4X5 Camera for portraits

[Songyun]

if you got to pick one camera let's say no shift, tilt, swing needed to shoot portraits. Which one would you use? suppose you only have one lens. (That rules out TLR).

[jp]

I'd choose the speed graphic I already have. Something with a rotating back would be a little better, but not necessary as the camera can be rotated on the tripod. I'd want to use some old lenses, so a focal plane shutter would be handy. Otherwise, ignore the extra ounces of weight or get a crown graphic.

Which lens depends on what sort of aesthetics or style you're going for. A 200-210mm range anything will be in real nice range. A shuttered 203 optar/ektar is good for most purposes being a tiny bit soft wide open with lots of smooth bokeh and will have flash sync. An old tessar will also be similar and probably cheaper. A kodak 305 portrait lens or other purpose made soft focus will be lush soft wide open and sharper stopped down. If you're going for existing light handheld, then a faster lens like a 210/5.6 planar style from schneider/nikon/etc..

[Songyun]

My concern is regarding work flow. I have a lens with shutter, would like to shoot with a few grafmatics. Of course TLR is my best bet, if I have two identical lens.

[Frank Petronio]

My preference is a heavy #5 Gitzo and a heavy metal monorail that locks down nice and tight, like a Sinar Norma, a Linhof Kardan, Horseman L, Toyo G, etc.

What you want to do is not worry about moving the camera as you change the film quickly. A heavy set-up allows you to shove holders in, pull Grafmatics in and out, flick the shutter... and nothing moves by accident.

With lighter cameras it is very easy to rotate or cock it as you try to shoot several holders quickly. Unlike landscape shooters who can take their time, with portraits you sometimes are in a hurry to capture a feeling before it passes and often you want to shoot more than one or two sheets.

At wide-open, close portrait distances I have never been able to get consistent, reliable results using handheld rangefinder cameras with 127-150mm lenses, so I doubt I could do better with a 210. Cameras I've used include Speeds and Crowns, Technika IV and V, and the Polaroid 110 conversions. I think that you can handhold for moderate distances, especially if you stop down, but I remain skeptical of anyone who claims they can shoot 4x5 head & shoulder shots wide open and focused where intended, consistently. You can get lucky but it is a good way to burn film.

If your vision is good, the Graflex SLR is probably the best portrait camera for handheld close work. I found it hard to focus w reading glasses, and the viewing system (mirror mostly) must be in good condition.

At close distances, the 4x5 TLR has quite a difference between the top and bottom lenses, more so than smaller cameras. It usually doesn't matter, but it could.

In the end, after trying them all (except the TLR), I believe the conservative, heavier professional camera and heavy tripod- or stand-mounted approach is best practice for large format portraiture.

[Songyun]

Thanks Frank.
If I leave the camera on tripod, and intend to use a rangefinder, what would be my best option?

[Frank Petronio]

It's hard to use a rangefinder on a tripod because you want to aim the rangefinder at the point you want to focus on, which probably isn't where it falls when mounted on the tripod. Also, I do not think that rangefinders have the required accuracy at portrait distances of 4-8 feet.

You are better off focusing on the ground glass and watching your subject for any movement between focusing and the exposure. This is another reason why I like a heavy camera -- because I am watching my subject, not the camera.

Some people will focus and use a piece of string tied the camera. Then they will put a marker on the string - a knot or tape - and use the string as a way to check focus.

There are other techniques if you search threads on "how to" for large-format portraiture.

[Ken Lee]

If you don't care about shift/swing/tilt, do you care about carrying it around ? Must it be portable ? Indoors only ?

If not, then the cheapest camera is best, as long as it has sufficient bellows draw and a decent groundglass.

Subjects often respond warmly to wooden cameras with brass fittings. Something about the hand-made quality, puts them at ease.

[cjbroadbent]

If you have money left over for boxes of film (and a wife or daughter to change film-holders), then you definitely need a press or Prontor type shutter.

