Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

  1. #31

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    That sounds like a great approach, I'll check it out and see what happens.
    Thank you,
    tr

  2. #32
    jetcode
    Guest

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    always a pleasure to view the work of a real photographer ... nice portfolio and a lifetime of stories to match ...

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,122

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Broadbent View Post
    ...For the next two decades I made a career out of 13x18, doing traditional still-life - my way, orthogonal and all in focus. The format is a perfect match for table-top. 13x18 got me a couple of Art Directors Club golds and a Clio. I didn't need more than limited movement and an 180mm lens...Use just one lens, no longer than the width of the film...
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Broadbent View Post
    ...I meant the width of the sheet of film...
    Were the images you have here

    http://homepage.mac.com/cjbroadbent/PhotoAlbum10.html

    all made with that 13x18 / 180mm combination? Does your use of the word "width" unconventionally refer to the longer (18cm or, for 8x10, 25cm) dimension due to an apparent preference for horizontal compositions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Broadbent View Post
    ...The closest I get is waist-level. No head-shots.The model stands on phone books or leans on a table. There is no other way to keep a model in focus and relaxed...
    The only model in your album is you, seated. I'm curious about the phone book approach. Is there anywhere we can see how that works?

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Broadbent View Post
    ...I have never used colour negative film in 40 years. Any colour there is Ektachrome...
    Which Ektachrome was used for those color album photos? If it was EPN, as the natural palette suggests, what film would you use for those images today, since Kodak has discontinued that film?

    Please pardon me if the persistent questions become annoying.

  4. #34
    Downstairs
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,449

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Sal,
    1. Yes, I tend to think landscape; width is the long side of film, which to me should equal the focal length, so the width of the set equals the camera distance from the set, which give a very normal perspective and tangibility.
    Nearly all the shots on the portfolio are 13x18 because it just happens to be the format which is easiest to work with in that sort of setup. Exceptions: Some of the closer b&w subjects are 4x5 because of enlarging and focus, Bigger sets with space for headlines and copy were shot on 8x10 (ham, pasta, fractals etc). The carpenter shot was a splice of thee 24x36 verticals (KodakDCS + nikkor 60mm - needed resolution for a poster and was in a hurry). The Lemonade and Vanitas were straight 24x36 digital with a 35mm PC lens.
    2. There's a problem posting a straight portrait of a model on the web. I think it can be done if you show the whole published ad with headline and copy, but not the model as a person. I'll ask around and maybe scan and put something up next week.
    The phone-book thing is equivalent to nailing the model's feet to the floor.
    3. Since it came out, I've been using Ektachrome EPP and EPY. A lot of the stuff was done on the old E6 and 64T. I am very gentle with the light and use colder fill to smooth out the colour. Nowadays I use multishot digital back (230mb) and keep LF for myself.

  5. #35

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Christopher,

    I am over-whelmed at the quality of your work. Thank you so much for sharing.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England.
    Posts
    284

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Broadbent View Post
    Sal,
    1. Yes, I tend to think landscape; width is the long side of film, which to me should equal the focal length, so the width of the set equals the camera distance from the set, which give a very normal perspective and tangibility.
    Nearly all the shots on the portfolio are 13x18 because it just happens to be the format which is easiest to work with in that sort of setup. Exceptions: Some of the closer b&w subjects are 4x5 because of enlarging and focus, Bigger sets with space for headlines and copy were shot on 8x10 (ham, pasta, fractals etc). The carpenter shot was a splice of thee 24x36 verticals (KodakDCS + nikkor 60mm - needed resolution for a poster and was in a hurry). The Lemonade and Vanitas were straight 24x36 digital with a 35mm PC lens.
    2. There's a problem posting a straight portrait of a model on the web. I think it can be done if you show the whole published ad with headline and copy, but not the model as a person. I'll ask around and maybe scan and put something up next week.
    The phone-book thing is equivalent to nailing the model's feet to the floor.
    3. Since it came out, I've been using Ektachrome EPP and EPY. A lot of the stuff was done on the old E6 and 64T. I am very gentle with the light and use colder fill to smooth out the colour. Nowadays I use multishot digital back (230mb) and keep LF for myself.
    I enjoyed the still-life`s on your site. Would a 240mm on an 8x10 inch Camera be suitable for similar results? The only lens I own that covers that format, is a Nikon 240mm Nikkor-W.

  7. #37
    Downstairs
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,449

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Kieth,
    I strongly reccomend a 240mm on 8x10. In fact, I use that combination exclusively. It keeps me close enough to to give a perception of perspective within the things in the composition - what I call tangibility. I shoot any composition that is wider than 30" on 8x10 film. (on smaller sets, The focus spread starts to be too wide for comfort).
    Last edited by cjbroadbent; 30-Jun-2008 at 04:56. Reason: spelling

Similar Threads

  1. differences betwen 4x5 5x7 and 8x10 when you shoot
    By luis prado in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-Jun-2008, 11:52
  2. 4x5 vs 8x10 camera
    By Shailendra in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 8-Sep-2007, 05:06
  3. Advice needed. 4x5 vs 8x10. Should I upgrade
    By Craig Griffiths in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 18-Nov-2006, 06:06
  4. Which Canham 8x10 to buy? + a question on lenses.
    By J List in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 21-Oct-2006, 08:32
  5. Best 8x10 scanner and Labs for 8x10 Color Enlargements
    By Robert_4191 in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 21-Jul-2004, 08:27

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •