Large Format Portraiture.....viable?

[Jim Galli]

...

[Mark Sampson]

of course.

[Vaughn]

Yes, and sometimes even discussions about LF protraiture...:D

Vaughn

[stefan d]

specially your ones ...

[David A. Goldfarb]

Impossible. Never been done, let alone attempted before. Who came up with this crazy idea anyway? The ravings of a madman to be sure!

[Bruce Watson]

You mean of course portraits of trees, and portraits of rocks. Very doable IMHO.

[Charles Carstensen]

Only if you do not have a med fmt digital back.

[Ash]

Having read Jim's post before his deletion of it, was actually quite well thought out.

However I think everyone here has gotten bitter and the pond needs to get some fresh water running through it.

Jim, I have an eclectic music taste, but I would never claim to be able to play every note I listen to.

[jnanian]

jim

not really sure what your question was,
but it seems that you are already making large format portraits of friends and family,
and it would be the next step to actually ask for compensation .. from strangers and
not so strangers, if that is what you have an interest in doing ..

have fun!
john

[Tony Karnezis]

After seeing the Yousuf Karsh exhibit at the Weston Gallery this past weekend, I would say a resounding yes!

[Jim Galli]

My original post was a bit too much in the first person so I took it down. Here are some of the ideas I had hoped to discuss;

Let's talk about this. Portraiture is rather like music isn't it. There are a myriad of styles. Some old, some new. Some classic, some kitsch. Some lofty, some low. Hey, the papparazzi are all portraitists.

Personally I hate pop music. I cannot tolerate the commoness of country western music aimed at a truck driver with an IQ of 60. Nor can I stomach walking into the room when my sweet wife is watching that dreadful TV program about who's going to be the next rock star. About a 45 second limit before I need a barf bag. Just long enough to walk over to her chair where she's un-winding, bend over and give her a peck on the forehead and tell her I love her.

Now I've also studied Pellegrin's pictures (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=46179&highlight=Pellegrin). Here is a good example. Here is a hot shot New York photographer excellent at packaging photographs aimed at the pop masses. Glitzy flairy scenes with a ton of bright non-essential but colorful information with a beautiful person looking interestingly ugly. It's a package that sells. Did I mention that the camera held approx 20 degrees off angle is part of the package. It sells. Good for him. Welcome to pop music shallow America. We've got deeper mud puddles 2 days after the rain.

I've been reading Alvin Langdon Coburn's autobiography. Now his portraits, gum bi-chromate over platinum, might equate to a rather tedious symphonic fugue. They definitely are an acquired taste. But as time goes by and I read the stories behind them I find myself in complete awe.

Enjoy the music you like. Critique is OK. We all get our one vote.

[Joe Forks]

I didn't get to read the post before editing, but I'm a big fan of your work Jim. If I decide to emulate that style in the future please take it as the compliment it is meant to be.

Best
Joe

[Marko]

Jim, I like your work as much as anybody here and I hate to give you the bad news, but Coburn died 43 years ago, photography kept evolving since then and not everybody likes pictorialism.

I understand that you may not like Pellegrin's style, I can perhaps even understand why, but I don't understand why the bitterness. It's not like he stole anything from you...

[monkeymon]

People who actually care about what other people think about their art, end up just copying trends.

[b langvardt]

...I usually just read the discussions and don't comment (post), but really couldn't sit this one out. Large format portraiture, specifically Edward Sheriff Curtis, is what has motivated me to indulge in this interesting hobby. I don't ever aspire to become another Curtis or anyone else for that matter. And, I really don't ever wish to use the latest, fastest high tech photo digital devices that modern technos come up with. I'm a relatively old guy, who likes old things that work and that have always worked, who just happens to really like large format portraiture and the film process. It would truly be sad to think that large format portraiture would or could be passed by a guy with his hat on backwards, snapping digital bytes, posting crap on the internet, and becoming instantly famous. Just my 2c worth.

[Marko]

I don't know about becoming instantly famous, but the preferred orientation of one's hat is obviously not a prerequisite for posting rubbish on the Internet. Digital bytes (sic!) notwithstanding...

:rolleyes:

[Mark Sawyer]

Let's talk about this. Portraiture is rather like music isn't it...

Yup. And saying you "can't" or "shouldn't" use large format for portraiture, or any kind of photography, is like saying you shouldn't use any type of musical instrument that was made or even designed more than so many years ago...

Let's face it, there are only so many keys on a piano, and they've all been played before. Guess there's no new music left in them...

One of the big problems in the visual fine arts is this obsession with moving forward, only forward, always on to the Next Big Thing. The music world seems fine with the old things; pop bands cover forty year old pop songs, symphonies often reach back hundreds of years for their material, jazz musicians still mix the old standards in with new stuff...

Maybe the real question is, "Why is it that some in the visual arts are so easily offended, so offended that they wear it proudly and throw it in your face, when they see any piece of work with a tradition behind it?"

Of course, I might be a little opinionated... :rolleyes:

[David A. Goldfarb]

Paolo Pellegrin is doing documentary environmental portraiture, and he's doing it fairly well, finding interesting effects with available light and reflections, and using some cinematic tricks like the "Dutch angle" to create a sense of motion. It works for his subjects, I think, and I don't see it as incompatible with other forms of photography. Timothy Greenfield-Sanders also photographs celebrities in a studio with a wooden 11x14" studio camera and makes a different kind of statement, revealing something different about many of the same subjects represented in the Pellegrin portfolio in the NYT.

Pellegrin has also photographed less famous people in Darfur, Kosovo, Cambodia, and such places--

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R13CHLN&nm=Paolo%20Pellegrin

Plenty of room out there for all kinds of approaches, even from the same photographer.

[Bill_1856]

A tleast their ears are in focus.

[Turner Reich]

Viable yes, economically viable maybe. Art is for those who can appreciate it.

[Steve Nicholls]

Yes and I would add that a LF portrait while possibly harder to do often captures the real person and not the one often hiding behind a smile. If the subject is suitable and would lend itself to the style of a LF portrait I would use that approach, if not, I would choose anyone of the cameras I have. I personally prefer LF for portraits and always look to that camera first. So for me it is viable.

[Frank Petronio]

I think we'd be surprised by just how many good portraits are done without any mention of the large format camera being used, and given magazine repro, you really can not tell from a resolution point of view. But good editorial shooters like Martin Schoeller or fine artists like Alec Soth or even fashion photographers like Arthur Elgort all use large format as a matter of course, along with other formats, and don't make any sort of fuss about it. Don't forget that throughout the 19th-Century every photo made was "large format'.

To me I think Avedon's work with the Rolleiflex is as good as his stuff with the 8x10 Norma or Dorff (and 360 Fuji and Symmar btw). It's just that with the big box he had to stand by the side and keep a tighter rein on the subject. It shows.

[Joe Forks]

A tleast their ears are in focus.

You have to admire Jim for doing his own thing, in spite of criticism from a few who obviously don't like his music.

Best
Joe

[Joe Smigiel]

Capturing a likeness of someone isn't a portrait in my book. It's description, not interpretation. So, I would argue that paparazzi are not portraitists. Ditto any image that does not convey something to me about who the person is other than their physical appearance. I can get that at the DMV, Sears, etc.

OTOH, a good portrait is soulful and tells me about personality. It is more than the sum of its parts.

I happen to prefer old diffused lenses, dark key, and large format. But none of those things are essential to making a good portrait. They are simply tools that help me arrive at a statement about a person and sometimes they are totally inappropriate for the subject that walked through the door. Hopefully, I recognize that more often than not. "Use the right tool" sort of thing...

[cobalt]

Never heard of this Pelligren guy before, but his work absolutely rocks. I don't understand the apparent bitterness either... then again, my perception could be wrong.

The idea that his work may be somewhat formulaic is, in my view, irrelevant. He does what he does very well. There are other well known photographers who produce lame, mundane work; Pelligren is clearly not one of them.

I can't help but wonder why so many people who play with big cameras and obscure methods seem to feel that this lends merit to their work. There is an interesting article I stumbled upon (dantestella.com) that talks, in part, about those who lack artistic ability, and try instead to focus (no pun intended) on changing the standard to one they can achieve. I don't want to butcher Mr. Stella's article, and don't want to plagiarize it either. Have a look at his site, under technical/stop thinking about photography, to get it from the proverbial horse's mouth.

I see a great deal of images made by big cameras that absolutely constitute a complete and utter waste of film, chemistry and time. I've been guilty of making a few of these in my day. If we are REALLY honest about much of the photography we see on the internet, this forum included, I think the commentary around here would be FAR less complimentary.

Stop hatin'. Develop a style. Put it out there. Cross your fingers. Continue to grow as an artist, if you really are one. If not, keep playin' and stop hatin'.

[Mark Sawyer]

Funny thing is, this issue traces back to an argument whether Jim's work, and similar work like it on this forum, was valid as "good portraiture" because it didn't meet someone else's standards.

It seems to me, at least, that there is an emerging style in this forum that, while it has roots in old lenses and the pictorial movement, is moving beyond that in several different but related directions. Whether it would find approval with Aperture's art critics or whether we enjoy discussion and understanding the subtleties of our medium's tools seem poor reasons to invalidate it on the whole. Some work is stronger than other, but that's the nature of the universe. At least for me, there's something interesting going on here...

[cobalt]

I agree that there is some interesting stuff here. I don't mean to invalidate the process, but the emperor is naked, and REALLY needs to put his clothes on.

MORE interesting stuff:
altphotos.com

More interesting. Less reciprocal smoke up the ass.

[Mark Sawyer]

I agree that there is some interesting stuff here. I don't mean to invalidate the process, but the emperor is naked, and REALLY needs to put his clothes on.

MORE interesting stuff:
altphotos.com

More interesting. Less reciprocal smoke up the ass.

A pretty closely related point, I'd say. In any community of visual artists and artisans, there will be a mixture in the quality of work, especially when the community includes everyone from neophytes to veterans and established artists. And of course, different qualities are seen through different eyes. There are as many naked emporors struggling to intellectualize their way through MFA programs as there are posting here...

The question is how do we deal with work we find less interesting. As a teacher of high school kids, my philosophy is that you get more progress if you encourage rather than attack attack, and that there's room for thoughtful critique in either approach. R.E.'s posts were harsh towards Jim, but had an arguably valid point. I see another side to Jim's work, one I think is equally arguable.

The issue has obviously stirred some thought in us, and who knows, perhaps it will change Jim's direction and a year from now he will be the toast of the New York galleries with his neo-pre-post-modernist quasi-Wittgensteinian psuedo-intellectual-deconstructivist mural-sized color portraits of celebrity navals done with a cell-phone camera.

But even if he does, some of us will stay happily lost in our own private version of the past.

(Sorry to keep picking on you, Jim!)

[andress007]

Personally I enjoy work of Avedon, Penn, Karsh, Leibovitz and other masters of film and digital. IMHO Pellegrin has the style but still step below Leibovitz. She is definitely master of color digital environmental portraiture and all her recent digital photos for VF and Vogue have distinctive 3-D look, the same distinctive beautiful look has the Galli's photos using Verito's.

I also like both classic and modern music.

I also like French, Italian, Japanese cuisine.

I also shoot 8x10 (with brass and modern lenses) and d40.

Just grab cameras and go to shoot: film and digital.

Enjoy the life :D



My original post was a bit too much in the first person so I took it down. Here are some of the ideas I had hoped to discuss;

Let's talk about this. Portraiture is rather like music isn't it. There are a myriad of styles. Some old, some new. Some classic, some kitsch. Some lofty, some low. Hey, the papparazzi are all portraitists.

Personally I hate pop music. I cannot tolerate the commoness of country western music aimed at a truck driver with an IQ of 60. Nor can I stomach walking into the room when my sweet wife is watching that dreadful TV program about who's going to be the next rock star. About a 45 second limit before I need a barf bag. Just long enough to walk over to her chair where she's un-winding, bend over and give her a peck on the forehead and tell her I love her.

Now I've also studied Pellegrin's pictures (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=46179&highlight=Pellegrin). Here is a good example. Here is a hot shot New York photographer excellent at packaging photographs aimed at the pop masses. Glitzy flairy scenes with a ton of bright non-essential but colorful information with a beautiful person looking interestingly ugly. It's a package that sells. Did I mention that the camera held approx 20 degrees off angle is part of the package. It sells. Good for him. Welcome to pop music shallow America. We've got deeper mud puddles 2 days after the rain.

I've been reading Alvin Langdon Coburn's autobiography. Now his portraits, gum bi-chromate over platinum, might equate to a rather tedious symphonic fugue. They definitely are an acquired taste. But as time goes by and I read the stories behind them I find myself in complete awe.

Enjoy the music you like. Critique is OK. We all get our one vote.

[evan clarke]

Personally I enjoy work of Avedon, Penn, Karsh, Leibovitz and other masters of film and digital. IMHO Pellegrin has the style but still step below Leibovitz. She is definitely master of color digital environmental portraiture and all her recent digital photos for VF and Vogue have distinctive 3-D look, the same distinctive beautiful look has the Galli's photos using Verito's.

I also like both classic and modern music.

