On LF portraiture [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

C. D. Keth

30-Oct-2006, 21:11

I've become very interested in portraiture with LF cameras lately. How do you all go about it? Working with a LF camera seems to be such a ritualistic thing that it seems like it would be easy to neglect the sitter. Also, how do you deal with the fact that once you put a holder in, you can no longer reframe or focus? Does the sitter just inherantly have less freedom of input with LF portraits? I would like to read some input by some of you who do this a lot, and feel free to post some photos. I love looking at them :-D

Frank Petronio

30-Oct-2006, 21:24

If anything you pay more attention to the person. Not only do you look for expression, but in the back of your mind you are calculating wether they are in the zone of good focus...

Practice!

Here are some samples... I only photograph old men ;)

PViapiano

30-Oct-2006, 21:44

Frank...

I like the Michael Graves photo!

Here's a recent portrait of my brother, taken with available northern window light. I was very happy with the way it turned out, very much like my visualization of it. This print is still a work-in-progress, not quite perfect yet, but thought it would add some input to this thread.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/254671890/

I had him stand in position, metered (incident, by the way),focused, told him to stand still, put the holder in, and just talked to him a bit until I got the natural look I was seeking. The shutter was 1/2 second and there was definitely some slight movement, but at my final cropped size of 6" square it hardly is evident.

There is a photographer named Brooks Ayola on Flickr who has some wonderful Type 55 portraits there at http://www.flickr.com/photos/brooksayola/sets/72157594222973092/, and this forum's Jim Galli has some wonderfully impromptu 8x10 portraits at http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/TailgatePortraits/TheTailgatePortraits.html

And although it's only a med format shot, I couldn't resist adding this one of my daughter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/254668124/

Jonathan Brewer

30-Oct-2006, 22:17

This is a shot of my daughter Danielle, she's wearing an 'Isicholo' hat, it's a ceremonial hat worn by Zulu women, this particular hat was created by a Zulu women/artisan from the KwaZulu region located in South Africa,............I loved photographing my daughter w/these hats since they are pretty much based on geometrical forms.

The representative for the Zulu artisans who produce these kinds of artifacts doesn't sell to the public(mostly to galleries), so I had to do quite a bit of negotiating to get him to part w/a number of these hats.

I wanted to do a shot of my daughter wearing a genuine African artifact that suggested a connection between her and the African part of her heritage. I also wanted the image to suggest a texture/earth color which has often been used in the ceremonial dress of some Afican peoples.

I used some old Polaroid 809/804 films, combining them via the Polaroid 'Chocalate' process, since these old/outdated materials tend to a prominent 'texture' where some of the chemicals in the receptor sheet/chemical pod have exhausted, it produces uneven, unpredictable effects, w/every sheet different, no matter what you do.

This shot took 16 exposures/16 attempts,.....many of the shots failed because of the complete and utter exhaustion of the chemicals in the pod on the receptor sheet, others where out of focus. My daughter wants to be a model, volunteers for every project I dream up, and has gotten pretty good at staying still while effecting a pose/attitude/feeling, and thus I was only able to get this shot because she's learned to discipline herself to effect an attitude/feeling while actually suspending time.

I wouldn't have attempted this shot w/somebody cold off the 'street', actors/entertainers/dancers/mimes et al, have a sense of exactly what every inch of their body language is doing while they put on the convincing act of conveying a feeling, the folks who don't have this training, will pose, think they're holding still, but of course all the while they'll slowly move/sway/raise/lower/drift from one expression to the other/grow tired/move different parts of their bodies, and the time you've closed down the lens/closed down the the taking aperture et al, they in a different spot.

I think it takes some thought as to just what you're shooting/who you're shooting in coming up w/a plan for success focus wise, I think that's the real barrier between portraiture in 8x10, versus the other formats.

I shot this image w/my Wollensak 300mm Velostigmat II somewhere between F5.6-8 memory serves me right, the soft focus ring was set to 2.

Mark Sawyer

31-Oct-2006, 01:06

Here are some samples... I only photograph old men ;)

Frank, if there's ever a thread on large format nudes, please stay away...

jnantz

31-Oct-2006, 01:36

hi christopher

i tend to do a few different types of lf portraits....
some a bit more documentary style, some more posed.

in each case there is a conversation with the subject. like with a smaller format cameras, with a large camera a subject can be really freaked out, especially when you wander in their shop and they expected snapshots. the conversation usually relaxes the subject and you coax them to do what you want.
with a large format camera you are both the camera-operator and the director and everything is slow and deliberate most of the time. it takes a lot of film and a lot of practice (and luck!) to get things to work out. while i don't recreate olde photographs, i love to go to junk stores and buy up as many olde portraits as i can. the portrait photographers from days gone by really had a way of getting people to express themselves, a way that for a long time was lost because of rapid-fire and a distance from the subject that doesn't happen with large format. (for me at least) because of all the hoops we have to jump through to get a portrait we tend to see more of our subject for who they are ( or who we want them to be).

anyhow, the first portrait was done on 5x7 film low light, vitax lens stopped down a tiny bit and i think i moved the defocus knob between 0+1. we worked together for about 2 hours. i photographed her, and then we reversed roles and she photographed me. this exposure was about 2 or 3 seconds.

the second portrait was shot with a graflex slr ( 4x5) provia ( 120 roll back taped to the back of the camera ) with a 21cm tessar wide open (3.5) at about 30s.

-- john

steve simmons

31-Oct-2006, 05:01

View Camera is looking for photographers working with pre 1940 cameras and lenses.

steve simmons

Frank Petronio

31-Oct-2006, 05:02

The cool thing is how people respond to the larger camera, it is an entirely different kind of thing than getting shot with a little slr, even with lighting and set-ups. It is not the extra resolution that makes LF portraiture work so well, but it is the different process...

Bruce Barlow

31-Oct-2006, 05:02

LF portraits require you to be EXTREMELY familiar with your equipment and procedures. If operating the camera and film holder is essentially "unconscious," then you have more brain to spare to attend to the person you're photographing.

There's only one way to get this familiar: PRACTICE! Practice focusing, practice lens manipulation (cocking, aperture, shutter speed). Practice seeing the person and whether they've moved. With practice, you can frame, focus and make an LF exposure of a person in a little over a minute, sometimes less if you've done most things in advance.

Do you want good practice? I love 4x5 Polaroid portraits. I have pre-cut mats, linen tape, and plastic bags so I can peel off a Type 72 print (ISO 400, coaterless, lovely), mount it in the mat with linen tape, and hand it over in a minute or so. When I'm feeling the urge, I go set up on the street in town and ask passers-by. Usually, I don't even charge them, because I figger it's good practice. I have done these as fundraisers for worthy organizations, charging $15.

I also go out on the street with negative holders, and promise no one prints because I know I'd never keep track of who belongs to what negative. That's actually easy, unless you're a mental slob like me.

I also made a limited edition book of original prints of portraits of the 18 8th graders in my son's class. The pictures were a blast to make, and they're among my best work. Making 20 books (760 finished, toned, spotted prints in all, plus name labels: 1200 pieces to dry mount) was less fun.

Do portraits! They're fun!

steve simmons

31-Oct-2006, 05:03

I agree, once you put the film holder in you have to engage the subject directly. In my experience the subjects enjoy it as much as I do.

steve simmons

Ed Richards

31-Oct-2006, 05:54

One thing you can do with LF that does not work as well with small formats is embed the subject in a rich background and still have the detail to make a good portrait. Frank has a good example in his post. You see this in a lot of formal portraits of rich people with nice stuff, as well as some great environmental work. Diane Arbus even did it before she got into freak portraits. It also buys you some DOF to work in. Portraits are a good place to use your Technika or Graphic - you can check focus, plus you can do handheld if you are not worried about ultimate sharpness.

Leonard Evens

31-Oct-2006, 06:51

What I would like to know is what you can do in portraiture with large format that you couldn't do as well or better with a good medium format camera and a fine grain film. It should be a significant advantage because of all the disadvantages, such as not being able to observe the subject on the gg just before exposure, reduced depth of field or increased expsosure time, and a smaller choice of usable focal lengths. One advantage, which is a bit sublte, but which could be important if one knows how to use it, is the change in point of view obtained by rise or fall. You can only do the same thing with a fixed lens medium format camera by cropping afterwards, which reduces the resolution and tonal quality.

Bill Hahn

31-Oct-2006, 07:00

Bruce is right on about shooting polaroids.

I attended a workshop this past March about Large Format Portraiture and had a blast shooting polaroids.

There is a different dynamic between the photographer and the sitter with LF portraiture. Once you have the equipment setup and ready to go, you can stand to one side of the camera and engage your subject in conversation, and hit the release when the expression is right. There is a real pyschological difference when you're not holding a camera to your face - the subject can look at you directly, and react to you -- whereas usually the subject is staring at a mouth talking at them underneath a camera.

I first experimented with LF Portraiture with my mother as a subject; she was a reluctant sitter. To my surprise, one of the pictures reminded me of Weston's "Tina Reciting" portrait of Tina Modotti -- only because I caught my mother with her eyes shut, in the middle of enunciating some consonant, with a slight smile on her face. (I make the comparison of pictures only in regard to these details - I humbly submit that Weston is an infinitely better photographer than myself.) With a 35mm camera, I only got wary looks from her before (one picture positively reminding me of "American Gothic".)

Frank Petronio

31-Oct-2006, 07:17

There is no practical technical or quality reason to use LF for portraiture, unless you are a funded artist and can afford to make 8-foot tall, richly detailed prints of your subjects. If you have seen an Alec Soth print then you'll know what I mean. He works in 8x10 and they are so detailed...

But for magazine work or normal sized prints, you're right, a Mamiya 6x7 or Hasselblad or higher quality digital camera will more than suffice at provide detailed, grain-free prints and repro.

The reason for using the big, slow camera is for the process and how your people respond to it. I think if they see you putting yourself out -- sweating like a pig, fussing around, with a bit of nervous energy sometimes -- then they realize that you're really into it. And they tend to give something back. If the photographer is just snapping away -- even with an RZ you can snap -- then the shot isn't as important.

Of course a good portrait photographer can work with anything, but using a LF camera tend to increase concentration on both the photographer and the subject. Imagine using an 8x10 with twenty strobe heads and ten clients standing behind you and a host of stylists and assitants running about -- well that really makes you concentrate.

PViapiano

31-Oct-2006, 09:22

I like LF portraits because you can use its supposed disadvantages and turn them into pluses. Expect blurry shots and less depth of field...use those to create an atmosphere. One of the photographers I mentioned in my original post uses strobes to get enough light, but then tilts the front to create a blur below the chin and into the body.

I paged through Avedon's American West a few weeks ago, where all portraits were made with an 8x10 against his trademark stark white background. The clarity and detail were amazing, and it made all the difference in expressing Avedon's intent.

Jeff Curto, who has been featured in LensWork with his wonderful Italian architecture photos, has a podcast called Camera Position dedicated to large format and general photography, and in one of them he talks about the relationship of photographer and sitter. It's worth checking out. Just do a search within iTunes...

This has been a great discussion. It's so great to have input from so many people andpick up tips, hear experiences, etc...

Christopher Perez

31-Oct-2006, 10:09

Now that is one beautiful image!

This is a shot of my daughter Danielle, she's wearing an 'Isicholo' hat, it's a ceremonial hat worn by Zulu women, this particular hat was created by a Zulu women/artisan from the KwaZulu region located in South Africa,...

Christopher Perez

31-Oct-2006, 10:23

I used to think this too. Which is why I used to use a Mamiya RZ and several Rolleiflex TLRs.

Then I tried Palladium and found I need the larger negative size. So now I shoot 4x5, 5x7, 5x8, and 8x10 portraits almost exclusively.

There is no practical technical or quality reason to use LF for portraiture, unless you are a funded artist and can afford to make 8-foot tall, richly detailed prints of your subjects...

