I am interested primarily in portrait photography, secondarily in landscapes. I now shoot a 6x6 TLR and want to move up to a 6x7 negative. I have thought about a 4x5 Super Graphic (has rotating back) calibrated to a portrait length lens and using this with a 6x7 back. This would obviously allow focus either through the rangefinder or on the ground glass. Is this a viable / useable option or am I better off with a 6x7 MF system?
thanks
It is a viable option, but there are certain advantages to using an SLR like an RB/RZ 67 for formal portraits, if you aren't going to take advantage of the larger film size. 4x5" portraiture with a rangefinder and Grafmatic (or Fuji Quickchange) back can retain some of the dynamism of working with a rollfilm SLR, since you can adjust focus with film in the back and can change sheets quickly.
Your idea is certainly workable. Finding or making a rangefinder cam to match might be a problem. The alternative of a medium format system would be more convenient in portrait use, but a good SLR system would be much more expensive, and would not give you an introduction to the advantages of large format in landscape photography.
Hi, I use both a Crown & Super Speed for both landscapes and a few portraits, and I use each with the Graflex RH-10 (6x7) back. I have produced great photos using both the Kalart on the Crown & correct cam for the Super, using the ground glass for focussing on each camera. I find the GG best for focus and composition. For shots on the fly, I use either the sports frame finder or the optical viewfinder on top of the cameras, along with the correct but approximate mask for 6x7. I say "approximate" because to my knowledge Graflex never made exact,dedicated masks for 6x7 for different focal lengths. You may have to look for "close approximation" 6x9 format masks for handheld quick shots. A Graphic system has been a great way for me to get 6x6 & larger on the meager, shoe-string budget my wife allows, so finances have been a consideration in the Graphic vs SLR debate for me. Hope this helps!
I think it is important to begin by deciding what your working method will be.
Most “people photography” is improvisational these days. The photographer usually has absolutely no idea what he is going to do before the model/sitter arrives. He begins the session by cranking up the boom-box so everyone can “groove with the mood” (or something). He then records the spontaneous action as if it were a parade quickly going by, or some kind of sports event. Click-whirr, click-whirr, click-whirr. After the shoot, model and photographer scan through hundreds of images on the light table, looking for something that sort-of, like, “works”.
This is an excellent way to quickly make pictures which are candid and natural. Perhaps the best method for children and dogs.
The classical way was to pre-plan a picture down to the smallest detail. The photographer sketched out the pose (or stole something out of a book), pre-set the lighting, specified the wardrobe and pre-selected the background. Everyone knew beforehand exactly what the finished print was intended to look like. The sitter arrived, sat down, assumed the pre-agreed pose, and the photographer calmly blapped-off a few sheets of film.
The kind of quality possible with this methodical, deliberate working method can be seen in the work of Karsh. Absolutely exquisite. But you need very, very good imagination to fully preplan a shot, with no model to look at. And the ability to put people at ease so everything doesn’t look to stiff, posed and phoney. “Groovin’ to the boombox photography” is much easier and more fun to do (and looks it).
I guess the best answer to your question is to ask whether you can work slowly with a very awkward camera without having your sitter doze off.
Oh, and if you do decide to go with a 4x5 camera, I personally think it would be a sin not to use 4x5 film...
I think John Cook has it right. it is technically possible to do what you want although the cams and masks are not easy to find (I have a Crown and a Super, both cammed, both with masks). However, if you want that kind of animated, modern look in portraits, a LF camera is not the way to go. I am going to get a medium format camera mainly for shooting my grandsons who do not sit for a long time (say, longer than 1.2 seconds).
On the other hand, my favourite style of portrait is the much more traditional "still" portrait and over the last 20 years there has been quite a revival of this style. Check out some of the back issues of View Camera for examples of portraits done with 11x14 cameras (speaking of awkward). But if you want to do improvisational, spontaneous photographs of people, then get a 6x7 system.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks