4x5 or 8x10 for potrait project ?

[dbr]

Hello everyone, I am about to undertake a large portrait series (about 75-80 total)
in color. I have shot in 4x5 for the last 12 years or so but it has been well over 20 years since I used an 8x10 and I have never scanned an 8 x 10 color neg.

One of my objectives is to have the option of printing the portraits at a large size,
say as large as 48"x 60" @ 300dpi

Aesthetic considerations aside, given that the single largest expense is in high res.drum scans for this size output,
is there any advantage to using 8x10 ( 6x enlargements vs. 24x enlargements) ?

My brain (whats's left of it) always turns to mush where dpi is concerned.

I would also welcome opinions on (obtainable) portrait lenses for 8x10.

I've probably opened a can of worms here but I know enough to ask when I don't know.

Thanks

[BradS]

Neither.

I think 5x7 is the way to go for portraits. It just fits the human body shape better.

[Ken Lee]

Ignoring cost, a good lens for 4x5 and 8x10 will be close in terms of resolution. So other factors aside, your 8x10 images will be close to twice as sharp, and close to 1/2 as grainy, since they will require 1/2 the enlargement.

From 4x5 inches to 4x5 feet, is a 12x enlargement, not 24x. (Perhaps you are thinking about area).

You need a lens 2X the size for 8x10, and you get 1/4 the depth of field (IE 2 stops less) given the same basic image. Since color film tends to be slower than b&w, will you have enough light to stop the lens down commensurately ? Or don't you care about depth of field ?

Some people consider a full-body shot to be a portrait. Others mean a close head-shot. Which length lens would you use on a 4x5 camera ?

[Frank Petronio]

If you can afford to do it, then go for it, they will be just that much better. It's not only the resolution of the scan that matters, but the depth and presence, which are enhanced the larger you go.

The aperture you shoot at has more effect than the type of lens almost, I think. Short depth of field or tack sharp? Torsos or faces or environmental portraits?

Avedon used a modern 360 at f/16 on 8x10 for his West series. I thought those were swell.

[Walter Calahan]

"I thought those were swell."

Swell indeed. Grin.

Don't think dpi, think ppi.

****

Don't worry about getting the right lens or format, simply make sure your gear doesn't get in the way of your vision. Lately I've had fun making portraits of my students using an Olympus half-frame camera. Haven't got my 5x7 Graflex up to speed yet to make all the bode shapes fit better. Someday. Need to find really little screws.

[BarryS]

...

Avedon used a modern 360 at f/16 on 8x10 for his West series. I thought those were swell.

I remember going to see the "In The American West" exhibition in the 80's and it was like a grenade thrown into an art museum. This was before the gigantism that's permeated contemporary photography, and the effect was electric. One of the best exhibitions I've ever seen. As to whether dbr should use 4x5 or 8x10, I'd do some test shots in both formats before deciding.

[Bruce Watson]

One of my objectives is to have the option of printing the portraits at a large size, say as large as 48"x 60" @ 300dpi.

Let's see. That's (48 in)(300 ppi)(60 in)(300 ppi)(2 bytes/channel)(3 channels) = 1.5 GB. This is doable. It'll require a big honking PC / Mac, but Photoshop can handle files this big given enough hardware. Just don't expect it to be quick.


Aesthetic considerations aside, given that the single largest expense is in high res.drum scans for this size output, is there any advantage to using 8x10 ( 6x enlargements vs. 24x enlargements)?

To start with, that's only a 12x enlargement for 5x4. You can use 5x4 for this work depending on the film you choose and how the prints get displayed. If you are going to encourage people to walk right up to the prints then you might be more happy with 7x5 or 10x8 as there's less chance of any graininess and tonal gradations will be somewhat better.

I'm a drum scanner operator. I've got to say that the state of the art of scanning today is such that you might not want to use a drum scanner. A 6x enlargement can be handled just as well on a professional flatbed. You might want to talk to our own Ted Harris about this. I suspect he'll chime in. Ted, where are you... ;-)

[enochRoot]

Avedon used a modern 360 at f/16 on 8x10 for his West series. I thought those were swell.

were you able to see the actual prints? that show came through our local museum last year, and it was one of the few times i was happy to be living in columbus! it was probably one of the most moving gallery shows (photography or otherwise) that i have ever seen. just amazing!

edit: hadn't read barry's post yet:


I remember going to see the "In The American West" exhibition in the 80's and it was like a grenade thrown into an art museum. This was before the gigantism that's permeated contemporary photography, and the effect was electric. One of the best exhibitions I've ever seen.

couldn't have said it better myself!

