Do I have this right? Let's see, the distance between the knots increases by a factor of 1.414? Never having had a recurrent task to perform, I've always been doomed to rely on a tape measure.
String with knots... yep... old studio trick... shhh !
But you can't use just any string !
(seriously, no bonus points for anything that stretches !)
My concern is that 8x10, suits a much different style and aesthetic than I'm used to. And thinking about the ultra sharp clarity of LF it seems you'd have to have a different approach to fashion photography, like it'd be more about the clarity and focus of the image rather than the shapes.
anyways does anybody have experience or suggestions about fashion shooting on 8x10 - notable photographers? BTW I don't like Dave Lachapelle or Gregory Crewdson style -- so just a heads up.
thanks
What Ian said. While the West Coast school of large format emphacized sharpness and clarity, that's a style which large format was capable of facilitating. That's not what large format forces you to do. In fact, using large format equipment is arguably the most versatile means of producing a photograph. You can literally do things with LF that you can't do with other types of equipment, or can only do with great difficulty.
If you want selective focus, imagine how much easier it will be defining what's in focus and what isn't with a 4x5 inch or 8x10 inch viewing screen, instead of a small reflex viewfinder, or a 2" LCD screen. You have access to the widest variety of lenses -- even ancient lenses from the earliest days of photography, with all their weird and wonderful optical "defects" can still be used. You can make your own lenses from simple optical elements, cardboard tubing, and duct tape. You can do, almost literally, anything you want. Check out Jim Galli's website, for example, for examples of large format photographs which use the optical abberations of old lenses for definitely non-sharp pictures.
What large format doesn't do well is fast photography -- if you can't imagine a portrait session without a motor drive, you're in for a shock. If you need to make 256 pictures in order to later select the six you really wanted, large format is going to frustrate you. Large format is deliberate, structured (in the operation of the camera, anyway,) and organization pays big dividends. You really ought to try it, if for no other reason than to know from personal experience what it's like. I'm betting that if you can get past the mechanics of using the camera, you're going to really like the tonality a large negative provides, even more than whatever degree of sharpness you're looking for. Just remember that large format is a very deep well -- because it's so versatile, there's always more you can do with it.
Mike
Do I have this right? Let's see, the distance between the knots increases by a factor of 1.414? Never having had a recurrent task to perform, I've always been doomed to rely on a tape measure.
Personally I think the main driver of format should be what you want as a result. One of the problems photographers have, is that they often look for the universal format, but there isn't one. Just like a carpenter may have 5 different saws, the photographer really should have multiple cameras in different formats. They may then have an 8x10 on a big wood tripod, a 4x5 on a smaller tripod or hand held, a 120 roll film camera and a 35mm or digital SLR. They may and probably should switch between those cameras to get what they want for a particular image, rather then limit themselves to what the camera is capable of.
Yes an 8x10 camera is a wonderful device, I wouldn't want to do a 2 week long kayak ride hauling a 25lb camera and tripod around though, although I would like a relatively lighter folding 4x5 field camera though, using that and a 35mm or DSLR would give you the best of both worlds, use the 4x5 when you have time to set it up and the SLR when you don't. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some photographers wouldn't simply take a shot with the 4x5 and a DSLR version from the same vantage point to get both.
You make it sound as though I was advocating '8x10 or bust'. I didn't think I said that; I surely didn't mean anything of that nature. The original point was that a view camera doesn't 'force' a photographer into any particular style: you can have sharp, fuzzy, or anything. They're versatile. And I also specifially said there were some things view cameras don't do well, and gave a couple of examples. Encyclopedic? No, nor encyclopedic in length.
One thing, though: you said that you wouldn't be surprised to see some folks take a shot with their 4x5 and then the same shot with a DSLR. I've been thinking about that and, for the life of me, can't figure out why I would want to do that. It sounds like a bad solution to not being able to make up one's mind, although I suppose that it's a natural extension of the conceptual need to have cameras in every possible format. After all, if you might need them then I suppose that you really ought to take all of them along with you when you're out photographing. What if you didn't have one and missed something?
Mike
About the string trick, you can get a small electronic laser rangefinder for about ~$30 from Sonin.
http://www.opticsplanet.net/sonin-laser-targeting-rangefinder.html
I am currently rigging one on a hot shoe to do scale focusing. You don't want to shine the thing in someone's eyes, but.... you get very precise distance measurements from ~2-60 ft , with no strings attached
lol
Dude, nobody's forcing you to use any gadgetsI sometimes like to shoot with wooden boxes too! My two favourite cameras are from 1903!
Anyway... your proposed workflow is much too laborious. For my purposes it's more like this: Point the camera at a subject, pop the beam quickly on the subject to get the distance, set that distance on the lens, and fire. Waistlevel composition is optional.
Or simply use the distance meter to decide on optimal DOF settings.
So... no fine composing through a VF or GG, no stopping down, no close or cocking of shutters, no pulling of slides, and no model getting blasted with a laser! :rolleyes:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?