[mdm]

Im no expert, but feel a battered old 5x7 2D with a 4x5 back on a heavy tripod would be ideal. Heavy and fairly ridgid. Cheap and friendly. The best thing is they are not at all pretentious and can allow the sitter to be natural. Is this guy for real? People are much more natural if they think you are an idiot, or some kind of eccentric, not threatening in any way, egoless. They can be curious about what you are doing and enjoy the experience of being photographed. Shoving a Hasselblad or a shiny Cannon in someones face is not a nice thing to do, unless you are dealing with a paid model who expects such things.

[Songyun]

Thanks everyone!
I have considered
1. SLR
2. TLR
3. Rangefinder
What I tried to do is to reduce the time between focusing and shooting as much as possible.
SLR have vibration, and slower sync time.
I prefer TLR, however, I can not afford another lens, and cannot justify another expensive lens for viewing only. (I just bought a ladder for my TLR, and might wear contacts instead of regular glasses)
Rangefinder have the problem as Frank mentioned, it is just a small window, doesnt cover whole frame. and you need a separate view finder.
Prontor is nice, I have one, it can speed up the work flow a little bit.
Ken's suggestion regarding wood camera is very good, I think most ppl are less intimidated by a wood camera than a metal one.

[Mark Sawyer]

4x5 Graflex SLR, preferably the RB Super-D with the 190mm Ektar auto-iris lens. (The 4x5 Graflex was Edward Weston's choice for portraits!) But if you're using strobes, never mind...

[rdenney]

If you must have a rangefinder, and you want a heavy camera that won't move when you slam in film holders, get a Linhof Technika.

The Gowlandflex TLR is a good option if you can find one with parallax correction (which can be seen as a large aluminum triangular plate running alongside the viewing lens). The perspective in the viewing lens won't be identical to the taking lens, but the view boundaries will be close enough. And it's well made.

You can also put a reflex viewer on a 4x5 monorail. You will not be focusing right up until taking time anyway--as Frank mentioned, the rangefinder spot will not be where you need it for composition. If you are expecting to focus right up until the time you press the button, the Gowlandflex is really the only option. But you might try it before you come to conclusions based on assumptions.

If you want to hand-hold, use a Speed Graphic with a Grafmatic, a small aperture, and a powerful studio lighting system. Then you won't need to refocus for slight movements.

There is another option that just came to mind: A converted Polaroid 110, like a Byron or a Razzle. Finicky and not something you want to bash around, but it has the rangefinder and it does take 4x5 film.

Rick "wondering how all those great large-format portraits got made back in the days before Peter Gowland came along" Denney

[Ash]

You could always look at a converted polaroid like the Razzle.... so long as you don't want to shoot up-close portraits.

[Songyun]

And yes, I do have a coverted polaroids, I like it. but i can not shoot very close.
And yes, I do have the parallex correction on the Gowlandflex, but I have changed the lens, not sure how accurate it would be (although it is the same focal length) and it works up to certain distance, and then the up/down lens will collapse.
I think I have quite a few toys around.
For techinka, I am not very familiar with all the models, which one is good to get? I dont want it too old.

[Frank Petronio]

All the Technikas are good, Cameraquest has a good info page on the models. Either the V or the Master probably, you buy these used based on condition in most cases.

I shouldn't mention this because it is a challenge to make it all come together, but Sinar has a system for the older Norma and F+P series where the Auto Shutter is connected by a cable to the back, so it automatically closes the aperture as soon as you insert the holder. There is also a sliding back and various reflex and bellows viewing devices that will work with this system so that you can be shooting very quickly after focusing. I believe one of the sliding backs allows you to have the darkslide already pulled out.

Also the Auto Shutter is very nice for using older portrait lenses. Short of using a TLR or SLR, it is probably the quickest way to shoot and have GG focusing.

There are also rare Arca and Linhof Reflex cameras, the Linhof attached to the back, the Arca is like a modernized Graflex SLR.

[Songyun]

Yes the sinar system is very nice, never seen a sliding back, but that would be really nice. I have a sinar shutter set.

[Frank Petronio]

Did you know about using the second cable to connect with the back? There is a sliding spring in the back that compresses when you insert a holder, which causes the cable to shut the shutter.

