I like metal field cameras, like Technikas, Wistas or Toyos; they're very rigid, don't move when you slap a Grafmatic in them; they fold up so you can put that and a couple of lenses in a small shoulder bag; a decent middleweight tripod would take care of support.
As for the business end, I like a 180 or 210, nothing too long. You don't want to be too far away from your subject, or compress the image too much.
You might have a look at David Burnett's Facebook (maybe he has a blog?) as he just took delivery of a modified RB Graflex with an Aero-Ektar... it looks pretty sweet.
It also depends what your requirements are... if you want tack sharp eyelashes, then you need a great subject and careful ground glass focusing. If you can accept focus planes elsewhere, then shoot it looser with a RF or SLR... or stop down by using a lot of strobe... it's all portraiture.
But I do wonder, with all the swirly brass lenses and things we do to "mess up" the pictures if we might just be reinventing the wheel, you can just use a Lensbaby on a DSLR if you want something soft and funky? I rather like the classic Penn/Avedon get-it-detailed-and-dramatic school myself.
id like using a graflex d series slr ( 4x5 )
with a 21cm tessar (3.8 ) ...
works great, handheld or on a tripod ..
Graflex 4x5 Model D with a 190.5mm. You can use a strobe with the lens shutter on X sync.
Steve
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
I know that there are people who swear by large format for portraiture, but there are some real problems with that.
Usually you want to use a lens with at least twice the "normal" focal length for portraiture. That is so you can have a large enough image with the subject far enough from the lens to avoid exaggerating facial features such as the nose. So, for example, Ansel Adams used a 250 mm lens with a Hasselblad for head shots. The normal focal length is 75-80 mm for that format.
I have a 300 mm lens, and I've used that for portraiture, but I find it a bit short for the purpose.
Secondly, with the same size final image, you have less depth of field with larger formats, at the same shutter speed. If that is the effect you want, find, but why force it on yourself.
You would probably be better off using a medium format camera for ordinary portraiture. You would have a wider choice of lenses and depth of field would be less of a problem.
Often you find that large format photographers do what is called environmental portraiture. That is, they show the subject at full height in a typical environment for the subject.
Leonard,
I agree, mostly. MF is generally much more convenient, and gives little away to LF in technical image quality at moderate print sizes. That being said, for me, so much depends on the idiosyncrasies of the system in use. The quality of the images (not to be confused with technical image quality) I get using my 3x4 graflex with its Xenar lens works very well for me. Enlargements from 3x4 to 9x12 or 12x16 make for velvet-smooth tones. I won't argue that the difference in negative size from 6x7cm to 3x4 inches is the primary factor in my appreciation, but that it's a combination of all the differences. I prefer the 3:4 aspect ratio to the 4:5/ 8:10/ 6:7, I like the freedom to develop each frame individually, etc. etc. Then again, I love my RB67, and my Deardorff V8, too. I am not one to argue for the superiority of any format, or any other factor, for that matter, but sometimes a particular kit or approach seems to produce results that no other can duplicate, and if I like that result, I'm glad I have the tools.
Kodak 5X7 2D with one of these on the back. Looks kind of clunky but could 1000's of 1940's school portrait photographers been wrong? Slide the GG, get your focus, slide the 4X5 holder that's already got the dark slide removed and bam. The grafloks let you use roll holders or 4X5 spring backs.
The 5X7 2D has enough room inside for a decent Packard which you can sync with lights and use some interesting glass like Petzvals and Meniscii.
Howserbouta a Rembrandt? I you don't mind being tied to a tripod. Or a Gowland Twin Lens?
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I'd choose a monorail for the ability to rear focus, which seems a little quicker for this work. But as you say, a less technical looking wooden camera probably results in a more comfortable sitter.
Since ninety percent of my work is portraiture, both group and individual, I find that with just two focal lengths, I can compose from large group to head and shoulder or closer with my Shen Hao XPO and it has enough movements for almost all my studio work. The geared rear focusing convenience, as mentioned in the previous post, is a real plus with this camera. I have never been more pleased with any camera I've ever used and it really makes large format portraiture, a joy, not just a job.
Denise Libby
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks