LF and ULF portraiture

[Christopher Nisperos]

I know that a lot of you have surely have done LF portraiture, but I noticed that there are relatively few posts in this forum's archives in the portraiture category. If you do portraiture in 8x10 and larger (11x14+), could you post a link to an example of your work with a few comments about it? I —for one— would love to take a look!

Particularly, with wet collodion currently making a come-back (can you believe it? In the face of the digital wave? wow), if any of you "drip 'n' dry" photographers want to show off a few images, I'm sure the group would be pleased.

Even if you don't post any photos, if you have expeiences, "war stories" or advice on the subject, it'd be great to read. I remember that, with the recent passing of John Cook, many of you mentioned his depth of experience and how openly he shared it. I'm sure there are others among us who can offer up a few nuggets of information on this meagerly contributed subject, or at least I hope so!

[Tedd]

I agree. I too would love to hear more from people whom also do ULF portraiture.

I myself use a Wisner 12x20 and HP5 for portraits. Developing in PMK and have recently begun using Night Vision goggles.
I am using a 300mm Dagor in an Ilex#3 with NO PC sync to do environmental portraits and even up to a scale of 2,5:1!

I would love to get some feed back on what people think of my work.

Although I thought we would have it finished by now, I together with Scandinavians best LF photolab are building an ULF enlarger.
What more could one want that a neg carrier for 20x24 and a color head!?

1,2x2 meter fiber portrait print with no grain is AWESOME and shows the true advantages of the ULF neg. Anyone want to jump on the train just mail me!

Do you have a website?

Tedd

You can go to soost.com.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I have recently begun a project of wet plate portraiture using 11x14. I conceived the idea almost two years ago, and it has taken me that long to get everything together and working. I have been having a problem scanning them, but have temporarily settled on scanning my plates in two halves, and then using a stitch program to put them together like a digital panorama. Crude but it works for screen resolution.

Here is my first shot of the series:

http://pratt.edu/~jgreenbe/Nursing.jpg

It is an 11x14 Ambrotype on clear glass (backed with a sheet of anodized aluminum). Exposure was about 6 seconds at f/6 using a Dallmeyer 5D 19" f/6 Petzval lens.

[Tedd]

Very nice JG!

Here is a link to one of my negs scanned on a new Heidelberg drumscanner at 1:1.
A 13 meg 72 dpi jpg isn't too shaby ej? :0)

http://www.soost.com/Jakob2.jpg

300mm Dagor in an Ilex #3 HP5 f32 @ 1/2 second.
Long enough to fire my Broncolor ring flash.

[Christopher Nisperos]

JG, all I can say is wow. Glad I startd this thread, even if it eands here! Beautiful portrait.

Tedd, no I don't yet have a website. Be patient though, it's on the way. I'm a still a computer dinosaur. Until a couple of years ago my only "computer" was a Casio pocket calulator, and I was lucky to have figured THAT out!

Meanwhile, vive wet collodion, wooden view cameras and the abacus. Batteries not included, nor needed.

[Tedd]

It would be a blast to try this with my 12x20.

Maybe a gathering for those interested sometime?

[Frank Petronio]

Of course I didn't notice the 13 mb part about the sample online image. Is everything you guys do "big", even your web images? Now I have to fire up all three of my 30 inch displays just to see the image as it was meant to be ....

[Jay DeFehr]

My largest currently available format is 8x10, but a 14x17 is in the works. Here's a portrait of my wife, in 8x10:

http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=8780&cat=500&ppuser=177

Jay

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Thanks for the comments. I would love to see other 11x14 or larger portraiture, to see where other photographers are going, and other directions I can move. I really enjoyed your work Tedd; I love the shape of 12x20, it is perfect for environmental portraiture. I have thought about building a 8.4" x 14" reducer for my camera so I can shoot those same proportions.

[Wayne]

Great topic. I have long wanted to start on a 8x10 portrait series, its the only thing I can get excited about. I started, or attempted to, last week, and after a few negs I learned how far I have to go to make it work. Seeing JG's example makes it seem even farther. But at least its started. I cant see your picture Tedd (or wont wait 1/2 hour), can you downsize that sucker for those of us with dialups?

[Kerik Kouklis]

14x17 Platinum Print

http://www.kerik.com/images/gayle_09-19-05b.jpg

11x14 Tintype (on aluminum)

http://www.kerik.com/images/gayle_tintype.jpg

[Jim Galli]

I'm no John Cook or anywhere close, but I have been stumbling along trying to learn what the different antique lenses can produce. It's a passion but it's moving along at it's own pace. SLOW. But normally when I do a few LF portraits with some of the antique lenses I'll write a page and share a few of the shots. Below are some links to pages I've written about some of my progress so far.



While I do have an 11X14 Century Portrait camera with a 22" Voigtlander Petzval lens, I've made exactly one portrait with it so far. It's a brute.

Tina & Rowan

[Christopher Nisperos]

Excuse my childishness, but I'm just giggling with pleasure here, looking at the luxious portraits you guys produce (Jim Galli's '40's Ford portraits made me gasp.) Bravo to all!

I've always loved the shallow depth of field effect —typical in large format tight portraiture— which keeps the eyes sharp while throwing the ears slightly out of focus. Dreamy.

[Gary Samson]

/Users/garysamson/Desktop/James Aponovich_Samson.jpg

Here is a portrait I made using a Wisner 12x20 camera, Schneider 355 G Claron lens, and Efke film in the artist's studio by available light.

[steve simmons]

If anyone wants to send files/prints View Camera is always looking for article ideas and portfolios

steve simmons

[Ted Harris]

Gary, I think you clipped the URL name at the beginning ....

[Henry Ambrose]

This is fun!
I've just started using 8X10. Its a bit harder than 4X5 but I'm getting used to it. Here's a page where I plan to post the first twenty pictures I make on 8X10. Currently posted are the results of the first six sheets of film, two per subject. More to come.

www.henryambrose.com/810/first20.html (http://www.henryambrose.com/810/first20.html)

[steve simmons]

Here is how to send submissions to View Camera
The first look is for content only. We will not reproduce from what you send us the first time. We do not need or want 50+mb files for an initial review. Keep the file size 10mb or less for our first look. Send up to 10 images of large format and ultra large format files to us at

View Camera Magazine, Box 2328, Corrales, NM 87048

If you are working in color or an alt process where there is color send the image in rgb. If you are working in black and white grayscale is fine.

Thanks and looking forward

steve simmons

[Ben Calwell]

Henry -- those are great images! Makes want to get my Kodak 2D out this weekend and try my luck. I'm impressed that you got the dog to sit still long enough for a shot. That in itself is impressive.

[Scott Schroeder]

Wow, this is some great stuff.
It makes me want to give a shot at some portraits of my son.
For 8X10, what are some basics. I like the shallow DOF.
I heard focusing on the nose.
What's a nice focal length and aperture to start with?
If it's mainly a headshot, it doesn't seem like there would be a need for movements????
Thanks

[Donald Brewster]

Great pictures. There is also the Polaroid 20x24 crowd, such as Tracy Storer, Elsa Dorfman, Timothy Greenfield-Sanders, and Douglas Kirkland.

[Christopher Perez]

I need to scan an image I took using an 8x10 Burke and James/12 inch Kodak Commercial Ektar that I took of my father holding a classical guitar he made. It's sharp beyond belief, even with the lens at f/11. It image quality is what caused me to rethink moving away from ULF.

[Frank Petronio]

Just in from shooting my first 8x10 portraits in ten years. At this point I feel like either shooting 8x10 (or larger) or working with digital, because all the in between stuff is just a compromise.

I had a 7x17 in the 80s but 8x10 is so much easier to deal with - the holders are affordable, film is easy to find, I can carry it. Heck I'm using a $330 Arca 8x10 and a $102 Caltar lens -- the price is very easy to take.

Keep posting - you guys are inspirational.

[Christopher Nisperos]

Well, I asked for nuggets, and I believe we already have one when Frank Petronio says:

"At this point I feel like either shooting 8x10 (or larger) or working with digital, because all the in between stuff is just a compromise."

Nugget or not, I agree as well when he says, "Keep posting - you guys are inspirational".

[Paul Kierstead]

Some truly impressive work here, and what is more it is creative and different then 99.99% of what we see passing as portraiture. Very inspiring.

I generally don't shoot people, but do shoot the occasional tummy here and there, so almost on topic and not as beautiful as the above, but I figure if you don't show, you won't get better:

http://homepage.mac.com/paulkierstead/PJ/tummy.jpg

4x5

[Jan Van Hove]

Well, it's not really portraiture, and it's not strictly speaking ULF...

http://www.mamutphoto.com/galerie/galerie4x5/images/crop0056s.jpg

It's simply an image taken with the scanning back i built out of a flatbed scanner to put on my 11x14 camera... :)

Close enough?

PJ

[Wayne]

Close enough?

While I have nothing against them in general or this one is particular, I just dont think an ass qualifies as a face. :)

[Christopher Nisperos]

"Close enough?" (Patrick Jan Van Hove)

Patrick, it's on the nose ... er... or whatever you want to call it. ;o)

[Henry Ambrose]

Yes, Patrick its close enough.
It took quite a while but I finally saw her nose so I guess that makes it a portrait.
; >)

I actually had a dream about 10 years ago that involved turning a flatbed scanner into a camera back.
Tell us about yours!

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've posted these before, but just for the record--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/n2005albumen.jpg

8x10" albumen print, Heliar 36 cm at f:4.5 (wide open), window light, TXT in ABC pyro developed for albumen. Using the string trick (string from the tripod head to the tip of the nose), I was able to shoot four sheets, with the right eye in focus on every one. We realized, though, that after photographing my wife for years, that something wasn't quite right, and it's that she's left eyed, so from now on we're going to try these with the light coming from the other side, using the left eye as the leading eye.

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/ng2002.jpg

8x10" Fuji Type-R contact print, 12" Gold Dot Dagor at f:14 or so, strobes, Fuji Astia

[Sanders McNew]

I am humbled by the remark that anything between digital and 8x0 is a "compromise." I shoot nude portraits in 4x5 and 5x7, and am embarrassed to learn that I've been compromising in my work for all these years.

I add to this discussion because I've just been given the gift of a Hermagis Portrait lens, which I believe is a Petzval-design lens made in Paris in the 1860s. (If anyone knows more about the Hermagis lenses, by all means speak up.) I have tried any number of old lenses. My experience is that even Rapid Rectilinear lenses give remarkably good resolution and bite across the image field. the Hermagis is the first lens I've shot that does what I want it to do -- lay focus on the eyes and allow it to wander in and out of focus elsewhere.

Here are two examples. Both are shot 1/15 second at f/10. The first is shot in 5x7:

http://www.mcnew.net/new/slides/0020Mary109adj.html

And here is another, in 4x5:

http://www.mcnew.net/new/slides/0021Kathleen12.html

The Hermagis is the end of my searches for portrait lenses -- it is just delicious. I have more of my work up at www.mcnew.net if anyone is interested in seeing more of this series.

[Christopher Nisperos]

"I am humbled by the remark that anything between digital and 8x0 is a "compromise." I shoot nude portraits in 4x5 and 5x7, and am embarrassed to learn that I've been compromising in my work for all these years. " (Sanders McNew)

Hi Sanders. I think you might be taking that comment wrong. I think what Frank meant (and Frank, please correct me if I'm wrong) is more about the subjective feeling —from the photographer's point of view in using a particular format— rather than a comment about the work which results from the use of the format itself. So, certainly, no hard feelings to users of other formats were intended!

[Ken Lee]

How would a Tessar design work, if left close to wide-open ? I ask, because I have these kind of lenses on my 6x6 and 6x9 folding cameras.