[Songyun]

yes, I know that. And I need an bayonet adapter.

Did you know about using the second cable to connect with the back? There is a sliding spring in the back that compresses when you insert a holder, which causes the cable to shut the shutter.

[Jay DeFehr]

Graflex SLR. I spent last night printing some of my 3x4 negs made with my Graflex on Russian paper Julia brought home from Russia. The paper is SW FB Normal grade, 24X30cm, which fits the 3x4 negs very well. It's a great print size for me, and the paper tones beautifully in selenium. The Graflex SLR is a fantastic portrait camera, for my style of shooting (handheld, available light), and I prefer the 3x4 format to 4x5.

[Brian C. Miller]

Rick "wondering how all those great large-format portraits got made back in the days before Peter Gowland came along" Denney

"Stand on the tape. Smile. Hold still!" (ka-poof) "Next!"

From having fun with my Graflex and shooting hand-held, I found that peeking at the GG is pretty quick. You also get good at estimating distances. For studio work, you know where the person is, and with a bit of cleverness, subtley color code the floor so you know how many feet the person is from the camera.

[Ari]

I like metal field cameras, like Technikas, Wistas or Toyos; they're very rigid, don't move when you slap a Grafmatic in them; they fold up so you can put that and a couple of lenses in a small shoulder bag; a decent middleweight tripod would take care of support.
As for the business end, I like a 180 or 210, nothing too long. You don't want to be too far away from your subject, or compress the image too much.

[Frank Petronio]

You might have a look at David Burnett's Facebook (maybe he has a blog?) as he just took delivery of a modified RB Graflex with an Aero-Ektar... it looks pretty sweet.

It also depends what your requirements are... if you want tack sharp eyelashes, then you need a great subject and careful ground glass focusing. If you can accept focus planes elsewhere, then shoot it looser with a RF or SLR... or stop down by using a lot of strobe... it's all portraiture.

But I do wonder, with all the swirly brass lenses and things we do to "mess up" the pictures if we might just be reinventing the wheel, you can just use a Lensbaby on a DSLR if you want something soft and funky? I rather like the classic Penn/Avedon get-it-detailed-and-dramatic school myself.

[jnantz]

id like using a graflex d series slr ( 4x5 )
with a 21cm tessar (3.8 ) ...
works great, handheld or on a tripod ..

[Sirius Glass]

Graflex 4x5 Model D with a 190.5mm. You can use a strobe with the lens shutter on X sync.

Steve

[Leonard Evens]

I know that there are people who swear by large format for portraiture, but there are some real problems with that.

Usually you want to use a lens with at least twice the "normal" focal length for portraiture. That is so you can have a large enough image with the subject far enough from the lens to avoid exaggerating facial features such as the nose. So, for example, Ansel Adams used a 250 mm lens with a Hasselblad for head shots. The normal focal length is 75-80 mm for that format.

I have a 300 mm lens, and I've used that for portraiture, but I find it a bit short for the purpose.

Secondly, with the same size final image, you have less depth of field with larger formats, at the same shutter speed. If that is the effect you want, find, but why force it on yourself.

You would probably be better off using a medium format camera for ordinary portraiture. You would have a wider choice of lenses and depth of field would be less of a problem.

Often you find that large format photographers do what is called environmental portraiture. That is, they show the subject at full height in a typical environment for the subject.

[Jay DeFehr]

Leonard,

I agree, mostly. MF is generally much more convenient, and gives little away to LF in technical image quality at moderate print sizes. That being said, for me, so much depends on the idiosyncrasies of the system in use. The quality of the images (not to be confused with technical image quality) I get using my 3x4 graflex with its Xenar lens works very well for me. Enlargements from 3x4 to 9x12 or 12x16 make for velvet-smooth tones. I won't argue that the difference in negative size from 6x7cm to 3x4 inches is the primary factor in my appreciation, but that it's a combination of all the differences. I prefer the 3:4 aspect ratio to the 4:5/ 8:10/ 6:7, I like the freedom to develop each frame individually, etc. etc. Then again, I love my RB67, and my Deardorff V8, too. I am not one to argue for the superiority of any format, or any other factor, for that matter, but sometimes a particular kit or approach seems to produce results that no other can duplicate, and if I like that result, I'm glad I have the tools.

[Jim Galli]

Kodak 5X7 2D with one of these (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=55908&highlight=sliding+back) on the back. Looks kind of clunky but could 1000's of 1940's school portrait photographers been wrong? Slide the GG, get your focus, slide the 4X5 holder that's already got the dark slide removed and bam. The grafloks let you use roll holders or 4X5 spring backs.

The 5X7 2D has enough room inside for a decent Packard which you can sync with lights and use some interesting glass like Petzvals and Meniscii.

[John Kasaian]

Howserbouta a Rembrandt? I you don't mind being tied to a tripod. Or a Gowland Twin Lens?

[mrladewig]

I'd choose a monorail for the ability to rear focus, which seems a little quicker for this work. But as you say, a less technical looking wooden camera probably results in a more comfortable sitter.

[archer]

Since ninety percent of my work is portraiture, both group and individual, I find that with just two focal lengths, I can compose from large group to head and shoulder or closer with my Shen Hao XPO and it has enough movements for almost all my studio work. The geared rear focusing convenience, as mentioned in the previous post, is a real plus with this camera. I have never been more pleased with any camera I've ever used and it really makes large format portraiture, a joy, not just a job.
Denise Libby

[Cor]

Since ninety percent of my work is portraiture, both group and individual, I find that with just two focal lengths, I can compose from large group to head and shoulder or closer with my Shen Hao XPO and it has enough movements for almost all my studio work. The geared rear focusing convenience, as mentioned in the previous post, is a real plus with this camera. I have never been more pleased with any camera I've ever used and it really makes large format portraiture, a joy, not just a job.
Denise Libby

Denise,

Which 2 lenses are you using?

thanks,

Best,

Cor

[archer]

Dear Cor;
For group portraits, I'm using a 150 f9 G Claron and for individual portraits I really love the 270 f9 G Claron. Since I have so much bellows draw, the 270 can be used for compositions from head to full body portraits and the perspective seems very natural. I know that many portrait photographers prefer a longer lens and either of the Clarons are considered too sharp for portraits, but I always want the sharpest lens within reason for portraits, as I can always diffuse the image in either taking or in printing to obtain the look I'm after.
Denise Libby

[Cor]

Interesting choices, thanks for sharing!

best,

cor

[archer]

Dear Cor;
There is a wonderful portrait in the Image Sharing forum under Feb. 2011 portraits, taken by Adam, which shows the beauty of sharpness in a portrait of a young man, which demonstrates my point beautifully.
Denise Libby

[Mark Sawyer]

...I always want the sharpest lens within reason for portraits, as I can always diffuse the image in either taking or in printing to obtain the look I'm after.
Denise Libby

It depends on the look you're after, I suppose. Diffusion during printing of a negative spreads the shadows, not the highlights (as a soft lens does), a completely different effect. Diffusion filters used during taking are closer, but still not the same; they work by confusing the light, adding a layer of overall fuzziness. Soft lenses work by aberration, and maintain sharpness and contrast while adding the glow, softness of texture and smoothness of tonality.

There is a reason some pay the amounts we do for these lenses...

[Gordon Flodders]

It really depends on whether you want spontaneity or not. Messing with a ground glass kills any chance of repore with the subject, especially if they're slightly animated. The rangefinder knocks the traditional method of shooting LF whilst hiding under a sheet into a cocked hat :p

Shooting really tight closeups will require something longer than a 300mm lens anyway, but then fast apertures will go out the window unless it's an Aero Ektar like Dave Burnett's. Attempting to achieve really close focus will test anyone's ability and so chances are it will be off target more often than not.

