PDA

View Full Version : A dream 8x10" LF camera setup for environmental portraiture



Nicole BM
28-Nov-2011, 19:01
Hi there, I haven't been on here for some time, but the yearn for a dream 8x10" LF camera setup for environmental portraiture is getting stronger every day.

I'd really appreciate your thoughts on a great LF camera outfit for environmental portraiture for personal portrait photography. Not much walking around, but may want the option to take it outdoors without much fuss.

Your input is much appreciated.

DrTang
28-Nov-2011, 19:08
deardorff/14" commercial ektar


done and done

Jay Decker
28-Nov-2011, 19:13
... but the yearn for a dream 8x10" LF camera setup for environmental portraiture is getting stronger every day.

Nicole - took a quick look through your website, your work has many similarities to mine, and based upon these apparent similarities, I suspect that you will love 8x10 portraiture. I recommend that you consider a simple camera, e.g., a 8x10 Kodak 2-D, start with a single lens and handful of film holders. It gets simpler from there...

Greg Y
28-Nov-2011, 19:15
What DrTang said....a match made in heaven! :)

Bob Hubert
28-Nov-2011, 19:15
I would have to second the Deardorff nomination. It is sturdy and great to use. It handles some really big lenses. My favorite is a 15" Jamon Darlot Cone Centralisateur.

GSX4
28-Nov-2011, 19:30
Nicole... long time no speak!! Andy M (apug) here. Bill Schwab uses a Deardorff for his wetplate camera of choice... Works well for that and for sheet film. That said, I am not convinced a Deardorff is as sturdy as the newer Chamonix 8x10. The'Dorff's are also getting up in cost, and I think I would spend my money on a used Chamonix. There was one for sale on here actually. Weight wise, they are pretty light, and sturdy as hell.

r.e.
28-Nov-2011, 19:32
Hi there, I haven't been on here for some time, but the yearn for a dream 8x10" LF camera setup for environmental portraiture is getting stronger every day.

I'd really appreciate your thoughts on a great LF camera outfit for environmental portraiture for personal portrait photography. Not much walking around, but may want the option to take it outdoors without much fuss.

Your input is much appreciated.

Are you shooting 4x5 now and, if so, what camera/lens(es)? If not, what format are you shooting and what focal length(s) do you use for your current environmental portraits? Finally, what kind of money do you want to spend?

Frank Petronio
28-Nov-2011, 19:40
I prefer sturdier cameras and tripods/stands so that I can be slightly more careless -- if I bump or fumble the whole contraption doesn't shift - like when I jam a film holder in a little too quickly. Then I can concentrate on the people instead of being too prissy and delicate around my "work-of-art" camera.

There are plenty of fine options in metal monorails that cost a fraction of what a fancy woodie will. Plus they are more expandable, versatile, have more movements, gears even.... Like a good old Sinar P or Norma, a solid Toyo or Cambo, a beautiful Linhof or Arca... even a rare Fatif like my friend Richard Brown is selling right here for peanuts.

Remember the weight and hassle of 8x10 is at least half the ancillary gear - the holders, etc.

It's interesting to see that Avedon used a 8x10 Deardorff outside but a Sinar P in the studio.

He also used the heaviest, largest Gitzo tripod inside or out, even if he only put a 20 oz Rollei on it.

Lachlan 717
28-Nov-2011, 19:41
Will you be using more than one lens? If not, have you considered one of the Gaoersi 8x10 point'n'shoot cameras?

If you're not going to be using movements (apart from rise), these can be a very easy/quick camera to use. Seems only to have 150mm lens cones, though.

Ben Syverson
28-Nov-2011, 19:54
150mm in 8x10 is quite wide—21mm equivalent!

r.e.
28-Nov-2011, 20:02
It's interesting to see that Avedon used a 8x10 Deardorff outside but a Sinar P in the studio.

If you're referring to the American West series, one has to wonder whether the use of a Deardorff was part of the show. He knew that he was being photographed photographing for an eventual book. Maybe, just maybe, using an iconic American wooden camera was part of the schtick :)

Frank Petronio
28-Nov-2011, 20:12
Yeah I imagine he did, since he traveled with a ton of gear and several assistants. He had assistants loading the camera so he didn't have to worry about shaking anything.

Greg Y
28-Nov-2011, 20:16
I've got both, Chamonix & Deardorff (albeit in 5x7) and focusing with the Deardorff is way faster.....(doesn't matter for lanscapes)....but I always default to the Deardorff for portraits.

r.e.
28-Nov-2011, 20:24
I suspect that Avedon would have used his Sinar or a Linhof were it not for the nature of the shoot. Curious now about whether he used a wooden or metal tripod. I don't have the American West book handy (my copy is currently in a small village in rural Newfoundland). Perhaps others do.

Greg Y
28-Nov-2011, 21:21
I have the "Avedon at Work" book kicking around here somewhere.....Metal tripod, big one....maybe a Majestic ....if my memory serves me right.

r.e.
28-Nov-2011, 21:49
I have the "Avedon at Work" book kicking around here somewhere.....Metal tripod, big one....maybe a Majestic ....if my memory serves me right.

Would be interesting, but not the book about the American West project.

Thom Bennett
28-Nov-2011, 22:05
I use a Deardorff but, if I had to do it all over again, I'd get a Kodak Master. Very similar to the Deardorff's as far as movements but its a metal camera and not prissy at all. I like the quick setup of the folding cameras. I like Fuji lenses FWIW.

richard brown
28-Nov-2011, 22:57
If you don't necessarily want a folder but rather a very sturdy monorail.... might I make a suggestion. I posted my Fatif 8x10 camera here... and was asking $700. Since there are members here that seem to know you and like you and I would love to encourage another photographer you can have the Fatif for $500US plus shipping and paypal. Comes with a recessed board, longer rail,great condition and serious weight. But sliding in a holder makes no difference when this baby is tied down. Plus it looks impressive to your portrait subjects.
If you want it check the search function or i will try and bump it.... but either way have fun with the portraits. I am planning a few over the winter.
All the best with your pursuits.
Richard

Armin Seeholzer
29-Nov-2011, 02:58
My Burke & James is it for me, I can really use long lenses with it!

Cheers Armin

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 03:30
Wow, thank you all very much for such a quick reply! Nice to see familiar faces! :)

My old Hasseblad 501cm with the one and only 80mm lens has been my baby for many years and ultimately I'd like to have a similar end result using the 8x10" - with probably an old uncoated lens.

I keep my gear simple: one camera, one lens, natural light. Hoping to achieve the same in LF - except all the other stuff that comes with the one LF camera and one lens :)

Helcio J Tagliolatto
29-Nov-2011, 03:58
Nice site, Nicole!

If you pretend, as a bonus, to ' 8x10" ' impress your clients, an Ebony with a 14" Ektar in shinning Ilex shutter.

ALL other cameras, side by side compared, seem to have been crafted in my yard....

Frank Petronio
29-Nov-2011, 05:28
Old Sinar Norma with red bellows and 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar. The Sinar head is an important part of the system.

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 06:52
UhOh! I can already see I'm going to need a monorail and field camera.
Frank, I love the red bellows! :)
Thank you Helcio.

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 06:53
Yeah I imagine he did, since he traveled with a ton of gear and several assistants. He had assistants loading the camera so he didn't have to worry about shaking anything.

Assistants are great, but they kill my mojo :)

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 06:54
I use a Deardorff but, if I had to do it all over again, I'd get a Kodak Master. Very similar to the Deardorff's as far as movements but its a metal camera and not prissy at all. I like the quick setup of the folding cameras. I like Fuji lenses FWIW.

Thank you Thom. A quick setup guarantees regular use.

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 06:56
I've got both, Chamonix & Deardorff (albeit in 5x7) and focusing with the Deardorff is way faster.....(doesn't matter for lanscapes)....but I always default to the Deardorff for portraits.

Thank you Greg. How is the Deardorff faster?

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 06:59
If you don't necessarily want a folder but rather a very sturdy monorail.... might I make a suggestion. I posted my Fatif 8x10 camera here... and was asking $700. Since there are members here that seem to know you and like you and I would love to encourage another photographer you can have the Fatif for $500US plus shipping and paypal. Comes with a recessed board, longer rail,great condition and serious weight. But sliding in a holder makes no difference when this baby is tied down. Plus it looks impressive to your portrait subjects.
If you want it check the search function or i will try and bump it.... but either way have fun with the portraits. I am planning a few over the winter.
All the best with your pursuits.
Richard

Hi Richard, I really appreciate your offer, thank you. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but I'd like a little more time to do some research first before making a final decision. If your kind offer is still available when I'm ready to purchase then it was meant to be. Thank you again.

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 07:02
Nicole - took a quick look through your website, your work has many similarities to mine, and based upon these apparent similarities, I suspect that you will love 8x10 portraiture. I recommend that you consider a simple camera, e.g., a 8x10 Kodak 2-D, start with a single lens and handful of film holders. It gets simpler from there...

Thank you Jay. Your portraits are beautiful.

Pawlowski6132
29-Nov-2011, 07:05
Why is this in the FS forum?

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 07:06
Nicole... long time no speak!! Andy M (apug) here. Bill Schwab uses a Deardorff for his wetplate camera of choice... Works well for that and for sheet film. That said, I am not convinced a Deardorff is as sturdy as the newer Chamonix 8x10. The'Dorff's are also getting up in cost, and I think I would spend my money on a used Chamonix. There was one for sale on here actually. Weight wise, they are pretty light, and sturdy as hell.

Andrew, it's great to hear from you. I'm really enjoying your work and have some catching up to do since I've been out of the loop over the past few months. Thank you for your suggestion. I'll take a good look at them. I wonder what Sally Mann is using these days...

E. von Hoegh
29-Nov-2011, 08:32
deardorff/14" commercial ektar


done and done

Pretty hard to beat that combo.:)

Greg Y
29-Nov-2011, 09:51
Nicole, The Deardorff is faster to focus than the Chamonix because it can be brought into focus by moving the back standard or the front, & the rails move smoothly and quickly, & the knobs are on either side of the standards. The Chamonix focuses by a screw thread with a single knob below the center of the groundglass, and the thread is fairly coarse. With the Deardorff I can be standing directly behind it looking dead-center into the groundglass. With the position of the Chamonix focus knob I find I have to stand off to the side of the camera. I can open, set up & focus the Deardorff faster than the Chamonix (but it isn't a Western-style quick-draw contest) every time.
I wish Richard B would take better photos of his Fatif....Elegant, sexy-looking with it's rounded corners, (It's Italian after all!) It's like a black on black version of Frank's monorail. Think Armani, Ferrari...the thing can probably make a mean espresso too ;-) (I'm so glad I dropped the 8x10 & standardized on 5x7, otherwise I'd drive over to his house & bring it home)

Jon Shiu
29-Nov-2011, 10:04
I think Sally Mann used a Toyo 810MII field camera, quite heavy. My dream camera would be the Arca Swiss 8x10 camera, very light smooth and precise. I would have to win the Lotto to buy it, though. Kim Weston uses the Arca Swiss.

