Procedures To Shooting Portraits on 8x10

[btaylor]

I don’t think there are rental houses that will rent anything that will look remotely like these lights to the general public. And the low end to buy a similar fixture is like $10k or something.

The old tungsten fresnels are actually incredibly cheap now that the industry has moved on to LEDs. 1 and 2k fixtures are like $100 or less. Not sunlight of course.

In terms of lenses, I bought a 14” Caltar/Ilex in shutter years ago, a copy of the Kodak Commercial Ektar. It was probably half of what the Ektar costs. Very happy with the results. There is one on eBay here

 

[_T_]

The old tungsten fresnels are actually incredibly cheap now that the industry has moved on to LEDs. 1 and 2k fixtures are like $100 or less. Not sunlight of course.

You’re right and those could look pretty similar to the head and shoulders shot op shared.

I think I saw the full body shot on the big white background and went straight to thinking about a big 10k, but that’s not necessary for op’s idea

 

[wiltw]

A 300mm lens on 4x5 is great for head shots but I think you'll find the same lens on 8x10 surprisingly wide. At least that was my experience.
Certainly for long-term, I would look for something around 450mm+.

Due to the large negative size, 400 film works very well, especially for slower lenses, bellows extension, faster shutter speed etc.

Using the short dimension of the image vs. FL as the comparator on the 8x10 short frame dimension of 203.2mm with 300mm FL would prove the same angle of view as 135 format with 36mm FL, which is wide angle. On a head shot that would certainly start to invoke some perspective distortion.

 

[koraks]

You’re right and those could look pretty similar to the head and shoulders shot op shared.

They will. For amusement's sake, I've done a portrait like that a few years ago of a friend who I found photogenic, but moreover, he had a considerable collection of 1-5kW hot lights with fresnels, barn doors etc. That was one HOT room by the time we were done, LOL! He had (probably still does) all this kit because he used to work as a lighting technician for a motion picture production house in the UK, where they did a lot of commercials as well as work for the BBC. Over the years, he built a personal collection of similar hardware that he was used to using on the job, which for him was the benchmark and epitome of cinematic lighting. I've always been more of a strobe guy. Much less sweaty...

I think I saw the full body shot on the big white background and went straight to thinking about a big 10k

Yeah, likely. The group shot would also have been something like 100+kW dumped onto the scene with all sources combined.

Btw, more to the point, I notice how @braxus is referring to head shots, but none of the examples shown is that. This may sound pedantic, but what I'm trying to say is that we may have something in mind that's more of a feeling than a concrete image, so it's worthwhile to critically assess that vision and break it down into concrete aspects and then verify if they do really add up to the feeling you have about the project.

 

[isaac7]

Will you be contact printing? If not you might want to try stopping down and backing off a bit. You can then crop in as needed. That also gives the model a little grace for moving a bit. I did quite a bit with 4x5 and a 210mm lens. Backing off a little also make direction a little easier. I find standing to the side of the camera and directing the model to be a completely different vibe than the typical shoot. I miss having access to a studio and darkroom!

Oh, and strobes are the way to go! Back then I had the luxury of using Polaroids to get the exposure just right. Now you’ll have to be diligent about bellows factor etc.

 

[btaylor]

You’re right and those could look pretty similar to the head and shoulders shot op shared.

I think I saw the full body shot on the big white background and went straight to thinking about a big 10k, but that’s not necessary for op’s idea

Oh, 10k! You would need to rent the jenny too.
Completely off the subject, for some reason I came across a video of one of the Mole-Richardson principles demonstrating striking a carbon arc. The light came with its own power supply- a cargo van containing the generator.

 

[reddesert]

People have alluded to this a couple of times in this thread: perspective is about camera location i.e. distance to the subject, not strictly focal length. And with a format as large as 8x10, you can get into reproduction ratios that sound like "macro" before you expect it.

For example, suppose a headshot or tight head-and-shoulder framing is about an area of 16x20" at the subject. On a 4x5, this is a repro ratio of 1:4, so you need some bellows extension (1/4, so 75mm if your lens is 300mm) and have a little bellows-factor exposure compensation, about 1/2 stop, and your lens-to-subject distance is 4 * 375mm = 1.5 meters. These are at least somewhat manageable (if you have 375mm of bellows).

If you want to take an image of 16x20" subject on 8x10", that's a repro ratio of 1:2. Again with a 300mm lens, now you need 150mm of extension (450mm total bellows), your bellows factor is about 1.1 stops, and your lens to subject distance is 0.9 meters. That's a little too close, so it would be nice to have a longer lens, but then you need an enormous amount of bellows - I looked it up, the Intrepid 8x10 has "only" 510mm of bellows.

So the direct angle of view comparison where a 300mm is a semi-wide about like a 40mm lens on 35mm film doesn't apply very well here; its viewing angle on film gets smaller as you crank out the bellows. IOW if you have 375mm of bellows extension, you have the perspective of a 375mm lens, not a 300mm lens. But the problem remains that for perspective, it would be better to stand further back and take an image of a larger subject area.