Need More LIGHT: Should I start PUSHING?

[Vaughn]

...
...There are roll film backs for 4x5 cameras that are 6x7 or 6x9cm; these will allow the use of a larger aperture for the same depth of field, thereby allowing a faster shutter speed, albeit with a smaller negative, and still retaining the advantage of having LF movements to work with. Note that using a shorter focal-length lens and cropping gets you the same result. ...Doremus

That is a little confusing, but I think you mean that using a shorter focal length lens is the key...either using one on a smaller format to get the same view, or on a larger format and cropping.

The common saying is the larger the format, the more depth of field problems one has. Which is true, due to the longer lens required to get the same view one has on a 4x5, on an 8x10, for example. But the saying does cause confusion as it does not reference focal length.

[Bernice Loui]

Much a question of portrait style.

Given a portrait ~sitter~ is sitting down for a portrait, this means time to set up lighting and related. This means tungsten lighting, no flash as experience has proven flash is ok for a particular style of portraits dependent on the portrait maker. That said, using 1,000 watt tungsten or similar constant lighting with black & white only (mixed lighting is well tolerated in various ways for B&W images) will alter the exposure needs. Add to this a typical taking aperture of f8 for 5x7. Will the exposure be in seconds, possible but more often much less. Given this style of portrait making, the portrait sitter can indeed remain still enough for a longer than 1/30 sec exposure.

Then we get into connection with the portrait sitter and not focusing on the camera (this is where an assistant makes all the difference). Portrait maker makes eye contact and communicates and emotionally connects with the portrait sitter to capture an expressive aspect of the portrait sitter.

If one is going to do rapid fire fashion photography, LF view camera might be the improper tool.

Not long ago done a series of engagement portraits outdoors with the 5x7 Sinar Norma for daughter and hubby to be. No issues with both of them holding still for 1/2 second exposure outdoors. Personality involved has a very real effect on what is possible and what is not possible for portraits and the related stuff like exposure time.

Essentially, there are a LOT of variables involved with portraits, from style to the many. many methods and ways to achieve effective portraiture.

To generalize exposures of 1 second or more is too long for portraits is ... a generalization.

As for film cost, that is a given for sheet film. Not shy about using as much film as needed to achieve the portrait goal. This usually means no more than four sheets for a given portrait image goal, typically two sheets is enough.



Bernice

Not to start a whole thing, but I think the opposite opinion should also be stated.
Too many on this forum preach speeds of 1s and slower, and in the same breath complain about wind ruining their pictures!?!

It’s perfectly ok to want tree branches and leaves sharp in your landscape pictures, or to want pedestrians not to turn into mashed potatoes in your city scenes... Or simply to want short exposures to minimise the chances of wind moving the camera.
f/11 happens to be one of my most used apertures (together with f/8!). I shoot between 1/8 and 1/125 depending on the film speed and light in the scene.
I don’t think forcing 1s or 2s would achieve anything.



Damn, Film must be cheap where you live. No way I would ever risk a sheet of colour 8x10 on a 2s exposure for a portrait, unless the sitter is laying down and asleep.
OP mentioned they are not new to photography -only to large format- so I assume they’re over their phase of thinking soft photos are romantic and arty.

For the sake of diversity of opinions, here are my portrait speeds : I won’t go slower than 1/8s for sitting portraits, and 1/30 for a standing subject without any support (like a shoulder against a wall)

[ic-racer]

"Push Processing" B&W film only increases contrast. Do you want to make high-contrast portraits?

[Peter De Smidt]

"Push Processing" B&W film only increases contrast. Do you want to make high-contrast portraits?

William Mortensen wasn't too shabby at portraits. He developed to completion, the ultimate push. Do his portraits look overly contrasty? They don't to me. He didn't over-expose, and he photographed in low contrast light, neither of which is that hard to do. His aim was to maximize tonal separation in the tones that matter most for a portrait. I used to dismiss pushing film. Then I saw some great examples on this site. The proof is in the pudding.

[Two23]

Wrong. Sorry, but the only difference in exposure for LF film is usually due to the smaller apertures used. If your meter calls for f/16 at 1/30th sec. for the whatever film you are using, it doesn't matter which camera or format you use; it's the same exposure from Minox through ULF.

That's what I was thinking. I taken shots with my 4x5 on FP4+ using my Minolta meter for a reading, then used exactly the same reading to take a shot with my Rolleiflex. The images looked the same. My thinking was same emulsion, and since an f-stop is a ratio it's letting the same amount of light through.

Kent in SD

[maltfalc]

Wrong. Sorry, but the only difference in exposure for LF film is usually due to the smaller apertures used. If your meter calls for f/16 at 1/30th sec. for the whatever film you are using, it doesn't matter which camera or format you use; it's the same exposure from Minox through ULF.

The fact that most LF users work with smaller apertures to get the desired depth of field (e.g., in the range of f/22 and smaller for 4x5 - even smaller for larger formats) is what makes for longer exposure times.

@OP,

Better than pushing is using a faster film, that is, if you are not already. Next would be to simply use slower shutter speeds (like most of us do when needing to use smaller apertures).

If you find yourself constantly dealing with subject movement and slow shutter speeds due to the depth of field you desire, the best solution may be to use a smaller format. There are roll film backs for 4x5 cameras that are 6x7 or 6x9cm; these will allow the use of a larger aperture for the same depth of field, thereby allowing a faster shutter speed, albeit with a smaller negative, and still retaining the advantage of having LF movements to work with. Note that using a shorter focal-length lens and cropping gets you the same result.

Pushing, by definition, sacrifices shadow detail. That may work for you if you like that look.

However, there are no free lunches...

Best,

Doremus

*sigh* ok, time for a math lesson. let's say you have a subject the same size as the image area of 4x5 film. to photograph it with a 4x5 camera requires a 1:1 magnification ratio. a 1:1 magnification ratio requires double the distance from film to lens and gives you a projected image that's 2 stops darker compared to being focused at infinity, regardless of what focal length or film format you're using. creating the equivalent image with a 35mm camera requires a much smaller magnification ratio than 1:1 and therefore much less than double the distance from film to lens and much less than a 2 stop drop in brightness. so if your meter says f/16 and your cameras are both set to f/16, the 4x5 is effectively f/32 and the 35mm is much closer to f/16. see the problem?

That's what I was thinking. I taken shots with my 4x5 on FP4+ using my Minolta meter for a reading, then used exactly the same reading to take a shot with my Rolleiflex. The images looked the same. My thinking was same emulsion, and since an f-stop is a ratio it's letting the same amount of light through.

Kent in SD

read my reply to doremus above. the f-stops printed on your lenses are only accurate at infinity. when you focus closer, you increase "f" but the diameter of the opening at the front of the lens stays the same, so the ratio changes and f/16 isn't f/16 anymore, and that change in ratio scales up with the format. so if you're shooting landscapes, no significant difference in metering between formats, but the closer the subject is the more significant the difference gets and on average large format requires a larger adjustment to your f-stop (or shutter speed) to compensate than smaller formats do.

[Ulophot]

George, I don't like to enter these controversies generally, but here I question whether you are correct regarding 1:1. Having used Nikon extension rings to accomplish 1:1 with my 35mm Nikon, and recalling the exposure-increase printed on each ring with instructions for using more than one ring, my recollection is that indeed the same exposure increase was needed as it would be in another format. Perhaps another variable pertains?

[cowanw]

I suspect the difference is that 1:1 in 35mm involves a subject of 1 inch and 1:1 in 4x5 involves a subject of 4-5 inches. One view of the issue is that magnification is the same and the other view is that subject size stays the same.

[ic-racer]

William Mortensen wasn't too shabby at portraits. He developed to completion, the ultimate push.

His film would be mostly black.

[Bernice Loui]

Reproduction ratio light loss is often compensated in the modern roll film camera (35mm, digital and similar) by the internal exposure system which automatically compensated for light loss due to reproduction ratio.

Or, the modern 35mm film camera or digital camera's internal exposure system compensated as needed regardless of image ratios from infinity to life size ( 1:1 ) or other optics that could be attached to the camera.

This is NOT true for a LF view camera where there is no automatic exposure control system. It is completely up to the image maker to set and adjust as needed for exposure and light loss due to differences in image reproduction ratio.


Bernice