Large Format SLR or View Camera???

[njrfoto]

Hi Apug'ers!

Since my last post regarding lenses, I have been in turmoil over my latest road into LF portraiture.

I recently acquired a beautiful example of a Graflex Super D with a 190mm Kodak Ektar lens, which I thought was the way I wanted to go in shooting wet plate portrait work. But in the time Ive had the camera, been using it in various ways, shooting various subject matter, I find it more limiting than I every found my sinar nearly a decade ago! I thought if I managed to get my hands on the Petzval lens I was after to use with the Graflex it may change the way I feel about it, but at this juncture I just feel that it would be money wasted and would deprive someone else of a lens and camera which could be put to its full use...

For me, shooting with the Graflex is just like shooting with my Hasselblad, but using the Hassie with its waist level viewfinder is not as restrictive as the Graflex because of the massive size difference between both those cameras. Years ago, I used my an old handed down sinar, which was in a bad way when I got it, but at that time I wanted more portable, agile field equipment due to the work I was doing at the time, so I continued the tradition and passed it on to another avid photographer. I used to think "wow - this LF view camera on its tripod is very restrictive" but in fact, the things I once hated about the sinar I now feel about the Graflex. For the body of work and projects I am embarking on this year alone I feel a Sinar (or the like) would be far better suited to my needs when Im in the studio or out in the field with my (soon to be built) darkbox than the Graflex would...

The more Ive dwelt on it and thought it thru, I'm sure I want to part with the portability of the Graflex for the static and precise nature of a Sinar Norma setup with a Symmar lens (or something similar), but what do you guys think? Does anyone have any strong opinions of the whole SLR Large Format cameras vs the conventional View Cameras?

--- This is only in regards to portraiture (wet plate portraiture to be precise) I must strongly reinstate - i know each camera can have specific functionality for certain tasks so this is only in regard to portraits ---

Look forward to hearing from y'all.

Nathan

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a Graflex Model D and a Pacemaker Speed Graphic. Each has their own features and advantages. The Speed Graphic is faster for hand held photography and use as a view camera. The Graflex is more of a portrait camera and allow me to use barrel lenses without a tripod.

 

[Paul Howell]

For portraits in large format I use a crown, I focus with the ground back or rangefinder, usually the ground back with a loupe, then use the wire sports finder to pose the subject before snapping the shutter. When using a 210 I use red string to mask the sports finder.

 

[EdSawyer]

I am not sure how wetplate factors in, but I find handheld to be a great advantage when doing large-format portraits. Thus a speed or crown are quite useful but an RB SuperD is also a good choice too.

 

[removed account4]

i have and use a graflex series D (rb) for portraits and a lot of other stuff ( since the mid 1990s ).
i'd rather shoot portraits with it than most everything else i have. i don't do wet plate, but dry ones ..
so i really can't speak to your specifics. i dont' have a sinar either but a toyo and a pacemaker speed graphic
that i use for 4x5 portraits ... so my suggestions don't really jive with your situation.
my only suggestion is that if you don't like low angle portraits / the camera is waist level
put it on a tall tripod ( i sometimes use a tiltall and stand on a stool , maybe i wouldn't if i was like 6 feet tall )
sometimes waist level is good for non-close portraits but head and shoulders &c a tripod or higher angle is nice
i will also suggest that you expose about 100+ sheets of film with it before you give up on it completely.
you might end up liking it more than you think !

good luck !

 

[Ian Grant]

Why don't you just look for an old British wood & brass field camera, I've just bought a12x10 for £52 ($75, it'll need a little work but less than £20 in costs. Ideally I want a dedicated lens but I can use my 12" Dagor with it

Half plate field cameras are two a penny here in the UK and maybe a better size for Wet plate, holders can be quite cheap as well. I'm part way through restoring a few destroyed by Wet place use

Ian

 

[njrfoto]

Why don't you just look for an old British wood & brass field camera, I've just bought a12x10 for £52 ($75, it'll need a little work but less than £20 in costs. Ideally I want a dedicated lens but I can use my 12" Dagor with it

Half plate field cameras are two a penny here in the UK and maybe a better size for Wet plate, holders can be quite cheap as well. I'm part way through restoring a few destroyed by Wet place use

Ian

Good shout Ian - I may look into those... (though the apparent lack of movements deters me)

Thank you all for your feedback, I will most certainly continue using and experimenting with my way of shooting with the Graflex until I find a suiteable replacement, at which point I will make a final decision!

 

[tessar]

Like jnanian, I like a Graflex SLR for LF portraits because I find it easier and faster to set up than my 4x5 Graphic (when using groundglass for focusing) and I like the reflex viewing. But that's just me.

 

[ransel]

By todays "standards" the Graflex SLR is far from hand-held portable - but - just a few modifications make it a bit easier. I did this to mine which made it easier for me to focus and, while not any more portable, I am no longer concerned that I will drop it.

 

[Ian Grant]

Here in the UK a (Marion/Kershaw) Soho Reflex has movements unlike the Graflex SLR cameras. Rise, fall, swing and tilt, mine came with an 8" Cooke Series II lens.

Ian