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/palladium/images/yogini1_450.jpg

David A. Goldfarb

31-Oct-2006, 11:19

With a Graflex reflex camera, you can view the subject on the groundglass up to the instant of exposure, and with a press camera, you can check focus using the rangefinder with a filmholder in the back, and with a Littman, you can even focus and frame at the same time, so those aren't necessarily incompatible with shooting sheet film. Short DOF can be an attraction rather than a disadvantage, depending on your style.

The ability to use historic lenses as they were intended to be used (at least partially, since we're using different materials, strobes, and such) is an attraction for me. I like the tonality and visual texture of a contact print from an in-camera neg, so that's another reason for me to shoot LF portraits.

The big camera can also turn the shooting situation into more of an event for everyone involved, and this can be used to advantage. The sitter has to be a more active part of the process, knowing when to remain still. I usually switch places with the subject so they can see what the image looks like on the groundglass.

Ernest Purdum

31-Oct-2006, 11:47

The potential problems you mention do exist and are the reason that a fair number of portrait specialists have used reflex cameras, the Graflex Home Portrait, the Gowlandflex, the Mac Van and a few others over the years. There are also devices like sliding backs which can reduce the time between final focusing and exposure.

Even so, many fine large format portraits, indeed no doubt the majority, have been taken with normal view camera equipment, using the methods described above. You might encounter problems with fidgety small kids,

Christopher Perez

31-Oct-2006, 11:57

Not if you put them in the freezer first.

The cold tends to slow the system down enough to squelch overactivity commonly found in children. :)

... You might encounter problems with fidgety small kids,

Jeremy Moore

31-Oct-2006, 11:58

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g10/jeremydmoore/AndrewHoldingHead.jpg
http://www.apug.org/gallery/data/500/caraverito.jpg
http://www.apug.org/gallery/data/500/Amanda.jpg

I've been doing some LF portraiture and it is very fun and always a challenge (for the photographer and the sitter). My next obstacle will be learning wet plate for a project I want to do :-)

BrianShaw

31-Oct-2006, 12:27

I feel more like a movie director than a photographer when shooting a LF portrait. My camera is usually pre-set so I can completely concentrate on the subject, then I just stand next my view camera and give direction while talking to them.

That's the best aspect of LF portraiture!

steve simmons

31-Oct-2006, 13:00

To Chris Perexz and Red Orchid

Would you like to submit some of your lf portraits to us for review? They are very good and interesting.

steve simmons
view camera magazine

Ray Bidegain

31-Oct-2006, 13:14

I have been making portraits and nudes on large format for years and find it a wonderful way of working. Here are a couple of mine.

Ray Bidegain

Danny Liao

31-Oct-2006, 15:05

Hi,

I'm new. I'm just getting back into shooting 4x5 so I decided to join this wonderful forum. Anyway, here's on from me. Portrait was shot with a 75mm. Inspired by Platon.

C. D. Keth

31-Oct-2006, 15:31

Frank...
And although it's only a med format shot, I couldn't resist adding this one of my daughter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/254668124/

I'm still in the process of reading replies but that is absolutelywonderful! Only a medium format shot:p

Ken Lee

31-Oct-2006, 16:19

Portraits don't always have to be taken close-up. Nor must they be made indoors.

Here is one taken with a 5x7 camera and 300mm Fujinon A.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/portraits/tavern.jpg

Hugo Zhang

31-Oct-2006, 21:14

Here are three with Heliar 36cm lens.

C. D. Keth

31-Oct-2006, 21:36

Seeing the variety in your portraits has given me a lot more confidence than when I posted the first post. I think I'm going to shoot some, perhaps post some scans, think about it, and then shoot more :-D

Capocheny

31-Oct-2006, 22:07

Do a search for Jim Galli's portraits... they're really great! :)

Cheers

harrykauf

31-Oct-2006, 22:29

I did some on Polaroid with an aero ektar lens. Have to try some on film.

http://static.flickr.com/94/256872137_e33c973707_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/83/256872132_25654ef89c_o.jpg

C. D. Keth

1-Nov-2006, 05:43

Do a search for Jim Galli's portraits... they're really great! :)

Cheers

Agreed. That's what sparked much of my current interest :)

Christopher Perez

1-Nov-2006, 09:54

Practice. Practice. Practice.

