Best Large Fomat for Studio Portraits

[parsonsm]

All,

Just starting some reasearch into this and know the wealth of knoweldge resides here. Am looking for a reasonably priced LF system for studio portraits. Would like to know brands, lens sizes etc.

Probably will look for a 4X5 format back and would also be interested in what film options are available (sheet, roll, etc.) and what I shoud look for in the purchase of a system.

Any input would help,

Thanks,

Mark

 

[bobfowler]

You can use just about ANY camera for studio portraiture, what you LIKE to use is something else entirely. For LF portraits, my favorite format is 5X7, with 8X10 coming up fast behind.

My weapon of choice: at the moment, a Century 4a studio camera, though I'd like a camera with a bit longer bellows draw so that long FL lenses with the 8X10 back wouldn't be such a pain. It's perfect though for 5X7 or 2-up 5X8 on 8X10, or 3/4 length with shorter FL glass on 8X10.

If I was "just" shooting 4X5 for portraiture, I'd look into getting a Graflex Super D or a maybe Gowlandflex 4X5 TLR.

 

[blaze-on]

You might try this site which is dedicated to large format. There's some good info for LF beginners (scroll down main page), and also do a search for what info you want. You'll get gobs of it...and differences of opinion.

http://largeformatphotography.info/

...and welcome to APUG

 

[df cardwell]

8x10: contact print, no need for loupes, easy, plentiful lenses.

As you get into 11x14, one's arms start getting short relative to the lenses...

I get smaller than 8x10 and figure, what the heck and go straight to 35mm.

 

[smieglitz]

My preference is for the 11x14 format. It is the smallest format that you can do a life-size headshot and have it fit on the sheet of film. This format presents problems with more limited lens choices, very shallow depth-of-fied, and for most workers will lead to contact printing only, but that's what I'm into.

My second favorite is 5x7 since it is much smaller and more versatile with greater selection of lenses and accessories. It is not much larger than most 4x5 yet the negatives are really the first size I consider to be adequate for contact prints. 5x7 enlargers are also around and much more practical than 8x10 enlargers and if desired, 4x5 reduction backs are readily available. So, 5x7 easily gives the potential to use the more popular 4x5 format as well.

Because of its in-between nature relative to the above, 8x10 is a poor choice for the type of work I like to do. I also don't care much for that aspect ratio.

4x5 is too small for contacts IMO but lends itself to easy enlarging. There exists a huge variety in films, lenses and other gear available for the format in reasonable prices compared to larger formats. But for me, that aspect ratio and especially the fact that I need to enlarge the images kills my interest in such a format. YMMV.

16x20 exaggerates the problems associated with 11x14 (small depth of field, $$$, etc.) and it also has that darn 4x5 aspect ratio so for me it is not a desired choice. I think if I went larger, I would go to 14x17 instead. It is a squarer format but I like the aspect ratio better than the 4x5 one.

I'd also second Bob's recommendation of a Graflex SLR or Gowlandflex TLR if your only interest is in portraiture.

Joe

 

[jimgalli]

I wish I had a studio. Maybe someday. Wait for a Kodak 9A or 10A Century with 8X10 back and the Century Stand. Those cameras have about 36" bellows draw for doing full heads with 16-18" portrait lenses. The Century stands are a 3 wheeled affair that raise and lower and get rolled where you need to be. Wonderful to use. The bed has a crank to tilt down. The big 9a 10a cameras have a front standard that can support any giant brass cannon you're lucky enough to find. And there's a ton of room inside for the big 8 inch packard shutters you need with 18" f4 lenses. Many packards have flash sync. True story, and it's reliable and foolproof. The old timers knew exactly what they were doing!

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) a link to a couple of pics of my Century 11X14 with 22" Voigtlander up front. That's not the stand I've described though. Don't be frightened off by this big stuff. It's surprisingly cheap. Not a very big market for it. And once everything's in place, the rest is easy. You can check some of my (there was a url link here which no longer exists) or my website for several pieces I've written about different large format portrait lenses and their different personalities.

 

[Frank Petronio]

You might also consider the effect of the camera on the subject. Getting photographed by a shakely photographer using a rickety POS camera is not confidence building, while a slick, professional like Timothy Greenfield Saunders or the late Richard Avedon make using a LF camera seem very natural and inspoire confidence in their subjects. So your camera's solidity and a professional appearance count for something.

 

[Struan Gray]

Except that the photos of Avedon's last shoot, that of Gulf War soldiers, clearly show a rail with a distinct bend, held together with gaffer's tape.

 

[rbarker]

Mark - there is a wide range of issues to consider for LF studio portraiture. Which equipment combo is right for you depends, I think, on how you see subjects (your portraiture style) and what size and type of prints you want to produce. Oh, and budget may play a role, too.

If you need to make enlargements of various sizes, 4x5 is probably the most practical film format. 4x5 enlargers are relatively inexpensive, and more plentiful than 5x7 enlargers on the used market. Going 8x10 usually means making contact prints only - unless you have a big budget combined with a big darkroom.

As "jdef" noted, the choices also translate to studio space requirements - particularly if you factor in your portraiture style. For example, my style preference leans toward tighter, head-and-shoulders images. But, I also prefer the perspective provided by greater lens-to-subject distances. That, in turn, translates to using longer focal lengths to fill the frame at the more pleasing lens-to-subject distance, and the longer bellows extension needed for the longer lenses. Thus, I personally lean toward using a lens that is a bit longer than 2x the "normal" focal length on 4x5.

With the limited bellows extension of a 4x5 field camera (a Toyo 45AX in my case), I could get by with a Nikkor 360T (telephoto design) lens within the space I had in the studio at my previous house, which allowed me about 12' or so between camera and subject. (Telephoto designs require less bellows extension than conventional lenses.)

The "classic" LF portrait lenses (somewhat soft and "glowy"), however, tend to be only slightly long for the format size for which they were designed. Thus, I lean toward using more modern lenses that fit the physical constraints of my gear, and then use filtration to achieve the softer image when I want it.

After I added an 8x10 field camera to my kit, another option is now available to me. I can shoot 8x10 using a lens closer to "normal" focal length, or I can use a 4x5 reducing back on the 8x10, and take advantage of the longer bellows on the 8x10. (I bought a Tachihara double-extension wood field camera new, as it was the most economical new camera quickly available.) Interestingly, the same Nikkor 360T, while designed to cover 4x5, will actually cover the 8x10 at close distances with my Tachi's bellows racked out almost all the way. At that distance, however, the size of the camera starts getting "intimidating" for the subject.

Bottom line, my suggestion is to think through all of these considerations, playing out the practical considerations in your mind, and then arrive at the solution that is optimal for what you want to do, portraiture-wise, and how that fits with other work you want to do with LF.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

<snip>Going 8x10 usually means making contact prints only - unless you have a big budget combined with a big darkroom. <snip>

While you do need a big darkroom, you don't need that much money. I bought a De Vere 810H enlarger a couple years ago for $400. This is an 8x10 horizontal enlarger that runs on tracks. I've passed up a couple of 8x10 Dursts that I could've had for a few hundred at most. The large companies who used this type of enlarger have gone digital, and many of them have been junked. With a little looking, though, you should still be able to find one in good shape for a reasonable price.

One thing about 8x10, though, is it's very limited depth of field. Either you need lots of light, or your subject has to stay very still. When I use my 8x10 for studio portraits, I usually shoot at F32.

 

[rbarker]

While you do need a big darkroom, you don't need that much money. . . .

I keep listening with envy to these $400 deVere and $500 Durst 8x10 stories, Peter, but I've not seen one pop up on the West Coast in the last few years I've been watching. I came close to scoring a $150 Elwood, but it was so beat up that it was almost unusable. I seem to be suffering from WPWTS (wrong-place/wrong-time syndrome).

I suspect in your area there were more large prepress labs that supported the large printing houses in that region.

I may end up making my own out of a Toyo 8x10 monorail.

 

[John Kasaian]

I'd look into one of those 11x14 Studio Deardorffs that comes on a cast iron stand. Now that would be a fun camera to work with! Stick a Verito, Vitax or a Dagor on the front end and plug in enough Mole Richardson hot lights to brown out Las Vagas---sweet!

 

[John Kasaian]

..Or a 5x7 B and J Rembrant with a Heliar!

 

[waynecrider]

I guess that the short profile under your sname which says, "Shooter: Digital Negs" means that your either involved in shooting digital portraits or do not shoot studio portraits at all and are considering LF film to do so. I think jdef hit it on the head when he said:

LF studio portraiture is in very real danger of disappearing completely. One must have the desire, the ability, and the means, and all at the same time. Very few meet this criteria.

If you have a good trade in portraits now, God bless and carry on; Offer that unusual twist by shooting something large like a 8x10. The very nature of a very large and unusual camera for most sitters in and of itself is an advertisement to further business. This very topic, larger format portraiture, has recently been discussed over in the LF forum and there are pictures there in the thread that some have uploaded. The link provided above will get you there.

But, if you are thinking of going into the portrait business (with LF) having not done studio portraits before, I would say that the pitfalls are many, the expensives excessive, the advertising prohibitive and your late for the seasons rush. In other words, everything is against you. Now I've been down this road before and know what it takes to be profitable. It takes alot of hutzpa. But not knowing exactly where you stand with your digital business I guess, maybe your just looking to expand in another creative way. Can you offer up a little bit more info, so to get some better answers in return, before you leap at the wrong time and in the wrong direction.

 

[rbarker]

Wayne raises an excellent point about whether the intention is to do LF portaiture as a business or as a hobby.

My guess is that there still is a market for high-quality LF portaiture, but only in very selective areas and a very selective clientel. My guess would be, however, that most of that interest is going to be in 8x10 or ULF portraits, and mostly for alternative printing processes, such as platinum/palladium.

Unless one has a hook, and is in the right market area, I think "conventinal" studio portraiture is pretty much dead as a business.

 

[removed account4]

if you want to shoot 4x5 portraits, you might consider getting a 5x7 camera and a 4x5 reducing back. you'll probably want to use a lens that is around twice the "normal" focal length - a 10" or 300mm lens for 4x5, but often times the weight of the lens will be too much for a small front standard of a 4x5 camera.
i like using a 5x7 camera with 14" lenses ... portraits look nice in the long 5x7 format ..

good luck!
john

 

[df cardwell]

The realm of "portraiture" has ALWAYS been a shaky profession. The bad news is that very few people have the interest and means to pay for a photographer to put enough time into a real portrait. The good news is that there are enough in most areas to keep you working, but too few to get rich. But it can be a fine vocation, in the traditional sense of religious calling.

The best LF camera to use is what you have. The very BEST portraitists usually used a plain old anastigmat, be it tessar, dogmar, heliar, whatever. There is never any magic, just simple technique that minimizes gear. As Edw. Weston put it back in 1916, "If I'm thinking about my camera, it's not a portrait !"

/

 

[waynecrider]

Hre's a link to the LF and ULF portrait thread at the LF forum

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503996.html

 

[parsonsm]

First, I want to thank all of you for the input. There is so much to learn about in this format, that I figured this would be a good place to start. Here is a bit more background.

I have a side business doing some portrait work. I am totally digital and have actually never used a film camera in my business. It has been an advanced hobby of mine and I have dabbled in different areas of portraiture for a few years. Lately I find I keep coming back to one or two photographers, in particular Phillip Steward Charis. I visited his studio out in CA, met his wife, got a tour of the studio (which is now for sale). The portraits this guy creates with simple lighting, simple backgrounds and masterful posing have me going crazy. Then I read somewhere that he uses an 8X10 Large Format Camera (Kodak, I think) with a 4X5 reducing back.

Let me tell you that the 30X40 prints (and larger) in his gallery are simply breath taking. Now, I am not expecting to recreate this quality overnight, in fact I never may, but I am passionate about what he has done and would like to do the same.

I was going to travel the MF route first, pick up an RB67 and learn with that, take some nice portraits and see what happens. Then I thought that maybe the best think to do is spend the time in the format that I would like to end in. Maybe this is good, maybe not.

Anyway, half of what you guys have been saying I do not understand so I appreciate the link to the LF primer. So, I am still in the planning and researching stage.

Lastly, I am looking for options to take these types of negatives digital for editing, etc, but have no idea on that as well.

Please keep providing input if you have any, I am enjoying absorbing your knowledge.

Mark

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

My sister and her husband have a Charis portrait. If you haven't already done so, ask to see some of his proofs alongside a final print. Aside from the choice to use large format, lighting, backgrounds and posing, a fair portion of this look comes from retouching work on the negative and the print. Part of the reason to use large format is that the negatives are easier to work on, if you are doing this sort of hand work with dyes on the negative.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

This is MHO, so take it for what it's worth... not much. Find a style that you like and learn it. If it was me I would shoot them on 8x10 b&w and on one lens. I happen to like the 450C Fuji but you might find a different one. It doesn't take much gear to do great portraits... it does take great skill.
In a different thread someone mentioned the site of www.mcnew.net. I took a look and although the subject matter isn't my taste, the photographer (who I don't know and surely haven't met) found a style and made it work.
If I couldn't shoot on 8x10 I would switch to 5x7. If I was going to shoot on 4x5 I would just shoot on the blad instead.
-Rob Skeoch

 

[avandesande]

You have a long road ahead of you. Learning analog photography and LF are daunting tasks on their own. Starting in the large format you want is going to cost you alot of money and time, and you most likely give up before you reach your destination.
I think your idea to start with MF is a sound one, you can get great looking results and professional equipment is cheap now. Many people think MF is the 'goldilocks' format for enlarging.

First, I want to thank all of you for the input. There is so much to learn about in this format, that I figured this would be a good place to start. Here is a bit more background.

I have a side business doing some portrait work. I am totally digital and have actually never used a film camera in my business. It has been an advanced hobby of mine and I have dabbled in different areas of portraiture for a few years. Lately I find I keep coming back to one or two photographers, in particular Phillip Steward Charis. I visited his studio out in CA, met his wife, got a tour of the studio (which is now for sale). The portraits this guy creates with simple lighting, simple backgrounds and masterful posing have me going crazy. Then I read somewhere that he uses an 8X10 Large Format Camera (Kodak, I think) with a 4X5 reducing back.

Let me tell you that the 30X40 prints (and larger) in his gallery are simply breath taking. Now, I am not expecting to recreate this quality overnight, in fact I never may, but I am passionate about what he has done and would like to do the same.

I was going to travel the MF route first, pick up an RB67 and learn with that, take some nice portraits and see what happens. Then I thought that maybe the best think to do is spend the time in the format that I would like to end in. Maybe this is good, maybe not.

Anyway, half of what you guys have been saying I do not understand so I appreciate the link to the LF primer. So, I am still in the planning and researching stage.

Lastly, I am looking for options to take these types of negatives digital for editing, etc, but have no idea on that as well.

Please keep providing input if you have any, I am enjoying absorbing your knowledge.

Mark

 

[127]

I saw a 5'x4' print by Timothy Greenfield-Saunders last year. He shoots 8"x10" colour, and it's totally stunning. If money were no object, and you've got the room then big is better.

I've got a couple of 8x10 contact prints I got from APUG members in the print exchange, and there's no question that if you can handle one of these beasts, they're worth the effort.

However just for fun, I looked up the cost of a sheet of 8"x10" colour film... Even if I could afford the camera I wouldn't be shooting a lot of colour film with it (and thats without the processing costs). I don't think you'll be able to make much of a buisiness when a $200 sitting fee covers the cost of 4 or 5 shots! You certainly don't want to screw any up...

5x4 on the other hand might be no where near as good, but actually it's still pretty fantastic. You can get the equipment for reasonable costs, and if you're prepared to practise with black and white, then the film costs are pretty reasonable. It'll get you started with LF/film, and when you've stopped screwing it up (I'll let you know when I reach this stage!), you'll have found the answers to your questions and be ready to pick something else.

Jumping from 35mm->LF isn't actually that different from digital->LF in terms of the new problems you'll face, so I wouldn't worry about starting with film first - sheet film is a whole different ball game to roll film. 5x4 is probably the only place to start practising.

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've started doing 8x10 lf portraiture - I'm doing strictly b/w, and concentrating on Pt/Pd prints. see
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
for an example (it's a crappy scan with a really old Epson scanner, so forgive the softness and the tonal shift - it doesn't look that yellow in real life). To me, some of the biggest advantages of working with the really large format for portraiture are depth-of-field control, and the interpersonal interaction you get with your subject. I think that the big beast of a camera, and the gyrations you go through when setting it up and preparing to take the photo, actually help put the subject at ease, especially with a stranger. It gives them something to talk with you about, and for those who don't know much about photography, watching someone shoot with an 8x10 is almost comical. I've worked my way up through various formats from 35mm to now 8x10. It isn't easy, but it is possible, and I've found a little success already. As has already been said here, the biggest hurdle for such a business is marketing - finding people who will appreciate large format black-and-white portraits, and have the time and money to support it.

 

[df cardwell]

I knew this guy.

About 1975.

He took over the family portrait studio, he was the third generation. Very traditional, honking great wooden 11x14 on a big old wooden stand. Brass Celor or some such lens.

He had grown up there, sweeping, cleaning, growing up in the business. Loved it, went to Brooks or RIT or someplace like that. Discovered modern cameras. Came home, pretty soon he took over the business.

Rolled the wooden camera into the reception area.

Starting shooting with a 500 EL/M. Brilliant photographer. Business started to sag. Families that had been coming in for years had their pictures done by the kid, and never came back. He was baffled. His work was in the same traditional, classic style, and was a lovely portraitist. People stayed away.

I was there the night he mounted the Hassleblad, with a prism, inside the old wooden camera. Made a wooden lens shade. Took back the old dark cloth he had given to the studio cat. Practised his Grandfather's act, of bumbling and dithering with the camera and the cloth and the whole rigamarole.

Guess what ? Word of mouth brought people back. He took some joshing about the old ways being better after all.

The lesson ? People enjoy the fuss and the bother of a wooden portrait camera. They like the trouble being made over them, the time, and attention.

I'm glad to say the place is now in it's fourth generation. True, there is a dang-blasted digital back on the Hassie. But you can't have everything, and the affection for the old camera remains.

.