umphotography wrote in post #18467761
Wilt and Lenty007
I hated film because I could never figure out all the ration stuff and math. If you knew how much I spent with test shots in the film days
Love it when the viewfinder came to photography. If I can see it, i can figure it out
Wilt I am constantly amazed with your technical expertise.
There is little 'technical' about what I've posted in this thread!
- 8x10" print... 10" / 8" = 1.25, so its aspect ratio is 1.25:1, the relative size of the long side-to-One
- 135 frame is 36mm x 24mm, 36mm / 24mm = 1.5, so its relative aspect ratio of 1.5:1
So if I want to fit 6.75' tall area around subject into 10" print, then I would capture 5.4' horizontally in the 8" width (6.75' / 1.25 = 5.4')
Using a tool on the web (and not any fancy equations), if shooting with 300mm lens I need to have the camera 68' away to capture 5.4' in the 135 frame's width.
A little bit a arithmetic, a little use of a web program, but nothing technical.
When shooting for decades with film, I never bothered with these computations...the web did not exist for me to consult useful programs!
I used to simply shoot with the need to cut off part of the tall 135 frame in mind, then go to the darkroom and fit the subject onto the easel set for 8x10" paper, and expose the paper.
But when someone needs to hear about the downsides of trying to shoot full length standing shots with 300mm, I can compute (easily, as above) the ridiculous shooting distances 'for portraiture' with an amateur model.