Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
What specific camera are you using? Unless your 4X5 is built like a tank, how are you going to even fit and keep steady a 14 in lens in no.4 shutter on it? As for "harsh Karsh", all I was implying is that he gravitated toward highly detailed rather high contrast results. Looking at his prints is a totally different experience than, say, the manner Hurrell rendered the rich and famous. Some of that had to do with Karsh's direct lighting and specific printing; but no telling what lens he might choose today. It might make sense to try out a particular lens before committing to purchase it, or else have a guaranteed right to return it. Artars can be distinctly on the clinically sharp side. And unless you are thinking about moving up to 5x7 or 8x10 format, the angle of view a 14 inch lens on 4x5 will give you will be equivalent to a 720 mm lens on 8x10 ! You'd need to back way off to get "head and shoulders".
As far the Ektar selection, the large format ones, that is, my brother once sold them along with Linhof cameras. "Commercial" Ektars meant just that - marketed for general pro usage, being somewhat sharper and generally higher contrast than the faster series of Ektars with wider apertures intended for mainly just portraiture. But there were also quality distinctions at that time - at least that's what he told me - with the best examples of the Commercial lenses selected out for Linhof. I've alway found the background blur of some Commercial Ektars a bit annoying, depending on the setting. In studios they generally had background fabrics without detail anyway, just to prevent background distraction. The last of the LF tessars were the uber-crisp and contrasty multicoated Nikkor M's. But portrait studios naturally preferred the single-coat Fuji L's instead.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks