Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats
I have been working on portrait photography in general for a while now (mostly in private since my subjects don't necessarily want their images posted online), and I specifically have a goal to do a lot of this work in 8x10. It has an incredible look due to the combination of depth of field for a given focal length.
Yes, I guess you could use a 50mm f/0.9 on 35mm film and get something similar to a wide open 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar in terms of depth of field, but you would not get the smooth tonality, the ability to contact print, or the ability to make a huge enlargement (either traditional or from a scan).
If contact prints or enormous enlargements are not in the mix, then the argument for using 8x10 over 4x5 is a little harder to make.
Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scathontiphat
I'm wondering from those people who have shot 8x10 and 4x5, what are your thoughts are on the "feel" (I know, super subjective) of 4x5 compares to 8x10. Deep down I think i know what the answer is, but I'm trying to convince myself that maybe 5x4 is a viable alternative. I'm not bothered by resolution. For me it's all about that oh-so-subjective feel of a format (which to me comes mostly from the way that the focus falls away, but also the tonality of the image).
Not reading any of the follow ups, just going to reply. (kill me)
I did a small show of portraits printed 11x14 with a mix from one from 8x10 & four from 4x5. Having someone with no photographic background identifying the one from the 8x10 as being different and asking me why it seemed more spectacular was all I really needed to answer this question.
Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats
it could be said that the use of the 10x8 camera will actually require less film to produce a decent result for a number of reasons, the size of the format demands a level of concentration from both the sitter and the photographer which might help produce a connection between the two parties resulting in images that have a feel unlike any other format , interestingly the subjects also tend to treat the large format with a greater degree of respect and this might well also help the outcome. when viewing on a 10x8 screen you can see the subject with ease which helps give an better overview of the image ,i would also suggest that working with a 480mm lens will help isolate the person from the background which also helps the feel of connection between the viewer and originator. So to sum up i would stick to the 10x8 but work slower,and if you feel the picture is not working keep the film for another day, If you are interested then the work of Avedon , Sally Mann and laura McPhee to name but a few might give you a overview to the quality of the work that can be obtained with 10x8
Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats
Also I have just seen that you are in the UK, nip over to the silverprint web site, Adox CHS is £119 per box of 50 sheets and produces very decent results indeed particularly with PMK which is also a very cost effective dev
http://www.silverprint.co.uk/Product...asp?PrGrp=2203
Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats
I still make b&w prints in the darkroom so 4x5 is about as big as is practical for me. In a perfect world I would love to have the money and space to shoot and print 8x10. Not gonna happen anytime soon though.
If I ever get a drum scanner I might give 8x10 in color a go....
Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats
My hesitation with 8x10 is the difficulty of enlarging it. (Ok, right now it's also that I want to upgrade my 4x5 kit first, and build out the basement which will finally get me running water in the darkroom and...)
4x5 enlargers are cheap and plentiful, and some people will even ship them. In my case I already have two. 8x10 enlargers can be very, very cheap but are basically impossible (or absurdly expensive) to ship, at least the full sized ones, plus you need to house the giant thing. Something like a Beseler with 8x10 head or Zone VI is a bit more affordable but you have to luck into finding one either locally or for sale from someone willing to ship.
8x10 is on my bucket list of things I'll do some day. But that day isn't tomorrow, or next week, or next month.
Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats
How would one reduce 8x10? I think at some point I'd like to make smaller prints, like 5x7s or 4x6s.
Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats
I don't think there's any way for anyone but you to answer your question, but for the sake of discussion, I'll include my perspective on the issue. I shoot both, plus MF and 35mm (and very recently, digital as well). As far as the look of the image goes, there's nothing that's important to me that can be done in 8x10 that can't also be done in any other format, excepting the enlargement factor. If I want to make really big prints, I prefer a big negative. I don't buy any of the golden age crap, but then again, I don't really go for the blurry nose and forehead, or swirly, vignetted background look, either. I would describe my preference as no-bullshit portraiture. I don't care for studio props, obvious/unnatural posing, allegory, optical gimmickery like razor-thin depth of field or soft focus lenses, retro/vintage styling, etc., etc. I aspire to a well lit, well composed portrait that is more about the sitter than the lens or whatever other gadget that so often takes center stage in the portraits I see so often. If you care about making great portraits, you'll learn to do it with whatever equipment you have, and if you don't, it won't be because you don't have a big enough camera, or an old enough lens.
I like your first portrait very much, and I think it exemplifies the values I tried to express above. Keep it up!
Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vascilli
How would one reduce 8x10? I think at some point I'd like to make smaller prints, like 5x7s or 4x6s.
"Enlarger" with a long enough lens. I don't know how long that would have to be, though.
Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats
I can say that as a traditional photographer shooting 8x10 and larger doing portraits is a wonderful thing. I have to find more victims I mean sitters! I have been using x-ray film and the portraits I've done are nice. The carbon prints are exquisite as far as I'm concerned. I pencil retouch my negatives and you can SEE what you are doing with an 8x10. I've got several lenses for this format from good old brass Darlot's to a nice 14" Commercial Ektar and have done them wide open and stopped down. Contact printed portraits for me are the best way to go. If I need bigger then I can go to my 11x14 or 14x17 if needed. All of these formats have x-ray film and you can shoot a lot of film for little money. My .02.
BTW if I do need a larger print I have an 8x10 enlarger and I can make a silver print.