Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. Collapse Details
    stanley kubrick talking about a lens of 105mm being the perfect portrait lens
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    524
    Default
    "Next time I see Stanley, he gives me a long talk about why 105mm is the right focal length for portrait photography."

    I was wondering if stanley was talking of a 105mm on a full frame of crop sensor of 1.6 camera?
    Will a 105mm portrait lens would be the best on any kind of cameras (full frame or crop) for kubrick ? the angle of view would be different but i guess he was talking about the distortion also...

    thanks in advance,
    Deleuze3


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    787
    Default
    Since he worked as at Look magazine (and perhaps elsewhere?) before he moved into motion pictures, I'll guess he's talking about full-frame 35mm film. 105mm was a standard/classic for portraits back in the day. At least, that's how I recall it.


    Jim "used to work for a great photographer...long long ago...and did a bit of stringing for local newspapers, but no expert" Feeley
    ----------
    Jim Feeley
    POV Media


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member egproductions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NJ/NYC
    Posts
    2,782
    Default
    I've always known 135mm (FF) to be considered the perfect focal length for portraits with regards to perspective compression of facial features. There is a slight difference between 100mm and 135mm but any field of view narrower than that doesn't seem to have much of an impact.
    Cameras: 2x - Sony FS7, 2x - Sony A6500, Canon 5D IV, DJI Mavic Pro, Canon 5D II, Canon 60D, Canon G16, Canon Rebel XT, GoPro Hero 6, 6x - GoPro Hero 3+ Black Edition, Canon XL2, iPhone 4, iPhone 6, Ricoh KR-10, Fed-2, Fujica Half Frame, Canon ZR-100, Sony DCR-TRV 310.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    787
    Default
    Deleuze3, you were holding out on us. :-) I googled your quote and found it in this totally fun article:

    A Movie Odyssey: Three decades of conversation with Stanley Kubrick, part 2
    Ioan Allen, senior VP at Dolby Laboratories, continues his reminiscences of his 28-year association with the renowned film director Stanley Kubrick; the first installment, covering the 1970s, appeared in our December edition.
    http://www.filmjournal.com/content/m...kubrick-part-2

    Indirect thanks!
    ----------
    Jim Feeley
    POV Media


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    478
    Default
    Remember it like Jim. Leica always use to say on FF 90-105mm was where the facial features weren't too compressed or too stretch distorted. Like you get when close with a wide angle. If anyone is curious, I started in stills so always curious, Leica is resurrecting their famous 1935 soft-focus Thambar 90mm. Not cheap but I would love to check one out on the moving image. I still shoot around about 50mm for most closeup interviews is S35

    https://www.dpreview.com/news/168402...lens-from-1935

    Chris Young


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    787
    Default
    Yow. That Thambar lens makes cool images but this line:

    "Originally made only in a run of 3,000 in 1935, this new version will be much more widely available starting mid-November, and will cost you 5095/$6495."
    ----------
    Jim Feeley
    POV Media


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Aledo, Texas
    Posts
    134
    Default
    105mm on FF is great for a headshot...but many portraits include a bit more in the frame, hence the 85mm portrait lens. So, as always, the tool depends upon the situation. Kubrick has opinions like the rest of us.
    Sony FS5, A7RII, Fuji XT-3, MacBook Pro


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Central NC, USA
    Posts
    1,497
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by deleuze3 View Post
    "Next time I see Stanley, he gives me a long talk about why 105mm is the right focal length for portrait photography."

    I was wondering if stanley was talking of a 105mm on a full frame of crop sensor of 1.6 camera?
    He's talking about 135 format film, or "full frame" as the common vernacular has it. To be really clear, image size is 36x24mm.

    I worked as a newspaper photographer when I was in HS way back in the 1970s. They taught us then that the best portrait lens for us to carry around with us was a 105mm. We had like six or so in the department equipment locker. I used them often; a really effective portrait lens. I liked them so much that I bought my own. Still have it.

    Over time, people have shifted some. More people seem to like the 85mm lenses for portrait work these days. I find them very similar. But I find 135mm to be sufficiently long to cause me difficulties with portrait work.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    7,802
    Default
    OK, so it's 105mm for 36x24mm film.

    Let's add a twist so I can be happy with my current lens set XD
    If my image is going to be 16:9 instead of 3:2, but I don't want to cut the chin or forhead of mytalent, I just want more stuff on the sides, and I don't want to go farther because that would affect compression... then I need a wider lens. For every unit of vertical FoV, I'm going to have 1.78 units of horizontal FoV, instead of 1.5 units. So, for the same compression Kubrick wants on his 105mm on 36x24mm film, I need an 88.5mm lens for my 36x20mm sensor. I have a 90mm and it's my preferred portrait lens, so, close enough

    If you're shooting 1.85:1, it's an 85mm. And if you're shooting 2.4:1, it's a 65mm.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •