PDA

View Full Version : 4x5 for fashion. Do I stick with my rail camera or try one of the wide rangefinders



mcherry
3-Aug-2012, 10:30
I've spent a lot of time shooting technical cameras for product, still life and some portraiture. Ocassionally I try my hand at landscapes, but they're really not my thing.

Anywho, I have a book project coming up that I was first anticipating shooting with Medium Format Digital, however, I'm not sure I want that look (I prefer the look of 6x7 and larger, and the smaller sensor doesn't give that sense of dimensionality, at least to me). This has lead me to thinking about shooting it on film, either 6x7 or 4x5.

While I've shot a number of large format portraits, they were all traditional portraits, framed fairly tight. For these shots I will be shooting them much more wide as we will be building sets and using multiple models (think cinema still). My biggest concerns are lens selection and being able to carry my DOF enough (which also encompasses lighting issues). In conjunction with the book there will be two gallery shows and the curator wants the prints to be printed BIG. I routinely print 20x25 but they want stuff measuring in feet not inches (as big as six feet on the long end). This is what's leading me to consider large format film. The chromes will be drum scanned so that they can be retouched and will be printed as Digital C prints and face mounted to plexi.

I started looking at some "wide" rangefinder type cameras (for example the Cambo Wide DS and the Fotoman) but honestly I know nothing about them and after a few google searches, still feel like I'm walking in the dark. Any information, resources or advice would be extremely welcome.

Kindest regards,

Matthew Cherry

Ivan J. Eberle
3-Aug-2012, 11:21
Wow. Sounds like you might even have your expenses covered. Monorail. 8x10, if they'll go for it, 4x5 if out of pocket. Oh, and forget chromes and shoot color negs, provided you've got a scanner operator who works in a 16 bit color space.

Daniel Stone
3-Aug-2012, 11:22
sounds like a job for shooting 8x10 :).

At the least, to insure the best quality, I'd go 4x5 MINIMUM.

chrome is still easily available(think Fuji only), and having quality drum scans done of your photographs will help insure maximum "wow" factor it sounds like this curator is after.

-Dan

mcherry
3-Aug-2012, 11:29
While I have a fair bit of experience shooting 4x5, I've only ever shot 8x19 once and I don't have any kit for it. Medium format would be easy as I have a number of cameras I could choose from. In LF I have a Cambo Master 4x5 which I love dearly, but then I say these handleld "wide" 4x5 cameras and they looked a bit like a LF rangefinder, which, if I am understanding that point currently, would make them awesome. Also considering an old press camera.

I've had carefully taken shots on 6x6 blown up to three feet and sell for very good money, so I'm not worried about the quality print from a 4x5.

mcherry
3-Aug-2012, 11:32
I've actually considered color neg as I've always liked Provia for skin tones, but I'm more accustomed to shooting chromes and always thought they scanned better? I only scan a little bit myself on either an Epson 750 or an Immacon, but for real work, I get a drum scan from Duggal's, so I don't really know myself. I only scan myself to share stuff online.

Jeff Keller
3-Aug-2012, 12:42
If you are building sets and using studio lights, I don't think the portability of a handheld 4x5 would be worth the trade-offs. A 4x5 enlarged to 5 feet would be a 12x enlargement. That is quite a bit of enlargement for handheld in anything but bright light. The earlier suggestion to use 8x10 is surely worth considering. A 6x enlargement of a carefully done image (tripod etc) could be sharp at book reading distances and would be pretty impressive.

If there is a lot of action, strobes could freeze the subject movement.

Jeff Keller




... For these shots I will be shooting them much more wide as we will be building sets and using multiple models (think cinema still). My biggest concerns are lens selection and being able to carry my DOF enough (which also encompasses lighting issues). In conjunction with the book there will be two gallery shows and the curator wants the prints to be printed BIG. I routinely print 20x25 but they want stuff measuring in feet not inches (as big as six feet on the long end). This is what's leading me to consider large format film. The chromes will be drum scanned so that they can be retouched and will be printed as Digital C prints and face mounted to plexi.
...

Kindest regards,

Matthew Cherry

mcherry
3-Aug-2012, 18:39
I started looking to see if I could get an 8x10 Cambo Master rear standard for my 4x5 but I don't seem to be able to? I wonder if I could just remove the 4x5 back and put an 8x10 back on there?

Nathan Potter
3-Aug-2012, 20:44
From what you describe I'd work with power strobes to freeze motion and stick with 4X5 with something from 120mm to say 210mm lens if you need a wide to medium view. 8X10 may be too shallow in DOF for what it sounds like you want to do. A hand held 4X5 with strobes would do wonders and allow you to move around a bit.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Alan Gales
3-Aug-2012, 20:56
I started looking to see if I could get an 8x10 Cambo Master rear standard for my 4x5 but I don't seem to be able to? I wonder if I could just remove the 4x5 back and put an 8x10 back on there?

I'm familiar with the 4x5 "L" standard Cambo Master but I have never seen an 8x10 version.

mcherry
4-Aug-2012, 09:50
The DOF was my biggest concern - even at 4x5, which is what I'm going to focus on. I have two lenses for this camera now, a 210 and a 90. I will look into the 120. Any other focal lengths you would recommend for full length and wide shots?

sully75
4-Aug-2012, 10:20
Personally I think shooting 4x5 anything is a crapshoot unless you are doing it all the time. I'm pretty comfortable shooting LF portraits and I like my results, but if I was getting paid to do something important with a budget, no way. I would be shooting whatever I felt most comfortable with, that I felt I could just nail things with.

Avedon, Penn, those kind of guys, you have to think...they were shooting 8x10 ALL THE TIME. So...all their moves were based around 8x10. And they could have any kind of light, assistant they could want.

Don't want to rein on your parade but in the end it's the picture that counts.

mcherry
4-Aug-2012, 10:25
Well, I have a pretty substantial lighting and grip kit and assistants are no problem (as well as set builders, etc.) and I am pretty comfortable with the 4x5 work I've done to date. But your point is worth mulling over. I will probably do tests with my 4x5 and my trusty RZ and those will determine which I settle on. The first three shots are always done one spec (it is based on those that the publisher will grant the funding), which requires a sizable investment, so I will overshoot and test a number of methodologies. Give all to my retoucher and see how it goes from there.

premortho
4-Aug-2012, 10:51
While I'm no expert at this, I would prefer a 100 or more speed negative film, and because it's what I grew up with, from a 4X5 press camera, assuming these are walk-around shots. 90mm probably ok if you don;t crowd subjects too much. 127 mm is what I used to shoot 10 foot shots with. Have the shutter checked to make sure the speeds are accurate, and any coated Tessar type lens. Any dependable shutter except synchro-compur (the shutter is ok, the diaphram has too few blades to give a nice rendition of blur (or bo-kay) in the background. AFAIK, the neg. films have higher speeds, which allows you to select diaphram opening to suit the effect you might want. OTOH, if you want wire sharp with great depth of field, a 100 speed film with a Press 25 flash bulb allowed me to shoot at f22 orf32.

aluncrockford
4-Aug-2012, 13:20
If i was you I would shoot on 10x8, it is easier to see what you are doing and the models react in a completely different way to anything else, just get hold of a Deardorff a 360 or 480 and off you go, the lack of polaroid is a bit of a pain bur pre testing should sort any problems. Just focus on the eyes and everything else will sort itself out

mandoman7
4-Aug-2012, 13:55
Personally I think shooting 4x5 anything is a crapshoot unless you are doing it all the time. I'm pretty comfortable shooting LF portraits and I like my results, but if I was getting paid to do something important with a budget, no way. I would be shooting whatever I felt most comfortable with, that I felt I could just nail things with.

Avedon, Penn, those kind of guys, you have to think...they were shooting 8x10 ALL THE TIME. So...all their moves were based around 8x10. And they could have any kind of light, assistant they could want....
These are very valid points, Paul. LF portraiture presents a ton of variables to nail down before you can begin to think about what's going on in the mind of your sitter.

Marc B.
4-Aug-2012, 20:10
This has lead me to thinking about shooting it on film, either 6x7 or 4x5.

I started looking at some "wide" rangefinder type cameras (for example the Cambo Wide DS and the Fotoman) but honestly I know nothing about them and after a few google searches, still feel like I'm walking in the dark.
I think I would stick with what you know...what you are familiar with.