Jon

Bill Koechling
29-Nov-2011, 10:27
I never used my 8x10 Cambo for portraiture. It was a beast. I have used my old 4x5 Arca Swiss. I have to think that the 8x10 version would be very good for this. They are engineered for light weight and strength with solid and quick locking mechanisms.

Oren Grad
29-Nov-2011, 10:29
The Deardorff is faster to focus than the Chamonix because it can be brought into focus by moving the back standard or the front, & the rails move smoothly and quickly, & the knobs are on either side of the standards. The Chamonix focuses by a screw thread with a single knob below the center of the groundglass, and the thread is fairly coarse.

As with the Phillips cameras that it copies, you can move both front and rear standards on the Chamonix. You move the rear standard by loosening the knobs that hold the "feet" and sliding the rear standard to where you need it to be, and the front standard with the focus knob. For very long lenses you must move the rear standard to be able to get enough extension. But more generally, when long focus adjustments are needed, a combination of coarse focus by moving the rear standard and fine focus with the knob can be faster than trying to make the entire adjustment by twisting the knob.

Greg Y
29-Nov-2011, 10:46
Thanks Oren :) . Love the camera, just years of using the Deardorff make it more instinctive for me to use. I do like all the good things, stability & lightt wt of the Chamonix.

Oren Grad
29-Nov-2011, 11:02
Love the camera, just years of using the Deardorff make it more instinctive for me to use.

I can absolutely dig that. It's your comfortable-old-shoe camera. :)

Steve Hamley
29-Nov-2011, 11:09
A couple of things you need are to be able to use lenses in #5 shutters, like the 14" Commercial Ektar, and to have enough build strength to handle relatively large, heavy lenses at portrait extensions. Deardorffs for the most part are old and a lot of them have seen an immense amount of use in studios. If you go that route, just make sure you get one in good shape. Particularly when the rear focusing shoes and rails get worn, there will be wobble in the back.

Yousuf Karsh used a Calumet C-1 a lot IIRC, and others have used Toyo flat bed cameras.

Frank's Sinar comment is a good one, if you want a P you can get one for $500-600. A good Norma costs more. Which is another possibility though 8x10 Normas are not common, though they seem to turn up several times a year.

Cheers, Steve

tgtaylor
29-Nov-2011, 11:19
If you get a monorail, I recommend getting two tripod blocks to mount the camera with. Combined with a solid tripod and head (I use a Gitzo G1500 and G1570M which I found here in the for sale section for a very reasonable price), the 2d block really makes a noticeable difference in stability.

For the one lens that would be suitable for both portraiture and landscape, I'd recommend a 360mm. For me it's the perfect match.

You will definitely need a case for transporting and storing the camera in. And don't forget the GG protector. If your camera comes without one, get the acrylic type. I bought mine from Toyo for $40.

My camera, with the lens attached which is the way it is stored, weighs about 20lbs. The storage case, a Sessions, weighs 30lbs so altogether the kit weighs in at 50lbs - about the same as a 5 gallon water bottle only more bulky. For transporting away from the car, and lets face it practically all of your shots will be some distance from where you managed to park the car, get a collapsible 2 wheeler - I picked-up mine from WalMart for ~$30 - and two bungee cords. Place the case with camera on the dolly, the tripod on top, and you can wheel the kit around all day without strain. Carry the holders, meters, etc., in a small backpack. The main physical exertion will come when lifting the case into and out of the trunk so you must be able to lift, in my case, 50lbs.

Thomas

John Kasaian
29-Nov-2011, 11:31
'dorff & 14" Commercial Ektar for me ;)

Brian C. Miller
29-Nov-2011, 12:45
My old Hasseblad 501cm with the one and only 80mm lens has been my baby for many years and ultimately I'd like to have a similar end result using the 8x10" - with probably an old uncoated lens.

I keep my gear simple: one camera, one lens, natural light. Hoping to achieve the same in LF - except all the other stuff that comes with the one LF camera and one lens :)

Hi! Welcome to the forum. An 8x10 camera is an enjoyable format. The real question is how you want to use the camera, not really the lens.

The uncoated lens won't necessarily give you an "edge" over a coated lens for softness, as a vintage lens can be extremely sharp. The lens needs to be specifically crafted for that purpose. There are a good number of portrait lenses available, or you can go with a Zeiss Softar filter. There's the Fuji 250mm soft focus, the Rodenstock Imagon, and various early lenses like the Wollensack Vesta (cheap seats, here). The problem with an early lens is that the shutter may not operate correctly, and having an adapter made for a Copal 3 would be a good idea.

I noticed from your photographs that you have done a lot of indoor shots with your Hasselblad. An 8x10 needs a bit more light to work, so you may need to augment the available light. While a fast 8x10 lens may be at f/5.6, the depth of field will be very narrow, and you'll need to stop down a lot. Thus, it will need more light.

As for camera operation, you might want to spend some time with someone who owns an 8x10. How does the camera feel for your needs? Is making a small pack important, or is it OK to keep it in a large case? There are many 8x10s out there available for not much, so take your time about buying something.

ImSoNegative
29-Nov-2011, 13:05
I like the calumet c1, i have the black monster, its an awsome camera

Scott Davis
29-Nov-2011, 13:31
Hey Nic-

glad to hear you're finally getting around to getting into "medium" format :D. I'll put in another vote for the 14" Commercial Ektar as your one-and-only lens for 8x10. For a camera, since you're doing portraiture, something like a Burke & James "Rembrandt" would make a nice option - no front movements, but it then takes a bigger lensboard that can handle the big glass in a big shutter, or a really big lens that needs a Packard shutter, should you ever decide to start playing around with the big antique portrait lenses that are currently the hot ticket around these parts (like a 16" Verito or Vitax).

Jim Galli
29-Nov-2011, 15:10
'dorff and 14 ektar........

been there done that...

I landed on a Kodak 2D with a Packard Shutter installed inside the camera. That way when neat antique lenses come along (and they will) the camera with shutter is ready and waiting.

It's a couple of pounds lighter than the Deardorff, a thousand bucks cheaper, and you can hang a 6 pound lens on it if that's the order of the day.

Most of the images on my site were done with that set-up. Good luck! Like choosing walking shoes. Just cause something's right for me, doesn't mean it'll work well for you.

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 17:19
Hi Jim, it's great to "see" you again. I still have your beautiful picture (the one on your homepage of your website) here next to my computer as inspiration - I've always loved the softness. Yes, you've hit it the nail on the head! I love your work Jim. Thank you.

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 17:27
Scott, there you are! :) Nice to see another familiar face around the traps. :) What have you been up to lately? Anything with the word "Rembrandt" attached sounds attractive. You should see my bookshelves.

A packard shutter, antique lenses and possibly the Kodak 2D sounds pretty good so far.

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 17:47
Just want to say thank you to everyone for your advice. Much to take on board and more research to do and go hunting.

Lachlan 717
29-Nov-2011, 17:59
An alternative to the Packard shutters is the Sinar shutter. Have you explored using these?

Nicole BM
29-Nov-2011, 18:05
Not yet Lachlan, thank you.

Frank Petronio
29-Nov-2011, 19:36
You see a lot of people suggesting the Kodak Commercial Ektar 14" f/6.3 lens from the ~1950s. The reason is because this lens will produce a traditional, classic sharp image with a quality best described as "smoothness" - as opposed to modern lenses that will be very sharp and are sometimes described as "clinical" or "harsh" in comparison.

I usually shy away from using vague and subjective descriptions like smooth versus harsh but in this case I have owned the older soft portrait lenses (like Veritos), Commercial Ektars, and modern Rodenstocks and Schneiders... and I have found it to be true. The Commercial Ektars are "just right" at being sharp enough not to be noticed as being affected or as part of a style or genre. They just make darn good photographs.

It also helps that these lenses sell for $350 to $500 USd and they are reliable and not too bulky. The downside is the larger #5 ACME shutter they are mounted in only has a top speed of 1/50th on a good day. And they use an odd Series-filter thread (not metric but close to 72mm). The slow shutter speed can put you into having to use Neutral Density filters if you want to shoot at open apertures in bright conditions like you might have in OZ.

You can go softer-grungier like Sally Mann, etc. but I think that sometimes detracts from the image itself and simply furthers the style over content. The Ektar just "gets out of the way" of the image, unlike a lot of lenses that shout, "Yoh this is a VeriBrass$$$LumoLux kind of shot".

It strikes me as odd that intelligent people will spend thousands of dollars on some lens to make their 8x10 film photographs look like they were done with a broken Holga and processed by a drunk onto blotchy paper full of scratches but trends are trends ;-p

As for the cameras, you may find yourself trying a few or adapting to whatever you buy and just living with it. To me, a Deardorff is a worthless contraption with painfully small knobs, sloppy gearing, and shaky standards barely able to hold the lens. But to many photographers the Deardorff is a wonderful tool, the pinnacle of photography... And i am proven wrong once again.

Except that both the woodies and monorail camps all like the 14" Commercial Ektar ;-p You won't find many photographers who don't like it.

cosmicexplosion
29-Nov-2011, 19:47
hi Nicole welcome, good to see another Local!

I am pretty new to photography coming from a painter background, and splashed out on a sinar p 8x10 set up, but as soon as i had all the gear i needed (to much)
i wanted to get out to the field, but cant with my current set up.
now i am trying to get my mitts on a field camera and my the sinar isnt seeing any action...

as i live in vaucluse, i am surrounded by huge cliffs, (yes the same ones several people jump off every week)

but having a sinar P, and no travel case i have only been shooting indoors and around the propery, learning to actually use film and develop.

so am pretty frustrated not being able to shoot
so i will re affirm advice i did not heed,when i joined this forum:
get a cheap field camera and get out there and shoot.

the kodak mentioned sounds like a good option, and am thinking about one myself for wet plate, as it will withstand the elements, and chemistry spillage.

sally man, uses some 100 year old wooden camera. If you look at the you tube clip of the upcoming doco 'artists and alchemists', there is a funny scene of her shooting, and having to hold the camera steady with her head while she loads the wetplate, and that is one of the worlds most famous artists!

you will burn through hundreds of dollars worth of film chemistry and paper as soon as you have camera, hence starting cheap is a good idea unless you have disposable cash.

having a sinar in the studio is a beautiful thing, majestic, but should have got one second.

dont think a normal SLR tripod will do, my manfotto 55 had no chance under sinar,
i settled on the australian miller timber movie camera tripod, with a fluid ball head.

there are better options nowadays, just do a search for wooden tripods on this forum, but scientific research has concluded wood is the best material for absorbing vibrations from all tripods tested (carbon fiber included)

so $5-600 tripod
$ 7-1000 camera
$ $200 film holders
$ 400 film chemistry paper
$ 7-800

so up and running for about $3000

all you need is 3 trays, a contact printer, and a light bulb.

thats all i have.

Andrew

James Morris
30-Nov-2011, 12:56
I have the 14" Ektar, too, it's a great lens ineed.

Dagor lenses are also ideal for portraiture, and relatively small with good coverage.

For environmental portraits, if indoors, I suspect you'll want something wider than 14". 300mm would be closer to the feel of your 80mm mf lens, give you more dof (you will need it for 8x10), and get you closer to the subject than the other side of the room.

I use a 210mm Dagor for indoor environmental portraits, although the coverage is sometimes marginal with movements and not being fully stopped down. Great focal length for the job, though.

The 165mm super angulon is much wider, and seems to work well, see Ben Anderson's work for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bennehboy/4332666121/in/photostream

There's also a 210mm SA -- pity they're so large and expensive.

evan clarke
30-Nov-2011, 14:08
Why is this in the FS forum?


This is the "For sale/WANTED" board..Nicole wants an 8x10 camera...

Ken Lee
30-Nov-2011, 15:02
Brian made a very important point, more important perhaps than choice of lens or camera model.

An 300mm lens at f/32 has the same depth of field as a 150mm lens at f/16, which has the same depth of field as a 75mm lens (or 80mm in your case) at f/8.

To put it the other way, a 300mm lens at f/5.6 has the same depth of field as a 150mm lens at f/2.8, which has the same depth of field as a 75mm lens (or 80mm in your case) at f/1.4 (if you can find such a lens for the Hassy)

So with 8x10, if you want to get even moderate depth of field, you need to shoot at f/32 or smaller. In dim light, even with fast film, that might pose a problem. There may be a good reason why those old-time portrait photographers nailed their subjects to the chair. :rolleyes:

To put it the other way, there may be a good reason why those old-time wedding photographers used medium format equipment.

Frank Petronio
30-Nov-2011, 17:26
That may be the math but here are some f/8 - f/11 portraits done with the 14" Commercial Ektar. At ~full length, moderate distance they don't look too self-consciously short-focused like a hipster's photos using some of the speed lenses like Aero-Ektars or 150mm Xenotars.

cosmicexplosion
30-Nov-2011, 18:21
That may be the math but here are some f/8 - f/11 portraits done with the 14" Commercial Ektar. At ~full length, moderate distance they don't look too self-consciously short-focused like a hipster's photos using some of the speed lenses like Aero-Ektars or 150mm Xenotars.

mmmm sharp shooten cowboy

the first makes me want to get married or drown via seraphim and the second shows the magic 3d of DOF.

evan clarke
30-Nov-2011, 18:51
Nicole, here's another nice 8x10..a Shen Hao, I have a 4x5 version and my neighbor has the 5x7 version. The link https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3146 I have 3 8x10s..a new Arca,an AB vintage Arca, a Fatif and an 11x14 Chamonix..In a perfect no budget world, a new Arca is a no brainer. Considering money..the Chamonix would be a great choice..very light and rigid. I have made about 100 photos with my 11x14 this year, the kit is lighter than my 4x5 setup, the 8x10 is a featherweight..cheers..Evan Clarke

William Whitaker
30-Nov-2011, 19:09
...the yearn for a dream 8x10" LF camera setup for environmental portraiture is getting stronger every day.

Nicole,

I'm a little fuzzy on exactly what is meant by "environmental portraiture". Is that akin to the "home portraiture" of yore? Can you point me to some examples of environmental portraiture on your web site? I'd like to understand exactly what it is you want to do with an 8x10.

Maris Rusis
30-Nov-2011, 19:59
I get to shoot portraits on two 8x10 field view cameras, a Tachihara double extension and a Tachihara triple extension. The double extension is hopeless for face portraiture because it is a front focussing camera. As the front moves forward to seek focus the magnification changes because the lens gets closer to the face. At worst it is possible to rack through the entire range of the focus movement and never get focus; just various size big blurry faces.

The triple extension Tachihara offers focus with the back standard and focussing is unproblematic. A back focussing camera is essential for close-up portraiture!

speedtrials
30-Nov-2011, 21:05
This is the "For sale/WANTED" board..Nicole wants an 8x10 camera...

Nicole wants advice about an 8x10 camera. You guys have have done a great job welcoming Nicole to the forum and giving her advice, but come on--this belongs in the Camera/Camera accessories forum.

Craig Roberts
30-Nov-2011, 21:20
Deardorff 8x10 with a 14-inch commercial ektar. Can't go wrong. This is Cole Weston, he used it in his book.

dsphotog
30-Nov-2011, 21:27
Deardorff 8x10 with a 14-inch commercial ektar. Can't go wrong. This is Cole Weston, he used it in his book.

Uhhh, thats a Calumet C1, aka Green Monster.
It might be the one Kim Weston is still using
...or do you mean you shot that excellent portrait with a Deardorff?

r.e.
30-Nov-2011, 21:31
The consequence of this thread being in the For Sale/Wanted sub-forum is that the only people who can read it are people who have been members of this site for at least 30 days. Don't know how searchable it is from outside ths site. In any event, maybe Nicole prefers it that way, but there is some good discussion here that should perhaps be available more widely.

Ken Lee
1-Dec-2011, 04:21
I moved this thread to the Cameras sub-forum.

Ken Lee
1-Dec-2011, 04:23
That may be the math but here are some f/8 - f/11 portraits done with the 14" Commercial Ektar.

It might be more revealing to see them at full size, or larger - rather than reduced in size, where only the deepest blur can be seen.

If the OP expects to make photos similar to those in her portrait gallery (http://www.nicoleboenigmcgrade.com/gallery/the-portrait/), then she will need the equivalent of say f/11 on her 80mm lens, which is f/45 on 8x10. With ISO 250 film in bright sunshine, that's a 1/30 second exposure. In shade or low light, the exposure gets longer - and all of the photos in her gallery appear to have been made under more subdued illumination.

Those numbers are for a 300mm lens. A "portrait" length like a 450mm lens will require another 1 f/stop. At f/64 under bright sunshine, the fastest possible exposure would be 1/15 of a second.

These are great speeds for shooting landscapes - or nudes - wherever the subject is stationary. Adults can hold a pose pretty well. Children ?

Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/8x10Detail.html) is one made with a 450mm lens, at a moderate distance from the subject. The depth of field at f/19 is several inches: just enough to keep the whole figure in focus: from her toes to her hair.

I'm not saying that wonderful portraits can't be done with 8x10 - just trying to inform the OP about the "parameters" so to speak.

Armin Seeholzer
1-Dec-2011, 05:30
Nicole is a clever girl Ken, she will also always have a Hassi or Bronica or a 35mm around her neck for a fast shoot!
Next spring I start shooting street scenes with my Burke & James, this will be a new expiriance for me.
I just have to much film in the freezer it has to get used;--)))

Good luck Nicole!

Jim Jones
1-Dec-2011, 08:01
. . . My camera, with the lens attached which is the way it is stored, weighs about 20lbs. The storage case, a Sessions, weighs 30lbs so altogether the kit weighs in at 50lbs - about the same as a 5 gallon water bottle only more bulky. For transporting away from the car, and lets face it practically all of your shots will be some distance from where you managed to park the car, get a collapsible 2 wheeler - I picked-up mine from WalMart for ~$30 - and two bungee cords. Place the case with camera on the dolly, the tripod on top, and you can wheel the kit around all day without strain. Carry the holders, meters, etc., in a small backpack. The main physical exertion will come when lifting the case into and out of the trunk so you must be able to lift, in my case, 50lbs.

Thomas

50lbs sounds unnecessarily heavy. Well worn and unobtrusive suitcases can be outfitted for lighter cases. My 2D, extension bed, two light lenses, eight film holders, and a Kodak Crown 4 tripod weigh 36 lbs in the case that came with it. A more versatile 4x5 Anba Ikeda kit weighs half as much. That makes all the difference to this old man.

Jay DeFehr
1-Dec-2011, 09:59
Hi Nicole,

Natural light portraits are mostly what I do. I use a Deardorff, but I'm sure lots of other cameras would work, too, and maybe as well or better, for less money. I think the important things to consider are:

Bellows extension- you need lots of it for portraits, even environmental ones. I would consider anything less than 30" unsuitable.

Rear focus- you don't want to be reaching for that front knob while louping the GG at long extensions.

Big lens board- Fast lenses in portrait lengths are big and heavy, and a big lens board means a big front standard, which should mean better stability.

What's not as important- lots of movements/ geared movements. Almost any 8x10 camera will have plenty of movements for portraiture, and less movements means better stability/weight. You can look at the designs of studio cameras for an idea of what studio portrait photographers considered important in their cameras.

Lens- While I'm sure the 14" Ektar is a fine lens (didn't Karsh use one?), it might be a little long for indoor work. I've been very happy with my Turner Reich 12" triple convertible (I have another in 15"). These lenses are not expensive or rare, but I'm sure there are many other options that are as good, or better. I might like a faster lens (the T/R is f/6.8) for focusing in low light, for instance. LF is very forgiving in many respects, lens design being one.

Good luck, and enjoy!

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4021/4673794102_239a114bbc_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jay_defehr/4673794102/) Andrea B. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jay_defehr/4673794102/) by Jay DeFehr (http://www.flickr.com/people/jay_defehr/), on Flickr

Craig Roberts
1-Dec-2011, 10:04
Me bad - poor explanation. I shoot the picture of Cole with a DD and Ektar. Cole published the image in his book. Craig

tgtaylor
1-Dec-2011, 10:45
50lbs sounds unnecessarily heavy. Well worn and unobtrusive suitcases can be outfitted for lighter cases. My 2D, extension bed, two light lenses, eight film holders, and a Kodak Crown 4 tripod weigh 36 lbs in the case that came with it. A more versatile 4x5 Anba Ikeda kit weighs half as much. That makes all the difference to this old man.

I'm inclined to agree that the 30 lb case is overkill but it came with the camera whose previous owner was a professional photographer specializing in photographing automobiles and no doubt shipped/transported it to the shoot location. If you're going to transport or commercially ship that camera, then that's the case you want it in. It's virtually indestructable and also makes a very sturdy seat on location. But I only have to physically deal with the weight when lifting it into and out of the trunk; the rest of the time it, the tripod, and the 2 blocks (another 15lbs) is on the dolly.

