Any advantage to LF?

[John Kasaian]

Here's the mission: a series of portraits of head/abdomen in natural light with maybe 1 reflector using b&w film. The subjects are black, asian, and indiginous central american and exhibit small scars on the abdomen from a surgical proceedure (which I can't even pronounce) but the important thing is to illustrate their humanity and the scarring.
I have a 4x5, 120, and 35mm SLR at my disposal. If a 4x5 will do a better job, which lens should I be looking to use? Probably not a soft portrait lens. The end use, if this project gets the green light, will be for illustrating a textbook on social justice and exhibition size display prints. If going digital is the best answer, then somebody else will likely get to mess with that end of the project.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

What are the logistics of getting the subjects in front of the lens? Would you be able to light them with strobes instead? Is the natural light you mention filtered blue-green jungle light in a downpour, or afternoon sun in a villa? Must you be surreptitious about recording any of this? Will your subjects already be self-conscious about the procedure?

It can be tough to beat the natural advantages of portability, and greater DOF for a given angle of view for the smaller formats. For documentary reportage, 35mm still has a place-- this might be it. Particularly if shooting macros of the scars at locations not of your choosing, you may be severely handicapped to do so with larger formats than 35mm, for little additional return. (100+ lp/mm from top macro lenses in 35mm is routine, you'll likely need contrasty/specular light sources to hit the highest resolutions in 35mm. Crisply detailed 20x24" hybrid prints should be achievable from 5000 dpi scans or APO lens equipped enlargers). BTW, strobe lighting doesn't have to look artificial, and would greatly expand your options.

OTOH, you may be contrast/film MTF limited to something like 60 lp/mm or less if shooting natural light, so MF has a place, too. Anything larger than 645 will almost certainly be a bitch to shoot macros on location.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Normally I'd think that if you want to show fine detail and make big prints, go 4x5", and the frame can provide a certain unity of form, but natural light with subjects who aren't trained models is the kicker. I'd shoot it 6x7 for a little more DOF leeway.

[willwilson]

If this is on location natural light work, which it sounds like it is, I would go digital, 5dmkII or similar for the big files and thus large print capability for your exhibition. It's hard to beat digital for portraits.

I shoot all paid commissioned work digital unless a client personally requests LF or needs huge prints (very rare). I do shoot some 4x5 portraits on commission. It's usually because a client wants traditional prints. If this was my personal project. I would shoot 8x10 (300mm/450mm) and contact print. If shooting 4x5 I'd go 135mm.

[Bruce Watson]

Normally I'd think that if you want to show fine detail and make big prints, go 4x5", and the frame can provide a certain unity of form, but natural light with subjects who aren't trained models is the kicker. I'd shoot it 6x7 for a little more DOF leeway.

+1.

[Merg Ross]

If your 120 is a SLR, I would go that route. 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 would all work. An exhibition print can be small or large; what size do you have in mind? LF would be my last choice.

[Brian Ellis]

For something like this where you don't need camera movements and presumably won't need the ability to develop individual sheets differently (i.e. no need for plus, minus, and normal development) I wouldn't use LF unless your "exhibition size" prints are larger than 30x40. I'd use a Canon 5D Mark II with a prime lens of a focal length suitable for the portraits you want to make. But it sounds like you don't have access to that or a comparable digital camera so I'd use your 6x7 or 6x9 cameras (just a personal preference to not consider 6x6, I've never liked that format and you lose a lot if you crop to 645 rectangular but that's just me, you might think differently).

[John Kasaian]

Thanks! I'm very greatful for all the thoughtful advice! The MF seems to be the way to go. I'll go shoot some tests when I get the chance and see how things pan out.

[jp]

If the prints won't be massive, I'd do color digital 35mm (either higher end Nikon or Canon with a prime lens will be fine). That way I wouldn't have to deal with TSA, airport xrays, etc... in the traveling or developing or storage of film at the site.

If you prefer film, I'd probably go 100 speed film on a 6x6 camera (because I like that shape).

A 120 camera with one lens and a bunch of film won't add much to the luggage in the scheme of things if you end up using digital for the macros and some portraits.

B&W might be very timeless, moving, stark and artsy, but modern color digital perfection might be just the ticket to exhibit the now/present aspect of what you are documenting. Sort of "this is 2010 and this is happening now."

[Ivan J. Eberle]

If digital is back on the table (OP did mention B+W as a condition), one huge advantage these days in situations where film or cards might potentially be confiscated is that the files can be wirelessly FTP'd to a nearby hidden networked laptop and/or uplinked to a remote server as you're shooting.

If not, you might also consider any of the fine and eminently handheld and fast-handling 645s from Contax, Mamiya, or Pentax. There's a glut of them since wedding photographers have mostly gone digi.

For the past couple of years, I've had a Pentax 645N with has Matrix, Spot & CW metering built in, is very rugged/knockabout, takes AAs. It's my favorite XC ski and snowshoe camera as it is pretty well sealed from the elements. Film insert changes take only seconds via a 1/4 turn latch that doesn't require 2 hands. I use the P645N exclusively with the 35mm f/3.5 lens, but there's also a 120 f/4 macro lens by all accounts purported to be excellent which has built in extension for 1:1 (There are both AF and manual focus versions of the macro, with the MF typically selling for a dirt cheap $200).