Marc

sully75
4-Aug-2012, 20:30
Well, I have a pretty substantial lighting and grip kit and assistants are no problem (as well as set builders, etc.) and I am pretty comfortable with the 4x5 work I've done to date. But your point is worth mulling over. I will probably do tests with my 4x5 and my trusty RZ and those will determine which I settle on. The first three shots are always done one spec (it is based on those that the publisher will grant the funding), which requires a sizable investment, so I will overshoot and test a number of methodologies. Give all to my retoucher and see how it goes from there.

You sound like you know what you are doing. I think LF film looks the most awesome of anything. Personally I don't think I'll ever have the skill level to rely on it for make it or break it commercial jobs (I'm not working as a photographer anymore anyway).

I had a friend attempt to make a longish short film, or a short feature, or something like that. He decided to do it on 16mm film. That took up half of the small budget. A bunch of us busted ass for a week and shot a lot. Somehow there was an error at the lab and a lot of the film got fogged. All that work for nothing. The film was kind of a piece of crap anyway, but had it been on digital (which would have been more appropriate for the budget) at least we could have seen all of it.

Lesson learned, for me.

Daniel Stone
4-Aug-2012, 20:47
shoot what you know, if that's RZ, shoot RZ. If you know 4x5, and feel 100% solid about using it, use 4x5.

Get hi-quality drum scans done, and be done with it :)

you can also get a 4x5 instant film(although it'll be expensive, but it'll give you an idea of proofing)....

-Dan

mcherry
4-Aug-2012, 22:18
shoot what you know, if that's RZ, shoot RZ. If you know 4x5, and feel 100% solid about using it, use 4x5.

Get hi-quality drum scans done, and be done with it :)

you can also get a 4x5 instant film(although it'll be expensive, but it'll give you an idea of proofing)....

-Dan

Yes, I have an instant film back for the camera. I TA a 4x5 class and we go through tons of instant film. As I said, I'm pretty comfortable shooting standard portraits on LF, but I haven't done these kind of wide, large scale shoots using one (think Annie Liebovits for Vanity Fair, that's the kind of scale).

Here's a scan of an 8x10 print shot on 4x5, a more standard "portrait" which is what I'm used to shooting with this camera. I did just get a new 4x5 and was simply wondering about some of the wide cameras I've been seeing as I've never used one.

78296

mcherry
4-Aug-2012, 22:23
These are very valid points, Paul. LF portraiture presents a ton of variables to nail down before you can begin to think about what's going on in the mind of your sitter.

These shots will have noting to do with the mind of my sitter. The "sitters" will be hired models and actors. It is about what's in my mind that matters, not theirs.

David A. Goldfarb
5-Aug-2012, 03:35
The wide cameras are mainly designed for architectural work with wider lenses than you are using--tall buildiings where you can't move back far enough and cramped interiors, where the only movements you really need are rise/fall and shift, and the bellows is likely to restrict movements with a conventional view camera (of course some cameras do this better than others and have more bag bellows options, etc). They are small enough to handhold, but they don't in general have rangefinder focusing. You haven't said how long your studio is or how wide the set is, so it's hard to say how wide a lens you'll be using, but figuring you'll be in the 90-120mm range, I don't see why you can't just use a regular 4x5" view camera. You don't need infinity focus in the studio with a lens in that focal range. In the studio with models in what sounds like a fairly controlled situation, I don't see a reason to shoot handheld, and the wide cameras depend on groundglass or zone focusing, so handheld with a non-rangefinder camera isn't precise or practical enough, if you're printing really big.

On 4x5" you'll probably want to be around f:22-32, so it makes sense to use strobes with models. It's possible to do it with 8x10"--after all it used to be standard to shoot furniture catalogues on 11x14" in studios designed for the purpose--but it will take a lot more light to be around f:45-64, and don't forget that bellows factor increases with the larger format, so you will need 3-4 stops more light to shoot 8x10".

