Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

  1. #11
    Dave Karp
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,960

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Thanks. That was fun. And welcome aboard.

  2. #12
    Collin Orthner
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    54

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Nice read. I remember back only to the late 80's operating a 20x24 copy camera, my first time with large format. Now it is a much smaller 8x10 or even the miniscule 4x5. I like your hassle-free 5x7 too. Great idea.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
    Posts
    117

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    This is an example why this is such a great forum. Welcome and more, please.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Sonora, California
    Posts
    1,475

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    My humble advice to first-time large-formatters is - You don't need big contortions. You do need to be sure the front end is square on. (Have a look at a 'Non Folding Field Camera'). Use just one lens, no longer than the width of the film. Get the back-end plumb square, raise and drop the front at will, but tilt it hardly at all. Scheimpflug is for the birds.
    So, I have digested this and, I am curious about the "no longer than the width of the film part"...

    Can you please elaborate on this?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,074

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Broadbent View Post
    My humble advice to first-time large-formatters is - You don't need big contortions. You do need to be sure the front end is square on. (Have a look at a 'Non Folding Field Camera'). Use just one lens, no longer than the width of the film. (my bolding) Get the back-end plumb square, raise and drop the front at will, but tilt it hardly at all. Scheimpflug is for the birds.

    Things change and I've grown up still more, and now I want things simpler. So I'm back to using 8x10 (Gandolfi) because it's big enough to contact print and I'm thinking definition, tonal range, art. It's a creative choice. All the rest is digital.
    Hi Christopher,

    Fascinating reading! Now if you were not shooting product but people. Imagine photographing full length models and portraits too what would your lens be? The width of the film would be 100mm for 4x5 and 200mm for 8x10. but would you like that for portraits? Wouldn't at least 1.5 x width make the client happier?

    Asher

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Tamworth, Staffordshire. U.K.
    Posts
    1,167

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Thanks for the history lesson. I've learnt a lot.
    Best wishes,
    Pete.

  7. #17

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Oh how things have changed, people and equipment, it's easy to forget what it was like at certain points. Thanks for the memories.

  8. #18
    Downstairs
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,449

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Asher,
    I meant the width of the sheet of film...
    I've done a good many portraits with the 240mm on 8x10 (250mm film width + 240mm lens). Think 50mm on Hasselblad, 35mm on Nikon.
    The closest I get is waist-level. No head-shots.The model stands on phone books or leans on a table. There is no other way to keep a model in focus and relaxed. So no 300mm lens, no head-shots ever, no fiddling around under the dark cloth. Remember also I'm using a window-light at f.45 - which helps.
    Last edited by cjbroadbent; 7-Jun-2008 at 02:04. Reason: read the question better

  9. #19
    Downstairs
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,449

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    So, I have digested this and, I am curious about the "no longer than the width of the film part"...

    Can you please elaborate on this?
    Brad,
    The most natural FOV comes when the base of the viewing triangle equals it's height.
    Think 35mm on Leica and all the way up to 240mm on 20x25 (8x10 to you).
    The idea is to involve the viewer by keeping the subject within tangible distance. The viewer feels where he is according to the subject's perspective.
    Example: a glass of wine has three elipses: rim, liquid and base. A one-eyed drinker uses the differing elipses to control his hand. The person viewing your photograph is one-eyed so he need perspective clues to stay involved. How far do you stand off when you talk to someone? That's the distance to shoot from. Using a long lens is like not wanting to know the person.
    Of course you can exaggerate both ways, but the viewer will feel something's odd and may not buy what you're selling.

  10. #20
    Japan Exposures
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    679

    Re: 8x10 Was Not a Creative Choice

    Great intro and exquisite work on your site (and an interesting camera!).

    Thanks

Similar Threads

  1. differences betwen 4x5 5x7 and 8x10 when you shoot
    By luis prado in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-Jun-2008, 11:52
  2. 4x5 vs 8x10 camera
    By Shailendra in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 8-Sep-2007, 05:06
  3. Advice needed. 4x5 vs 8x10. Should I upgrade
    By Craig Griffiths in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 18-Nov-2006, 06:06
  4. Which Canham 8x10 to buy? + a question on lenses.
    By J List in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 21-Oct-2006, 08:32
  5. Best 8x10 scanner and Labs for 8x10 Color Enlargements
    By Robert_4191 in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 21-Jul-2004, 08:27

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •