PDA

View Full Version : 8x10 Camera mainly for portraits



3LeggedPanda
24-Apr-2019, 05:18
Hello there!

I'm looking for a LF camera to be used mainly for portraiture. I'm a fan of ULF, but this time I decided to keep it at 8x10 -- it's a good enough size for what I have in mind and lets me build up from there if I so decide.

A little about myself and what I'm looking for:


- My experience with LF cameras is limited; I never owned one but worked with one in college

- I know 4x5 is probably the most logical entry-point for Large Format, but I feel I'd be wishing for bigger negatives if I chose that format instead. Is it too bad an idea to have an 8x10 as my first LF camera?

- Since I'm going to work mostly with portraits, I like the idea of being able to focus with the sheet already in place, so I looked into Rangefinders as an option -- in your experience, how relevant is this ability to focus until the last moment, assuming you're working with very shallow depth of fields (which is something I definitely would like to do)?

- Weight is not an issue for me. I don't intend to carry the camera around too much

- I'd like to have the ability to use glass plates as well as film

- Movements are of course appreciated, but since I'm working with portraits most of the time, I don't think I'm going to need too much

- Regarding budget, I'd like to keep it under 1000€, but a quick ebay search suggests I might have to spend a bit more. It's not a huge issue, I'll just have to save money for a bit more. I'd rather spend more and get something I really want

- I live in Europe, so buying from the US will probably mean a lot of money spent in shipping and customs. I'd like to avoid it if possible (or is this not that much of an issue at all?)


And I think that's it!
Thanks in advance for all the help and see you all around the forum (I'm new, if you couldn't tell already :D)

shoshin
24-Apr-2019, 05:32
Does your budget of 1000 Euro include only the camera? Or all the other stuff that you need for 8x10, like a lens, holders, loupe, focussing cloth, probably a tripod etc.?
To my mind, a budget of 1000 Euro is a good starting point for 4x5, defintely not for 8x10.

Working with Rangefinders or even with SLR's is quite common when it comes to 4x5 but not when it comes to 8x10.


- Since I'm going to work mostly with portraits, I like the idea of being able to focus with the sheet already in place, so I looked into Rangefinders as an option -- in your experience, how relevant is this ability to focus until the last moment, assuming you're working with very shallow depth of fields (which is something I definitely would like to do)?

To my experience with very shallow DoF (Aero Ektar on 4x5) you will miss focus quite often, because sometimes the model moves after focussing and sometimes you move the camera while inserting the holder. Up to 1/3 of all of my shots with my Speed Graphic and the Aero Ektar are out of focus.
Since I am using a 4x5 SLR I can nail the focus almost every time, because I do not need to insert the holder and I can adjust focus until i press the shutter.

3LeggedPanda
24-Apr-2019, 05:54
Does your budget of 1000 Euro include only the camera? Or all the other stuff that you need for 8x10, like a lens, holders, loupe, focussing cloth, probably a tripod etc.?
To my mind, a budget of 1000 Euro is a good starting point for 4x5, defintely not for 8x10.

Working with Rangefinders or even with SLR's is quite common when it comes to 4x5 but not when it comes to 8x10.



To my experience with very shallow DoF (Aero Ektar on 4x5) you will miss focus quite often, because sometimes the model moves after focussing and sometimes you move the camera while inserting the holder. Up to 1/3 of all of my shots with my Speed Graphic and the Aero Ektar are out of focus.
Since I am using a 4x5 SLR I can nail the focus almost every time, because I do not need to insert the holder and I can adjust focus until i press the shutter.

Hi there!
The budget is just for the camera, yes. And maybe a few holders if I can manage it.

I thought about a 4x5 SLR as well for some time, but then I figured I'd like to go a bit bigger -- hence the 8x10. But nailing the focus on shallow DoF is very important to me, so maybe I need to give 4x5 SLRs a second look, even if it means having smaller negatives.

Any recommendations of 4x5 SLRs?
Thank you very much :)

Oren Grad
24-Apr-2019, 06:00
Large format SLRs: by far the most common are Graflexes, available in formats up to 5x7. Another possibility is a TLR, which unlike an SLR will allow viewing at the moment of exposure, as well as accurate focusing when properly calibrated. Peter Gowland made large format TLRs as large as 8x10, though the 5x7 and 8x10 models are pretty scarce, and the 8x10 has been extremely expensive on the rare occasions when it has turned up for sale.

shoshin
24-Apr-2019, 06:30
Hi there!
The budget is just for the camera, yes. And maybe a few holders if I can manage it.

I thought about a 4x5 SLR as well for some time, but then I figured I'd like to go a bit bigger -- hence the 8x10. But nailing the focus on shallow DoF is very important to me, so maybe I need to give 4x5 SLRs a second look, even if it means having smaller negatives.

Any recommendations of 4x5 SLRs?
Thank you very much :)

There are Graflex SLR's and Mentor SLR's as far as i know.
Graflex SLR's in 4x5 are rare and expensive. In good shape and with an interesting lens you will have to pay at least 1000-1500 Euro
It's almost impossible to find a 5x7, and If you find one, you will usually have to replace the shutter. They are very heavy and focussing is difficult.

I have got a 4x5 Graflex Super D with the Dallmeyer Pentac f 2.9. and three smaller 3x4 Series D which I modified to shoot 4x5 Film with a coverage of 4x4.5. They are my favorite LF- portrait-cameras.

Mentor SLR's are not that hard to find in Europe, but repairing is much more difficult.

Pere Casals
24-Apr-2019, 07:10
Problem with 8x10 is not only the camera, but also the glass.

You have to know what focal you want for your portraiture and what kind of glass. 14" or a 360mm is suitable, but you may want to go as long as 600mm, which it would behave like a 105mm or a 135mm in a full format dslr.

A lens I use is an old Symmar 360mm convertible to 620mm, which is a cheap choice since it offers two focals in shutter. The 620 conversion is excellent for head and shouders framing, while the 360mm (14") was the Yousuf Karsh favourite focal for 8x10 portraits.



- I know 4x5 is probably the most logical entry-point for Large Format, but I feel I'd be wishing for bigger negatives if I chose that format instead. Is it too bad an idea to have an 8x10 as my first LF camera?


Even in the case you get a 8x10 I'd also practice with 4x5. A reduction back would allow to shot 4x5, which it would we convenient to not waste expensive film while you practice. At the beginning you may burn a lot of film while you practice movements and -/+N development.



wishing for bigger negatives

No problem if you scan or contact copy. If wanting to use an enlarger then you face the drawback of dealing with a 8x10 enlarger, which has almost the same size than an aircraft carrier.

If wanting to enlarge the negatives then better not going beyond 5x7. Consider starting with 4x5 and then enlarging to 1m if you want with an "small" enlarger: this is "easy" 1m prints with 300mpix efective image quality.






- I'd like to have the ability to use glass plates as well as film


This is about having the glass plate holders, same camera will take both kinds of holders.




- Regarding budget, I'd like to keep it under 1000€, but a quick ebay search suggests I might have to spend a bit more.

Regarding the camera model, a suitable model may be cambo SC or SCX : https://www.ebay.es/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=cambo%208x10&LH_PrefLoc=2&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

In particular the SC is not a very refined model but it's simple, relatively cheap, sturdy and very easy to repair, and it can be found in the EU from time to time. Also you may make a long rail with a bare piece of square 25mm pipe, it's modular so you may attach a cheap 4x5 for extra long bellows(https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/27823423611/). I prefer a Sinar, but a CAMBO SC also does the job. Problem is hauling around the 810 SC for landscape.

jmontague
24-Apr-2019, 07:12
I have not ventured into 8x10 yet, but another consideration is printing. If you do not spend a good deal for an 8x10 enlarger, you will be limited to 8x10 contact prints, which is by no means a negative (pardon the pun). If you are going to scan your negs, that is a different story, of course. 4x5 enlargers can be had for very reasonable prices (LPL and Durst excluded).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mark Crabtree
24-Apr-2019, 07:29
I think 8x10 makes perfect sense. For me it has been the ideal size for portraits. I went up to 11x14 this winter and have had a ball working with that, but really am finding the 8x10 more useful. Except for gallery shows the 8x10 seems like a better size. Most people really don't have much use for an 11x14 print. Even 8x10 is bigger than most people ever see in prints anymore.

8x10 is very easy to contact print yourself with minimal gear, and is still a fairly easy size to scan.

I don't think you mentioned what country you are in, but I probably wouldn't know what is common there anyway. In the US something like a Eastman 2D or Agfa/Ansco would be dandy. There were early offerings from Century that were much the same camera to the Kodak, but cheaper. Any simple camera works fine as long as it has enough bellows. More is better; less is limiting. One weird quirk is real studio cameras with the big studio stands that can sometimes be had very affordably due the lack of demand and impracticality of shipping. I know of several around here. You need to check local lisings and ask around old photographers and collectors; once these make it online they usually have unrealistic prices. They often come with a Packard shutter and lens, but usually something like a 12" since most were being used for shooting 5x7 and split 5x7 late in their careers.

Lenses are often expensive. The cheapest in a longish focal length will be something like a Beseler lens from an opaque projector. The work nicely for absurdly low prices, but not shutter or aperture. A shuttered lens is going to be expensive unless you get very lucky, or go for a shorter focal length, so a Packard shutter seems wise. I actually find some advantages to that sort of setup, though I've been really lazy and just using a lenscap and haven't bothered to install my Packards yet. Affordable 14" and longer lenses do show up, but it can take some hunting. The numerous really cheap choices can work as well, or at least hold you over until something shows up.

8x10 and 5x7 plate holders are very common, often with film sheaths to allow use of either plates or film.

Good luck with your adventure.

William Whitaker
24-Apr-2019, 08:49
I would suggest first of all that you establish a goal. You want to make photographs, yes. But what do you want to do with them? Do you want to amuse friends and family? Do you want to build a portfolio? Do you want to decorate your walls? Do you want to go into commercial business?

Establish a budget. Unless you're in the "1%". And even then, it's a good idea. Maybe more so. But I wouldn't know. But this will allow you to both control your spending and give you a shopping list of things you need.
Once you know how much you have to spend on each item, you can begin shopping. But be careful. It's very easy to get carried away.
Don't ask me how I know!...

If you're sold on 8x10, that's fine. Don't let anyone dissuade you. Just understand that with any choice you make there will be disadvantages. And generally speaking, the larger your format, the more expensive it will be, however you slice it. And cost does not increase linearly with format. IOW, don't fall victim to the misconception that because 8x10 is twice the size of 4x5, that it must cost twice as much. No, the cost runs away far in advance of the format size. And if 8x10 is bad, then ULF is a monster! But back to practicality...

Lenses for 8x10 are very common and do not need to be expensive. For suggestions, take a look at the recurring monthly "Portraits" thread to see what others have used as well as the format they used. Some of the best portraits have been made with some rather plain lenses. You don't need a Cooke or a Heliar although you may want one and indeed, they are wonderful lenses. A Wollensak Velostigmat or a Tessar 1C will make lovely images, too.
Much depends on your light. After all, that is what photography is about. Light. Consider what kind of lighting equipment you need/want and work toward that goal remembering that, again generally speaking, lighting is independent of format. But you do need it. And you need to control it. Especially if you should get into soft-focus/diffuse-focus portrait lenses which, if you're like the rest of us, you will.

Regarding cameras, my own 8x10 is an old Ansco. It has a fixed front standard without either tilt or swing. And it doesn't fold like a field camera. It collapses and the tailboard folds up to make it transportable. ("Transportable", as distinguished from "portable"). I can take it with me. But it's not easily backpacked (Especially not by me. Age is a bugger!)
The lensboard is 7 1/2 inches square which allows using old fast portrait lenses which tend to be large. For me it's an excellent tool as it does what I need with the minimum fuss and expense.

I hope you will consider 5x7. It's a lovely format for contact printing. And if enlarging, a 5x7 enlarger is going to cost much less than an 8x10 enlarger, but still yield very large prints if you desire. And a 5x7 enlarger will take up a lot less room than an 8x10 enlarger.

And (hint) a Kodak 305mm Portrait Lens is a very nice lens to use. If you're patient and wait, you can find one in a factory-mount Ilex #5 sync shutter. That sync is really nice to have if you're using strobe.

A good solid 5x7 camera for portraiture is an old Burke & James Rembrandt. This camera was designed for portraiture and does not have the bells and whistles of other cameras. In fact, it's dirt-simple. But long ago, 5x7 was a common format for professional portraiture. And this camera was made for that market. They occasionally show up used. Ebay is probably the best place to look for one.
Yes, the Rembrandt is limited in what it will do. But it does what you need for portraits. Plus one more thing. It will help you save your money for what you really need, which is film, paper, chemicals and other disposable inventory. It all costs money.
Work toward your goal and use your resources wisely.
Good luck!

EH21
24-Apr-2019, 09:27
I'm shooting some with 8x10 and a lot with 4x5. There are many cameras which could serve your needs for 4x5. I have for example a polaroid conversion fitted with a Komura 152mm lens which is quite fast but the rangefinder is accurate and I can take the picture without having to stop and load a film holder. Also I have a 4x5 Graflex Super D that still has it's original Ektar lens with auto diaphragm. You'd be surprised how shallow DOF is even at f/11 and such a camera makes it even more convenient. Probably I would go with a 4x5 Graflex for your needs. The 4x5 format can make also film development and scanning easier. There are 6 sheet film holders, like the grafmatics, that make the shooting experience so much faster and easier. btw- Jeff Perry of 20thcentury Camera (https://www.instagram.com/20thcenturycamera/) makes several parts for these cameras such as modern film back holder plates, prism finder adapters, tilt front lens boards, and he even services them. He supplied me my 3x4 graflex (converted to 4x4 and uses 4x5 film) and has totally rebuilt my Graflex 4x5 super. You can see a lot of what he has done with the graflex's on his instagram. There are 5x7 Linhof Technica's that have rangefinder focus and I have one, and they are also quite good cameras, but the issue with rangefinder for focus is that when you employ any movements, the rangefinder won't be accurate. Also I would not really rely on the rangefinder in that camera to focus for example on the eyes with wide open lens. If you do go with a 8x10 or other view camera I would suggest one that has a bail lever for the film back and that can really lock down the movements tight since it's so easy to mess up critical focus when you are loading the film holders after focusing.

Corran
24-Apr-2019, 09:43
Most of what you want IMO would be attainable with a simple Kodak 2D or old Korona, etc. and a ~300mm Tessar lens. My first 8x10 was a Gundlach and 300mm f/4.5 Radar lens and the DOF was plenty short.

But the "focusing after the sheet is inserted" is a real issue. Two ways around it - first idea, invest in a good stand-alone rangefinder and mount it to the top of the camera. Once you decide roughly on a focus distance, match the camera focus and the RF focus, since they are obviously uncoupled. Then, if your subject moves, the RF will show it and you can move or tell the subject to move slightly. Still quite finicky I would say, but I have seen good results from this from others. Second idea - a head brace of some sort. I have in the past used a simple $25 microphone boom stand to simply poke the subject's head, giving them a reference point. You could also use the top part of a guitar floor stand duct taped to the mic stand to make a simple brace for their neck...but that might be a bit much.

Really the question I have then is, do you truly need 8x10? Ask yourself why - are you planning on printing larger than 20x24? Are you scanning or darkroom printing? Do you want color or b&w? Will your budget really be enough? IMO, even using my 4x5 Linhof Technikas with RF focusing, focus can be hard at the widest apertures (and you have to move your eye to the viewfinder to frame which can be difficult). A SLR is interesting but I haven't personally gotten a chance to try it. Also, lens choice - do you want headshots? Upper body? Environmental? Each will be different and bring different issues with regard to focus accuracy, DOF, etc. Anyway, since I am primarily printing in my darkroom, 4x5 is more than enough for up to 20x24, which is as large as I can currently print. My larger cameras are exclusively for contact printing, at least for now.

Peter De Smidt
24-Apr-2019, 11:36
I would get a TLR 4x5, a Gowland, Keith Camera, Cambo.... Add a reflect binocular hood if it doesn't have one. Today's films are much finer grained than the old days. Moving up to 8x10 in this case is going to be a huge increase in cost, as in 10K $ or more, if you can find one of the Gowland's for sale.

Jeroen
24-Apr-2019, 11:46
Like you I never liked 4x5. Recently I realised it was because 4x5 was just too small for me, I needed something bigger for portraits and so I concluded that 8x10 was the way to go for me. I can only applaud you going the same way, but you'll need more budget than €1000. A lot more!

My Sinar P 8x10 cost me €1200 on Ebay, a 360mm €700, a 480mm €1000, and each of these 3 items can be found on Ebay for much more than what I paid. Then you'll need sheet film holders €75 each (if you're lucky like I was), a new focusing loupe €85, dark cloth €50, cable release €25, a very heavy tripod €350 used (again, if you're lucky to find one for that price). Do you already own a light meter? I just bought a (new) Pelicase 1654 for €470 just to store my 8x10 set... It all adds up, I've spent over €4000 already, you can do the math.

Then there's running costs. Fomapan B&W is €2,50/sheet, but Ilford film will cost you €5 a sheet. If you want to shoot colour, Kodak Porta 400 (colour) is €30- a sheet and the lab will charge you €12-15 to develop, that's €45 per click. Ouch!

michael_los_angeles_photo
24-Apr-2019, 14:04
For whatever my experience is worth, I have shot hundreds of wet plate portraits as well as many on 8x10 film, and the only times I have had focus issues have been when I have done wet plate exposures of many seconds rather than use strobe. In other words, it has not been hard for subjects to remain still for the couple of seconds needed to insert the holder, etc., when the exposure is then basically instantaneous (and with film it has been a Packard, so maybe 1/20 sec.). I have 4x5 slrs, and they are indeed great, but any system designed to get beyond focusing on the ground glass at the 8x10 size seems like it would be either very expensive or actually more finicky. I use the 4x5 slr more for children and animals — challenging subjects, in other words — but again, for most people, and even at, say f/4.5 with a 300 or 360mm (sometimes even 420mm) lens, it hasn’t really been a problem. I also use a loupe to focus.

As for glass plates, any camera with a standard spring back will take normal film holders, but also most plate holders (unless they are made for a particular camera, etc.) In other words, if you were to buy a modern wet plate holder, it should fit in your standard spring back just fine and allow the use of glass plates. Several companies make them, but note that the Chamomix holders, while very nice (and I use one of their smaller sizes) do not, I believe take a full 8x10” plate...they are maybe 1/16” smaller. Others do take the full size, although some of those can range up to the $400 range for 8x10”.

Mark Sawyer
24-Apr-2019, 17:00
If you're only planning on studio portraits, buy a proper studio 8x10 camera with a studio stand. Other cameras will work, but studio cameras were purpose-built for studio portraiture.

If you plan to use soft lenses, plan to contact print. The soft effect loses a bit in enlarging.

Ted R
24-Apr-2019, 17:01
It may be that the whole plate format might suit your purposes 8.5in x 6.5in negatives, this was my entry into large format. I got a beautiful Kodak wooden view camera complete with original back and 4x5 back and adapter, and also a bunch of dark slides. If you don't need much movement then 5x7 lenses cover whole plate if you can accept a bit of blur in the corners. I contacted printed. Here in the USA there is an annual Ilford special format film purchase program that includes whole plate I think, there may be something similar in Europe.

Jim Galli
24-Apr-2019, 18:35
If you're only planning on studio portraits, buy a proper studio 8x10 camera with a studio stand. Other cameras will work, but studio cameras were purpose-built for studio portraiture.

If you plan to use soft lenses, plan to contact print. The soft effect loses a bit in enlarging.

What Mark said. The generation 80 years ago that did this for a living and never thought twice that they were accomplishing anything unusual all used Studio cameras on rolling stands. Very easy to use, Very forgiving. A fun old book (can be expensive, long out of print) is Charles Abel's Professional Portrait Lightings because it's a window into the golden age of large format portraiture with example pictures and the lens and lights they used. As for movements, with portraits, many old timers will tell you, less is more.

Pere Casals
25-Apr-2019, 00:54
As for movements, with portraits, many old timers will tell you, less is more.

Yes... if abusing IMHO there is apoint where the tilt/swing is the main subject a bit replacing the real subject. I like those shots where a tilt-swing does an important job but it's not much noticed like (remarkably) here https://karsh.org/american-portraits-in-dayton-ohio/yousuf-karsh-humphrey-bogart-1946/ . I'd guess that sinergy illumination vs tilt-swing is a difficult matter. Something for masters...



If you plan to use soft lenses, plan to contact print. The soft effect loses a bit in enlarging.

Mark, perhaps this has a solution, at least in part: an adjustable soft focus glass. Imagon, Fuji SF or Universal Heliar allows to adjust the right softness for the print size. Also, not the same, but a share of the softness can be adjusted in the printing, we can defocus a bit the image for a share of the paper exposure, and if using split grade we may defocus it more or less for the lights or for the shadows.

___

A problem in a protrait is when the head size in the print is larger than the natural size, if the head has to be too big then better framing wider. To me the most impressive portrait is the one that prints to the real size, but this is only a thought...

Mark Sawyer
25-Apr-2019, 10:35
Mark, perhaps this has a solution, at least in part: an adjustable soft focus glass. Imagon, Fuji SF or Universal Heliar allows to adjust the right softness for the print size. Also, not the same, but a share of the softness can be adjusted in the printing, we can defocus a bit the image for a share of the paper exposure, and if using split grade we may defocus it more or less for the lights or for the shadows...

This is where we devolve into our personal preferences, so there's no definitive "right" answer except for what we rationalize to ourselves. My rationalizations:

The subtleties of soft lenses depend on both a rich tonality of contact prints, and in keeping the effect in the proper scale, (ie, the halation and diffusion that look wonderful in 8x10 may look excessive in 16x20). Doubly so printed on the air-dried-glossy-fiber silver gelatin paper most of us use, as it betrays every bit of detail. But as said, that's just me...

More objectively, softness induced in the printing stage is a completely different beast. With soft lenses, (or other methods like defocusing for part of the exposure), it's the bright highlights that show the most diffusion. Softening a negative image under the enlarger, the bright areas that diffuse most are the shadows, and that diffused light prints reverses into darkness on the final print. Instead of a glowing halo around the highlights, you get a gloom around the dark areas. It can be a nice effect, but nothing like what a conventional soft lens gives.

Pere Casals
25-Apr-2019, 10:45
It can be a nice effect, but nothing like what a conventional soft lens gives.

Mark, of course it's a different beast, as with some lenses softening depends on the focus, I completely agree that the most refined softening has to be done by the taking lens...



Softening a negative image under the enlarger, the bright areas that diffuse most are the shadows, and the diffused light prints as darkness on the final print. Instead of a glowing halo around the highlights, you get a gloom around the dark areas.

but if we use split grade we may diffuse with the filter 00 or with filter 5 exposure, this allows for an additional degree or control...

Mark Sawyer
25-Apr-2019, 11:14
but if we use split grade we may diffuse with the filter 00 or with filter 5 exposure, this allows for an additional degree or control...

That doesn't affect the underlying difference: softness at the enlarging stage doesn't diffuse the highlights into a glowing halo, it diffuses the shadows into a gloomy area of darkness.

Jac@stafford.net
25-Apr-2019, 11:39
[...] but if we use split grade we may diffuse with the filter 00

I need to be educated in how that occurs. Can you help?

Pere Casals
25-Apr-2019, 11:50
That doesn't affect the underlying difference: softness at the enlarging stage doesn't diffuse the highlights into a glowing halo, it diffuses the shadows into a gloomy area of darkness.

Well, if it's a general middle gray image then the diffusion in the projection has to be correct.

Problem comes when we have a very black background that's in the paper shoulder, in that case there is a non linearity that has to produce the effect you say, but if we apply the diffusion with the 00 filter in place at least the shadows won't penetrate as much in the subject, another strategy (when a black background) would be burning the diffusion in the right places.

It's interesting what you have pointed, the diffusions that I have been doing in the enlarger had greys in the background so I didn't notice what you say, I wasn't aware.

Pere Casals
25-Apr-2019, 11:57
I need to be educated in how that occurs. Can you help?

Jac, this is straight, imagine you make an split grade print, say that you expose 20s with filter 5 and then 10 seconds with filter 00. Say that in the last 4 seconds of the exposure with filter 00 you defocus a bit the enlarger, or you move the head up and down. (Note that the filter 5 exposure was longer (for an effective grade 2) because filters 4 to 5 requires twice the exposure.)

This can also be done if you print with say with straight filter 2, a the the end of the exposure you may defocus the enlarger... but as Mark noted if there are very dark areas then the diffusion may have "creative effects".

Jac@stafford.net
25-Apr-2019, 12:02
Problem comes when we have a very black background that's in the paper shoulder

Who the hell uses a totally black background and expects to evaluate it in the portrait? It has nothing to do with portrait subject gradients. Black is by definition off the curve. Ignore it, let it fall to black.

Pere Casals
25-Apr-2019, 12:40
Who the hell uses a totally black background and expects to evaluate it in the portrait? It has nothing to do with portrait subject gradients. Black is by definition off the curve. Ignore it, let it fall to black.

Jac, problem is not with the background itself, but with the diffusion of the black into the subject rather than making the subject glow, as mark explains https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?151910-8x10-Camera-mainly-for-portraits&p=1496034&viewfull=1#post1496034 if making the diffusion in the printing...

Jac@stafford.net
25-Apr-2019, 12:44
Jac, this is straight, imagine you make an aplit grade print, say that you expose 20s with filter 5 and then 10 seconds with filter 00. Say that in the last 4 seconds of the exposure with filter 00 you defocus a bit the enlarger.

Ah, that was the part I missed.

3LeggedPanda
26-Apr-2019, 06:55
Wow, guys! Thanks a lot for all the feedback! Lots of questions, answers and ideas, thank you very much!

Let me try to answer all your questions:

Where am I located?
I live in Portugal. Guimarães to be exact (anyone from Guimarães around? :D) I thought I mentioned it in the opening post, but I didn't -- my bad. I did a little research locally but didn't really find a lot of options regarding Large Format. Buying online isn't an issue, but that's why I mentioned Europe: buying from anywhere else can mean a significant increase in cost because of customs/shipping.


What's my goal with Large Format Photography?
Mostly to build a portfolio for myself and have fun. I work as a photographer and my workflow is 100% digital. I have, however, worked with film and historical processes (wet plate, liquid silver emulsion, gum, cyanotype, carbon, platinotype, etc.) before and honestly I miss it. I think you develop a closer relationship with the image when you build your own negative, coat the paper yourself and so on. So, in essence, my goal is to run away from digital, have fun, do some portraits of my friends and maybe hang them on the walls.
There's something about creating that one unique image that can't really be replicated...that's why I like historical processes.


Why 8x10?
It has more to do with the fact that I want to shoot glass plates -- both wet plate collodion and liquid silver emulsion coated glass. I think 4x5 is too small and wanted to go a bit bigger. Ideally I'd go even bigger, but for now I think 8x10 will do just fine. (I actually have a reputation for turning rooms into cameras and shooting portraits with them so I'm a bit crazy, bear with me ;)). Have you heard of Ian Ruther? I really like his thing and would like to do something similar soon.
I don't have a darkroom right now, so I wouldn't be enlarging any negatives. I'd be developing them in my bathroom for the time being and doing contact printing -- which is another reason to go 8x10. Another option would be, of course, scanning...but I feel that kinda defeats the purpose of what I'm going for. I'll scan them eventually but would absolutely like to have physical images in paper and/or glass.

I do like the idea of a studio camera on a studio stand.
And yes, soft focus lenses are definitely a desired option. In fact I've shot with a magnifying glass before (https://petapixel.com/2015/02/12/shooting-portraits-giant-10-room-camera/) (I'm Diego, btw) and quite liked the results, so the quirkier the better :D

So basically I realized I have to bring my budget up if I want to go 8x10. It's fine, it will just take me a bit longer.
And having the option to focus with the film holder in place isn't really an option on 8x10 -- I'd have to go 4x5 for that. Right?

This thread is being super helpful, guys. Really appreciate the help from everyone!

Did I miss anyone's question? Please let me know!

Mark Crabtree
26-Apr-2019, 07:17
I'm glad you're still here. I was afraid we'd scared you off. I'll be looking forward to seeing some pictures from 8x10.



And having the option to focus with the film holder in place isn't really an option on 8x10 -- I'd have to go 4x5 for that. Right?
!

Nothing is impossible, but an 8x10 reflex camera would likely be impractical. I don't find the holder routine to be a problems and actually find it to be a useful part of my process, requiring some focus from the subject. Graflex did make a 5x7 Home Portrait camera, but they are hard to find and have gotten more expensive than an 8x10.

If you do get a studio camera, there are very cheap lens options that open up since those cameras can handle a very large heavy lens.

I'll be anxious to hear you photo adventures.

Mark

3LeggedPanda
26-Apr-2019, 07:22
I'm glad you're still here. I was afraid we'd scared you off. I'll be looking forward to seeing some pictures from 8x10.



Nothing is impossible, but an 8x10 reflex camera would likely be impractical. I don't find the holder routine to be a problems and actually find it to be a useful part of my process, requiring some focus from the subject. Graflex did make a 5x7 Home Portrait camera, but they are hard to find and have gotten more expensive than an 8x10.

If you do get a studio camera, there are very cheap lens options that open up since those cameras can handle a very large heavy lens.

I'll be anxious to hear you photo adventures.

Mark

Still here! Takes way more than that to scare me haha :D (actually it was quite the opposite; I'm super impressed and thankful for all the feedback and help!)

At some point I even considered building my own camera -- made some plans and everything -- so that's not totally out of the equation either. I'm 100% sure it will be a nightmare and I'll have way more problems than I can imagine, but it will be fun. Probably :D

I'll be sure to show my adventures in LF as soon as they start :)

EH21
26-Apr-2019, 07:31
>And having the option to focus with the film holder in place isn't really an option on 8x10 -- I'd have to go 4x5 for that. Right?

You maybe able to build something on your own. I think Gowland made an 8x10 TLR but wow I wonder how expensive one would be if you could find one for sale.
I still think for spontaneous and quick portraits a 4x5 SLR like the Graflex Super D is going to work really well for you.
Maybe you could build your own rangefinder for an 8x10? That would be neat!

3LeggedPanda
26-Apr-2019, 07:33
>And having the option to focus with the film holder in place isn't really an option on 8x10 -- I'd have to go 4x5 for that. Right?

You maybe able to build something on your own. I think Gowland made an 8x10 TLR but wow I wonder how expensive one would be if you could find one for sale.
I still think for spontaneous and quick portraits a 4x5 SLR like the Graflex Super D is going to work really well for you.
Maybe you could build your own rangefinder for an 8x10? That would be neat!

Building an 8x10 rangefinder would be neat, that's for sure. It also sounds like it would be super hard (I don't even know where to start), but like I said...anything is possible at this point!

One thing is for sure: this thread is getting me all excited again about building cameras and getting my hands dirty. Thanks for that!

rdeloe
26-Apr-2019, 07:38
Diego, I enjoyed the portraits you made with your room camera and magnifying glass lens. Well done.

3LeggedPanda
26-Apr-2019, 07:40
Diego, I enjoyed the portraits you made with your room camera and magnifying glass lens. Well done.

Thank you very much! It was 4 years ago and still feels like yesterday.
Want to revisit the idea in my new apartment, but still not sure I want to sleep with the smell of chemicals all around :D

Oren Grad
26-Apr-2019, 07:50
I think Gowland made an 8x10 TLR but wow I wonder how expensive one would be if you could find one for sale.

He did, more than one. The last one that I can recall being offered for sale was in 2012, and the asking price was high four figures. I don't know what happened to it.

DrTang
26-Apr-2019, 09:52
Building an 8x10 rangefinder would be neat, that's for sure. It also sounds like it would be super hard (I don't even know where to start), but like I said...anything is possible at this point!

One thing is for sure: this thread is getting me all excited again about building cameras and getting my hands dirty. Thanks for that!

I have thought about using laser pointers on either side of the front standard.. kinda like how focuspots work...would need a dead man's switch or foot switch to turn them off just prior to exposure though

Peter De Smidt
26-Apr-2019, 10:01
An there must be no possibility of the lasers hitting the pupils of anyone. That seems unlikely in a portrait setting.

Alan Gales
26-Apr-2019, 10:08
I don't know how prices are in Europe but here in the U.S. you can find old wooden tailboard cameras and metal Calumet C1's like Karsh used pretty reasonable. Put your money into a nice 12" or 14" lens like a Commercial Ektar, Dagor, Heliar or something. Just remember that 8x10's require heavy tripods or camera stands.

Dan Dozer
27-Apr-2019, 15:13
Building an 8x10 rangefinder would be neat, that's for sure. It also sounds like it would be super hard (I don't even know where to start), but like I said...anything is possible at this point!

One thing is for sure: this thread is getting me all excited again about building cameras and getting my hands dirty. Thanks for that!

Just to throw my two cents worth in - I've been doing 8 x 10 portrait work for a number of years. I started with simple Kodak 2d and eventually moved up to a Deardorf (which I really like). My motivation to going to 8 x 10 had nothing to do with enlargement size. I was starting to do Platinum/Palladium and needed larger negatives for contact printing. I had/have no desire to make digital negs. However, as I got more into it, I found that the 8 x 10 format size had a huge amount of possibilities for lenses. Back in the early 1900's, there we so many being made that are all still around and except for the "cult" names, you can still get a lot of different lens for very affordable prices (under $300). I found that these early lenses have beautiful soft type of affects for portrait type of work. You can find any number of old petzval type lenses that may be just what you are looking for. Of all of my lenses that i use (and I have a lot of them), the one I use the most because of it's softness is the front half of an old Ilex lens that was made for projection equipment back in the 30's. Take the plunge and be open minded on the possibilities.

Regarding cameras - you have received a lot of great info so far. Try to find what fits what your needs are. If you never see yourself taking it out in the field, then an older type of studio camera might be just what you are looking for. Do you want to try to make one? I made my own 8 x 20 and it was a very fun experience. But it is a lot of work. My recommendation is to buy a camera back already made, and make the rest of the camera around it. The camera back is the most critical part and the rest of the camera not that difficult.

Looking forward when you might be putting together a darkroom, consider getting an old fixer upper 8 x 10 and turn it into an 8 x 10 horizontal enlarger. That is what I did with my old Kodak 2D and its worked out great. All I needed to do was get a light source for the back (found an old cold light head), use an old wooden film holder as your negative holder (cut out the interior septum in the holder), make a little track to slide on the darkroom counter and project onto the wall.

Hope this helps and good luck,

Dan

EH21
27-Apr-2019, 16:58
It would be two steps, but you could just make a careful distance scale on your focusing rail and then use a laser measurer to measure and then transfer the focus manually. Still may be quicker than focusing on ground glass and then loading film?

Maris Rusis
27-Apr-2019, 17:33
Here's an account I wrote some time ago. It's one way of using a big camera for portraits:

Yesterday I shot six full face portraits with a Tachihara 810HD view camera and the process went smoothly because almost all the work had been done before the sitter arrived.

I used a stand-in subject seated in a posing chair to set exact focus. Then I ran a string ending in a small bead from the camera to the stand-in. String length was adjusted so that when the bead was between the subjects eyes and the string was taut the subjects eyes are in exact focus. Camera focus was then locked down because the string and bead would guarantee image focus and I would not have to look again at the ground glass or get under a focussing cloth.

Then I checked light meter readings, adjusted for bellows extension, set the aperture, the shutter speed, and cocked the shutter. Since the session was only going to take a few minutes and my sunny-day light wasn't going to change I would not have to meter again.

Next a film holder was put into the camera and the darkslide was pulled.

Finally the sitter arrived, took their place in the chair, did the bead and string routine, held their head still, dropped the bead, turned their eyes to the lens, and I fired the shutter with a long cable release.

The fastest portrait in photography comes from a preset view camera with a big sheet of film waiting in the darkness behind the lens - but only for the first shot!

After that there is a bit of work: changing film holders, cocking and firing the shutter, and bantering with the sitter until the end of the session. I'm in control because the string and bead delivers focus, the light is constant, the sitter's chair stops them wandering out of frame, and the long cable release lets me fire the shutter with my hand behind my back. The sitter doesn't know when to flinch.