Advice sought - LF camera for "fashion", portraiture & general use, scanner, ...

[Ig Nacio]

Hi,

Quite recently, I spotted the work of fashion photographer Mariano Vivanco.

In his book Ninety Five Chapel Market, (one can see the book pictures in slide show mode online by clicking on the book cover or "the larger picture"), I noticed that he used a LF camera because of the visible border marks of the sheets:
http://www.marianovivanco.com/books/#0

I had seen the use of a field camera in other fashion photographers that I like quite a bit such as Richard Avedon, (In the American West, and other pics):
http://www.richardavedon.com/

and,

Patrick Demarchellier (In the Studio Pictures of Gisselle Bundchen, and other pics):
http://www.demarchelier.net/studio/gisgug10_00/f_gisgugmain.html


This is my first post : ) !!! and I would like to ask you a few questions, some general advice, as I don't have a LF camera yet and I really want to find out as much as possible before I do or I don't buy a LF camera.

Apparently, to start, a friend will lend me a normal lens. I think it is between 90 mm. and 150 mm. with a maximum f- stop of f/5.6.

The ideal camera for me is very light and should be very easy to handle and carry around. The reason for this is because I would like to do some pictures like the ones from Vivanco, and I will also be doing some interviews for an art project. For this art project I would take the photographs with a dSLR and with the LF camera. My interview, including camera set up may not always last more than half hour or tenty minutes. During an interview, I would take a maximum of up to four sheets.

That is why I need a camera that is very light, easy to set up, easy to focus with - super important !, and finally easy to fold up or store away. I may use the camera with or without studio strobes, and it would be helpful, not necessary, if a polaroid back could be used to prove the image. Perhaps there is a trick to avoid shooting a polaroid beforehand.

I would develop the sheets in a dark room and then I would use a scanner, probably this one, (unless you think it is too much and you recommend me another one, a cheaper one):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/426013-REG/Epson_B11B178011_Perfection_V700_Photo_Scanner.html
or this one,
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/426128-REG/Epson_B11B178061_Perfection_V750_M_Pro_Scanner.html

The sheet will be scanned for internet use, and I don't think I'll print any of the pics taken. If I happen to do it one day they will not be any larger than 8x10", or 11x14".
It may not even be worth it to buy a scanner.

I saw a previous post in which people were photographed with their LF gear. The following brand names appear as a good option, but I am overwhelmed by the large variety.

Dayi 4x5
http://www.bhcamera.us/dayi45.php

Gaoersi 4x5
http://www.bhcamera.us/gaoersi45.php

Toyo 45 CF
http://www.toyoview.com/Products/45CF/45CF.html

Shen Hao HZX45-IIA or IIB
https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=2533

Chamonix 45-N2
http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/45.html

Tachihara
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tachihara.htm

Graflex
http://www.graflex.org/cameras/

I have several questions, but the first one is the following:

1. Which camera do you recommend me, and do you think it is worth it to use a LF for the purpose I have above mentioned ??

P.S. I have two Hasselblad film backs and a polaroid back for hasselblad. Is there a way to use them with any of these cameras. I have seen that to several of these cameras one can adapt a graflock back. Is there any - not too expensive - connection between the hassy backs and the graflock ?? I also found this product for $375. It is mentioned it can directly bridge a 4x5 with a Hasselblad back. I just wonder how reliable it may be: http://cgi.ebay.com/Moveable-Digital-back-4x5-camera-Hasselblad-Back-A12-/250743612126

[Jim Jones]

. . . The sheet will be scanned for internet use, and I don't think I'll print any of the pics taken. If I happen to do it one day they will not be any larger than 8x10", or 11x14".
It may not even be worth it to buy a scanner. . . .


A DSLR would be more convenient and certainly adequate for the internet and up to 11x14 prints. Properly used large format equipment certainly yields higher quality images, but one can hardly tell the difference in the uses you intend. Convenience in setting up, focusing, and storing away a LF camera is not nearly as important as how well you can photograph with one. It takes more experience to handle one with professional ease than to use smaller film or digital cameras. Fumbling with LF gear might not enhance your appearance as a photographer. As for the "border marks" you mentioned on Vivanco's photos, they can always be added in Photoshop.

[Joanna Carter]

My interview, including camera set up may not always last more than half hour or tenty minutes. During an interview, I would take a maximum of up to four sheets
If you imagine you can setup an LF camera and take four shots and conduct an interview, I believe you need a reality check.

As Jim says, you could be better served using a digital SLR. LF usually requires much more time and effort.

[Peter De Smidt]

Avedon and Demarchellier probably had assistants helping out. Will you be using one? Keeping the person in focus is much more of a challenge than with other formats, and you will need more light or faster film, since you'll probably have to use a fairly small f-stop. A Linhof IV or later camera with a cammed lens and a rangefinder would be a good choice, but they are not light, nor are they inexpensive. A speed Graphic could also work, but these are old, and you need to know what to look for. Both allow rangefinder focusing with cammed lenses.

All that said, why don't you rent or borrow a camera and give it a try? It's very different from shooting other kinds of cameras. A Rollei TLR or a Hassleblad would also be a good choice. You can still print film borders with them.

[Ig Nacio]

Hi,

Thank you for your messages : ) !!!

Before I write any further, I would like to say that this forum is amazing : ) !!!
In no other forum I am a member of, I had seen this. As soon as I had
placed my post, several related threads were added to the bottom of
the page. I checked out these related threads that were full of very
valuable information!

Thank you to Jim, Joanna, and Peter : ) !!!

@Jim - Yes, you are right, it can take a while to master movements and I am
really afraid that I may not be able to focus correctly. I'll take it slowly.
I only mentioned the hybrid option, but I would also like to learn to print
in a darkroom, and perhaps in the future learn to shoot architecture and
products with a LF camera.

@Joanna - I was looking at the Chamonix camera. There is a video to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEJ0GMWJk-Y
The man in the video shows that one can set up a Chamonix LF camera in a brief period
of time, perhaps some six to seven minutes. However, for an interview,
the interviewee, for different reasons, may not be able to grant you a very lenghty
interview. Very nice heritage and restoration pictures, by the way : ) !!! I am part
of a small NGO in my city dedicated to the preservation and conservation of old
architecture.

@Peter - Yes, that is right, that would be the challenge for me, to focus fast enough
with a LF camera. No assistants, I saw you have a Chamonix camera. Is it easy to set
up like the man shows in the video ?? I had a hasselblad body, (500C), but it went kaputt,
and I still have two lenses and the backs I previously mentioned. It makes a lot of
sense to get a good used Hasselblad body or fix mine. I'll take a closer look at the speed
Graphic. The Chamonix is also a sweet camera. Linhof & Co. is more expensive and perhaps heavier. My brother in law practices martial arts too. I liked those pics and the portraits of your children : ) !!!

Thank you again, very kind regards,

Ig Nacio

[Joanna Carter]

I was looking at the Chamonix camera. There is a video to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEJ0GMWJk-Y
The man in the video shows that one can set up a Chamonix LF camera in a brief period of time, perhaps some six to seven minutes. However, for an interview,
the interviewee, for different reasons, may not be able to grant you a very lenghty
interview. Very nice heritage and restoration pictures, by the way : ) !!! I am part
of a small NGO in my city dedicated to the preservation and conservation of old
architecture.
An experienced photographer may be able to set a camera up in a few minutes but even that will depend on the image they are trying to make.

This image :

http://grandes-images.com/fr/Paysages/Pages/France_2008_files/Media/ToulAnHeryBaliseDeChenal/ToulAnHeryBaliseDeChenal.jpg

… took less than five minutes to set up, adjust tilt and focus and take.

However, this image :

http://grandes-images.com/fr/Paysages/Pages/France_2007_files/Media/EscaliersDeBrelevenez2/EscaliersDeBrelevenez2.jpg

… took around 2.5 hours to get everything sharp!

If you are only taking portraiture and don't need movements, then any camera is fairly easy to set up; all you need to do is see what is sharp on the ground glass screen.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi,

Quite recently, I spotted the work of fashion photographer Mariano Vivanco.

Ig,

So you are moved by great work! That's why we're all here. However, that doesn't define the tools needed to emulate such work. It's hard to give feedback when there's nothing to see. We don't know your age, stage in life, access to funds or experience and skills with picture taking. It could be that you are already a painter with accolades and a following. You might be trained in composition as a graphic designer or be an expert in layout making finely packed and efficient circuit boards.

You would need to share who you are and what you have in your mental tool-bag before advice can really fit you and your goals. Notwithstanding this, just taking your admiration as a starting point, how could you emulate such work and then find your own path?

First the vision. Essentially, the instrument you are working with is not in front of your eyes, but behind them, the cathedral of your mind. The idea is to look and define what's worth observing more than other things and then to find the viewpoint from which to optimize somehow that selection and exclude everything else.

Next, point something at that to record your vision. I use a sketch pad and then return with my camera, more often than not. However, with a simple pocket camera one can capture these "discovered portions of the world" and then study them at home. That's the second phase. Print the best snaps in B&W on plain paper and with a red wax pencil draw on them with your own scheme, arrows, circles to understand what you have. Then go back and photograph them again until you need no changes.

That to me, at least is the start of photography to develop the capabilities you have. The camera is really not important as the brain's training in selecting, excluding and composing in a way that expresses what you can imagine based on what you can observe.

I'd start with a simple point and shoot. A used Canon G3, an old Olympus OM-1 or anything with a choice of a wide open lens would be perfect. In fact, best might be a Rebel DSLR with a 35 or 50 mm fixed focus lens, that's all.

Of course, I might have missed by a long shot and you already can do everything I have outlined. In that case, we need to know.

I am returning to LF and film after many years, but I already do urban landscapes, portraits and "fashion" and bring all that to my LF camera. Where are you, then, in your own journey?

Asher

[Michael E]

A DSLR would be more convenient and certainly adequate

That is correct. But I can understand the urge to use a LF camera for this project. I think it can be done. Getting to know your equipment is the crucial part. Your photos will get solid once you don't have to think about technique any more, just concentrate on the image. This can be done with any equipment (it's easier if it just works, no light leaks, slow shutters, etc.). Monorail cameras are often easier to use, field cameras are easier to carry and stow away. I recommend the latter, whatever make or model.

When I look at the photos you admire, I see a lot more than camera work. Apart from working with people, I see beautiful light. If your light is right, you can snap the photo with an iphone and it will look amazing. Never underestimate that.

Go ahead and practice with a LF camera. Take your time, ask people to sit for you who are not in a hurry. And always remember, the photos in those books are the very best examples of years or a lifes worth of photos from very talented people with unlimited resources. You won't be able to reach their level in a couple of weeks. But you can do your thing and produce great images. Give it a try!

Michael

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Ig,

Thanks for your kind comments. There's lot's of info at www.largerformatphography.info, the non-forum part of this site.

With portraiture, one often doesn't need movements. In fact, many old large format portrait cameras have very limited movements.

With interview subjects, I expect that having to spend a bunch of time fiddling with the camera will not be welcomed by the subject. To get around this, you can use a press camera, such as a Speed Graphic, which allow rangefinder focusing with no need to look at the ground glass. They were meant to be hand held. They were the standard reporter camera in the 1930s and 40s. After that, the Rollieflex TLR took over, later to be replace by 35mm and digital.

Linhofs also have the rangefinder focusing, and they're much more precise than a Speed Graphic. Probably the best value is a Tech IV. They have enough movements for most types of photography.

Next up are cameras similar to the preceding but lacking rangefinders. These are often called 'field cameras.' For example, I have a Toyo AX. Like a speed and a linhof technika, these compact into a box. They're very sturdy, they have plenty of movments, and they're fairly quick to use, but you do have to focus with the ground glass. Wista also makes similar cameras, including one with a rangefinder. I find my Toyo much quicker to set up than a Chamonix.

Another option, although much rarer, is a twin lens 4x5, gowlandflex and Keith camera tlr are examples. These allow you to watch on a ground glass as you take the picture. They're great for portraiture, but they're heavy, bulky and they don't allow movements.

Now we get to full featured view cameras, which usually have some type of rail. They don't collapse into a box, and they are bulky, but they allow the greatest range of movements. There are lots of good choices, from inexpensive Caluent CC400s to nice midrange models from Toyo, Horseman and others, up to studio monsters like the Sinar P2, Arca M, and top-end Linhofs.

If I was in your situation, I'd get a good speed graphic with a cammed lens or a Linhof tech IV. If you're careful, you'll get a great camera that's unlikely to lose any value. They'll excel at the interview photographs. They'd be find for most landscape photography, and if you ever want to use lf film for architecture, you can always get a monorail down the road.

[jp]

I use a speed graphic and can setup pretty quick aside from lights. If you need lights, that will take extra time to setup and test. You can use the dslr to test everything and come to a good exposure.

The first two cameras you list aren't really for people photos; they are more point-shoot wide angle for landscape or to augment an existing camera that isn't so well suited to wide angle work.

The epson scanners linked to are good scanners and are typical of what many of us use.

If you use a strobe you can turn down the aperture a ways and get a larger depth of field; several inches perhaps at 5-6 feet away and can shoot handheld if you keep things in the same focus range.

If you buy a camera with a rangefinder, that means it's basically meant for either handheld or tripod use. If a camera were only used on a tripod the groundglass is more commonly used. An affordable speed/crown graphic or linhof with rangefinder will be used and there's no telling if the range finder is in proper working order, so you'd have to buy from an experienced seller or in person to be sure. I don't use the rangefinder. I focus on the groundglass keeping in mind my depth of field for the distance and aperture. No movements necessary for a standard portrait.

A quality faster film will supply more image detail than needed. I like TMY2, other people like Tri-X. Kodak has good QC.

If you're looking for good web quality photography, a TLR using 120 film will also make nice photos using TMY2 or Tri-X. It'll be a lot simpler to use and less intrusive to operate. Little tiny click for the photo, a wind of a lever or knob to advance. That's what I'd use for interview style photos. Use LF when you have more time to set things up and have lighting done your way.

[John Kasaian]

Yeah, a top mounted ranger finder Crown Graphic would be close to ideal.You'll have to have and change cams for different lenses, but you'll also have the option of shooting handheld. Talk to Jim and Midwest Photo. He can get you fixed up with good gear.

[Jim Jones]

One of the iconic photographs of the 20th century was made with an 8x10 view camera by Yousuf Karsh of an uncooperative Winston Churchill. Karsh set up camera and lights with someone standing in for Churchill. The actual photographing took a very few minutes, the setup took much longer, and the training and experience to master this shoot took decades.

[William McEwen]

I think the key here is that you don't plan to make prints, all your stuff will be on the Internet. LF is overkill here. Can't you just use a cell phone camera?

[Wayne Crider]

I'd get another Hasselblad body and use that while I explored using a LF camera either rented or on loan. If I had to buy something to learn, I wouldn't buy anything of value till I shot at least a couple packs of film. The reasoning behind this is that the drop out rate is really high in the larger formats. Fun to explore, but you need dedication to pickup the heavier slower shooting body when something like digital or MF is so much easier to use. So, borrow or rent, shoot some portraits of friends, develop, scan and make a decision whether to buy a body with the normal 2-3 lenses, heavier tripod, loupe, changing bag, film holders or to shoot lighter and faster with MF or digital. Remember, the tools only can do so much, and LF is not the holy grail.

And btw, I agree with Asher; Really not enough info to give any answer except general responses.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hello Ignacio,

While I agree with the posters who say you don't need LF for your intended use, I think it's disingenuous to suggest a camera phone is a viable alternative. There's much more to an image made with LF than more sensor real estate. It might be more useful to tease out just what those things that will translate from LF to the web might be. Every one of the photos posted here, and commented on in the context of LF photography are web images. Could they all have been made with cell phone cameras and passed the muster here? I doubt it. Let's try to identify the characteristics of LF photography that translate to the web:

DOF-
A shallow Depth Of Field is one of the telltales of LF photography. It's true that the effect is achievable with smaller formats, but as the format gets smaller, it becomes more difficult and requires faster lenses.

