8x10 questions

[Paul Ozzello]

Hello,

I want to use an 8x10 camera for an upcoming studio project, but know very little about the equipement available. All images will be full length color portraits ranging from 1 to 8 people per portrait. I don't think I'll need much in terms of camera movements, so a 'basic' camera would do, as long as the lenses are high quality.

Can someone please recommend something affordable?
What kind of lenses would I need?
Can polaroid film be used to check exposure and composition?


Paul

 

[roteague]

Hello,

I want to use an 8x10 camera for an upcoming studio project, but know very little about the equipement available. All images will be full length color portraits ranging from 1 to 8 people per portrait. I don't think I'll need much in terms of camera movements, so a 'basic' camera would do, as long as the lenses are high quality.

Can someone please recommend something affordable?
What kind of lenses would I need?
Can polaroid film be used to check exposure and composition?


Paul

Why do you want to use an 8x10 as opposed to a 4x5? You can buy a good 4x5 for a reasonable price, the difference in quality between the two is not noticeable to most people. I use poloraroid for checking exposure and composition, but not in a studio environment.

 

[mikewhi]

How about renting one if you have such a company nearby? Do you really want 8x10 for portraits? The detail can be brutally honest! If you must have 8x10, be sure to use soft lighting. If you have no 8x10 gear, don't forget you'll need holders, dark cloth, focusing loupe, LENS (a 'portrait'\soft focus lens would be nice) with shutter, tripod, tripod head.

I've never done retnal before, but I wonder if you can rent via the mail? Would require a substantial deposit, I'm sure but it may be possible. Anyone know for sure?

-Mike

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Where are you located? If you're in or near a major city, you can likely rent an 8x10" setup if it's just for one shoot.

There is 8x10" Polaroid, but price out the film at bhphoto.com before you decide whether you want to do it. Cost per exposure isn't cheap (and neither is regular 8x10" color film).

What lenses you need will depend on the look you are after and the focal length you want. If you're planning to shoot at a small aperture so everything is sharp, then really any lens that covers the format made since the 1960s will do (make sure you've got lots of light). If you like selective focus and short DOF, then you might start thinking about what lenses render out of focus areas more smoothly, and you might even look at more classic lenses.

To get an idea of what's out there, take a look at lfphoto.info and the articles at www.viewcamera.com for advice on getting into LF and on some of the different cameras that are out there.

 

[John Kasaian]

A Burk and James, Kodak D2 woodie, or a Calumet "green monster" would probably work quite nicely and cost less than $500---quite a bit less if you have the luxury of time to shop around for a good example. For a lens take a look at the 240 G Claron(razor sharp) 12" Commercial Ektar (good and sharp) or 12" Wollensak Velostigmat (sharp to warm and fuzzy feeling) all three lenses are excellent and IMHO bargains Probably not as cheap but certainly desireable and worth looking for would be 10"-12" Dagors. While affordable 8x10 equipment is out there, I find it takes time---sometimes a lot of time---to come across something you feel is in good enough condition to add to your kit(lots of it is old and well used---8x10 is usually regarded as a "professional" format and the gear was well employed into the 70's. If you don't have the time, its probably better to rent the stuff!

 

[Mongo]

You've given too few details for any of us to give you a good "full" answer, although some of the information you've gotten in the previous responses is valuable.

If this is for one project only and the project will only take a few hours or days, then it makes little sense to buy if you can rent (or even borrow?) the equipment.

If you must buy, what is your definition of "affordable"? With patience and a little luck you can get a good 8x10 camera and lens for under $750...with more patience and more luck you might even crack $500. (Film and processing costs are going to eat you alive regardless of how good of a deal you find if you're shooting color.)

As to what type of lens you'll need...that depends on how big the studio is and how you intend to set up the subject(s). If you're familiar with 35mm, you can get a reasonable approximation of what lens(es) will approximate the field of view of your favorite 35mm lenses by multiplying the focal length by 6. (For example, 50mm is "normal" with 35mm and 300mm is "normal" with 8x10.) Remember, thought, that depth of field is based on the focal length of the lens and the aperture only and has nothing to do with film size, so a 300mm lens on an 8x10 at f/8 will give you much less depth of field than a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera at f/8...the dof will be the same as a 300mm lens on the 35mm camera at f/8.

