This is really alot like painting

[George Kara]

Forgive my enthusiasm. I am an oil painter. Over time, I have shot most smaller formats. I have gone from digital (for action I use a canon eos 1ds), to 6x6 (Rollei 6008af film - fantastic sophisticated camera), to using a view camera.

I just purchased a wonderful arca swiss classic. It is so surprising at how similar shooting large format (4x5 in my case)is to painting or drawing from life.

It appears that many of the skill sets needed for painting are also used for LF. What a fantastic surprise.

Anyhow the thing I really need to learn, is how to use this thing for figurative work. Not pretty naked women with fake boobs, but real living humans. At this point point, I can sketch a figure at about the same speed as set up for LF.

I wish to avoid formalized posing. That is so boring to me. All those years of life drawing I guess. So here are my thoughts. Please give me your advice.

I want to use my heavy duty motion picture tripod mounted on locking casters for moving around. I need to zone focus from various positions real fast. Suggestions on high speed zone focus would be really appreciated. Perhaps this doenst exist.

I will have a confederate to speak with the subject so they pay less attention to the guy behind the cloth. Im gonna try and use flash as much as possible to avoid those really long exposures.

What do you do to get an effective portrait within these limits?

Thanks

George

[Frank Petronio]

Tie a string to the camera with measured, prefocused distances. Place tape on the rail and mark it for focusing distances with the lens you are using.

Or, stand in the center of a series of concentric circles at measured inervals and have your subjects run around you ;)

[Ralph Barker]

Frank's string idea could work, but you need to attach the far end of the string to the subject's forehead with a push pin. Then, tell them they can move as they wish, as long as they keep the string taught. ;)

The big issue with LF portraits with a monorail is the shallow DOF afforded by the longer focal length lenses appropriate for the format. Even with small f-stops and relatively long exposures, a small amount of movement by the subject (or camera) will shift the placement of the plane of critical sharpness in relation to the subject.

Think about the monorail sequence. You're going to compose, then focus, then close the lens, then insert the film holder, then remove the dark slide, then press the cable release, etc.. A fair number of seconds go by between the focus point and the exposure point. Thus, both camera and subject need to be still. Having your subject well-supported in a comfortable position goes a long way toward maintaining critical sharpness - even if you pump a lot of watt seconds at them when the flash goes off.

A "press" or technical camera with a coupled rangefinder (e.g. a Graphic or a Technika) is better suited to the move-around style you're describing, but would still not be parallel to SLR-style shooting.

[George Kara]

So how about this. Use Franks string theory(haha) and have the subject hold the string. Do all of the stuff Ralph has pointed out.

From the dark cloth, pull out a pistol and tell the subject to "drop the string". Shutter release. Viola!!

On another thought. Any way to use hyperfocal distance marked on the monorail for a quicker style of shooting? Of course little to no movements in that case.

George

[Frank Petronio]

Well it is really David Goldfarb's idea.

You should probably try some more static portraits to start, just to understand what the range might be. What is "sharp" to one person is blurry to another, at least with DOF - it is not absolutely sharp or not sharp.

If you like the formal qualities of using a longer lens for portraiture and also want to shoot with moving people, then good luck! Most of the photojourmalists used slightly wide lenses for a good reason - they worked. Of course a tight portrait with a 127mm Optar can be abit "round".

You can do things to help your odds. Use a RB Graflex (like your Rollei on steroids) (do a search). Fast lenses, Auto diaphrams. AND strobes - ringlights and the sort.

If you have enough strobe power you can shoot stopped down to f/32 and get most things in focus...

[Gordon Moat]

Hello George Kara,

I also come from an oil painting background. Somewhat as you do, I view large format more like drawing than photography. The time of setting up and taking a shot is near what it would take me to draw a scene.

On your moving or more dynamic people imaging approach, you might want to look into the work of Craig McDean. He is mostly a 4x5 using fashion and lifestyle shooter. I believe one of his reps is Art+Commerce out of NYC. He uses a wheeled studio stand, though mostly professional models.

Given good directions on locations and area to move within, a good model should be able to maintain distance to the photographer. You could do this somewhat like some motion picture cameramen, with pre-planning several focus marks, perhaps even pre-marking the floor in specific distances. Then placing stops for focus on the camera would allow staying within that range. Probably take some practice, though I would think you could get a good working method fairly quickly.

I would skip on the changing zone approach. Better to start with static readings in somewhat controlled conditions. Then adjust the aperture or shutter as needed while you move. Even outside, you should be able to stay with reading at least for a few shots in a row. Then have an assistant doing more readings as the light changes, and adjust your exposures according to the change in readings.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Jack Flesher]

Wait until you move up to 8x10 :D

[GPS]

Why not a Fotoman 45PS camera?

[Joe Smigiel]

How is this like oil painting to you? I don't share that feeling and I'm curious about your statement.

Your are approaching this as one would a gesture drawing and that seems antithetical to me. The sort of situation you describe (i.e., mobile camera, "high speed zone focus," distracted model, etc.,) seems much more appropriate to smaller instruments. In fact, IMO it seems only appropriate to smaller instruments. Large format has always been, to me at least, very contemplative, methodical, slow in execution and requiring the full attention and direction of the model rather than a spontaneous and rapid exercise. Perhaps a bit like imprimatura/grisaille/glazing vs alla prima to use the painting metaphor.

As an aside, I shudder every time I hear a photographer talking about "sketching with a 35mm" in order to come back later and reshoot with a large-format camera. You either see it or you don't IMO and you come prepared with the proper materials. OTOH, I may take a point-and-shoot snapshot to remember certain colors, gestures, or details for a later painting but, if I could photograph it, I certainly wouldn't have to produce a painting. While both media are selective, successful photography tends to be deliberately exclusive and factually descriptive, with painting deliberately synthetic and inclusive to me. Documentary vs imaginative. There is very little I see in common between them in terms of method.

A large-format photographer over on APUG recently posted a series of photographs where he shot twelve sheets of film in ten minutes, apparently following a procedure similar to what you describe. While I generally enjoy this person's work, none of these recent rapidly shot images appeal to me since the shadows or lighting on the background are distracting and uncontrolled. He has set the space and the lighting, but has not optimized it for the specific moment/pose and it shows in the results. Others have commented similarly on these pictures for the same reasons.

Perhaps at longer distances outdoors one could pull off such a thing with increased depth-of-field, wider lenses, and constant direct lighting, but you are inside and close to the model intending portraits, presumably with longer lenses which have reduced depth-of-field at any given f/stop. I'm not saying you can't be successful setting up a scenario where you can pay somewhat less attention to critical focus and have good lighting and sufficient depth-of-field. I am however very skeptical that the camera can be mobile and the model distracted.

I'd be interested in seeing your results. And, where would we all be without experimentation and striving to do new things? Good luck and great light to you.

[BrianShaw]

I hate to be a nay-sayer (and, perhaps what I'm about to say only speaks to my relative inexperience at live-action portraiture with LF), but Lf cameras were pretty much designed for taking pictures of landscapes and naked, big-boobed women perched on rocks. :)

I've never tried a "moving target" with a view camera because I think it would be simply too frustrating.

I have had moderate success with LF action photography using a press camera and fast film (natural light). My SuperGraphic is well equipped with easy-to-use rangefinder and distance scales. As Ralph suggested, I too consider a press camera to be the correct tool for this type of photography if LF is really desired. Best of luck to you with whatever camera you choose to use!

[Donald Qualls]

IMO, if you want to shoot people without spending the setup time for a monorail, you need a simpler, faster-working camera. A Speed Graphic is one very good choice. The side rangefinder found on older versions can be calibrated to match any lens you might mount and then used without ground glass, much like using a (very, very heavy) 35 mm or medium format rangefinder camera -- but with the large negative and individual development capabilities that distinguish large format even in press photography.

A Speed Graphic can also be zone-focused, if you have (or make) a focus scale that matches the lens mounted; with preset exposure, you can use one much as you would a Leica for street shooting (and still get a 4x5 negative). By using both the front and rear shutters, you can usually cover exposure times from 1 second to 1/1000 (though the environment you describe will almost certainly only require relatively short exposures within the range of the focal plane shutter, for studio work you might also want/need flash synch, which isn't easy with the focal plane shutter).

Another, much lighter alternative would be a plate camera of 1920s or 1930s vintage. I have a couple of these; they have lenses equal to what I mount on my Speed Graphic, and weigh less than half as much; though the film selection in 9x12 cm is a bit more limited than what you can buy in 4x5, I find myself with the same films in both sizes. Most of these aren't capable of lens interchange, and few have rangefinders, but all have scale focusing and some kind of viewfinder. The biggest problem with using them is finding plate holders that are light tight and film sheaths to let you mount film where a glass plate would have gone originally. OTOH, they get a completely different reaction from subjects than a Speed Graphic, despite being contemporary with the earliest Speed Graphic models.

[George Kara]

Of large format is why I consider similar to painting. Many more details are decided by the photographer. This is closer to painting than other formats. I just don't get excited with posed images.

No offense, but I find landscape photos about as interesting as watching golf on TV. Some people love it. Im not one of them. Every time I hear Tiger Woods I think of that scene in Apocalypse Now where they are looking for mangos. Now that was exciting.

Static stuff has been done along time ago.

A few years ago, a photographer asked if he could use my studio to teach a class in figure photography. In return I could sit in and photograph as much as I wanted. Mostly there were medium format shooters and some 35mm. No LF. These sessions were a lesson in how to create cliches.

The rules were unreal. Don't photograph the bottom of a womans feet? Don't shoot from an overhead vantage point. Foreshortening is trouble. The palms of the hands are a no - no. The Cellulite (sp) were a race created in Star Trek and certainly shouldn't be photographed, much less looked at. This never made sense as I always thought those Romulan women were hot!!! I understand the Cellutlites were even more beautiful.

So in summary, Who is responsible for making the rules? No disrespect to A Adams, C. Weston and whomever else is revered - but its time to move on. I'm trying to learn the rules so I know which ones Im breaking at any given time. My thoughts are that the craft LF photography will only survive if it continues to renew itself through every generation.

G

[Ralph Barker]

. . . So in summary, Who is responsible for making the rules?

For one's own "personal" work, I think the only rule-maker one needs to be concerned about is themselves. If one wishes to sell the work, however, different groups of rule-makers come into play, depending on the market. Thus, one must choose which devil's tune to dance to on the way to the bank. ;)

While I think the idea of "renewal" with each generation is great, there's also a flip side to that coin, as well. What seems "fresh" to some, may be seen to represent "mistakes" that previously become cliché to others.

[Jim Jones]

. . . Who is responsible for making the rules? . . .

Perhaps the rules are made by people who fail at making the photographs. Also, rules are handy for photo contest judges with such limited vision that they can't consider a photo on its own merits. Despite this, I rely on two rules:

1. Screw the rules

2. Make the art.

[Donald Qualls]

Dont' forget the most important rule of art teaching:

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

And those who can't teach become critics.

[paulr]

The rules are made by art teachers, based on the work of the previous generation's Great Masters, who became Great Masters by rewriting all of their own generation's rules.


(Hint: no one becomes one of this generation's Great Masters by following the rules.)

[Jack Flesher]

Dont' forget the most important rule of art teaching:

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

And those who can't teach become critics.

Outstanding! :D

[paulr]

It's funny, i tend to be more interested in the differences between photography and painting than the similarities. The similarities are pretty obvious, and a lot has been written about the constant dialog between the two mediums since photography's inception.

But the differences have a lot to do with seeing. Photographic seeing is really quite unsimiliar to natural human seeing. We can forget this, since experience with photography teaches us to see more and more like a camera or a sheet of film. But photographic seeing isn't the way people typically experience the world. When they relate their own visual experience to a photograph, it's evidence that the photographer has succeeded in creating an illusion--that he or she has manipulated photographic seeing to create a sense of lived experience.

Our minds do not take in a scene in single 1/15th second flash. We look here and there, we scan the horizon, focus in on a few details, our eyes darting around and forming intermediate images. When we walk away with a picture in our mind, this is the magic work of our visual cortex, which creates single representative images from the raw material of continuous vision. That mental picture is always an idealized, simplified, often clarified version of the many things we saw. Much of the craft of photography lies in trying to simulate that kind of impression with a single exposure.

Painters are free to capture the world in ways more like what the mind does. They are not limited by what can be captured from a single perspective in a single instant. They can assemble images over time, merge them, simplify them, embelesh them, idealize them--the result can is much closer to what we perceive. Or more specifically, to what we remember.

I've been thinking about this ever since I encountered Jean Arnold's landscapes ... http://www.jeanarnold.com/index.html
If you have time, take a good look at them. Notice the fundamental differences between them and landscape photographs (and I'm not talking about brush strokes, colors, etc.). Think about how her vision relates to your memories of a road trip, a look out the window, a stretch of countryside. And compare to the kind of vision represented by a photograph of the same subjects.

[Ole Tjugen]

Another thought:

Practice "circling" the model. Focus from one spot, then move around as you please keeping the distance constant. That should keep focus the same, and give sharp shots.

At least it works for me...

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hey! I'm A Teacher....

[j.e.simmons]

So in summary, Who is responsible for making the rules?


William Mortensen.

juan

[tim atherton]

This is really a lot like painting

actually, it's more like poetry

[George Kara]

There once was a shooter in large format
Whose models he liked to torment
He used hocus pocus
to learn to zone focus
and is as shallow as his own depth of field.

George

[Jim Rice]

Once again I would suggest a Kalart rangefinder with a focus spot attatchment (www.graflex.org). It will project two spots onto your subject and when they coinside upon the lovely, you are in focus (once it is set up). It was designed for focusing in the dark for flash photography, so the closer you get to that scenario the happier you will be with the stock model. But feel free to hot rod it.....it isn't rocket science and it is a visual reference in real time to establish focus. Just establish the focus on GG, align the focus spot and move the camera in and out to align the dots.

[Donald Qualls]

Hey! I'm A Teacher....

Well, at least you're not a critic... ;)

[Leonard Metcalf]

Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
Dont' forget the most important rule of art teaching:

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach

Those who can't teach, teach teachers...

Well that was the saying when I was one of the Lecturers in the Adult Education Department at the University of Technology, Sydney. I haven't heard the critics line before and will have to remember it.

[Donald Qualls]

Those who can't teach, teach teachers...

Your version applies in all fields except art and writing.