Thomas

Leonard Robertson
3-Dec-2011, 16:52
A link I ran across last week on Avedon's cameras:
http://lifeslittleadventures.typepad.com/lifes_little_adventures/2007/11/the-avedon-ye-2.html

I'm a long-time lover of wooden cameras - 5X7 Deardorff, 8X10 Eastman 2D, 8X10 Ansco. But a couple of weeks ago, I got a 4X5 Sinar Norma, and the little bit I've played with it, I can see why it is such a cult camera. The fast coarse focus, precise fine focus, and movements that lock down securely are wonderful. I doubt I'll ever afford the 8X10 format change kit for it, so the Eastman will no doubt be used if an 8X10 urge comes on me. If you do decide on an Eastman, try to get one which includes the add-on rear extension rail. I don't recall the maximum focal length you can use without the rear rail. I suspect a 14" will work, but I don't know how close it will focus. The 8X10 Ansco has a built-in rear extension track which is handy, and also built-in front tilt, something the Eastman lacks.

Len

Joel Brown
3-Dec-2011, 19:25
deardorff/14" commercial ektar


done and done

I second that!

Leonard Robertson
7-Dec-2011, 19:11
While looking through the group archives for info on the care and feeding of my new Norma, I've come across posts on the Agfa/Ansco that may be worth reading:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=14888
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=16162
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=45051
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41386
Some of the posts are more oriented toward 5X7 Anscos, but are relevant to the 8X10 version. I'm certainly not arguing against any of the other cameras mentioned by previous posters, but if you run across the right Agfa or Ansco 8X10, it may be worth your consideration. A few advantages of the Agfa/Ansco:
Fast setup- The lens can be left on the folded camera, the tailboard dropped down and locked in place with quick turn of the lock knob, then the rear standard racked back and you are ready to focus. Some people say speed doesn't matter with view cameras, but with fading evening light or some people situations, fast set up can be important.
Most (but not all) Agfa/Anscos have built-in front tilt movement which is important in getting the foreground sharp (if you want it sharp). Eastmans lack this feature. There are rare front tilt lensboards for 2Ds, and 2Ds can be modified for front tilt, but with most Agfa/Anscos, the tilt is already included. 2Ds can achieve front tilt by using back tilt and front rise. Maybe a 2D owner can comment on that. It may give as much tilt as is needed for most situations.
A/As have the rear extension track built in, rather than an add-on piece. I think this tends to make them sturdier at longer extensions. The down side is, I believe most won't give quite the extension length of a 2D with its add-on track. There is a version of the A/A 8X10 with both built in extension track and an add on track, but I don't think these are easily found.
A warning about the later model gray/grey (http://www.greyorgray.com/) painted Anscos - some or all used a plastic material for bellows that hardens with age. Makes it difficult to get max. bellows draw and use the movements, and eventually leads to pinholes in the bellows corners. An earlier version with leather bellows would probably be a better choice, unless the gray one has had a new bellows sometime in life.

Final thought, since most of your work is people photography - I suspect your subjects will have a more positive reaction to being shot with an old-looking wooden camera than a modern looking metal one. Most folks won't know a Deardorff from an Eastman from an apple crate, but they will think the wooden looking whatever is way cool. Maybe not an important thing, but I suspect it may be.

Len

jnantz
7-Dec-2011, 20:39
hi nicole

i think frank said it all in this post:


You see a lot of people suggesting the Kodak Commercial Ektar 14" f/6.3 lens from the ~1950s. The reason is because this lens will produce a traditional, classic sharp image with a quality best described as "smoothness" - as opposed to modern lenses that will be very sharp and are sometimes described as "clinical" or "harsh" in comparison.

I usually shy away from using vague and subjective descriptions like smooth versus harsh but in this case I have owned the older soft portrait lenses (like Veritos), Commercial Ektars, and modern Rodenstocks and Schneiders... and I have found it to be true. The Commercial Ektars are "just right" at being sharp enough not to be noticed as being affected or as part of a style or genre. They just make darn good photographs.

It also helps that these lenses sell for $350 to $500 USd and they are reliable and not too bulky. The downside is the larger #5 ACME shutter they are mounted in only has a top speed of 1/50th on a good day. And they use an odd Series-filter thread (not metric but close to 72mm). The slow shutter speed can put you into having to use Neutral Density filters if you want to shoot at open apertures in bright conditions like you might have in OZ.

You can go softer-grungier like Sally Mann, etc. but I think that sometimes detracts from the image itself and simply furthers the style over content. The Ektar just "gets out of the way" of the image, unlike a lot of lenses that shout, "Yoh this is a VeriBrass$$$LumoLux kind of shot".

It strikes me as odd that intelligent people will spend thousands of dollars on some lens to make their 8x10 film photographs look like they were done with a broken Holga and processed by a drunk onto blotchy paper full of scratches but trends are trends ;-p

As for the cameras, you may find yourself trying a few or adapting to whatever you buy and just living with it. To me, a Deardorff is a worthless contraption with painfully small knobs, sloppy gearing, and shaky standards barely able to hold the lens. But to many photographers the Deardorff is a wonderful tool, the pinnacle of photography... And i am proven wrong once again.

Except that both the woodies and monorail camps all like the 14" Commercial Ektar ;-p You won't find many photographers who don't like it.



i think any camera sets up fast.
the more you use a 8x10 camera the easier it is to use
and set up ( pretty much like anything else ) .
i've never used a commercial ektar but it seems like a great choice.

if you don't like whatever camera / lens you buy, you can always sell it/ them
and buy a new one/s.

if you can find one, a gowland 8x10 would be perfect.

have fun !
john

Hyok Kim
20-May-2012, 21:25
I think Sally Mann used a Toyo 810MII field camera, quite heavy. My dream camera would be the Arca Swiss 8x10 camera, very light smooth and precise. I would have to win the Lotto to buy it, though. Kim Weston uses the Arca Swiss.