Perspective Control-
The ability to control perspective by the use of view camera movements can also be emulated by shift lenses on smaller formats, but those lenses are quite expensive, and are more limited in their range of contols. Perspective can also be manipulated in editing software.

Vintage glass-
Aberrations and simple, uncoated lenses provide a vintage look that is characteristic of some LF photography. The classic portrait lenses were made for LF cameras, and the look they produced has a long association with LF portraiture. A similar look can be produced by similar lenses with smaller formats, subject to the caveats above.

Vignetting-
When a lens doesn't quite cover a format, or camera movements exceed the coverage of the lens, vignetting (typically, darkness in the corners) can occur, and this characteristic has also been associated with LF photography, though the effect can be produced with any format.

There are other ways to get these effects, and probably others I've overlooked, but my point is that these effects are characteristic of LF and translate to the web. LF is one way to achieve these effects, and arguably the most direct way, but not the only way.

I believe it is the effects I've noted above, more than other characteristics of LF, like enhanced Image Quality (fine grain, sharpness/acutance, gradation) that LF photography will continue to be prized for, precisely because they translate to the web, which is, like it or not, the world's biggest and most important art gallery.

I hope I've given you something to think about, and I wish you the best of luck with your project.

[Asher Kelman]

Hello Ignacio,

While I agree with the posters who say you don't need LF for your intended use, I think it's disingenuous to suggest a camera phone is a viable alternative.

Hardly "disingenuous", Jay!

A lot of folk here, knowing all the characteristics you mention, could make a picture with a cell phone that could fool a lot of us here fooled to thinking it was a LF image. It's just a matter of imagination, technical skill and experience. However we don't need that magic iphone device.

A Canon G3 with an f 2.4 lens will give a nice Bokeh. Well not as nice as a PS945, but for sure we could improve on the G3 in the digital darkroom. A used Canon 5D with a Canon 50 mm 1.4 will give an amazingly wonderful soft bokeh and a limited DOF. The 1.2L would do even better. Now overlapping adjacent fields with different focus will give a fair approximation of a tilt or swing; just a matter of work; no technical barrier to making 3, 5 or ten pictures and stitch them in 30 seconds. Of course, with LF, it's done in one go. Well I also can do that with a 24 mm tilt shift lens with my Canon. So this is not an exclusive domain for a LF camera. As to the vignetting, we have filters.

None of these LF factors you mention are either exclusive to LF or are barriers to the skilled photographer who understands light and has something to express. It so happens that a LF camera has a lot of these wonderful characteristics that work for the photographer who just happens to need them.



Ignacio,

So far, even with the inspiring links you shared, there's no obvious requirement for LF. Certainly, the fluidity of fashion fits in far better with 35 mm or MF and film is merely optional! The only references we have are admiration of great photographers and wish to show them on the web.

I think it's a mistake for us to bestow on you further photographic "needs" than you truly have. You, like the rest of us, (being romantic about LF), might give up some cash to follow the path of our heroes. However, we know nothing of your skills, talent, and stage in life, responsibilities or other options. So to encourage this major expenditure is, with no further information, unjustified. It's something like discussing exactly which Steinway piano you should buy when we have no idea that you can read music or have any skills or aptitude with the instrument. However, if you have excess money, certainly a fine Steinway grand will decorate your 40ft living room splendidly. But let's not assume such excess. Let's focus on real use of an instrument, for that's what a camera is, a way of making what your mind is imagining from what you can merely observe.

First one has to have a real need. Then the tools. With pictures, some history of your photographic work and what significance the money has to you in your stage of life, and then we can give the best advice. For sure, everyone here is passionate about LF, its quirks and special advantages. But if what drives you are the artists you admire, then it might be that a used C330 Mamiya twin lens reflex, (From KEH) or a used G3 digicam would serve all your needs for the next 6 months to one year. When the time arrives that you can no longer achieve what you hope for and imagine then, LF might answer these needs and you'll be able to frame the questions and know whether the answers are right for you to express yourself fully.

Frankly, (unless you can make images already), you could do no better than start with a still life drawing class. Next, walk around with a card with a rectangular cutout and practice framing. Then sketch, and then use a digicam. Then get a C330.

A LF camera, in all honesty, has nothing to do with the ability to make pictures you admire. Rather it's the ability to imagine from what everyone else just sees.

Asher

[Jay DeFehr]

Asher,

You completely missed my point. I hope Ignacio is more perceptive.

[aluncrockford]

The point about using large format for portraits is as much about the reaction of the sitter than the actual camera, Large format by default demands a high level of concentration from both photographer and sitter, this is enhanced by the fact that you are connecting with the subject when the picture is taken,this tends to help the relationship and by default the image. To argue that smaller format will provide you with the same quality of image when printed to 11x14 misses the point of the reason for using large format. To address the question of which camera to use I would suggest that depending on budget a Deardorff 10x8 would be the best option with a 5x4 reducing back, the reason for this is the Deardorff is a very simple camera to use,they are generally fairly well used which takes away the anxiety of damaging a brand new camera, the advantage of the 10x8 is the size of the screen which lets you view the image so much easier, if you would prefer to go for a 5x4 if you will be mostly working in the studio then a SinarF1 would be a good starting point,as a modular system you can get others bits when you need them and Sinar equipment can be hired from most pro hire shops . some work using the Deardorff and a 480mm lens can be seen on the link. .

http://www.aluncrockford.com/portraits.html

[Jim Jones]

Jay: inadequate DOF, vintage glass, and vignetting are handicaps some of us try to overcome rather than explain away. I admire Eugene Atget for his vision and persistance rather than for the limitations of some of his equipment.

[Asher Kelman]

Asher,

You completely missed my point. I hope Ignacio is more perceptive.

Jay,

Thanks for expressing your dismay so courteously! I reread your thoughtful post, but still find the great facets of the LF system we love or hate just important for our own work.

The cell phone is already the most important camera type in the world as it instantly joins us to experience of another person.

This thread is really, in practice, aimed at ourselves and Ignacio has not responded.

Asher

[Ivan J. Eberle]

I was thinking he was a sock puppet and anticipating a Littmann suggestion. I'm disappointed...

[Jay DeFehr]

Asher,

Please forgive me, I didn't mean to be so glib. I was on my way out the door, and should have waited until I had time to respond in an appropriate manner.

Regarding your claim that,


A lot of folk here, knowing all the characteristics you mention, could make a picture with a cell phone that could fool a lot of us here fooled to thinking it was a LF image

That might be true, and I never suggested it wasn't. I also never suggested that there weren't other ways to get the LF effects by other means; in fact I explicitly stated as much.


There are other ways to get these effects, and probably others I've overlooked, but my point is that these effects are characteristic of LF and translate to the web. LF is one way to achieve these effects, and arguably the most direct way, but not the only way.

It's hard for me to imagine how you could have read the above and replied as you did. I have nothing against camera phones, I just didn't think your recommendation addressed the OP very thoughtfully.


Jim,

I'm not sure what you mean by "explain away". My post was intended to tease out the characteristics of LF photography that translate to the web, as opposed to those more generic characteristics of photography. I didn't make any value judgments about the effects, as one man's "handicap" is another's signature. All that swirly bokeh so much loved by some is either effect or defect, depending on personal taste.

[Jim Jones]

Jim,

I'm not sure what you mean by "explain away". My post was intended to tease out the characteristics of LF photography that translate to the web, as opposed to those more generic characteristics of photography. I didn't make any value judgments about the effects, as one man's "handicap" is another's signature. All that swirly bokeh so much loved by some is either effect or defect, depending on personal taste.

Sometimes my preference for straight photography provokes hasty comments. However, there are a few photographers who rely on words to try to make something special out of mundane photographs. This can also be true of museum administrators in regard to their collections. Sometimes a few words that place a photograph into a context that isn't immediately obvious are necessary. This is often true in National Geographic. While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a thousand words don't make a good photograph.

[Ig Nacio]

Hi,

Thank you very much for your answers : ) !!!

I am very happy to see so much support,
comments, and suggestions written on this
thread.

I had to work the whole weekend. In a
little while I'll be writing a bit more
extensively.

Thank you again, very kind regards,

Ig Nacio : ) !!!