There is a lot of information in an 8x10 negative. For portraiture, I'd avoid razor-sharp lenses and go with something a little softer. Older lenses rather than newer lenses (as long as the shutters are reliable). Another consideration is how big you intend to print...if you're only doing contact printing than almost anything that will focus will be good enough, but if you're planning on printing 8x10 feet then you'll need something with more quality.

Polaroid for 8x10 is very expensive...if this is a one-shot project I'd probably go with bracketing exposures to make sure I got the exposure I wanted. Checking the composition is pretty easy on an 8x10 ground glass. With 8x10 I'd probably only shoot Polaroid if a client insisted that I "prove" I had it right before the final shot was taken.

Anyhow, share some more details of your project if you'd like and we may be able to give you more specific help. Good luck with your project!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you're worried about exposure, there's really no need to bracket in the studio. Run tests before the real shoot and have them processed in advance.

 

[rbarker]

If you're worried about exposure, there's really no need to bracket in the studio. Run tests before the real shoot and have them processed in advance.

That's good to get in the ball park, but not 100% reliable. McMurtry's addendum to Flannigan's corollary to Murphy's Law states that variables will change at the least opportune moment.

Besides, an 8x10 Polaroid can be a thing of beauty in its own right. But, it takes a lot of them to know how to interpret what the film will look like. ;-)
Dead Link Removed

 

[raucousimages]

I shoot portraits in 8x10 and I love it even with my brutal razor sharp lenses but my soft focus imagon is much more forgiving, depends on the subject. The 8x10 can be a real beast to use first time. I shot a lot of film and practiced with the movements before I shot a customer. If you have never used 8x10 or large format at all practice first or have help from someone who knows LF. If you know LF moving up to 8x10 is not to bad. Go for it, Good luck.

 

[Dave Parker]

There was a member advertising a 8 x 10 Calumet Green last night for if I remember right for something like $350.00 and he claimed it was in pretty good shape.

Dave Parker
Ground Glass Specialties

 

[Mongo]

Dave-

I think you mean this post:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If so, the pic on his page is of the Green Monster, but in the description he says he's actually selling the Black Beast. Since Paul's only interested in doing studio work, the few extra pounds between the two cameras shouldn't make much difference.

(Paul: The "Green Monster" and the "Black Beast" are two different versions of the Calumet C1 8x10 view camera. They're named for the paint that was used on them. Originally machined from magnesium, the story is told that the company was forced to change to aluminum after a visit from the fire marshal. There are a few green-painted aluminum cameras around, so green-ness is no guarantee of a magnesium camera, but all black cameras are aluminum. The magnesium cameras weighed in at around 13.5 pounds, and the aluminum cameras at around 17 pounds. Should you go this route and decide to purchase the camera being sold by Isaac, I'd be interested in buying the two reducing backs from you if you don't need them...he's selling it with 8x10, 5x7, and 4x5 backs. I have a Green Monster, but I only have the 8x10 back for it. This might be a way for you to get into an 8x10 for significantly less than $350 for the camera.)

 

[Dave Parker]

Opps, I did not really read the description as I am not really in the market for and 8x10 right now, I just remember seeing that it was a pretty reasonable price point for that size camera, Now reading through is a bit better, if description is good, it sounds like a good buy for what your describing you are looking to do.

Dave Parker
Ground Glass Specialties

 

[jimgalli]

I concur that the Calumet C1 in either black or green version would be a fine place to begin. And the Orbit 375 lens would be ideal for the work mentioned. The 375mm lens is the same as the Caltar 6.3. Tessar type made by Ilex. The old Acme 5 shutter should have a workable flash sync but you'll likely have to make an adapter for the 2 pin old fashioned style to a modern pc socket. We're talking about 22 or so pounds here, so the tripod that holds the RB may not be up to the task. The old C1 is not sexy but IMHO gives tremendous bang for the buck. Very useable, especially in studio.

