[mattt]

Hi folks

Yousuf Karsh was a large format portrait photographer. He was based out of Ottawa - though travelled extensively to shoot the many persona of his subject matter - 20 of which graced the cover of Life magazine.

No where can I find what focal length he shot with.

If you're passionate about portrait photography, and have insight into his kit, I'd love to know.

Please share!

[pschlute]

No idea about the equipment, but my favourite portrait produced by this master of his art was the one he did of Pablo Casals, the famous cellist.

Taken from behind and above the musician, it is a picture I can never stop looking at.......

[photoptimist]

Here you go:

Calumet Mfg. Co. View Camera | Ingenium

(It seems to have been a 14" focal length on an 8x10 Calumet camera which can be replicated by a 42mm lens on standard FF cropped to 4:5 or is equivalent to a 47mm lens based on the diagonal)

[bertwert]

Found this self-portrait on karsh.org, and reverse image searched to find a larger size. I can read on the lens that it's a Kodak Commercial Ektar f/6.3 14in. Hope that helps

[bertwert]

Here you go:

Calumet Mfg. Co. View Camera | Ingenium

(It seems to have been a 14" focal length on an 8x10 Calumet camera which can be replicated by a 42mm lens on standard FF cropped to 4:5 or is equivalent to a 47mm lens based on the diagonal)

Looks like you just beat me to it... well, it's always good to have multiple sources

[photoptimist]

Looks like you just beat me to it... well, it's always good to have multiple sources

LOL! Indeed!

I, too, found that self-portrait but you had the clever idea to reverse-search it!

Cheers!

[mattt]

Well well done! I found the photo, but not in any size / resolution to be able to read. I even sent a note to Archives Canada about one of the images the have listed.

Thanks for your help!

[kaseki]

14 inches : 10 inches === 84mm : 60mm (645 film width). As this is shorter than what are commonly thought of as portrait lens focal lengths for the 645 camera, perhaps Karsh wanted the effect of being closer to the subject, or at least achieve a less flat face.

But there is another possibility that I'm curious about: Was it common for view camera pros to carry a wide range of focal length lenses? Did telephoto/zoom or other complex designs become part of the standard kit? (I've never actually seen any.) Or were the lens options significantly limited?

[PDL]

Here you go:

Calumet Mfg. Co. View Camera | Ingenium

(It seems to have been a 14" focal length on an 8x10 Calumet camera which can be replicated by a 42mm lens on standard FF cropped to 4:5 or is equivalent to a 47mm lens based on the diagonal)

I have my fathers Calumet 4x5 monorail.

Now if could just find the "roundtoit" to use it. (I have the film and 4x5 development tank - just no where to develop the negatives -- I have a septic tank so heavy metal poisoning in the back yard is really not the best thing to do)

---------- Post added 05-27-20 at 01:06 PM ----------

Found this self-portrait on karsh.org, and reverse image searched to find a larger size. I can read on the lens that it's a Kodak Commercial Ektar f/6.3 14in. Hope that helps

Selfie with a 8x10 - take that Apple!!!

[Wasp]

From an era when real photographers used sheet film. None of that new-fangled roll film 120 or 35mm nonsense, heaven forbid. A lightweight camera was a 4x5 but 8x10 was where it was at. Actually, real photographers still do 8x10. Digital is for pretenders.

I read an interview with a famous portrait photographer many years ago (when everyone still used film). He strived for a very formal, old fashioned look in his pictures. For that reason he only used a 4x5 camera. Not for the extra resolution, but because the setup placed his subjects in the right frame of mind. One look at the rig and they realized that the portrait session was a very serious affair. The slow process, with the photographer ducking under a cloth to take the picture, must have helped as well. Apparently even a medium frame camera made the subjects relax too much.

[mattt]

Well, Here is a treat!

The Canadian Archives responded to my web inquiry and advised that though they could not inspect the print/negative due to COVID-19 related shut down, they were able to check the records, and identified this item among the equipment held by the Canadian Museum of Science and Technology. Who would have expected such a prompt and informative response from a bureaucratic agency.

the link is to a photo of the shutter, and contains reference to his kit in the details below.

Shutter, camera

[Wasp]

The crop factor for 8x10 is 0.143

Image sensor format - Wikipedia

That means the equivalent of 14" (356mm) f/6.3 lens on full frame would be about 50mm f/0.95. If you want one of those, the nice folks at Nikon will sort you out. You will need a shiny Z7 body to go with it.

[Mistral75]

14 inches : 10 inches === 84mm : 60mm (645 film width). As this is shorter than what are commonly thought of as portrait lens focal lengths for the 645 camera, perhaps Karsh wanted the effect of being closer to the subject, or at least achieve a less flat face.

(...)

The width of 645 film (the image's width) is 56mm, not 60mm. 645 is 41.5mm x 56mm.

If you are looking for a 'width equivalence', a 14-inch lens on a 8x10 Calumet camera is equivalent to a 56 x 1.4 = 78.4mm lens on a 645 camera or a 36 x 1.4 = 50.4mm lens on a 24x36 camera. Definitely a standard focal lens.

[kaseki]

The width of 645 film (the image's width) is 56mm, not 60mm. 645 is 41.5mm x 56mm.

If you are looking for a 'width equivalence', a 14-inch lens on a 8x10 Calumet camera is equivalent to a 56 x 1.4 = 78.4mm lens on a 645 camera or a 36 x 1.4 = 50.4mm lens on a 24x36 camera. Definitely a standard focal lens.

Thanks for the correction; I forgot the film was a tad skinny. I was more interested the basis for his choice of 'perspective' for portraits than choosing a lens from among the many at hand. Maybe it is just a limit on how long the view camera bellows can stretch.