I also like French, Italian, Japanese cuisine.

I also shoot 8x10 (with brass and modern lenses) and d40.

Just grab cameras and go to shoot: film and digital.

Enjoy the life :D

It's possible that he photographs this way because the people paying for the photographs like it. This photography is 100% subjective and if we start to dismiss photographs because they are not artistic or deep enough, ther could be only one ultimate picture and all those below it are lowbrow...but whose picture is it??. If you start feeling too sophisticated and intellectual, tak a walk through Walmart..the most successful human endeavor...Evan Clarke

[Stefan Lungu]

I don't really shoot LF yet, so I have no experience yet in shooting portraits with LF but the talk about it is something I could not resist. I think many of us saw many great portraits done with LF gear, as we saw with any other format for that matter. I think that the smaller formats are much easier to shoot portraits with than with LF. In my opinion it has something to do with the focal length / angle of view of the lenses available for the larger formats and with the distance between photographer and subject that is closer with LF than with the smaller formats. So in my view the distance relation of photographer - model - background will have to be another one for shooting 35mm or digital than with LF. Maybe that is part of the problem. It seems to me that it is possible, but harder to achieve. Ultimately, I see a LF camera more suitable for landscape and architecture than for portraits where a 35mm or a 6x6 would work better. I also think that each format has it's strengths and weak points, and this application is not where LF has its strong points.
Rgards, Stefan

[andress007]

BTW, where is nice comparison of the prints from 1DsMIII and 20x24 camera at http://photo.net/equipment/canon/1Ds_markIII/ I didn't hear so far that Elsa quit making portraits with her 20x24 after this test. She still charge many $k for on one click of her Polaroid camera. I'll guess that she could make more $$$ and more easily just clicking 1DsMIII and printing instantly on ipf6100 for the same amount of time, that she spends behind and front of her 20x24 camera just for one click :D

[Nana Sousa Dias]

Viable it is, of course!

Richard Avedon, Yousuf Karsh, Arnold Newman, just to name a few, proved it, long ago.
I've done some portraits with 4x5 and 8x10 cameras, however, I think that medium format reflex cameras are more suitable for portrait, they give much more freedom to shoot, change angles and composition fast as they don't force you to use a tripod.
These portraits would be very hard to do with a LF camera at least, to me...

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7678/olhos.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6246/yacine7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4518/lura7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[andress007]

this was done with 8x10 i guess? saw this Karsh work today at AIC for third time.

[Allen in Montreal]

I love this frame,
you do great work Nana.



.........

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4518/lura7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Nana Sousa Dias]

I love this frame,
you do great work Nana.

Thank you, Allen.

[John Kasaian]

There was a photogrpaher in my town who specialized in platinum LF contact prints (11x14 IIRC) marketed through high end boutiques that sold 'spensive frocks to wealthy moms and grandmoms. She made a killing at it. Of course that was back when people had money :(

[cobalt]

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4518/lura7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Damn.... makes me wonder if I really know how to use my Hasselblad.

Nana:

There are a very few people who make black and white photographs that cause me to think "I wish I could do that!" You are one of them...

And where do you get these ridiculously gorgeous models?? Just ain't fair...
Stop making me question my skills!

[Nana Sousa Dias]

Damn.... makes me wonder if I really know how to use my Hasselblad.

Nana:

There are a very few people who make black and white photographs that cause me to think "I wish I could do that!" You are one of them...

And where do you get these ridiculously gorgeous models?? Just ain't fair...
Stop making me question my skills!

Ahahahah!

Thank you, Cobalt.

I sold my Hasselblad 500 C/M 10 years ago and bought a Pentax 67. Hasselblad was too expensive, I couldn't afford to buy lenses, backs and other gadgets for it but, now, I miss it. Anyway I bought a Rolleiflex, wich is much cheaper and has the same lens. I love that camera!

I like to keep it simple! These 3 photos were shot with a Pentax 67 and a 135mm macro lens, my favourite portrait lens, the film was Kodak T400 CN, a film many guys dislike, I like it for portrait. I use this Chromogenic film when I shoot many films and want it developed quickly, otherwise, I use HP5+ or Tri-x and process it myself.
I used my old Multiblitz Magnolite 3200, just one softbox 1mx1m.
As to the models, it's very simple, one of them is a singer, the other is a dancer. As I am a professional musician (for 27 years) I deal with many dancers, musicians, singers, etc. Sometimes, I shoot studio sessions for them, because they often need photos for their books, promotion material, etc.