Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats

  1. #31
    Format Omnivore Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    2,961

    Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats

    Quote Originally Posted by Vascilli View Post
    How would one reduce 8x10? I think at some point I'd like to make smaller prints, like 5x7s or 4x6s.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    "Enlarger" with a long enough lens. I don't know how long that would have to be, though.
    I have a reducer for my Omega enlarger. It's a bellows extension that fits on the lens stage, and then the lens board attaches to the end of the bellows. It's really susceptible to vibration. It works really well. So for your enlarger, you'd have to build something like that. (Personally, I think that I would just scan a contact print and then make an inkjet copy.)
    "It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans

  2. #32
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    2,637

    Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats

    I think that your photograph is a good example of what 8x10 can achieve over 4x5. It's a very nice portrait. I like the bohah of having the eyes and face in focus, and parts of the sweater. Yet, other parts are out of focus in a way that emphasizes the important features of the photograph.

    While I've had 8x10 for a while, and I recently purchased a second 8x10, I haven't done that much 8x10 photography. But, it doesn't strike me as that expensive. Large format is more deliberative, and less of a snapshot mentality. LF photography tends to make every negative count. So, the expense of an 8x10 negative doesn't seem that extreme, when one considers where it can lead. I think your photograph is a good example.

  3. #33
    Salt Nerd
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    561

    Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats

    I have been fun learning how to shoot this 100 year old camera, 100 year old lens and 40 year old film. Me likey 8x10 for many reasons.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails abigailcenturyportrait.jpg  
    Michael Slade

  4. #34
    Drew Bedo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    1,301

    Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats

    If you can find a medical clinic that still uses film for X-Rays, the automatic processor and its chemistry will be compatable with Tri-X (but not T-Max and other films). You may be able to work out a deal,barter or otherwise, that will cut out the cost of processing. The processor will take 8x1 sheets and turn out a dry negative within 90 sec or so.

    Its not much, but its something.
    Drew Bedo
    www.quietlightphoto.com


    There are only three types of mounting flanges; too big, too small and wrong thread!

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    Posts
    1,158

    Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats

    Part of the Golden Age of portraiture was the retouching, which is a lot easier on larger film.

    (And I assume those who dabble in the art of retouching today will not reach the level of expertise that was prevalent during that same Golden Age - so we need easier).

  6. #36
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    4,491

    Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    "Enlarger" with a long enough lens. I don't know how long that would have to be, though.
    You mean a long enough bellows. One can always put a box under the easel to raise it up, but it won't work if the bellows reach their limit before the image focuses.

    Rick "who has made 2x3 prints from 4x5 in an Omega D3, but it took a shorter lens not to require too much bellows draw" Denney

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    3,022

    Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    Part of the Golden Age of portraiture was the retouching, which is a lot easier on larger film.

    (And I assume those who dabble in the art of retouching today will not reach the level of expertise that was prevalent during that same Golden Age - so we need easier).
    I've been trying to teach myself retouching for the last year, or so. I spent most of my youth with a pencil in hand, so that's the method I began with, but have expanded from there. There's a product called Liquid graphite that I apply with a brush, and then blend like pencil. My favorite work flow is to make an enlarged interpositive, and retouch that, and then make a negative by contact and retouch that. This two-stage retouching allows me to work in pencil (as opposed to the usual scalpel/abrasion methods used on originals) to enhance both high and low values at actual printing size, without marking the original in any way.

    This is a lot of fun, and I don't have any anxiety about ruining a valuable original, and it works in conjunction with various masking techniques. A well made 6x7cm negative is capable of excellent 16x20 prints, and 4x5 is more than adequate up to 20x24, but I've been using mostly 35mm and MF negatives enlarged to 8x10 for carbon printing, because that's the limit of my exposing apparatus.

    I disagree about the "golden age" retouchers' expertise eclipsing anything we might do. I've seen some of Hurrell's and Sinclair Bull's retouched negatives, and they were less than subtle. I can already do better, after a year or so of experimenting in my spare time. I'm sure they did it faster, and in greater volume, but that doesn't interest me. My goal is to make portraits that give nothing away in quality to any ever made by anyone. Not quite there yet, but I'm gaining!

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    103

    Re: 4x5 versus 8x10 portriats

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Bedo View Post
    If you can find a medical clinic that still uses film for X-Rays, the automatic processor and its chemistry will be compatable with Tri-X (but not T-Max and other films). You may be able to work out a deal,barter or otherwise, that will cut out the cost of processing. The processor will take 8x1 sheets and turn out a dry negative within 90 sec or so.

    Its not much, but its something.
    Can you elaborate? My mom's a dentist and has an x-ray processor.

Similar Threads

  1. dumping 8x10 and sticking with 4x5. anyone regret?
    By Daniel_Buck in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 3-Dec-2010, 08:04
  2. Format for 60x75 inch Gallery Prints - 4x5 or 8x10?
    By e2aa in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 11-Aug-2009, 21:47
  3. 4x5 or 8x10
    By don mills in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 2-Jun-2009, 05:51
  4. 8x10 400NC vs. 4x5 160NC
    By Chad Shindel in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 7-Feb-2006, 19:50

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
  •