[John_4185]

[...]http://www.mcnew.net/new/slides/0020Mary109adj.html

Do you always use the same light?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Ken--Tessars can be great, as long as you have one that covers the format, which shouldn't be too difficult at portrait distances. There's a fair amount of variation among tessar types, particularly with regard to the rendering of the out-of-focus area, but the usual pattern is sharp in the center with resolution falling off at the corners. Here's a 5x7" made with a B&L 5x8" Tessar wide open--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/ng2004.jpg

[Sanders McNew]

JJ asked:
... http://www.mcnew.net/new/slides/0020Mary109adj.html

Do you always use the same light?

JJ, yes, I shoot in a ridiculously small space, lit with homemade hot lights and reflectors. The falloff visible in the 5x7 image you reference is due to vignetting. The Hermagis, though a beast of a lens, barely covers 4x5, and vignettes at 5x7. For my work, though, I like the effect in 5x7.

Sanders McNew

www.mcnew.net

[Christopher Nisperos]

Very nice shot, David!

[Jim Noel]

My largest currently available format is 8x10, but a 14x17 is in the works. Here's a portrait of my wife, in 8x10:

http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=8780&cat=500&ppuser=177

Jay

Sadly I am unable to get linked to the images by Tedd or Jay. I can open the web sites, but not those images.

[cuypers1807]

Jay is on Flickr and Instagram.

[Tin Can]

I must try my 900mm Tessar f9 wide open on 14X17" X-Ray with an extension on The Howitzer


Ken--Tessars can be great, as long as you have one that covers the format, which shouldn't be too difficult at portrait distances. There's a fair amount of variation among tessar types, particularly with regard to the rendering of the out-of-focus area, but the usual pattern is sharp in the center with resolution falling off at the corners. Here's a 5x7" made with a B&L 5x8" Tessar wide open--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/ng2004.jpg

[Daniel Unkefer]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52333380066_1156a03a42_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nJwfCj)Alice 1995 200mm Imagon 4x5 Norma (https://flic.kr/p/2nJwfCj) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Alice 1995 4x5 Norma 200mm Imagon HP5 D76 1:1 Photogenic Mini Spotlight "Imagon Lighting". She liked this one and I did too

[FrancisF]

Portrait of Mat Marrash, June 25, 2022, Photostock Nation, Cross Village, MI. Richard Ritter 20x24, 30" Artar Red Dot, Ilford FP4, HC-110 (B), contact print, no filter

230624

[Christopher Nisperos]

Bravo, Francis!

. . . and — as this thread which I started 17 years ago seems to be coming back to life — I've noticed that the only portrait examples we can still see are those which have been embedded in the text-box (as opposed to links ...). For the sake of perennity, might I suggest that future examples be pasted directly into the text, so they may still be available to see, say, —who knows?— another 17 years from now?!

[Tin Can]

LFPF itself has lost all embedded DIGI before

I like paper cash and prints in my hands


Bravo, Francis!

. . . and — as this thread which I started 17 years ago seems to be coming back to life — I've noticed that the only portrait examples we can still see are those which have been embedded in the text-box (as opposed to links ...). For the sake of perennity, might I suggest that future examples be pasted directly into the text, so they may still be available to see, say, —who knows?— another 17 years from now?!

[Christopher Nisperos]

(re:"I like paper cash and prints in my hands")

Agreed. For example, I feel sorry for parents who, years ago, might have taken digital pictures of their young children and now,
neither the parents nor the kids, themselves, grown into adulthood can (or can, but only with difficulty) access those photos
because Apple or whomever came out with a new product and has, for example, changed such-and-such 'port', requiring the numerous imprisoned images to be transferred . . . each time an "improved" product comes to market.

The great irony is, the oldest photographic technology (let's say, a daguerrotype), with always "marry" with the latest
technology, by good ol' simple optical reproduction (aka, scanning). However, newer technology might not
marry with the latest. 'Old school' still teaching lessons.