4x5 portrait photographers and cheap 8x10 (wishful thinking)

[Bill Burk]

But if you admire portraits on 8x10 - you will be compromising if you use 4x5 instead.

Contact prints and retouching are two things that are better done on 8x10.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Thanks for that link, I have a box on the way for pinhole play. Earlier this year I figured I spent enough on filmholders and materials for the camera that I didn't want to add $80+ to the outlay for film (next WPPD, all bets are off!). Hopefully I can repair the hinge tape in one holder by the time I have film in hand. I found some book binding repair tape at Blick's that I believe should work. (Another hazard with antiques of unkknown age and provenance.)

Black book binding tape is fine for re-doing hinges. I have a roll of the stuff made by Lineco (the folks who make archival linen hinging tape for matting and framing).

 

[TheToadMen]

Hehe, you could get lucky, but most of the action in ePrey auctions is in the last few minutes. A couple of months back when I bought my holders, I monitored completed sales for a week or so. The older wooden flavor actually sold for an average of $32 and the newer more modern ones, over $52. Generally the cheaper end of the sales were holders with some flaw - maybe not unusable, but missing latches or minor damage. I suppose over a longer time span you might hit an occasional flyer.

This one sold for $32.

 

[k_jupiter]

Wow. Where to start.

You are not Avadon. 8x10 portraits are... a major learning curve. Exposure, lighting, perspective, DOF, subject movement etc.
4x5 portraits are not quite as easy as you think either. Jumping from MF is easy in some respects and quite challenging in others.

I shoot 8x10 because the tonal and intense image granularity blow me away, always have. But.. I started out with 4x5, lived with it for 20 some years, moved for a short time to 5x7, then found the camera of my dreams, an early 70s Deardorff V-8. And I still have 4x5 and 5x7 backs for it but they are hardly used. I use it to shoot landscapes exclusively. Contact print (8x10 - 5x7) only.

If I were you, I would buy a quality 4x5 monorail with full movements, a couple good lens, and a 4x5 MXT enlarger. If you really like LF, then go for the gold. Learn the basics first.

tim in san jose

 

[msbarnes]

Wow. Where to start.

You are not Avadon. 8x10 portraits are... a major learning curve. Exposure, lighting, perspective, DOF, subject movement etc.
4x5 portraits are not quite as easy as you think either. Jumping from MF is easy in some respects and quite challenging in others.

I shoot 8x10 because the tonal and intense image granularity blow me away, always have. But.. I started out with 4x5, lived with it for 20 some years, moved for a short time to 5x7, then found the camera of my dreams, an early 70s Deardorff V-8. And I still have 4x5 and 5x7 backs for it but they are hardly used. I use it to shoot landscapes exclusively. Contact print (8x10 - 5x7) only.

If I were you, I would buy a quality 4x5 monorail with full movements, a couple good lens, and a 4x5 MXT enlarger. If you really like LF, then go for the gold. Learn the basics first.

tim in san jose

True.

I'm still weighing the pros and cons.
I am just fancying this idea and so I haven't looked in-depth but are there some semi-affordable (~$1k)metal field cameras? I'd prefer a more portable unit at the expense of movements. I know that there are plenty in the 4x5 world from graflex to linhof and several ones in between but I've never looked into 8x10. I was just trying to figure out if this were really doable.

So far the film is expensive for sure but I would just shoot less. Similarly I don't find 120 to be more expensive than 35mm because I shoot differently, more slowly.

 

[xya]

if you are still weighing the pros and cons, I put another vote for 8x10 or 7x9.5. I just bought the most affordable basics, a russian wooden camera, some barrel lenses, a shutter and one shuttered wide angle lens with slight scratches. all this wasn't 500$ yet. I only have 2 double holders, but I'm looking for more if I see a bargain. it's real fun already. and it's so different from smaller formats.

I mainly shoot 120 film. when most professionals moved to digital and their old gear became out of fashion, I bought myself a 4x5 technikardan. it was great to explore it, but enlargers are really really expensive. and in the end, most of my prints are 7x9.5 or 8x10. so the difference between a 120 and a 4x5 negative isn't that impressing at this size.

all I can say is that a direct print from 7x9.5 has something special, maybe it's not rational even, but I just adore it. this is my very personal opinion of course. I just wanted to let you know.

 

[k_jupiter]

if you are still weighing the pros and cons, I put another vote for 8x10 or 7x9.5. I just bought the most affordable basics, a russian wooden camera, some barrel lenses, a shutter and one shuttered wide angle lens with slight scratches. all this wasn't 500$ yet. I only have 2 double holders, but I'm looking for more if I see a bargain. it's real fun already. and it's so different from smaller formats.

