Karsh, Newman, etc., etc.
OK, not Strand, only sometimes Avedon, but still, a lot of photographers keyed on 8x10 for portraits, by which I mean not just head and shoulders but up to environmental.
Why?
They weren't generally making huge prints (Avedon, when he used 8x10, being a notable exception).
The lenses, if they were working in the 360mm range, made it more difficult to manipulate apparent depth of field.
Was it a matter of the quality of emulsions?
A knee-jerk bigger is better?
Something to do with the printing process, whether as photographs or pre-press?
Something else?
Bookmarks