Printable View
Looking, for some Nudes photographers working on 4x5 camera's on film or digital back but using 4x5 or 8x10. I'm wondering if you could give me some Info's about web galleries showing LF Nudes.
I wan't to start making nudes wyth my Cambo Legend, and wondering if I will get better result's that on my Mamiya RB 67 or my friend's borowed Hasselblad 500. I wan't to see what can I get using 4x5 in nude photography. Please Help.
The few times I tried photographing in the nude it wasn't worth the trouble. Who needs all that attention?
I tried taking a nude self-portrait once, but couldn't quite figure out which side of hte camera I should be on. :eek:
Frank Petronio.....
Patrick Alt....
dellos, what do you mean by "better?" Sounds like your basic question is whether LF is better than MF....
On this forum the answer is Yes (mostly, depending, etc., etc.)
I mean, the quality of end efect. I mean I wuld like to get quality of sharpness and ideal skin structure. I used the MF and it was 100 times better than 35mm. The 35 is good for working in wood's and on street's where you need to be fast doing nudes.
But in studio I have time, I don't need to be rushed and I would like to get the best shots. Usualy I'm using B&W films in 50 or 100 or 160 ISO. Some time's I use color Fuji for 35mm. In studio I'm using 2 flash lights 600Ws and my studio is about 56m2 big.
Well, I would like to get some websites, where can I see photos of Nudes made by 4x5 cammera to see what is possible to get on Large format. I know is good for architecture but it's the easiest way to do photos, the bulding is standing still.
look for the work of edward weston, irving penn, jock sturges .....
Is Jock Sturges Nudes made by LF ?? If yes, what is his website or gallery I can't find it :(
Yes, Jock Sturges' nudes are done with an 8x10. Avedon did quite a few, too. For example, check out some of his Pirelli calender shots. Sinar used to have some examples in their book on portraiture. Wynn Bullock did some very nice nudes with LF.
As you've already found in moving from 35mm to 120 film, the qualities you seek increase considerably with negative size. It will continue to increase as you move into large format. However, as you already expect, the method of working will slow down. This can be good or bad, depending on the photographer's own vision and desires.
Sadly, the low-resolution of web-based images won't show you whether the qualities you seek are there. What they might show you is whether others are able to make the sort of images you want using the slower, more deliberate methods of large format. Reproductions in books might better tell you what you want to know. As mentioned, Weston, Bullock, Sturges, and I'd add Sally Mann's early work.
4x5 really isn't that unusual in a lot of commercial fashion and beauty photography. People like Arthur Elgort and Steven Meisel and Paolo Roversi all use 4x5 and 8x10 all the time.
Jock Sturges' work is probably gong to show you the biggest differences between shooting large format and medium format.
And the classics -- Edward Weston, Wynn Bullock, and a slew of Californian bohemians. Not to mention thousands of gay bodybuilding images.
A lot of the rationale for shooting large format "people" naked or clothed, isn't (only) about the image quality so much as the experience of shooting -- people respond differently to different cameras and the required pace of shooting.
Sanders McNew (Google) mixs 5x7 with 120 for his portraits, you can see a comparison with his work.
Then of course there is the whole school of people shooting vintage portrait lenses and limiting the depth of field to a narrow section by shooting wide open and/or tilting the lens.... large format does that better.
My work really isn't "nudes". There are a few drunk girls with their clothes off or some such nonsense, but I don't go out to shoot capital N "Nudes" on purpose very often. My friends are naked sometimes, but nude is too fancy a word and I don't like the connotation ;-)
But if you just want some naked chick to slouch over a tree in some misty artsty-fartsy pose then large format is the way to go!
Yes the real question is what can I do using LF in Nudes photography. When I will find some recently made photos (lets say 1990-2008 made) I would be shure, that my movement from MF to LF was correct.
And about photographing chick's, well I'v got about 300 Nude sessions Made in fiew years ago Using 35mm and MF. And I Had som good photos, my friend's took all my paper work's and right now I stayed wyth only negatives.
I'm working In nudes and fashion business for fiew years. Not for money but just learning the photographing and making portfolios for young model's. I'm not professional photographer but let's say I'm working for my Name and my motto is:
"...crash digitals, use analogs..."
So Frank You want to say, that LF is still good working horse for commercial fashion business ?