I mainly shoot 120 film. when most professionals moved to digital and their old gear became out of fashion, I bought myself a 4x5 technikardan. it was great to explore it, but enlargers are really really expensive. and in the end, most of my prints are 7x9.5 or 8x10. so the difference between a 120 and a 4x5 negative isn't that impressing at this size.

all I can say is that a direct print from 7x9.5 has something special, maybe it's not rational even, but I just adore it. this is my very personal opinion of course. I just wanted to let you know.

In my part of the world, SF Bay area, you can't give enlargers away. My MXT is staying but go to Craig's list and you'll see 4x5 enlargers for a song. Getting a decent 150mm lens might take you awhile longer.

tim in san jose

 

[TheToadMen]

The "Fuji Super HRT Green X-Ray" film seems to be a good and cheap option. There are several discussions on APUG about this film.
I'm gonna try to get it in 18x24 cm format for my russian FKD camera to test it.

 

[Mark Feldstein]

IMHO 8x10 work is hardly a "major learning curve" as someone claimed above. Sure, it's more labor intensive by virtue of size and bulk, but involves the exact same photographic principles as any other type of view camera traditional photography, ie. "exposure, lighting, perspective, depth of field, subject movement (you mean moving targets?)", swings, tilts and so on.

The same person above said they shoot 8x10 because of ". . .the tonal and intense image granularity blow [you] away." I really wish he would explain what tonalty and granularity has to do with the format you're using rather than the way the film is exposed and processed.

 

[Doc W]

LF photography has always intrigued me but I have never taken the leap. I know that you can enter 4x5 relatively cheap me but many of the large format images that I like were shot on 8x10...

1. Are there any fashion/portrait photographers that used mostly 4x5. I really like the work from roversi, avedon, and demarchelier to name but I believe they used 8x10 and iin that industry it makes sense to "skip" 4x5..

2. Is there a cheap 8x10 settup? Learning 4x5 would be more practical/cheaper for sure but if 8x10 is what I like, then maybe that is where I should start. Well this is just a thought. I figured that 8x10 is exponentially more expensive but I have never looked into it. Starting with LF with something cheap like a Graflex seems more logical.

Karsh shot in 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. If you wanted to do mainly portraits and studio photographs, you could save yourself some money by learning on something like a 4x5 Crown Graphic. You won't need a lot of movements because that kind of photography is mainly about lighting and exposure. The problem with starting with 8x10 is that every mistake is much more expensive. A box of 25 sheets of 4x5 FP4 is $28.95 at B&H. A box of 25 sheets of 8x10 FP4 is $94.95. And if it really is just studio lighting and exposure you want to learn, you could do that in medium format and when you have the hang of it, get yourself a studio 8x10, which will not be nearly as expensive as an 8x10 for use in the field.

 

[k_jupiter]

IMHO 8x10 work is hardly a "major learning curve" as someone claimed above. Sure, it's more labor intensive by virtue of size and bulk, but involves the exact same photographic principles as any other type of view camera traditional photography, ie. "exposure, lighting, perspective, depth of field, subject movement (you mean moving targets?)", swings, tilts and so on.

The same person above said they shoot 8x10 because of ". . .the tonal and intense image granularity blow [you] away." I really wish he would explain what tonalty and granularity has to do with the format you're using rather than the way the film is exposed and processed.

I must be wrong Mark. Having never touched a 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10, I am just guessing. Blowin' it out my ass. And never having taught photography classes, I would have no idea the issues raised when formats get bigger. <rolls freaking eyes>. I have to admit, every format is the same. Film is film. Never mind Lucy. Just listen to Mark.

And I suspect you have never even seen an 8x10 negative. Or you would realize how ignorant your second comment is.

tim in san jose

 

[Doc W]

IMHO 8x10 work is hardly a "major learning curve" as someone claimed above. Sure, it's more labor intensive by virtue of size and bulk, but involves the exact same photographic principles as any other type of view camera traditional photography, ie. "exposure, lighting, perspective, depth of field, subject movement (you mean moving targets?)", swings, tilts and so on.

The same person above said they shoot 8x10 because of ". . .the tonal and intense image granularity blow [you] away." I really wish he would explain what tonalty and granularity has to do with the format you're using rather than the way the film is exposed and processed.

I think one could learn on an 8x10 as easily as a 4x5 but as I said in my other post, mistakes are a lot more inexpensive. It hurts less and costs less to develop a landscape and find an out of focus cable release in the foreground. And that is just one of the many common mistakes we all made (or still make).

 

[TheToadMen]

I think one could learn on an 8x10 as easily as a 4x5 but as I said in my other post, mistakes are a lot more inexpensive. It hurts less and costs less to develop a landscape and find an out of focus cable release in the foreground. And that is just one of the many common mistakes we all made (or still make).

Hi guys,
You're right, all of you. But in the end (for me), nothing beats holding a real, large negative (like 8x10") in your hands, looking at what you created yourself ... crooked as it may be ... and make a beautiful contact print with it.

Or as Ansel Adams said:
" ... avoiding the common illusion that creativity depends on equipment alone ... "

Just my little stone in the pond

 

[JBrunner]

When you equate the cost per shot film cost to roll film you are comparing apples to oranges. Personally, I might shoot 6 -12 images on a BIG day with my 8x10. If you are bent on 8x10 I don't think you are going to save very much by investing in 4x5 first, (the basics learning curve is short and brutal for either) however there are many instances where 4x5 is much more convenient to use, and over time, yes of course it will be cheaper, but then again, your negs will be 4x5. As far as negative size making a difference, personally I have never ever seen anything that approaches, let alone rivals the qualities of a good contact print, and that's what 8x10 and larger is mostly about, contact printing, which is, in my opinion, still the zenith of photographic endeavor.

 

[Doc W]

JB, I have to disagree. It seemed to me that the OP was concerned with cost and if that is the case, then learning on a cheap Graflex is very cost effective. Also, it sounded to me that he was mainly interested in studio work and can just as easily learn the basic elements with roll film as with sheet film. Why practise lighting with an 8x10?

If he has money to burn then, sure, get an 8x10 and have fun.

 

[JBrunner]

JB, I have to disagree. It seemed to me that the OP was concerned with cost and if that is the case, then learning on a cheap Graflex is very cost effective. Also, it sounded to me that he was mainly interested in studio work and can just as easily learn the basic elements with roll film as with sheet film. Why practise lighting with an 8x10?

If he has money to burn then, sure, get an 8x10 and have fun.

I agree with your disagreement.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Back to the OP's question about the cost of metal field cameras in 4x5, there aren't nearly as many metal as there are wood, especially in the under $1000 territory. You might be able to find an older Toyo 45A that would be all-metal, and a very versatile camera, in that range. You might also get lucky and find a used Canham DLX under $1K, but that would require luck. And it's a different design than most, so I wouldn't recommend it as a first 4x5 (I do highly recommend it as a view camera, just not a first one). There are gobs of monorail cameras out there that would fit your bill, though. Frankly, I'd look for a Sinar F or F2. You'll have all the movements you need and then some, in a very reliable, flexible system camera. There are TONS of spare parts and accessories out there for it, and if you want to grow into 8x10 or 5x7 later, it is easy enough to upgrade with a new rear standard and bellows without having to buy a whole new camera.

 

[greybeard]

If you are looking at the transition from portraiture on 120 roll film (in, I presume, a reflex or rangefinder camera) to portraiture on either 4x5 or 8x10, then the relative merits of the two formats have been pretty well described: cost, bulk and depth of field.

However, there is a big difference between a situation where you see the subject through the camera right up to the moment of exposure, and one where, having composed and focused and directed the subject from behind the camera, you actually make the exposure after a brief interlude of mechanical manipulation, while looking at the subject from beside the camera. Not only do you have to visualize what the camera is actually seeing, but you also have to deal with the subject's tendency to shift attention to you rather than to the camera during this interlude. Or learn to make portraits with the subject looking off to one side

A good place from which to explore the transition might be an inexpensive monorail 4x5 (Calumet CC400 or comparable) with a few holders and a roll film back. A "normal" lens for 4x5 makes a good "longish" focal length for 6x7 or 6x9 portraits, and you could probably use your current tripod, enlarger, etc.

When you find that you really, really want larger negatives, then moving up to 8x10 will be (relatively) painless and inexpensive---unless your interest is in silver-gelatin prints larger than 8x10!

 

[clayne]

I hate to use crappy digital terms (honestly, I hate digital), but in raw scanning terms, 4x5@4kdpi is over 300 megapixels and 8x10 is in the gigapixel zone. These are way beyond anything purchasable today with reasonable amounts of money. "Old" technology once again wins here. Cost-wise, medium format digital backs approaching 50-60MP are like 20 grand. Do the math (and then remind yourself it's not all about math because analog is a non-linear medium).

 

[Mike Crawford]

Evelyn Hofer

The OP did initially ask about photographers and while there are numerous examples of portrait and fashion photgoraphers using large formats, thought I would highlight one of my favourites, Evelyn Hofer who died four years ago and really should get more attention. Nearly all her work was shot on 5x4 and were mostly portraits. Black and white in the main, but also some colour which was printed as dye transters for exhibition. I believe she was printing her own 20x24 b&w prints. Steidl published an excellent monograph of her collected work though there were several city travel books published from the early 60s onwards which were mostly portraits. (London, Dublin, New York, Washington plus) These can be bought quite reasonably on abebooks.com.

Here are some links;
http://www.m-bochum.de/artist_image.php?aid=65
http://www.danzigergallery.com/artists/evelyn-hofer
http://www.steidlville.com/books/55-Evelyn-Hofer.html