 

[isaacc7]

Wow, I'm glad people saw my website Yeah, the C-1 is a great place to start, that's what I did with it. Many people talk about the weight of these things, but I also like to point out how small they fold up, it's astonishing really. I use it on a Reis j100 I think and I didn't have any stability problems inside. I only ever took test shots outside, but my guess is that I'd want a little larger tripod if i was going to deal with wind, etc. If i were to keep this rig, the only camera thing I'd try to do is rig up some sort of anti-twist solution. Since this is a rear focused camera, it is easy to bump into the rails as you're focusing. If you've got significant bellows draw, the leverage on the screw is too much, and It'll loosen up. Never had the thing come close to coming off, but I did get surprised a couple of times with it getting loose. I'm hoping to replace this with a Horseman monorail, that way I can use the same lenses and accessories with 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 and I can make the entire camera smaller as I need to. I'm having fun right now with a Sinar shutter and a handful of lenses in barrel. Let me know if you have any questions...

Isaac

 

[Mongo]

Isaac-

I have the green version of the C1, and I'm surprised to hear you say that you've had problems with your C1 loosening up with the bellows extended. I used mine with the bellows racked way out lots of times with no such issues. I'm lucky to be tall enough that the rear-only focusing hasn't prestented me with a problem. One great things about the C1: Put it on a stable tripod (I use a Berlebach) and it's gotta' be the most stable outdoor camera there is. It would take a signficant blast of wind to move this beast.

My only question for you is if you're willing to part out the 5x7 and 4x5 reducing backs. I have a GG that should fit the 4x5, and would love to have the option of shooting all three sizes with one camera body.

Be well.
Dave

p.s. Sorry for the highjacking of the thread.

 

[isaacc7]

Isaac-

I have the green version of the C1, and I'm surprised to hear you say that you've had problems with your C1 loosening up with the bellows extended. I used mine with the bellows racked way out lots of times with no such issues. I'm lucky to be tall enough that the rear-only focusing hasn't prestented me with a problem. One great things about the C1: Put it on a stable tripod (I use a Berlebach) and it's gotta' be the most stable outdoor camera there is. It would take a signficant blast of wind to move this beast.

No no, the camera itself is fine. It is indeed a tank. My (occasional) problem was the entire thing *rotating* on the tripod, hence my idea of some sort of anti-twist mechanism. Sorry if that wasn't clearer...

only question for you is if you're willing to part out the 5x7 and 4x5 reducing backs. I have a GG that should fit the 4x5, and would love to have the option of shooting all three sizes with one camera body.

Be well.
Dave

p.s. Sorry for the highjacking of the thread.

Well, for right now I'll want to keep everything together, it's a much more attractive package that way, but I'll keep your offer in mind, thanks...

Isaac

 

[Paul Ozzello]

I hadn't considered the depth of field issue, I've always calculated dof using the hyperfocal distance markers on MF lenses. A 300 won't give much latitude unless I stop down to f45, and with such a small aperture, I'll probably need some very powerful lights. This is personal project, and I don't have a client. My target size is 40"x50", that's why I'm leaning towards 8x10. The shots are not real portraits, but pictures of people posing together in difference 'staged' scenes, so the grittier the detail, the better. How much depth of field can I expect from a 300? Would a 4x5 hold up at this size?

 

[rbarker]

As to lens choice, Paul, you may also want to consider the dimensions of the space you'll be shooting in, and how that relates to the angle of view of the lens, etc. For example, to fit a 6' tall person onto the 8x10 image in landscape orientation with a 300mm lens, you'd need about 12' between camera and subject. (A 150mm lens on 4x5 would be about the same.) If your space is more confined, you'd need a shorter focal length that would still cover the negative size.

I have a DOF calculator on my site at Dead Link Removed that you can use for figuring your DOF vs. f-stop/lighting. At the 12' distance with the 300mm lens on 8x10, you'd have about 2½' of DOF at f/16, a reasonable f-stop for most lighting kits.

As to the 40"x50" prints, that would represent a 10x enlargement from 4x5, which would be reasonable - expecially considering that you mentioned wanting a "gritty" look. You may also have an easier time getting the 4x5 negative enlarged, as many labs won't have an 8x10 enlarger.

 

[isaacc7]

As to the 40"x50" prints, that would represent a 10x enlargement from 4x5, which would be reasonable - expecially considering that you mentioned wanting a "gritty" look. You may also have an easier time getting the 4x5 negative enlarged, as many labs won't have an 8x10 enlarger.

I think it would be quite a bit larger than ten times. You're just multiplying the linear dimensions, what you need to do is to look at the area. How many 4x5 negs will fit on a piece of 8x10 paper? By your calculations, only 2 would fit. An 8x10 print is 4 times larger than the 4x5 negative, so it is a 4 times enlargement. 40"x50" is a 2000 square inch print, divide that by 20 square inches and you get a 100 times enlargement. Compare that to an 80 square inch neg and a 25 times enlargement and I think you'll agree that the 8x10 format has a huge advantage...

Isaac

 

[rbarker]

. . . and I think you'll agree that the 8x10 format has a huge advantage...

Isaac

Isaac - I'm not suggesting that 8x10 wouldn't be a significant advantage, only that a 4x5 might fit the parameters Paul has outlined, and likely would be far easier from which to get prints made.

Similarly, I don't dispute your area comparison. The enlargement factor I'm most familiar with, however, relates to the linear measure. Thus, an 8x10 print from 35mm would typically be considered an 8x enlargement, an 11x14 an 11x enlargement, and so forth. Thus, within that context, I think a 10x (linear) enlargement from 4x5 would be reasonable based on Paul's parameters.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Ralph,

One scene will include a row of people standing, with a row of people sitting in chairs in front. There will also be a few 'props' in the background. I don't think 2.5 ft of dof will do. Since the angle of coverage between a 300 (8x10) equals a 50 (35mm), can I determine the distance from camera to subject using the 50, then do my calculations?

Paul

 

[isaacc7]

Similarly, I don't dispute your area comparison. The enlargement factor I'm most familiar with, however, relates to the linear measure. Thus, an 8x10 print from 35mm would typically be considered an 8x enlargement, an 11x14 an 11x enlargement, and so forth. Thus, within that context, I think a 10x (linear) enlargement from 4x5 would be reasonable based on Paul's parameters.

Not to be pedantic, but I'm not sure what taking a "linear" multiplication of the print edge measurements amounts to other than the edges multiplied by some number. Is there any useful information being conveyed by dividing the edges of a print by the original negative length? Usually the only reason to worry about how many times a neg will be enlarged is to figure out how much grain will be evident in the final print and what kind of details will be revealed. Since a 40"x50" print is 100 times larger than a 4"x5" neg, I'd expect the grain to be 100 times larger as well. This may still work OK depending on how far away the viewers will be from the print, but there's a lot less wiggle room as compared to a larger neg. I would strongly suggest at least a 5x7 neg if he wants viewers to be able to be close to the print and not have noticable grain. If grain isn't a big deal, then all bets are off and a 4x5 neg might just do the trick

Isaac

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Generally photographers use linear values when talking about magnification or enlargement. It's important to be aware that this doesn't represent magnification in area, but for the sake of convention, understanding the relation between magnification and exposure as it's typically expressed, etc. I think it's useful to use the convention of linear values.

Can you do this with 4x5? Yes. Modern films are pretty good, and even with not so modern films, all the faces will be recognizable and the grain won't be too bad at 40x50. Here's an image shot from about 40 feet (across a street) at f:8 that represents about 4" x 1.25 " or so crop of a 4x5" negative. I was using a GVI Vari-Strobe with a plain reflector and 200 Watt-seconds from a Norman 200C, Efke 100 at EI 200 in Acufine, handheld. All the faces are legible--

I wanted a gritty Weegee-esque effect, but if you wanted it smooth, you could do it with softer lighting and a film like T-Max 100, or even the same film but not pushed.

