Head and shoulders portraits with TRF Graphics

[Tin Can]

I only saw this tonight, yet over in DIY, I am considering 14X17 Big Shot. I learned of Polaroid Big Shot 2 weeks ago...

Good info,

Thanks!

This post will briefly explain how I set up TRF Speed and Crown Graphics to focus at one fixed distance, much closer than factory cams will allow. I call it the "Big Shot" configuration because Polaroid once marketed a portrait camera which operated in a similar fashion.
The technique did not originate with Polaroid, however, but was used by press photographers on Kalart RF equipped cameras before WWII.

I cut a Big Shot cam for the TRF by "nosing off" the end of the cam at the near focus end. First I move the tripod-mounted camera in on a focus target while I watch the image on the ground glass. When I have the camera in focus for the desired head and shoulders composition, I lock everything down. At this distance, the Rf has gone beyond its range and the arm on the track no longer contacts the Rf plunger. Up in the mechanism, the cam follower rests on the low end of the cam and the RF image, if you looked, would indicate a distance much further away than that at which the camera is actually focused. I cammed my 150/5.6 Fujinon to focus at 27" from the lens board.

Next, I remove the cam and start filing off a nose on the low end. I work slowly and carefully, frequently reinserting the cam to check my progress. When the RF images converge on the target, it's done! I place a witness mark on the track to line up with the infinity mark on the focus scale so I can quickly set up for Big Shot again whenever I want.

This leaves only the problem of accurate viewfinder composition to be solved. Fortunately, Graflex has provided an excellent open frame finder, adjustable for parallax. It is very accurate for frame size with lenses of normal configuration (non-telephoto), but parallax compensation at the close focus Big Shot distance requires extra adjustment. Pull up the frame finder on the front standard fully as usual, but then push down the lower part of the frame to be flush with the top of the front standard. With my 150mm lens, if I then set the peep sight to 15 feet, I can make an accurate composition. The camera is focused, like the Polaroid Big Shot, while hand-held, by moving in and out from the subject while watching the RF image. Once focus is attained, be sure to have your subject look into the lens of the camera, and not into your eye on the peep sight. A well-calibrated optical range finder is the most accurate way to focus, so the lens can be used wide open with confidence that the subjects eyes will be sharp if that is where you focused.

Attached is a scan of a full frame print from a 4X5 color negative. My model, Maria, and her dog Honeybear were illuminated late in the day by a Vivitar 285 with bounce card mounted on the hand-held camera. Like the old Polaroid Big Shot with its flash cubes, flash exposure is always the same because distance is always the same. The 285 with bounce card on full power manual gives me f11 on 100 ASA film.

I have just finished setting up a superb 210/5.6 Fujinon W that I purchased from JimmyCreative here on the forum, and I will post results from that soon. 210mm looks like the longest lens that will be practical for Big Shot on the TRF, it is focused at 33" from the lens board.
There are of course, many other uses for the Big Shot camera besides portrait photography.
Neal

[MonkeyBrain]

Woman and Chihuahua full frame 4X5 color negative with the 150mm Fjuinon W. Another with a 210mm lens here.
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...h-TRF-Graphics

Ah, ok, makes more sense now.

And that thread was very interesting. Doesnt make any difference as you've sold the camera now anyway, but might have sold it even quicker if you'd linked that in the OP. Your mod basically solves the single most irritating problem I have with either Graflex's or other hand-holdable 4x5s: focusing close enough to get a head and shoulders shot without need for cropping (I never crop).

Why was the ability to focus more closely than 3 or 4" with a rangefinder not considered important by any 4x5 camera manufacturer of the time? You've demonstrated that the solution needn't be that complicated. I'd be quite happy to switch out the cam between set-ups if that's what's required.

I moved from Graflex to Linhof some time ago now though, and not sure how successful I'd be in making cams for the Technika.

[Neal Chaves]

I did just the opposite, I switched from Master Technika back to TRF Crown. I had the Linhof set up to do some thing similar with a 270 tele. The Linhof cam allowed for very close focusing, but accurate composition with the Linhof multi-focus viewfinder was the problem. After trying different settings I was able to make it fairly accurate. The Master Technika is too big, too heavy and very difficult to use in the vertical composition.

[MonkeyBrain]

Well, you never know, I could end up switching back to Graflex myself one day. But the main problem for me with the Crown was that I couldnt easily switch between lenses mid-shoot (would have to carry a different camera for each focal length). Also I couldnt find replacement cams (or, at that point, anyone who had ever successfully made cams) for Graflex cameras (I'm not much of a 'maker') so I was stuck with using a 150 or a 135. Too wide for my tastes.

I don't find the Linhof too heavy or cumbersome at all though (and I'm not exactly huge). But then I'm not doing street photography or anything like that, so I can put the camera down when I need to.

I never shoot anything other than landscape format anymore, so I havent had to deal with whatever issues you had there.

Accurate composition is an absolute nightmare either with the Linhof or Graflex in my opinion. So much wasted film with objects that were close to the lens but, I thought, only just coming into frame, turning out to actually be totally obscuring the subject.

Or chopping heads off is another favorite pastime...

I don't see there's any satisfactory way round this with either camera though. I've just had to learn to slightly compensate for the difference in height between lens and viewfinder by moving the Linhof up slightly when I go to press the shutter. But its fairly hit and miss.

What was your solution?

Rangefinders are not really the right tool for my style of shooting tbh, but until someone invents a 4x5 SLR there's no real alternative. I'm guessing I might have something of a long wait though...

I think it was Dean who makes Razzles who was trying to develop one, but I got in touch with him and he'd basically decided it just wasnt practical and had given up on the idea by that time.

[Oren Grad]

Posts 12-14 moved from FS/WTB section to referenced thread.

[Harold_4074]

Why was the ability to focus more closely than 3 or 4" with a rangefinder not considered important by any 4x5 camera manufacturer of the time?

Possibly because in the early years of these cameras "fast" film was about ASA 50 and depth of field is an issue.

Also, there weren't may press-photo situations calling for that small a field of view.

For publication, the limitations of halftone reproduction meant that cropping a head-and-shoulders portrait from a 4x5 negative made at 10 feet was no big deal, and anyway the semi-wide angle lenses commonly used (127mm?) would have given terrible perspective at any distance where the image would come close to filling the frame.

Except for the film speed, these factors were still relevant when I was working as a newspaper stringer in the late 1960s. And one of the local press photographers was still using his Speed Graphics with film in 4x5 holders.

[MonkeyBrain]

Why was the ability to focus more closely than 3 or 4" with a rangefinder not considered important by any 4x5 camera manufacturer of the time?

Possibly because in the early years of these cameras "fast" film was about ASA 50 and depth of field is an issue.

Also, there weren't may press-photo situations calling for that small a field of view.

For publication, the limitations of halftone reproduction meant that cropping a head-and-shoulders portrait from a 4x5 negative made at 10 feet was no big deal, and anyway the semi-wide angle lenses commonly used (127mm?) would have given terrible perspective at any distance where the image would come close to filling the frame.

Except for the film speed, these factors were still relevant when I was working as a newspaper stringer in the late 1960s. And one of the local press photographers was still using his Speed Graphics with film in 4x5 holders.

Umm, yep. All pretty convincing arguments.

And now that i think of it, these factors were still relevant when I was working as a newspaper stringer in the late 1990s. And that was cropping headshots on 35mm! So yeah, of course they wouldnt have worried about cropping into 4x5.