Another 8x10 portrait from my First Twenty page.

[Henry Ambrose]

I've been pretty busy with not a lot of time to work with my 8x10. The C1 is sold to a new home, and my Masterview is tuned up and working great - I really like this camera. A good deal on a used 7600 Epson printer opened the door to big prints whenever I want one. I'm having fun.


Here's the latest installment. (http://www.henryambrose.com/810/first20.html" target="_blank)

[Donald Brewster]

Looks like the subjects are having fun too. Nicely done.

[Ralph Barker]

Looks like a fun project, Henry. Keep it up.

[Frank Petronio]

The Heidi photo is excellent

[robc]

Nicely done.

the image one from last reminded me of another shot in the exact same mould. Somewhat different subject but almost identical idea and crop.

you can see it at the following link. Goto africa link and first thumbnail

close up eye (http://www.timflach.com/)

[adrian tyler]

tell you what though henry, your colour architecture work is excellent, unlike most stuff i see in which i can only recognise references to other photographers, your architecture portfolio speaks of you... thanks

[Henry Ambrose]

Thanks guys!

Anyone else have portraits to show?

[Ken Lee]

I can't tell if you are asking only for 8x10 portraits.



If not, here's one (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/tavern.htm" target="_blank) made with a 5X7 Eastman Kodak View No 2A.

[John Flavell]

Henry, the detail phots really show the "details" How are you scanning on the 4990? Right on the glass? Wet mounting?

[Henry Ambrose]

John,
I'm scanning with the film directly on the glass. You might want to test your scanner as some individual units may focus at varying heights. Most often I tape down the corners but not always if the particular film seems to lie perfectly flat.

The thing that makes this simple method perform so well is the size of the negative. When enlarging only 2-3X the prints are just gonna look really good. Viewing these scans on screen, at the plane of exact focus, every pore, hair and blemish is sharply visible. And the exact plane of focus is clearly visible as the subject falls in and out. The horsepower of the big negative simply overcomes the technical imperfection of the scanner and this at 1200 pixel per inch scanning resolution. Obviously this might not apply if the goal was wall size murals, but a 3x enlargement from 8x10 is 24x30 which is pretty darn big. And its all at a "no sweat" understressed level thats comfortable to work with - not like trying to pull big prints from 35mm.

That said, I've recently made some 5-6x enlargment factor prints from 4x5 that look really nice. I've also compared a 4000 pixel drum scan of 6x7 film against the same film scanned on the 4990. The drum scan shows sharply resolved grain that's not visible in the flatbed scans and look lots better on screen. A 13 inch wide print from the Epson and a 22 inch wide print from the drum have very similar qualities in terms of fine detail and "satisfaction of viewing". This might be oversimplifying things a bit but I'd say for certain images you really can make 5-6x prints from 4990 scans.

[Mick Noordewier]

Henry,

Your 8x10s are simply an inspiration.

You mentioned that you were shooting at f64 for your "pre-dinner" studio shots. That's a lot of light. Since you're a pro, I would guess that you have some heavy-duty lighting, but it's a little daunting to consider that I may need $5K worth of strobes to go along with a $500 wooden camera.

How are you so accurate with focus? Do subjects like Heidi sit still for 10' while you examine the ground glass and adjust movements, or do you pre-set for some sort of zone focus?

I hope you keep posting every picture you take over the next year.

[Henry Ambrose]

Mick,
Thank you for your kind comments, but don't overestimate me or underestimate yourself!

You don't have to have expensive lighting to make f64 when your camera and lights are close to the subject. I used two White Lightning X1600s in softboxes placed on each side of the camera, about three to four feet from the subjects. There are other even less expensive mono light units available, Alien Bees are pretty good and very cheap for new units, or you could find some well used pack outfits for pretty cheap I bet. In any event less than $1000.00 for all new stuff. Add a third light for a bit more. Used gear should be less. And just like your $500 camera its what you do with it rather than how much it cost.

I didn't have Heidi wait for ten minutes - almost no time at all. I imagined where I wanted her and set up the camera in position while she was busy doing something else. I framed the scene and then asked her to roll into it. I was rough focused for the distance and once I swung the front a bit to throw the plane of focus through the long axis of the trike and fine tuned the focus - that was it. As I looked up from inserting the film holder I asked if she had moved and almost as quick as she answered "no" and smiled, I clicked the shutter. Then after a very short conversation I exposed the second sheet. There was not much choice about waiting as it was getting dark - f11 at 1/4 second and falling fast.

In general I've found this to be one of the best ways to make these kind of pictures happen. Frame and rough focus the scene, ask the subject to step in on a mark you provide, fine tune the framing and focus and make the picture. The picture is in my head as I start. The other part of course is that I had been in and out of conversation with her for some while before I made the picture - we were acquainted well enough before I even asked her to make the picture. And it never hurts to be lucky.