You can also do it with 8x10", as photographers once did this with even larger banquet cameras, and it will be even better, but you're going to need a lot of light to get the DOF you want at f:45 or 64 (don't worry about diffraction--this is a much less significant factor than inadequate DOF).

 

[rbarker]

. . .can I determine the distance from camera to subject using the 50, then do my calculations?

Paul

Using a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera may be misleading because of the difference in aspect ratio, Paul. But if you can mentally crop what's in the viewfinder, it might be useful for a rough guide. The more precise method would be to measure the space, as well as how large of an area you'll be using as a set, how big you want that space to be on the negative, and then plug those numbers into the focal-length/magnification formula to work back to the needed focal length. With a shorter/wider lens (e.g. a 240mm G-Claron on 8x10), you can always move the camera closer. Backing up through a wall, however, often presents more of a challenge.

You can find various formulas to calculate these things in the Lens Tutorial article at:

http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial

The shareware Palm program f/calc is also handy.

Another simple approach to determining the desired focal length would be to use a
Dead Link Removed , where the opening is the negative size, and the knots are tied at the focal-length distance from the card. Hold the knot to your cheek, close the opposite eye, and look through the opening. What you see is what the film would see using a lens of that focal length. A cloth measuring tape can be substituted for the cord, and used in the same manner. This approach might be the easiest.

I think I'd work backwards in the process to help determine your best format choice. If you determine how your prints are going to be made, and what enlarging equipment is available there, you'll have a better handle on what your practical options are.

You can also use the DOF calculator I mentioned earlier to balance between the DOF you need, and the finite output of the lights you'll be using. For example, assuming that you be using studio-style electronic flash units (perhaps rented for the purpose), set them up as you would for the shot, set them to maximum output, and take a flash reading. If you get a reading of f/16 for ISO 100 film, you can use that as-is, or adjusted for a faster film, to figure the DOF you need. (Remember, with electronic flash, only the f-stop controls the actual exposure.)

For the group shot you mention, for example, having about 4 ½ feet of DOF would be handy. Using the same 12' shooting distance, and an f-stop of f/16 with ISO 100 film, the 240mm lens would give you that DOF, but the framing would be considerably looser than with the 300mm lens. To get enough DOF with the 300mm lens, you'd have to switch to an ISO 400 film. (Although you can build up exposure with multiple "pops" of the flash, doing so isn't practical with people, as they are likely to move between pops.)

 

[isaacc7]

Generally photographers use linear values when talking about magnification or enlargement. It's important to be aware that this doesn't represent magnification in area, but for the sake of convention, understanding the relation between magnification and exposure as it's typically expressed, etc. I think it's useful to use the convention of linear values.

Hmmm, I'm intrigued, what is the relation of magnification and exposure you mention? The only thing that I had heard about like that is the old inverse square law, in both shooting and enlarging. That's obviously not linear. Could you elaborate on this idea?

Can you do this with 4x5? Yes. Modern films are pretty good, and even with not so modern films, all the faces will be recognizable and the grain won't be too bad at 40x50. Here's an image shot from about 40 feet (across a street) at f:8 that represents about 4" x 1.25 " or so crop of a 4x5" negative. I was using a GVI Vari-Strobe with a plain reflector and 200 Watt-seconds from a Norman 200C, Efke 100 at EI 200 in Acufine, handheld. All the faces are legible--

I wanted a gritty Weegee-esque effect, but if you wanted it smooth, you could do it with softer lighting and a film like T-Max 100, or even the same film but not pushed.

You can also do it with 8x10", as photographers once did this with even larger banquet cameras, and it will be even better, but you're going to need a lot of light to get the DOF you want at f:45 or 64 (don't worry about diffraction--this is a much less significant factor than inadequate DOF).

I agree in general with this assessment. Really all my previous post said was that there would be less grain if you used 8x10 (duh, I win the obvious award!). There are certainly more challenges if you will be lighting it yourself and so smaller formats become more appealing. Use a current print as a reference for how much grain you can tolerate at a given distance and then calculate what format you'd have to use to get the same graininess with the same emulsion from there. I'd recommend the square inch method if you want an accurate idea of how much grain you'd get.

Isaac