MF for Headshot Portraits?

I've been looking into Medium Format for a few years now, as I have always

used 35mm. I shoot natural light headshots for actors and models. My

question is: Would it be a wise move to jump into the MF market, while

specializing in actor and model shots? Should I get an Auto-MF (I really enjoy

the speed of my Nikon F-100)? Please help!

What print sizes are important to you? I've never needed to print a headshot larger than 8x10. At that size, it's pretty much a tie between a medium format setup and a new D70. Right now, I'd take the D70.

 

What about your current system are you unsatisfied with?

You shouldn't be using AF for Headshots really. You need be in control over what is and

isn't in Focus.

 

With a medium Format camera especially...you will be using Longer Focal length Lenses to

fill the frame so there will be little Depth of Field.

 

I think it would be a VERY wise move to move to MF specifically for that purpose. Don't

fall into the Trap of trying to duplicate your 35mm setup on an MF camera. That is a

waste of money (I did it and I was sorry too).

 

Continue to use your Nikon for what it is best at and then just pick up a good "portrait

box".

 

You shoot in natural light and do Headshots. A nice Rollei TLR is always a good bet. You

don't get a tight Headshot Full-Frame, but even when cropping you still have better quality

(you are still using more FIlm space) than on 35mm.

 

Older Richard Avedon stuff was shot on Rolleiflex for instance.

 

I also have Nikon 35, Leica 35 and Nikon Digital, but my MF and Large Format cameras

just make Headshots look so much better.

 

jmp

I think it depends on your market. If you are working with established clients who can afford a bit more for a sitting, then it makes sense to offer MF as a higher-end option. I'd imagine, for instance, that Christian Steiner shoots 6x7, but he is often working with world-famous soloists in classical music and top orchestral performers. Actors who are temping and waiting tables and trying to get established can't really afford to pay what would make it profitable for you to offer MF, and they are better off getting more poses on 35mm or digital.

I don't think you have to be famous to be shot on 120 Film.

 

On the contrary, my time is much more valuable to me to put in Photoshop hours to save a

client $50 in Film & Processing.

 

jmp

These actors and models of course want to look perfectly good in their photos. This can be best achieved by using these special portrait films like Kodak Portra 160, Agfa Portrait XPS 160 and the like. Nothing renders skin tones better than these films. And skin tones are one of the obvious weak points in digital.

 

Your client may want to use some of ýour work in poster size. This is where medium format really shines.

"And skin tones are one of the obvious weak points in digital"

 

Well they are if you don't know what you're doing, can't light or expose correctly for digital, and take a gamble with JPEG output. But gain control over those issues and I for one don't feel digital to be at a disadvantage.

 

However, I'd still recognise some of the benefits of a good Medium Format "portrait box" as a previous poster put it. Amongst them is accurate focus at wide apertures when you've composed with the point of focus off-centre. All the MF cameras that I'm aware of only have one auto-focus point, and that's right in the centre of the frame. Getting pinpoint manual focus accuracy with the great big Acu-Matte D screen on a Hassie is a lot easier than peering into a small 35mm viewfinder, or even worse the miniscule viewfinder of a 6MP DSLR.

 

Incidentally forget tight headshots with a Rollieflex TLR, unless you want the distorted features you get from 12-18 inches away. At the end of the day it's only got a 75 or 80mm lens, and you'll get more useable negative size from a 135mm lens and 35mm film from five feet away than with a Rollei. The Rolleiflex is wonderful for more environmental portraits, but for tight headshots you need an SLR MF with a wide, long lens, and a decent extension tube.

Skin tones? Look at the casting papers and labs that cater to actors in your area to see what the current fashion is. On the West Coast, color and outdoor natural light headshots are considered acceptible, and I would guess desirable, since there is a lot more casting for film out there. In New York color headshots are starting to become more common with the increased use of digital, but for a long time, a color head shot was just a sign of inexperience on the actor's part.

This is one of the reasons why I bought my RZ. I wanted to be able to do headshots to pay for the system I bought. As someone who was also an actor for some time, I never was completely happy with the headshots I got. I had sittings with about five different photographers, got five different contact sheets. Because I was in the waiter/actor catagory mentioned above, I could not afford the $500 for one or two rolls photographers. Mine were all between $75 and $200. All were 35mm. I think MF would be a wonderful way to shoot headshots. When I compare a 8X10 35mm print to the same size from a 6x7 neg there is a world of difference.

And here I thought I'd be the only one offering MF for headshots. I guess great minds think alike.

Cheers,

Marc

RE: Skin tones on Digital VS Portra Film

 

The frustrating thing for me with Digital is that I have to work on the image in Post to get

it to look "right" to me.

 

When I shoot on Portra NC or NPS it generally just comes out looking right. I am getting

there though.

 

jmp

John: have you tried a custom white balance setting on your digital? That should get you much closer on the skin tones front. Also, shoot RAW and work out custom curve that matches your prefered results and save it so you can keep re-using the same profiles, etc.

 

Henry: my bet is on an SLR (um, personally I think format is really up to you - 6x6, 6x4.5 or 6x7) with a lens in the region of 150mm to 180mm or so and if you want to get in tight, then you will definitely need an extension tube. Not sure if the same is true when shooting with the Mamiya RB67/RZ67 as they have built-in bellows focusing that I believe brings you in closer. Anybody care to confirm this?