[John O'Connell]

I would also welcome opinions on (obtainable) portrait lenses for 8x10.

If you want a modern lens, just about every portrait length for 8x10 is easily obtainable. You can get very good deals on the standard plasmats (Sironars, Symmars, Nikkor-Ws, Fuji CMWs) in the longer lengths, 360mm and 480mm. They weigh a ton and you'd need a stable camera, but they'd probably be a first best choice for color work. If you want something lighter, a 450mm Nikkor M, a Ronar, or an Artar would be worth a look. There’s also a Fujinon Tessar, a 420mm L-series that might work.

Anything longer than 480mm in 8x10 creates diminishing returns when doing portraits. A 600mm lens requires about 36" of bellows to do a head and shoulders composition. You can switch to a telephoto, but you’re into a range where you have to factor in the pupillary magnification and they’re not designed for macro work.

I’ve done a decent amount of 8x10 portrait work, and I’ve mostly used a 355 G-Claron and a 210 Sironar-N (now sold). If I were starting a long series of portraits in color, I’d probably pick up a 240mm Sironar-S for full-length or environmental shots and use the G-Claron for everything else.

[Frank Petronio]

There is a book out of how Avedon did the West series (Google it). It has photos of his set-ups and basic info, plus there is stuff from his former assistants circulating the web. Basically he used heavy duty, first class gear.

[Mark Sawyer]

If you're considering a barrel-mount portrait lens, an advantage of 4x5 would be that you could find one with a focal plane shutter. With a little looking, you could even find a 5x7 with one. With 8x10, you'd haver to go with a Packard shutter and nd filters.

[Jim Galli]

Can I ask if these will all share a common studio set-up, or will these be done in the field.

Also define "obtainable" and do you desire any other than standard sharp / contrast? What are you envisioning?

[dbr]

Jim, most of these will be done in my studio. There are, however, some that won't or can't travel to me so I must go to them . Since these are not environmental portraits, I want them to share a similar background, distance from lens etc,

As far as lenses go, I would like to see examples of portraits taken with a Cooke or other illustrious old portrait lenses. I probably have seen many, but unless you have a particular lens, it is difficult to knowi which lens was used for which portrait.

If anyone knows of examples of work made with a particular portrait lens, and where I can see them, I would be grateful.
Thanks

[Jim Galli]

My web pages are as good a place as any to start. Mostly 8X10. Some field, some studio, all naturally lit.


Jim, most of these will be done in my studio. There are, however, some that won't or can't travel to me so I must go to them . Since these are not environmental portraits, I want them to share a similar background, distance from lens etc,

As far as lenses go, I would like to see examples of portraits taken with a Cooke or other illustrious old portrait lenses. I probably have seen many, but unless you have a particular lens, it is difficult to knowi which lens was used for which portrait.

If anyone knows of examples of work made with a particular portrait lens, and where I can see them, I would be grateful.
Thanks

[Ron Marshall]

It is pretty much a trade off between a bit more depth of field (with 4x5) or a bit more shapness and less grain (8x10).

In your position I would use a 5x7.

[Gerry]

Avedon used a Deardorff in the field along with white paper backgrounds and 3 or 4 assistants. I believe he shot with a 360mm lens in natural light. The pictures for the book were shot over 5 or 6 seasons, something like 17000 exposures and 350+ subjects. The book mentioned is by one of his assistants (Laura Wilson)titled....AVEDON AT WORK: IN THE AMERICAN WEST...it is quite good.

If I were you I would do 8x10 portraiture. I did a series in thailand recently with a 8x10and white backgrounds and find the negs a joy to print. I just put them in the old enlarger and all this wonderfull detail comes forth!!

Go with a 8x10

www.gerryyaum.com

[Darryl Baird]

Avedon was doing giant prints in the 1970s. He had a show touring the USA with huge -- 4x6 foot or larger-- prints of model and celebrity heads shots. Twiggy was awesome, so was Verushka. I saw it in Dallas... and wrote a review for a local art rag.

Some ten years later he was back, this time in Ft. Worth, with the American West series which was sponsored by the Amon Carter Museum. They were also awesome.

When done "right," 8x10 will win every time, and especially in an exhibition print of that size.


I remember going to see the "In The American West" exhibition in the 80's and it was like a grenade thrown into an art museum. This was before the gigantism that's permeated contemporary photography, and the effect was electric. One of the best exhibitions I've ever seen. As to whether dbr should use 4x5 or 8x10, I'd do some test shots in both formats before deciding.

[Dave Wooten]

Just a thought, 11 x 14 and have Bob Carne enlarge on his 11 x 14 enlarger and print the show...wow!

Lenses, 355 G Claron, 450 C Fugi.:)

[Gerry]

hmm 11x14 enlarger wow

[aduncanson]

You need a lens 2X the size for 8x10


I don't imagine anybody will really be interested, but his is not literally true even though 8x10 is twice the size of 4x5. The comparable lens is the one that allows you the same framing of the subject from the same point in space (that is at the same subject distance.) In portraiture you may be close enough to the subject that focusing for a given image distance requires disproportionately more extension with the 8x10 lens than with the 4x5. If you are shooting a closely cropped head shot, essentially 1:1 on 8x10 then the equivalent of a 240mm lens on 4x5 film, is only 360mm. For whole body portraits the effect is almost negligible and 453mm is the 8x10 equivalent of 240mm on 4x5. Only near infinite subject distances, does the intuitive 2x relationship really apply.

Completely counter-intuitively, (but familiar to microscopists) with extremely large reproduction ratios where very small subjects are imaged onto much larger pieces of film, the 8x10 equivalent of a 120mm lens on 4x5 is a 120mm lens. (Yes I meant to say 120mm both instances.)

[Gerry]

Think I am confused, have to read that again.

[Gerry]

Ok I think I got it now, will stick with my 300mm for 8x10, sometimes this techno stuff gets in the way of making photos. Had a talk with Jock Sturges where he just broke it down for me. Use 1 camera, use 1 film, use 1 lens, toss the other gear out! There is alot to that.

[cjbroadbent]

I'll go with Gerry, above, one camera, one lens. But Jock Sturges tossed out an amazing amount of gear! I have the catalogue of Christies sale of his stuff. Seven pages of cameras.
Back to the original question. It you've got a 4x5 enlarger, somehow get your hands on a Cambo twin-lens 4x5.
Otherwise, 8x10 gives you a negative that you can both scan yourself and contact print. (5x7 needs a drum scan to better a home scanned 8x10).
The real secret of LF portraiture is a Prontor shutter and someone else loading the camera.

[stehei]

If it's mostly studio-based work, go with 8*10,
make sure you get strong moddeling lights of permanent light!

I am doing a project right now (b/W), agfa ansco, wollensak classic
300mm lens and a isconar 240mm, and even though I sometimes
wonder why I get into the trouble of carrying this thing around,
the depth and tonality of 8*10 I have never seen surpassed.

I scan my negs with a v700, which is a very competent scanner,
and those are 2GB files, that are handled by PS rather easily.
Advantage? Complete tonality control (I know some people
do not agree, but the curves/shadowhighlight etc are great),
and spotting is so easy. They print very well on my epson
3800.

Even for work on location I lug around all this stuff.
Two things, get completely accustomed to the camera,
its quirks etc, and if possible, get an assistant to change
the plates, it can be hassle talking to your model, and thinking
about the handling routine,

I think you'll find it worth every drop of sweat!

my 2 cents

stefan

[Ben Syverson]

I would shoot 8x10 over 4x5 if the goal was large prints, because it's essentially the difference between having to do a drum scan (4x5) and being able to do a flatbed scan at home (8x10).

Flatbed scans of 4x5 look great, but whether or not they would hold up as 60" prints (12x enlargement) would come down to what level of softness you're comfortable with... I would think you'd want to drum scan any 4x5 that's destined to be that big. Which will get pricey...

But 8x10 to 60" is only a 6x enlargement, which you should be able to manage very well with a $300 (or less...) flatbed scanner.

The entire reason I'm getting into 8x10 is increased scanability...

[Dvenosa]

If you want to print this big I think that money isn't an awful problem, and a basic 8x10 outfit(if you already have a sturdy tripod/head) isn't much more expensive than a 4x5.
Probably you can have the same equipment that Avedon used for 3-4k:

8x10 Deardorff
8x10 Sinar P
Schneider 360mm Symmar s

[Bruce Barlow]

I'm headed towards 8x10 portraits with Alice (my Richard Ritter 8x10). Just did some over the weekend with my 305 G-Claron (4-6 people in the frame). I'll use my 355 G-Claron for "solos."

It was really fun! Even more fun than 4x5, which is hard for me to imagine. I think I'll set up on the streets in Keene and nab passers-by. Give myself one holder per subject, just to make sure I learn how to be good at it.

[BradS]

.... I think I'll set up on the streets in Keene and nab passers-by. Give myself one holder per subject, just to make sure I learn how to be good at it.

Bruce, have you seen Roark Johnson's "Stranger a Day" project? Good stuff.

[Bruce Barlow]

Bruce, have you seen Roark Johnson's "Stranger a Day" project? Good stuff.

No, but I will! Thanks for the tip!