There's nothing out there to equal the performance of a DSLR for ultra closeup portraiture, unless the subject sits quietly. The great advantage of an (accurate) 4x5 rangefinder camera is its abilty to be completely tripod free, however anything with a 300mm+ lens that focuses with complete accuracy with a tight crop as close as twelve inches and doesn't need a tripod, folds up small enough to hide under your coat, has an aperture of f2.8 is way beyond the realm of reality, but it still amazes me that with the advent of modern technology, fast processors and tiny high speed stepper motors, we still haven't seen a super lightweight auto focus 4x5 :eek:

We live in hope...

GF.

[mdm]

It really depends on whether you want spontaneity or not. Messing with a ground glass kills any chance of repore with the subject, especially if they're slightly animated. The rangefinder knocks the traditional method of shooting LF whilst hiding under a sheet into a cocked hat :p

Shooting really tight closeups will require something longer than a 300mm lens anyway, but then fast apertures will go out the window unless it's an Aero Ektar like Dave Burnett's. Attempting to achieve really close focus will test anyone's ability and so chances are it will be off target more often than not.

There's nothing out there to equal the performance of a DSLR for ultra closeup portraiture, unless the subject sits quietly. The great advantage of an (accurate) 4x5 rangefinder camera is its abilty to be completely tripod free, however anything with a 300mm+ lens that focuses with complete accuracy with a tight crop as close as twelve inches and doesn't need a tripod, folds up small enough to hide under your coat, has an aperture of f2.8 is way beyond the realm of reality, but it still amazes me that with the advent of modern technology, fast processors and tiny high speed stepper motors, we still haven't seen a super lightweight auto focus 4x5 :eek:

We live in hope...

GF.

Dont think so. Richard Avedon caught some amazing spontanaeity with an 8x10. Obviously you lack his skill. It is nice to look at someone and choose your moment without hiding behind anything. Perhaps that wont do for a tight shot but as I see it, that is what makes a view camera portrait special.

[Gordon Flodders]

Dont think so. Richard Avedon caught some amazing spontanaeity with an 8x10. Obviously you lack his skill.

I was being cheeky David. Obviously you lack his sense of humour :D Seriously speaking, you are correct about formal portraits with an 8x10, but the title of this thread pertains to 4x5. Portability is also an important issue.

Not all great portraiture is formal either, or is it always possible. Highly emotive environmental portraits can be found in the street where it may be impractical to set up a tripod, much less a view camera. There's so many variables in photography and no single LF camera is suitable for every scenario.

I was merely making the point that a small fast rangefinder is a handy tool and sometimes the most convenient way to shoot 4x5.

GF.

[Maris Rusis]

Here's a story I posted a couple of days ago in another place. The format used was 8x10 rather than 4x5 but it gives an insight into what I reckon is an easy way to do large format portraiture.

Yesterday I shot six full face portraits with a Tachihara 810HD view camera and the process went smoothly because almost all the work had been done before the sitter arrived.

I used a stand-in seated in a posing chair in order to preset exact focus. To do this I ran a string ending in a small bead from the camera to the stand-in. String length was adjusted so that when the bead was between the subjects eyes and the string was taut the subjects eyes are in exact focus. Camera focus was then locked down because the string and bead would guarantee focus and I would not have to look again at the ground glass or get under a focussing cloth.

Then I checked light meter readings, adjusted for bellows extension, set the aperture, the shutter speed, and cocked the shutter. Since the session was only going to take a few minutes and my sunny-day light wasn't going to change I would not have to meter again.

Next a film holder was put into the camera and the darkslide was pulled.

Finally the sitter arrived, took their place in the chair, did the bead and string routine, held their head still, dropped the bead, turned their eyes to the lens, and I fired the shutter with a long cable release.

The fastest portrait in photography comes from a preset view camera with a big sheet of film waiting in the darkness behind the lens - but only for the first shot!

After that there is a bit of work: changing film holders, cocking and firing the shutter, and bantering with the sitter until the end of the session. I'm in control because the string and bead guarantees focus, the light is constant, the sitter's chair stops them wandering out of frame, and the long cable release lets me fire the shutter with my hand behind my back. The sitter doesn't know when to flinch.