Sharpness
May 28, 2018 08:41:43 #
I often have the pioneers of photography in mind for their dedication to the craft. They inspire me.
JohnSwanda wrote:
just imagine Carleton Watkins, who photographed the Old West with a 16x20 glass plate camera, about two thousand pounds of equipment on a mule train.
May 28, 2018 09:05:41 #
I love film and the days I spent behind a 4X5 in studio shooting subjects and product.
May 28, 2018 09:08:53 #
Steve Perry wrote:
I don't know, I kind of like my Nikons :) I've had terrible luck trying to do BIF shots with an 11 x 14 Deardoff. 
May 28, 2018 09:31:20 #
It's really not a fair comparison. There are images that can be made with a Deardorff or Linhoff that cannot be duplicated by a 35mm film or digital. Just as there are things that can be made by a DSLR that cannot be done with the large format camera. So neither is better but they are different. Is a 3 million dollar Bugatti Veyron better than a $250,000 Ferrari 458?
May 28, 2018 09:40:49 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
JohnSwanda wrote:
just imagine Carleton Watkins, who photographed the Old West with a 16x20 glass plate camera, about two thousand pounds of equipment on a mule train.
It's like trying to imagine how the ancients built the pyramids without the technology that we have today. We forget that they had the same brains that we have.
May 28, 2018 10:09:29 #
Had to reply to this post. Yesterday I was at the cottage and watching a person with his "new" camera doing landscapes of the lake with the sun having about 1 hr before setting. Camera was on a tripod as well. I watched for a while then asked if he was taking time exposures. "NO, I'm shooting everything multiple times". He said he probably has 1500 to 2000 thousand pictures of almost identical shots and could probably select the 10 best. My eyes would be crossed half way through that exercise. Ah to be young and have patience. Not my choice of spending retirement time.
May 28, 2018 10:12:22 #
May 28, 2018 10:15:20 #
May 28, 2018 10:34:36 #
I agree with the quality aspect. Over the last year, I've used my 4x5 exclusively for several photo outings. Of the 6 photographs I took, each was printed on 16x20 paper. Yup, 6 photographs, 6 keepers. During another photo trip taken a couple of years ago to The Grand Canyon, I didn't take one photograph. The light just wasn't what I wanted. On the way back to Phoenix, a storm front was moving in and the clouds were approaching The San Francisco Peaks. I took one photograph. It ended up being printed.
--Bob
--Bob
Delray wrote:
I am an old timer who had a studio in NYC. I serve... (show quote)
May 28, 2018 10:55:02 #
I too am an "old timer" but when folks call me that I tell them that MY "old timer" is my old trusty Gra-Lab darkroom timer that I now use in the kitchen to time my eggs! I am 74 years old and still working FULL TIME in commercial photography and portraiture. I will "retire" when I am dead! I am, undoubtedly and old guy with a gray beard but I do not live in the past.
Firstly- the "look" of the classical and fine portraiture is not simply based on lenses and format. Much of the aesthetics were based in excellent lighting and camera technique.
I will admit that some of the old Gortz, Ross, Imagon, Taylor-Hobson and Cooke, and other classical PORTRAIT lenses had cretin "personalities". Oftentimes, the illusion of acute sharpness came from the extremely shallow depth of field at wider apertures so when you fine focused on the eyes the ears may have been soft so the relative sharpness "popped off the page" and much of this was also due to incredibly masterful lighting. Images made on 8x10 panchromatic or ORTHOCHROMATIC films had a different feel- different from what we are used to nowadays.Wit h a bit of resourcefulness and ingenuity, you can bring back much of that old charm to you images- with new or modified gear!
When I teach classes in advanced portraiture to younger folks, many have never heard of techniques like feathering, barn-dooring, unseen secondary light, raw light from parabolic reflectors and form fill- all techniques of the master portraitists. They oftentimes relate all of this to old school studio techniques not realizing that the are just as applicable now as they were back in the day and many can be applied to out-of-doors and environmental portraiture as well.
