlikely that with a 4x5 and it's adjustable
movements you can't replicate
the 35mm DOF.
> Stemming from this: Supposing this is the case, and supposing a client
> has a desire to
> see their close-up image on 4x5 instead of (yuk!) 35mm, I'm thinking:
> I shoot a closeup
> detail of a sculptural object in 4x5, and there's little DofF. I do it
> with 35mm, and I'm able
> to get plenty of DofF, but at the cost of a tiny image. Here's what
> I'm wondering. If I were
> to enlarge that 35mm slide, yes, it would show a loss of resolution;
> but if it already HAD
> captured deep depth of field, then wouldn't the enlargement retain the
> depth of field?
> And if I was unable to replicate this depth of field in 4x5, for
> having to move the camera
> too close, then wouldn't the 35mm enlargement's DofF be retained, and
> be more
> satisfactory visually, than the 4x5's shallower DofF? What I'm saying
> is, is it better to
> shoot 35mm and enlarge, w/ all its shortcomings, than to get a great
> 4x5 that never
> achieved satisfactory DofF? or will the enlargement of 35mm deplete
> the sense of DofF,
> and end up looking no better than the 4x5 with its inadequate DofF?
>
> I have to add that I am not talking about paper prints, and
> conventional viewing
> distance. I am talking about slides (or negs), and the actual level of
> detail that will come
> through under a loupe on a light table.
>
> One reason I am asking is that for some time now, I have had
> absolutely no available
> darkroom; so while it would seem to be easy enough to just shoot a
> 35mm neg and
> enlarge it for comparison to a 4x5 neg or slide, I don't have the
> luxury. I have no
> darkroom at all. So is there someone who already is familiar with
> these issues, that they
> can confirm or disagree, and explain one way or the other?
>
> Mike Healy
>
>
>
> =======================================================================
> ======================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
> your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