Jon

What is your working camera? Btw. Awesome photos in your sites. However, I can see the point made by contact printing enthusiasts. Your pictures looked better when in small size, when enlarged they lose the 3 dimensional perspective.

Hyok Kim
20-May-2012, 21:48
That may be the math but here are some f/8 - f/11 portraits done with the 14" Commercial Ektar. At ~full length, moderate distance they don't look too self-consciously short-focused like a hipster's photos using some of the speed lenses like Aero-Ektars or 150mm Xenotars.

Mr.Petronio, what was the distance? and the ambient light condition? Shutter speed? and did you use zone system on those models?

Hyok Kim
20-May-2012, 22:01
Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/8x10Detail.html) is one made with a 450mm lens, at a moderate distance from the subject. The depth of field at f/19 is several inches: just enough to keep the whole figure in focus: from her toes to her hair.

I'm not saying that wonderful portraits can't be done with 8x10 - just trying to inform the OP about the "parameters" so to speak.

What was the distance?

aluncrockford
22-May-2012, 13:51
Just to add to the recommendation of the Deardorff and 360 lens, though any tessar lens should be fine, the advantage using the Deardorff is twofold, not only is it very easy to use with back and front focus which is very instinctive, it also captures the attention of the sitter, the reaction from the subject is completely different to that of any other camera the Deardorff makes the sitter feel important as does the connection you get from having both you and the subject having to concentrate so much to get the picture. Although bearing no relation to your work the link shows how straightforward it is to shoot 10x8 portraits on the deardorff

http://aluncrockford.com/wordpress/?p=87

Drew Bedo
22-May-2012, 15:10
What about one of the lighter weight modern models from Richard Ritter? Is a new camera out of the question?

E. von Hoegh
22-May-2012, 15:15
What about one of the lighter weight modern models from Richard Ritter? Is a new camera out of the question?

The advantage of the Deardorff for portraits, is that it has rear focus adjustment. Unless the Ritter has this, it will be hard to focus unless you have bizarrely long arms.

The Deardorff is like the Mauser bolt action, there are many "improvements" to the original design that aren't really improvements.

premortho
26-May-2012, 17:52
I used an Ansco 5X7 for years, until I lost it in a fire. I highly reccomend one as I found it very easy to use, and not that heavy either. I found it very intuitive to focus due to the back focus, I just ran the front standard out to about the right distance, then focused with the rear. As far as how the person being photographed is concerned, I don't think it matters what kind of wooden camera you use, as long as it isn't painted. People seem to connect better, or feel less threatened by wooden cameras. Maybe metal ones remind them of going to the dentist's. I use a 12" turner-reich triple convertable lens with a Packard shutter and the fastest film I've ever used much of is tri-x. I hope this helps you a little

John Kasaian
27-May-2012, 08:23
I used an Ansco 5X7 for years, until I lost it in a fire. I highly reccomend one as I found it very easy to use, and not that heavy either. I found it very intuitive to focus due to the back focus, I just ran the front standard out to about the right distance, then focused with the rear. As far as how the person being photographed is concerned, I don't think it matters what kind of wooden camera you use, as long as it isn't painted. People seem to connect better, or feel less threatened by wooden cameras. Maybe metal ones remind them of going to the dentist's. I use a 12" turner-reich triple convertable lens with a Packard shutter and the fastest film I've ever used much of is tri-x. I hope this helps you a little
So true!

Michael Wynd
27-May-2012, 10:51
Hi Nicole,
I've got a Tachihara triple extension 8x10 with a Nikkor 300 F9 and a Nikkor 120 F8 which I love using, but if I had the money to buy one now and was just getting into 8x10, I'd get a Chamonix. They look to be quite good and very sturdy, and I like the focusing screw at the rear.
Mike

Alan Gales
27-May-2012, 13:28
I just want to add to something Frank said about 14" Commercial Ektar filter threads. He said it is an odd size, not exactly 72mm but not metric either.

I don't know what it actually measures but I was able to attach a B+W 77EI-72EA step up ring to mine with no problem. Now I can use my 77mm filters with it along with a new style Nikon pinch type lens cap.

premortho
28-May-2012, 04:29
I would like to add that I prefer the longer focus lenses as I like the drawing, or perspective, better. After focusing, I walk towards the "victim" a little bit and carry on a conversation to relax them, then I squeeze the bulb. An air operated shutter allows you a lot of flexibility in this regard. This is a decidedly old-fashioned way to take portraits, but it is simple to do. Also an air operated shutter seems to shake the camera less. That's important to me as I now use an R.O.C Standard View, which is really an amateur camera of about 100 years ago, and is vibration sensitive. QUOTE=premortho;891887]I used an Ansco 5X7 for years, until I lost it in a fire. I highly reccomend one as I found it very easy to use, and not that heavy either. I found it very intuitive to focus due to the back focus, I just ran the front standard out to about the right distance, then focused with the rear. As far as how the person being photographed is concerned, I don't think it matters what kind of wooden camera you use, as long as it isn't painted. People seem to connect better, or feel less threatened by wooden cameras. Maybe metal ones remind them of going to the dentist's. I use a 12" turner-reich triple convertable lens with a Packard shutter and the fastest film I've ever used much of is tri-x. I hope this helps you a little[/QUOTE]