I like the way Frank can blend the human form with architecture, the master
PS.. the Mamyia RB or RZ are the best all round studio cameras in MF and I would imagine a "super"speed graphic with a grip and working rangefinder/would be the best 4x5 all round studio camera
Once upon a time, Playboy did all of the centerfolds with 8x10 in a Deardorf with (I think) a 14" commercial Ektar. It doesn't get any better than that, but once again; it's really the lighting that makes the art. The camera is the tool to record that light, no matter what format. 8x10 just did it better.
I see, after 4x5 I will work on 8x10 :p for just made it better :P
How much strobe power do you have in the studio?
Well I've got the 2 flash light's and they Are 600Ws eatch, and than I've got the photo non flash lights (4lamps) eatch is about 500W and 5500K of light color (i think it's proper name). The 4 lamp's is modulating the power of lighting like flashes form 1/32 part's to 1. I'm not shure if my english is good or not, but I thik that's all infos I culd give you right now.
I shoot almost all my nudes exclusively in LF. Initially it was because I simply prefer shooting LF. Now, I've become a petzval addict and am shooting primarily with petzval lenses, either in 5x7 or 4x5 format. Its a bit of a pain in the ass but I find it to be well worth the effort.
Kim Weston
I keep looking in my lenses for nudes, and never find them.
And when I try to recruit "naked chicks in misty artsy fartsy poses", they look at me like I'm some sort of creep. Maybe it's the spittle drooling down my hanging tongue. Or perhaps the stern look from my wife.
I just have to stick with pretty rocks and admire the work of Frank, who is all the more admirable for being willing to deliver to us TRVTH.
Rick "who would not want to leave Peter Gowland out of any listing of photographers of nudes who used large format" Denney
This guy worked also for some yeaers with a 8x10 and 4x5 on nudes, but now switched to digital!
http://www.evolvingbeauty.com/
Cheers Armin
Dave Your's nudes are great :) I see I could get som nice effect also outdoor wyth my Cambo. NICE :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Aharonian
So what You will say about my lighting system is it ok for starting in LF ?? Well It's ok for me in MF.
I personally like the work of this photographer:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/micmojo...7607615232131/
He works with both digital and LF.
Marco
This guy started out in 4x5 and moved to 8x10 before going over to the digital dark side.
Another photographer who does 8x10 work and occasionally works with nudes is Herb Ascherman.
I've done a limited about of work with nude models with 4x5, and I'm convinced that not only is it possible, it can actually be a very satisfying experience for both the photographer and the model. However, a critical requirement is that you must have lots of time - it's not something that you can do in a hurry.
I think about 20 minutes for picture would be oki for me. I usualy put the equipment all ready before the model arive
i think he posted some of he's portraits on this forumQuote:
Originally Posted by Joppino
don't remeber the nick he used, but i bookmarked he's web page : http://www.micmojo.com/
Peter Gowland.
Two 600 J strobes are plenty for 4x5, but pushing it a bit for 8x10 depending on what apertures you need.Quote:
Originally Posted by dellos
pushing it a bit for 8x10 means ?? I don't understand meaning of "pushing it a bit" does it mean "it's less then minimum" ?? Well for 8x10 i will have to wait fiew month's maby. Now I'm in 4x5 try to get my cammera completed.
Sanders McNew: Nice book :)
"Pushing it a bit" is English language slang that translates to "barely enough". With respect to 8x10 photography, my guess is that he's saying that because you need to use smaller apertures to get the same sort of depth of field as you would on a smaller format like 4x5, medium format, or 35mm. To offset that, you'd need stronger lighting or use faster film.Quote:
Originally Posted by dellos
Whether that's a concern for you will depend mainly on the look you're trying to achieve. Paolo Roversi does just fine with natural and non-strobe artificial lighting, because that works well for his photographic style.
So you want to say, that Paolo Roversi don't use the flashes ?? Only stable lights from bulbs ?? I'm not so good in specific words. I know meaning of Flash light, but not sure how to say about nonflash lights...
Yes. He doesn't use (or only rarely uses) strobes for his photography. Just daylight or continuous incandescent light, like from a lightbulb. Although I imagine he's using fairly bright studio quality lights. Unless you're looking to freeze the motion of your subject, or trying to maximize the depth of field and sharpness of your images, you don't need a powerful strobe light setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by dellos
Well I want to get maximum sharpness that's why I wanted to start working on 4x5. The 35mm is not so sharp as MF, and after fiew years of using MF I wanted to get more sharpness so LF will be now.