a question for the more experienced ones

[carlos2000]

i have mainly worked with 35 mm and 6x4,5 middle format, but now i need something more.
i'm starting to work on portraits, and i need the right equipment.
what should i get? i need to make pin sharp prints, size 90 cm x 90 cm,
and also excellent quality book prints.
i asked advice from a photographer who works with 6x7 middle format. he said that because
modern film is so good, the best choice would be to get a 6x7 camera with a good lens, no need for larger negatives.
i'm still thinking about large format cameras. i've tried sinar 10 years ago and it was great then, should i start with large format?
what do you think? what is the best equipment for excellent portrait photography? which camera?
which lens? which film would be the best for this purpose?

thanks,
carlos

[Ted Harris]

Ansel Adams used to say you should use the largest camera you can carry ... or in your case,if you are talking aboout studio portraiture, the largest you can afford and have room for in the studio. Having said that the larger you go the more detail you have in your original although how you print will become a limiting factor too.

Having said that you will get a significant gain with 4x5 from 6x7 and the added luxury of much more precise framing, composition and focusing with a view camaera. You can always use your view camera with a roll film (6x7 or 6x9) backif you don't need the negatives. There are a lot of folks here who shoot 8x10 for portraits, I shoot 5x7 and 4x5. Before answering the rest of your question some more for you:

--When you say pin sharp do you really mean you want the entire print to be pin sharp, meaning you have no interest in any soft focus effects?

--Are you going to shoot color or black and white?

--Are you going to be in a studio with controlled lighting or outdoors?

--Are there any size/price limitations?

Aside from all those specifics your starting point is any 4x5 view camera. For portraits virtually any camera will do; if you like Sinar thn that will do fine. As for a lens see the recent threads here for lens size for portraiture. My preference is something in the 250mm to 300mm range which gives you some room tomove and will allow you to do a head and shoulders without getting in too close. If you really want tack sharp then go with any of the standard plasmat lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji or Nikon. Older lenses from Kodak and others will also serve.

[carlos2000]

thanks
that was quick
i'll be shooting outdoors with colour film. pin sharp the whole frame so that all the details in the skin are clearly visible. aa's advice is fine - the size would be something i can carry with me. i'm not yet sure abouth the prize.

[cyrus]

Too many questions! 90cm = 3.5 ft. That's pressing the envelope for medium format, I would think. Naturally, a larger negative means less enlargment means less grain. There are lots of other factors, however.

[Ron Marshall]

90cm from 6x7 is a 15 times enlargement. That is the same enlargement as a 15x22 from a 35mm camera. It would look fine from a reasonable viewing distance, but if you want the utmost detail go for the 4x5.

Shoot a roll of 35mm and print one frame at 15x22 to see if 6x6 is acceptable for you.

[Scott Davis]

90cm is actually closer to 36 inches (3 feet, or one yard). If you really want to print THAT big, then at least 4x5 would be advised. That would put you in the 10x enlargement factor, which is still quite manageable. If you're doing portraits, and want everything tack sharp so as to see every hair and wrinkle, I assume you're not shooting portraits of ladies of a certain age. Personally, I would recommend 4x5 (wider variety of color film stocks available), a medium-speed film like Kodak Portra 160 NC, and look at a lens like an old Kodak Commercial Ektar in a 10" focal length (250mm). The reasons for this suggestion are that
A: The glass and coatings on the Commercial Ektars were second to none, and they're still excellent lenses today
B: They have a very nice gentle color rendition, and are plenty contrasty without being harsh
C: You'll be able to control what is sharp and what is not very easily, and what you want sharp will be razor sharp, again without being harsh.

If you're looking for some more modern glass, look for a Fuji 250 F6.7 . This will make for a very nice portrait length for 4x5 also, and will have the added advantage of being in a modern shutter, so flash sync and precise exposures will be possible. If you shoot negative film, however, exactingly precise exposures will not be necessary.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Carlos.

I've printed lots of MF color film to that size and larger for clients. Color film doesn't suffer from grain the way that B&W does, and doesn't depend on grain for apparent sharpness. The downsides to LF for portraiture are many and important. When I shoot MF, I shoot handheld, and exploit the benefits of mobility, acuurate to the split second focussing, and quickness of operation. All of these benefits are forfeit when shooting LF, but compensated in other ways. If you need to make square prints, you might as well shoot square format. There are many quality 6x6 format cameras available, but the prices on MF equip. are at an all-time low right now, so you can buy a Hasselblad, or Rollei SL66 outfit for next to nothing. You can also rent equipment and make some sample prints, after which you'll be in a much better position to weigh your alternatives. I thionk you'll find MF more than adequate to the task, and far more user-friendly than LF. Good luck.

Jay

[C. D. Keth]

Keep in mind that LF portraits also tend to be much less candid than medium format portraits. The increase in grain might be worth it if you want nice easy, comfortable candid shots.

[Jim Jones]

The best aid I've found for getting pin sharp photos is a tripod, regardless of format.

[Peter Lewin]

Another vote for MF (6x6 or 6x7, as in Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Mamiya, etc.), although I have done portraits in everything from 35mm through 4x5. The first issue is Depth of Field: with an MF camera, a 150mm lens is a typical portrait lens, while even on a 4x5, a typical portrait lens would probably be in the 250-300mm range. The longer the lens, the less DOF at a given aperture, which is why in many LF portraits, only a portion of the face is in truly sharp focus (normally one focusses on the eyes). So MF has the advantage. The second issue, raised by an earlier poster, is speed. With an LF camera, the first shot can be very quick (you've pre-focussed and pulled the darkslide) but subsequent shots are slow (you have to replace the darkslide, flip or put in a new film-holder, and re-cock the lens; with MF you either simply wind-on the film, or (as in my Rolleiflex 6006) the motor automatically advances the film after each shot, so you can "grab" the next expression you like very quickly. Bottom line, my 4x5 is my favorite camera (and many wonderful portraits have been made, and are being made, in LF), but for the specific use of portrait photography, personally I would use MF.

[John Berry]

I have to go with med format for this application. Peter Lewin won me over. If your doing this for bucks you might be doing digital in the future. MF much more friendly. One comprimise would be a 4x5 press camera. Archives show they wern't too shaby. Be sure to scroll up to what Jim Jones said.

[John O'Connell]

I do 8x10 portraits. For what you are talking about, 6x7 is probably fine.

MF 6x7 cameras were designed specifically for your application. LF would only be useful if you needed some specific image quality you could only achieve with a view camera: really long or short lenses, movements, negatives for alt process work.