SergeiR
5-Aug-2012, 05:05
Yes, I have an instant film back for the camera. I TA a 4x5 class and we go through tons of instant film. As I said, I'm pretty comfortable shooting standard portraits on LF, but I haven't done these kind of wide, large scale shoots using one (think Annie Liebovits for Vanity Fair, that's the kind of scale).
she doesn't use LF. So - why?

Noah A
5-Aug-2012, 07:23
The wide cameras are nice for some things but they're mostly limited in terms of movements. I'd use a sturdy monorail for this project, without a doubt.

If you're talking about a room set you'll likely be looking at a 120/135/150mm lens. You'll need lots of light if you want any depth of field at all, but you already know that.

If you're going to this much trouble, the expense of shooting 8x10 might not really matter, so that would be amazing. But if you shoot 4x5 you'll likely get the quality you want and you'll be using gear you're familiar with.

For your test shots, why not try some with transparency film that you're used to and some with Portra 160, which is incredibly fine-grained and has great skin tones, albeit with a lower overall saturation. Negs may be harder to scan, but if done properly and in collaboration with you (the photographer) they can look amazing. You might try a talented independent scanner operator like Lenny Eiger (who is active here) rather than a big lab where they just pump out the scans.

Have fun and I hope you'll post some results!

Rod Klukas
8-Aug-2012, 20:17
Arca-Swiss has a really versatile 4x5 called the RL3d. It has rise, fall, shift, and tilt. The focus is super accurate with or without the ground glass, and it can be hand held. The focus distance can be set from quite close to infinity with provided focus cards. It has medium format little brother as well that operates the same way. http://vimeo.com/24366528
By the way, the new 160 Portra and the Ektar100 scan beautifully. They were designed for scanning. They are now much better for scanning than any currently available transparancy film.

Jay DeFehr
8-Aug-2012, 22:00
While I don't know exactly what you're planning, my instinct would be to go with a monorail camera, in 8x10, if I could afford it. For me, a controlled, studio environment cries out for a precision studio camera. I try to weigh the difficulties of shooting against the demands of printing. Using MF would definitely be more convenient in shooting, but not, in my opinion, to the degree that printing MF to your requirements would be demanding. I think the balance favors LF, since you're an experienced LF shooter.
I envy you the opportunity to plan such a shoot, and wish you all success!

cosmicexplosion
9-Aug-2012, 04:12
i reckon get an 8x10 and a 360mm

my kodak 2d $600
dagor goerz 360mm $600

great for portraits, in fact its the only set up i seem to use.

the 8x10 will always be better for large prints.

and portraits are pretty simple, its very similar to the 4x5, and as a pro you could prob be comfortable in 5 minutes.

you could hire a set up or borrow one, and reel off a few shots, take notes and then make up your mind.

8x10 sheets are a little harder to load than 4x5, but thats what your assistant is for!

i really enjoy looking through an 810 'window'

mcherry
9-Aug-2012, 07:26
Arca-Swiss has a really versatile 4x5 called the RL3d. It has rise, fall, shift, and tilt. The focus is super accurate with or without the ground glass, and it can be hand held. The focus distance can be set from quite close to infinity with provided focus cards. It has medium format little brother as well that operates the same way. http://vimeo.com/24366528
By the way, the new 160 Portra and the Ektar100 scan beautifully. They were designed for scanning. They are now much better for scanning than any currently available transparancy film.

That's a hell of a system. I picked up some Portra 100 and Ektar 100 as well as Provia to test. Thanks for the advice.

Rod Klukas
9-Aug-2012, 09:43
That's a hell of a system. I picked up some Portra 100 and Ektar 100 as well as Provia to test. Thanks for the advice.
Also, on the RL3d, you can shoot film and can add a digital back later as well.
Rod

Jay DeFehr
9-Aug-2012, 09:46
Arca-Swiss has a really versatile 4x5 called the RL3d. It has rise, fall, shift, and tilt. The focus is super accurate with or without the ground glass, and it can be hand held. The focus distance can be set from quite close to infinity with provided focus cards. It has medium format little brother as well that operates the same way. http://vimeo.com/24366528
By the way, the new 160 Portra and the Ektar100 scan beautifully. They were designed for scanning. They are now much better for scanning than any currently available transparancy film.

Great video, Rod, and a fantastic camera system!