Getting "enough light" for LF portraiture

[SergeiR]

Explain to me whole arguing / questioning point of this?

Use what you need. Lacking light - add it. OP says he got experience with "off camera flash" - makes zero difference between using there for dSLR or with LF as soon as you learn how to meter it and how it plays.

E.g

all 8x10. all @iso 100 (if you shoot 400 you got twice as much speed)

Flash
bright midday sun
Bluebonnets by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
forest, dimmed afternoon sun
Story time by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

No Flash
shade-ish
Scan-140927-0010www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

shade
Scan-150209-0005www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr

[ghostcount]

The road forked somewhere... I think one went to film processing, one went with shutter speed, one went with not enough or too much flash and another road went somewhere about quality of light.

At any rate, I hope the OP can sort through it and can get where he needs to.

[IanG]

I read this thread with interest and checked the poor (dull) light here (UK) this morning, with HP5 I'd have been able to shoot at 1/30 f8 @ 400EI. I'd add a touch of fill-in flash when it's so dull but really Richard Ritter's right we have it quite easy with modern films.

Ian

[jnantz]

Thanks John, that is a lot of good advice and interesting thoughts.

Yes, my normal workflow is drum scanning the 4x5s and editing and printing digitally at 16x20. I would not call that a massive enlargement, but pretty big I guess at 4x the dimensions and 16x the area.

I may print bigger if I end up with a good portfolio, and have a reason to print 32x40 or something like that. I don't know. But I'd like to given the opportunity.

hi again adam
large printed portraits are really nice, it really gives them life, have fun with that, and naaah 16x20 and 32x40 don't seem like
too much of a stretch for a well scanned well edited 4x5 negative ... i've enlarged 35mm to 16x20 which is a bigger stretch
sounds like a plan, don't forget, after you get the kinks out of your system -- have fun, cause that is what it is all about

i have attached a few images to this post
feel free to go to my website ( signature link )

about the photos
1-3 are tmy
and #4 was a 45 second exposure - 7x11 paper negative with just modeling lights ...


good luck

john

[IanG]

I've been very pleased with the quality of 5x4 HP5 enlarged to over 20x16 and would be happy to go to 40 inches. I'm usually working hand-held 1/125 (1/100) @ f22 occasionally 1/250 although I'll use a tripod if permitted (rare where I was shooting), this is for landscapes though and I'd shoot wider for portraits but I'd chose weather/lighting conditions carefully to get the best images

Ian.

[RichardRitter]

True, but today's models don't often understand that and aren't practiced in the art of sitting still.

Also they expect much higher resolution images, 100 years ago a 5x7 plate or contact print didn't show the kinda of movement that a high resolution scan of the image will.

Not saying you have to go that rout, just saying I'm sure the OP wants to satisfy the faster and impatient and crisp needs of the new generation while using old technology

I know a lot of models that can stay still for a long time. It's the photographer that should know how to work and guide the model.

A friend did an all day fund raiser portrait photo project on Polaroid 60 images average shutter speed 1/4 to 1/2 second only one subject had to be done more then once. That was the 6 month old baby. It can be done. These were not models but every day off the street people.

About resolution there is more in a 1/6 dag plate then you can get with the best film out on the market. I helped re-photograph 350 1/6th dag plates on to slide film and then scam then in to a computer. In one image A sign board less then 1/16 square taken from 2 miles away, we were able to read what was on the board when the image was enlarged. When looked at it under a microscope you could see the wood grain. Can't do that with the modern film or digital images.

[jp]

i have attached a few images to this post
feel free to go to my website ( signature link )

about the photos
1-3 are tmy
and #4 was a 45 second exposure - 7x11 paper negative with just modeling lights ...


good luck

john

#4 is awesome. Just saying. Quality pictorialism.

[StoneNYC]

I know a lot of models that can stay still for a long time. It's the photographer that should know how to work and guide the model.

A friend did an all day fund raiser portrait photo project on Polaroid 60 images average shutter speed 1/4 to 1/2 second only one subject had to be done more then once. That was the 6 month old baby. It can be done. These were not models but every day off the street people.

About resolution there is more in a 1/6 dag plate then you can get with the best film out on the market. I helped re-photograph 350 1/6th dag plates on to slide film and then scam then in to a computer. In one image A sign board less then 1/16 square taken from 2 miles away, we were able to read what was on the board when the image was enlarged. When looked at it under a microscope you could see the wood grain. Can't do that with the modern film or digital images.

Richard, you misunderstand me. I'm sorry for saying it poorly, I didn't mean that the fine grain wasn't there, I meant that most were contact printed so heads that might sway slightly etc aren't as noticeable as they would be on a massive computer screen where everyone loves to zoom in.

I shot a scene of a burning building once, I was rushing and the first exposure I pulled the slide with the lens open, I went to click, it didn't, I noticed and closed the shutter, out the slide in, and tried again, the exposure was 4 seconds. When I got home and developed, I was shocked that both images had the same density. The time it took me to pull the slide, and attempt to click the shutter and then close it like it should have been, must have taken about 4 seconds. The thing was, I couldn't tell which was the "good" image. Even though I know that pulling the slide shook the camera and I had to wait till it settled before attempting to click the shutter, so I knew one had to be "bad" but both were excellent contact printed. A few months later I scanned them and that's when I knew because one had a shake that was only noticeable when zoomed in really close. So that's sort of my point, a contact image or Polaroid is hard to tell if there's any movement or shake unless it's severe.

Of course the fine grain nature of the medium allows for great detail, most just couldn't/didn't access it at that time.

Of course models CAN stay still, and it's the photographers job to instruct them properly. I just meant the majority aren't USED to that kind of posing. That's all.

Sorry again if I spoke poorly and I hope my story explained what I meant better.

[jnantz]

#4 is awesome. Just saying. Quality pictorialism.

thanks jp !
i appreciate the kind words -

===

[jnantz]

I didn't mean that the fine grain wasn't there, I meant that most were contact printed so heads that might sway slightly etc aren't as noticeable as they would be on a massive computer screen where everyone loves to zoom in..

is that the point of making a portrait, to put it on a large computer screen so people can zoom in ?
if it is ,,, it seems like an utter waste of time ..
no matter the image, someone is going to find some sort of flaw ..