It's the quickest way to succeed for many of us mere mortals. :)

Seeing the variety in your portraits has given me a lot more confidence than when I posted the first post. I think I'm going to shoot some, perhaps post some scans, think about it, and then shoot more :-D

Scott Davis

1-Nov-2006, 11:42

I did some on Polaroid with an aero ektar lens. Have to try some on film.

http://static.flickr.com/94/256872137_e33c973707_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/83/256872132_25654ef89c_o.jpg

Which Aero-Ektar did you use? the 178mm? do you know if there is one that will cover 5x7?

Jay DeFehr

1-Nov-2006, 12:32

Hi Leonard.

I understand your question, and agree with your premise as it applies to many LF photographs. I shoot formats ranging from 35mm through 8x10, originally out of curiosity, and a desire to experience some of the historic sweep of our medium, but with time, I've felt the need to narrow my use of these tools to their best advantage. This has been a very personal process, and I don't claim any relevance for others. I choose to use LF over smaller formats for two simple reasons; image quality, and printing process. By image quality, I don't mean to claim superior image quality compared to smaller formats at contact print sizes, but instead, a different quality of image. I use vintage portrait lenses that rely on abherrations for their effects, and find the fine qualities of these lenses are diminished, or lost with enlargement. Secondly, contact printing permits the use of papers and processes not compatible with enlargement, and which offer a rich palette of opportunities for expression, plus, it's a lot of fun!

For me, LF doesn't compete with smaller formats, but my 3x4 Graflex RB represents the closest point of intersection between formats, both in size and in use. I use my Graflex RB in much the same way I use my Mamiya RB; handheld, in available light. The Graflex is a slow, clunky, behemoth compared to the Mamiya, and the negative is only about 1.5X as large, but the difference in the contact prints is significant, partly due to the difference in size, but also because of the lenses I can use on the FP shuttered Graflex. I use 12-sheet bag mags with my Graflex, so I can work very quickly compared to a view camera, but not as quickly or easily as I can work with MF. Admittedly, if my Mamiya was a 6x9 instead of a 6x7, it would be more difficult to justify using the Graflex, but the 6x7 contact prints are just too small, and the 3x4s seem like the minimum for me. Incidentally, on the very rare occasions when I have enlarged my 3x4 negs made with the standard 150mm Xenar, I've been very happy with the 12x16 prints, which represents only a 4X enlargement.

Since I rarely print larger than 8x10, regardless of negative format, my MF outfit doesn't see much use; I shoot 35mm for enlargements, and LF for contact printing. I hope I've been able to give you some insight into my personal format choices, and why they probably don't apply to others. Whatever fromat you decide to shoot, have fun!

Jay

Harold_4074

1-Nov-2006, 15:31

Something that someone more knowledgeable than me should address is the notion of the "plasticity" attributed to the very large absolute aperture of the older portrait lenses (as compared to the "relative" aperture, or f/ number). The claim can be made that for the older Veritos, Heliars and their ilk, the front element is comparable in size to the interpupillary distance of the typical human, so opposite sides of the lens "see" different perspectives and seamlessly merge them on the film. This is an effect that is not likely to be seen with any medium format camera useful for portraiture, and it may explain the sense of "presence" that many 8x10 and larger portraits seem to have.

As far as the issue of not being able to see the groundglass at the moment of exposure, my limited experience agrees with the opinions expressed by Frank Petronio and several others: with LF, one tends to stand beside the camera and engage the subject, usually leading to a subjectively different type of portrait than is obtained by looking through a viewfinder and capturing the expression of someone talking to a camera.

Joel Brown

2-Nov-2006, 10:51

I photographed my mother on Sept. 30 for her 80th birthday. We were celebrating on the south shore of Lake Tahoe when I set up my 8x10 Deardorff with a 14" Commercial Ektar lens. While the rest of my family was behind me yelling at her to "SMILE!!", I convinced her to just relax and look into the lens.

DrPablo

2-Nov-2006, 11:29

My choices for portraiture are my 6.3 megapixel DSLR, 35mm film, or my 4x5. I'd be thrilled with a Hassy, but in the absence of that I've really enjoyed the control, enlargeability, and detail with 4x5.

The trick is that among my favorite subjects for portraits are my niece and nephew, who are 5 and 2 years old. I took this one on Cape Cod last summer using 4x5 Portra 160NC and a Schneider 5.6/210 APO Symmar. I arranged the toys, had them sit around on my brother's / sister-in-law's laps while I fiddled with the framing and focus. I then put in the film holder, had them smile, and tripped it.

I gave my brother a 24x24" canvas-transfer print of this for his birthday. I scanned it myself on my i800f, did a little bit of color correction and dust removal, and it looked great.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/64659458.jpg

DrPablo

2-Nov-2006, 11:35

The claim can be made that for the older Veritos, Heliars and their ilk, the front element is comparable in size to the interpupillary distance of the typical human, so opposite sides of the lens "see" different perspectives and seamlessly merge them on the film. This is an effect that is not likely to be seen with any medium format camera useful for portraiture, and it may explain the sense of "presence" that many 8x10 and larger portraits seem to have.

That's a very interesting idea.

Still, my suspicion is that that isn't the underlying explanation behind the effect.

If the image still comes to a single point at the nodal point of the lens, and the angle of view of the lens is held constant, then a tiny physical aperture will still have the same perspective as a large physical aperture -- it's just that the lens elements and the pupil will intersect the incoming 'cone' of light at a different spot.

By contrast, the interpupillary distance with human vision is of course producing two different images altogether, one cast on each retina, which we are able to 'seamlessly' merge neurologically (assuming normal neuromuscular function of the eye movements). Fully 1/3 of our cerebral cortex is devoted to visual processing, and I'd imagine that coordinating the different input from each eye is a neurologically complex process.

Kerik Kouklis

2-Nov-2006, 11:45

I haven't done a lot of portrait work, but I'm planning to do more LF and ULF portraiture in the near future. First one is 14x17 gum over platinum, second is 8x10 wet plate collodion.

Christopher Perez

2-Nov-2006, 11:48

DrPablo

2-Nov-2006, 11:49

What would people here consider an 'ideal' portrait lens for 4x5? I have used only the 210 so far, which I feel is a bit too wide. I have a new 300mm lens that will hopefully be better.

Christopher Perez

2-Nov-2006, 11:54

On 4x5: 210mm Just move in a little closer if you're not getting what you want on the groundglass. 300mm feels rediculously long to me. 240mm is also too long. But lenses are cheap enough that you might be able to try and buy a few to see what fits your need.

What would people here consider an 'ideal' portrait lens for 4x5? I have used only the 210 so far, which I feel is a bit too wide. I have a new 300mm lens that will hopefully be better.

Sheldon N

2-Nov-2006, 12:14

Here's a shot I took last night and scanned this morning, a portrait of my son done on 4x5. I think I might use it for our annual Christmas letter this year.

Technical details: Wista 4x5, Caltar II-N 210mm f/5.6 @ f/22.5 and 1/125, Tri-X 320 exposed at 640 and processed in Acufine, lighting is a single overhead umbrella/softbox and a second light as a spot for the background. Lights are both Alien Bees B400's which aren't that powerful, hence the reason I pushed the film to 640 for added depth of field.

The negative is wickedly sharp, man I love strobes!

DrPablo

2-Nov-2006, 12:20

On 4x5: 210mm Just move in a little closer if you're not getting what you want on the groundglass. 300mm feels rediculously long to me. 240mm is also too long.

Very interesting -- my favorite focal lengths for portraits in 35mm is about 135, which is considerably longer than 210 in 4x5.

Ron Marshall

2-Nov-2006, 12:30

Scott Davis

2-Nov-2006, 12:44

I know I've found my urge to telephoto has been substantially curtailed by moving into larger formats. The longest lens I have mounted in a shutter for my 8x10 is a 360mm (14"), which is about equivalent to the 210. I have a 600mm but it is not in a shutter of any kind, so it isn't getting used for portrait work now, and frankly, I don't know that I'd want to use it for portraits on 8x10. Too long, too little DOF, and frankly, it's massive. I THINK my 8x10's front standard could handle it, but I wouldn't bet money on that right now. 210 is actually a very nice length for 4x5 portraiture, and 14" is good for 8x10. 300 is a nice length for 5x7. For general purpose applications, I find myself trending wider as I go up in each format as well, to a point. I think this is in part because of the aforementioned depth of field issues, but it is also because as you go up in size, you finally have the amount of detail being recorded to make a wide-angle landscape meaningful.

Sheldon N

2-Nov-2006, 13:06

Nice shot!

Pretty good output from the AB 400, even @640 I was surprised when I read F22.5.

What size softbox did you use, and how close was the front of the softbox from his face?

Thanks!

I used the Photek Softliter II, in a 48" umbrella size. The umbrella works by firing the flash away from the subject into the umbrella (bounce style) then adding a translucent diffusion panel across the opening of the umbrella. Its somewhat like a bounce softbox, makes a pretty nice soft light.

The umbrella was maybe 3-5 feet away from him, pretty close. I actually had the camera just a couple inches under the facing edge of the light. Of course it was fired at full power. :)

I bought the B400's for use with my DSLR, where they work quite nicely. Had I known I'd be using it with the 4x5, I'd probably have gone with the 1600 series, maybe White Lightning instead of Alien Bees as well.

C. D. Keth

2-Nov-2006, 21:12

There's a good friend of Kerry Thalmann who uses a ULF (20x24?) Ebony and one of the APO Germinar 1000mm lenses. His UID is "Zebra" over on Apug. His image of a young boy is simply remarkable. Check it out.

I'm intrigued now but I'm not a subscriber at APUG (too poor-->college) so I can't view any photos there.:(

Ron Marshall

3-Nov-2006, 05:44

I'm intrigued now but I'm not a subscriber at APUG (too poor-->college) so I can't view any photos there.:(

You can sign-up for three months for $6.

Frank Petronio

3-Nov-2006, 05:46

APUG is a rip-off (grumble)

Monty McCutchen

3-Nov-2006, 07:57

Hi all,

just found this thread. I'm the nut that has the 20 x 24 camera. Here is the portrait of my four year old son Satchel Cochise--the Medicine Man. Shot with a 550 lens from about 18 inches lens to nose. The look on his face is abject fear after being told not to move! I have one of his sister too but she is 6 and defiant so she moved a bit on principal alone, it created a nice little blur but in the end it isn't as arresting as Satchel's portrait. Can't wait for the teenage years. This print is a Gum Over Palladium print achieved with much help in a workshop with Kerik. The straight palladium print is nice in a different way but the gum over is much more dramatic.

I also shoot wet plate collodion and have started shooting some 20 x 24 ambrotypes. When I get a chance to shoot a digi picture of some of those I will try to put some of those into the thread as well. They are something, not sure what but something nonetheless!

Hope ya'll enjoy.

Chris, we'll all have to get together (Kerry et al) when I make it through Portland this year

continued success all,

Monty

Frank Petronio

3-Nov-2006, 08:56

Sweet hazeus on a swizzle stick that is so nice!

Ralph Barker

3-Nov-2006, 09:00

Monty - excellent image.

Christopher Perez

3-Nov-2006, 09:11

Monty,

That's a great image of your son! Kerry suggested I look at it and I was blown away when I did. That's really nice work.

I look forward to getting together when you're in town.

... I'm the nut that has the 20 x 24 camera. Here is the portrait of my four year old son Satchel Cochise--the Medicine Man... This print is a Gum Over Palladium print achieved with much help in a workshop with Kerik. The straight palladium print is nice in a different way but the gum over is much more dramatic...

Chris, we'll all have to get together (Kerry et al) when I make it through Portland this year...