Another "lost art" is really fine custom printing. Alas, many of the gorgeous warm tone and textured papers are no longer in manufacture and most of the chemistry is long gone unless one is inclined to mix it form "scratch" IF you could fined the components. Darkroom work required lots of patience. know how craftsmanship and care from proper negative making right through enlarging, processing and even drying and mounting the prints- every step counts.
The good new is that if you really "know your onions" one can still produce exquisite fine portraiture with contemporary film and od ciourse digital equipment. Nobody says you need to use a lens that can resolve a fly at 50 yards- some of the old glass is still around and can be adapted to current cameras. Nothin' wrong with the latest super lenses either- they can produce all kinds of sharpness, dimension and modeling (roundness) as long as you know your lighting and exposure and stuff like key, lighting ratios and many of the aforementioned techniques. If you are Nikon inclined- an old 105 on a full frame body is a gem for classic portraits! I have a Canon 135mm Soft Focus job that is very appropriate for fine portraiture both in contemporary and retro styles.
In monochromatic mode, a green (X1) filer has that orthochromatic look. A ligh yello (K-2) looks like the old RS Pan.
I was fortunate to have started my career in the New York City Metropolitan Areas as well. There were many experienced masters and mentors to teach and train the rookies back in the 1950s era. My first boss and mentor was a rare combination of artist and "drill instructor"- so we had to learn to do things carefully, professionally and properly. Many of the young whippersnappers, nowadays don't like the concept of "RULES" in art, not realizing that the BASICS are the foundation of creativity. When you have full command over your camera, optics and lights, you can handled the technicalities as second nature and then concentrate on the creative and "out of the box" aspects of the work. If you KNOW the rules, you will know how and when to fracture them! If you don't have to fiddle around or fumble too much with your lights and you know exactly how to place them, you can concentration on pose and expression!
If you really are in love with old glass, you can go nuts like I did and adapted a 1940s (soft focus) Imagon to my 1980s Mamiya RB 67 and stuck a 2016 Digital back on the rig! Or...you can join the present and use your new shiny DSLR with a cool super lens and make perfectly lovely portraits- you da boss! Photoshop and Lighroom are your new darkroom and frankly, I don't miss the smell of Nelson's Gold Toner, airborne powders and fumes that cause lung disease and caustic acids that give you contact dermatitis. Dats why I ain't dead yet!
Best regards- Nothing like a crafty old geezer with a new camera!
Firstly- the "look" of the classical and fine portraiture is not simply based on lenses and format. Much of the aesthetics were based in excellent lighting and camera technique.
I will admit that some of the old Gortz, Ross, Imagon, Taylor-Hobson and Cooke, and other classical PORTRAIT lenses had cretin "personalities". Oftentimes, the illusion of acute sharpness came from the extremely shallow depth of field at wider apertures so when you fine focused on the eyes the ears may have been soft so the relative sharpness "popped off the page" and much of this was also due to incredibly masterful lighting. Images made on 8x10 panchromatic or ORTHOCHROMATIC films had a different feel- different from what we are used to nowadays.Wit h a bit of resourcefulness and ingenuity, you can bring back much of that old charm to you images- with new or modified gear!
When I teach classes in advanced portraiture to younger folks, many have never heard of techniques like feathering, barn-dooring, unseen secondary light, raw light from parabolic reflectors and form fill- all techniques of the master portraitists. They oftentimes relate all of this to old school studio techniques not realizing that the are just as applicable now as they were back in the day and many can be applied to out-of-doors and environmental portraiture as well.
Another "lost art" is really fine custom printing. Alas, many of the gorgeous warm tone and textured papers are no longer in manufacture and most of the chemistry is long gone unless one is inclined to mix it form "scratch" IF you could fined the components. Darkroom work required lots of patience. know how craftsmanship and care from proper negative making right through enlarging, processing and even drying and mounting the prints- every step counts.
The good new is that if you really "know your onions" one can still produce exquisite fine portraiture with contemporary film and od ciourse digital equipment. Nobody says you need to use a lens that can resolve a fly at 50 yards- some of the old glass is still around and can be adapted to current cameras. Nothin' wrong with the latest super lenses either- they can produce all kinds of sharpness, dimension and modeling (roundness) as long as you know your lighting and exposure and stuff like key, lighting ratios and many of the aforementioned techniques. If you are Nikon inclined- an old 105 on a full frame body is a gem for classic portraits! I have a Canon 135mm Soft Focus job that is very appropriate for fine portraiture both in contemporary and retro styles.
In monochromatic mode, a green (X1) filer has that orthochromatic look. A ligh yello (K-2) looks like the old RS Pan.
I was fortunate to have started my career in the New York City Metropolitan Areas as well. There were many experienced masters and mentors to teach and train the rookies back in the 1950s era. My first boss and mentor was a rare combination of artist and "drill instructor"- so we had to learn to do things carefully, professionally and properly. Many of the young whippersnappers, nowadays don't like the concept of "RULES" in art, not realizing that the BASICS are the foundation of creativity. When you have full command over your camera, optics and lights, you can handled the technicalities as second nature and then concentrate on the creative and "out of the box" aspects of the work. If you KNOW the rules, you will know how and when to fracture them! If you don't have to fiddle around or fumble too much with your lights and you know exactly how to place them, you can concentration on pose and expression!
If you really are in love with old glass, you can go nuts like I did and adapted a 1940s (soft focus) Imagon to my 1980s Mamiya RB 67 and stuck a 2016 Digital back on the rig! Or...you can join the present and use your new shiny DSLR with a cool super lens and make perfectly lovely portraits- you da boss! Photoshop and Lighroom are your new darkroom and frankly, I don't miss the smell of Nelson's Gold Toner, airborne powders and fumes that cause lung disease and caustic acids that give you contact dermatitis. Dats why I ain't dead yet!
Best regards- Nothing like a crafty old geezer with a new camera!
May 28, 2018 10:56:19 #
boberic wrote:
It's really not a fair comparison. There are images that can be made with a Deardorff or Linhoff that cannot be duplicated by a 35mm film or digital. Just as there are things that can be made by a DSLR that cannot be done with the large format camera. So neither is better but they are different. Is a 3 million dollar Bugatti Veyron better than a $250,000 Ferrari 458?
Your suggested Bugatti Veyron vs Ferrari 458 value-for-money comparo provides a useful quantity of grist for rumination. After a bit of free-range cogitation it seems that, if one's resources are sufficient to allow realistic consideration of the Bugatti, the Ferrrari would be the better choice. Choosing the Ferrari would free-up sufficient funds to add a Golf GTI (daily-driver with friends and grocery hauling capacity) and an F-250 (to haul even more stuff or to tow the trailer-borne Ferrari about). The F-250 could even double as a platform for the large format camera, though one would need to sedulously avoid moving about in or on the truck while making a picture.
May 28, 2018 10:59:49 #
Old gear...new portraits!
May 28, 2018 11:09:13 #
Yea! I was so happy to see your post. Not many here still shoot film and even less use a large format camera. There is nothing like a portrait taken with an 8x10.
While the quality of the older lenses is good there is nothing sharper than the modern German lenses made by Rodenstock and Schneider. Just focus on the eye!
While the quality of the older lenses is good there is nothing sharper than the modern German lenses made by Rodenstock and Schneider. Just focus on the eye!
May 28, 2018 11:23:57 #
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
I too am an "old timer" but when folks call me that I tell them that MY "old timer" is my old trusty Gra-Lab darkroom timer.....Best regards- Nothing like a crafty old geezer with a new camera!
You put everything into perspective especially the analog vs. digital. It is all about learning the basics of photography and then doing what you want to create the images you envision with whatever camera you want.
As a student of photography shooting almost exclusively with an 8x10 for the past thirteen years I am humbled by your wisdom.
The best post here EVER!
May 28, 2018 11:25:07 #
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Old gear...new portraits!
Very cool! Thinking outside of the box is always good in my book!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.