8x10 lens questions

[franklphoto]

Hello,

I currently use a toyo 8x10 field camera and a schneider 300mm apo symmar L lens. I was wondering if it was possible to get a sharper more grgory crewdson feel with a different lens? possibly a 210?

[Walter Calahan]

Frank

The sharpness of Crewdson's work has more to do with post-production computer work than a lens.

He's a tough act to follow. Instead I suggest you work on your personal vision of what you want to say, and not following Crewdson.

In the meantime, take a Photoshop class, especially concentrate on High Pass filter use, and painting with light.

[franklphoto]

I was just curious about the technical side. Not his vision.

[John Kasaian]

G-Clarons and RD APO Artars are ouchy sharp, though I think you'd need a 14" Artar minimum to cover 8x10, or a 16-1/2" if you require more than minimal movements. 210 on up will cover 8x10 if you're using the G Claron. Years ago I had a Konica Hexanon in barrel that was brutally sharp. I don't know which size you'd need to cover 8x10 (mine was a 210mm) and IIRC it would have been an expensive proposition to place in a shutter.
One of the sharpest 8x10 prints I've made was a test using Kodak TMY (the old version) and an old Kodak Commercial lens. It was of the old reconstructed Millerton Courthouse. I went there early on midweek morning to avoid the park crowds only to find a contractor's truck parked in the distant (and uncroppable) background which spoiled the feel of the picture for me. After waiting to see if the truck would be moved I snapped a picture anyway. I showed my print to a friend who went over it with a magnifying glass and easily read the license plate and other small signs which would have been 100 yards away from where I set up the camera.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

No, a different lens will not help. Crewdsons photographs are multiple exposures compiled in photoshop, with each part of the images lighted and photographed seperatly, lighted as a fullscale Hollywood production. The quality of light can play a huge part in perceived shapness...

[cjbroadbent]

My reason for not using a 300 on 8x10 is that it makes for a flimsy setup. The 210 makes a nice compact camera with little vibration. Try table-top with a 300 and you have to use a second tripod for the front end.
I get by with a 240 which corresponds to the width of the film (nearly). A 210 corresponds to the short side of the film and the wide-angle feeling becomes very obvious unless you shoot verticals.
On the other hand, the 300 keeps the perspective point of view too remote - things start to seem out of reach - like the worst catalog shots.