8X10 for baby portraits:am I crazy??

I may be shooting pictures of some very special babies for a

project, The idea is to represent these special babies as the

special, precious infants they are. I can use any format I have at

hand: 35mm, 120, 4x5,5x7, and 8x10(no, I'm not ready to use the

20x24 for this...yet!) I am very comfortable with the 8x10, but I'm

not sure what kind of lighting to use(strobes of course--don't want

to cook the kids! Soft box(es?) What wattage? and if the 'dorff is,

well, too slow---or more accurately---I'm too slow with the 'dorff!

For baby's skin, would I be better off using a crisp 14" Commercial

Ektar or an ouchy sharp 240mm G-Claron? Or it this where a soft

portrait lens would be useful? Maybe the handheld Crown or even the

35mm SLR would be a better tool for the job. Has anyone here used

LF to photograph infants less than 1 month old? Any thoughts,

suggestions, guidence? Help!

Although Ann Geddes has built a multi-million dollar empire out of her large-format shots of babies, you may have noticed that all of them are asleep. ;-)

 

Some babies are startled by strobes and start crying. So, that could be a coin toss. Keeping the modeling lights on high seems to help, though. Personally, I'd go with quasi-dramatic lighting with softboxes, and set the strobes high enough to get f/22 or f/32 or so. Then, use a set for the baby to be posed in that will allow some room to use a focal length that will give maximum DOF.

 

If they are too active, I've found that 8d nails are usually sufficient to hold them in place, but the mothers tend to get a little upset. Maybe duct tape would be better. ;-)

 

Seriously, if you really want to use your 8x10, my suggestion would be to pose the baby in the mother's arms. You can always use a blanket to hide the mom from the camera if you want.

For infants younger than 1 month, you might be fine. All they do is sleep and eat. How hot are the hot lights? Infants that young generally love to be swaddled and to be quite warm. If you're catching them in the nude, it might actually be beneficial to have hot lights on them. Also, in general, very young infants don't have that famed perect skin, yet. They might still be dealing with baby acne, cracking and peeling skin, or any temporary marks from birthing. A filter for red blemishes *might* be handy, if you care about that "perfect skin" thing.

 

I don't have too much specific equipment-related advice. The best bet is to ask the mother about what can or can't be done concerning things like whether the baby can be placed with/in props, positioning, asleep/awake, nursing, etc. Also, plan on having lots of patience and flexibility.

 

For older kids, either duct tape or 35mm (to burn lots of frames) is the way to go.

<I>How hot are the hot lights? </I><P>That must have been written by someone

who really doesn't know what they are writing about. For this projects, hot lights for a

lot of reasons-- inefficiency (about 1,000 w/s is equal to about 20,000 watts of

incadescent lighting, danger of burns, baby movement during a multi second

exposure, etc -- are absolutely the wrong lighting tools for this project.<P>

How much power might you need? That will depend on what f-stop you are using,

how much bellows extention factor there is & what ISo film you are using. Iwould be

inclined t ouse the Ektar. what do you want the lighting to look like? I'd be inclined to

start with a 40 x 50 inch soft box as my key light, and I'd place it pretty close to the

baby on one side and the lens on the other.<P>How are the pictures going to be

used? I'd be more inclined to use a 6x6cm or a 6x7cm medium format SLR camera, as

I could get more takes per session. <P>If the babies are preemies I would definitely

ask the doctors about using flash as you may damage their eyes, especially with that

much UV light.<P>

Indeed, that's why I asked. How hot are they? If they provide warmth to the tune of ~100 degrees F, fine. Hot lights melt perishable food, sure, but how about people? If they burn skin, then <u>obviously</u>, they are not right for the project, regardless of f-stops and whatnot.

<br><br>

I never claimed to offer any strong technical advice, as stated. I do know babies, however, and I think my human-related advice still stands.

hi john:

 

great project!

i worked with an olde time photographer who used to make lf portraits of babies all

the time. she used 5x7, but this is pretty much what she did, at least during the time

i was her lab-guy / assistant. by this point she wasn't using hot lights. she had one

bright light she used for focusing, but she used photogenic strobes. she had a

bassinette the babies were put into. she shot with a non-portrait lens and

stopped down to about f22 or maybe f 16.5ish. the camera was a 8x10

studio ansco on castors, and she shoved it almost into the bassinette, focused on the

eyes, and popped the packard shutter. she always had a rattle and got the baby's

attention pensive/perplexed - never smiling or grinning ...

the film was always processed in dk50 and baby-photos were always printed in

selectol 1:2.

 

her lights were strobes in barn doors no softboxes. she used hot lights for eons until

she the bulbs she used weren't readily available.

 

if you have soft boxes and something like a 1000 ws strob/monoblock (or can rent

them)... you might think of using one strobe on a boom and *just use the modeling

light* directly over the baby.

 

good luck!

 

-john

actually, they were bright-floods, like the original lowel lights, not tungston hot lights

..

-john

Thanks for the advise! john's set up sounds pretty good. I'd like to photograph the babes against a white backdrop, minimal shadows, on some kind of fuzzy blanket with enough contrast to make them 'pop' out(is that the term?)so a basinette would do the trick, maybe with one of those baby supports(or as was also suggested, in mother's arms) This would probably be on location, which would work against the idea of using hot lights as the parents probably have enough to worry about without having their cirkuit breakers click off. These are Downs babies, but the portraits should celebrate baby-ness and new life, not evoke pity. They have to be something the parent(s) would be proud to hang on the wall in order to be successful. Thank you for all the great tips and ideas---please keep 'em coming!

Oh, and I won't be putting them in flower pots!

"I may be shooting pictures of some very special babies for a project"

 

All babies are very special - they're new people and have all the possibilities of any new person.

The only reason for using a large view camera is if you're going to make large prints, or to feed the ego of the photographer who feels it's more macho to use a big gun. Unless either of these applies, I suggest that you use the most unobtrusive equipment possible.

Geddes shoots with large format?

I think that she uses 4x5. A recent TV documentary on her (60 minutes?) showed her using Polaroid peelapart film to test the lighting setup. Her's is a VERY professional setup.

hey john:

 

not sure if you have any portrait lenses at your disposal .. but if you might be able get

these babies to glow as if they had an aura :)

 

you might be able to get that same effect using your commercial ektar, with the front

element removed ... and if shooting in mom/dad's arms you could be pretty far away

and not have the lens too close to the baby ...

 

be careful with fluffy-stuff, fluffy-stuff and babies can sometimes be a dangerous

combination ... :)

 

-john

harvey: Of course all infants are special, but my subjects are also special because their births were tolerated by a convenience driven "fit the norm" society. Then again, maybe its the parents who are special, or both? At any rate I want to give these couples the best portraits I can.

 

Bill: cameras are tools of course. I don't see using an 8x10 as being all that intrusive in this instance as it is static, as opposed to a slr hovering overhead, in the hands of a stranger. What format I use will be determined by what works for me after a series of test shots I'll be making to try out all the suggestions I've been getting here, and from reading all I can on the subject---BTW, can anyone suggest some good books on the subject?---as far as having a preference for 8x10 contacts, is that egotistical? Is it really considered macho to attempt this with a view camera? Now shooting hand held aerials with LF, man, thats got to be "macho," but babies??

John,

 

I recently did the same with an 8x10. A friend, asked me to make a portrait of her

four month old, and asked that it be 'funky' or some such thing. My wife (who

teaches traditional chinese painting and bookbinding) and I did the project togeather.

We used 8x10

polaroid transfer onto Japanese Washi paper, and mounted on a chinese

scroll. It actually looked pretty good.

 

In any case, since I almost never use 8x10, I had little choice in the equipment. I used

a Calumet C-1, and a 14" Artar. In retrospect, having a faster lens would have helped

quite a bit (so, use the Ektar). Beyond that, I was always worried about the camera,

which was at times right above the baby, coming crashing down... Maybe a lighter

camera and heavier tripod?

 

I used three 1000 watt hot lights, which bothered the baby less than her older (3 year

old) brother. More light would have been helpful, since my exposures were too long

for my taste, usually about 1/8 second, and a number of pictures came blurred.

 

It was an enjoyable excercise, but not one I would want to repeat every day.

John, I have photographed babies using a 4X5 view and I was surprised at the results since previously I had used 120 or 35mm. I have also used an 8X10 (not on babies) and I would definitely prefer the 4X5. I use a 240mm lense which gives me some distance from the baby and a bright screen (f5.6) to focus. I use a large softbox as my key light with Profoto strobes to get to reasonable depth of field and non-blurry transparencys or negs.

 

With the baby being less than one month old you don't have to worry to much about movement out of the plane of focus. With older babies I prefocus on a static object mark the spot and place the baby on the spot for the photograph. I also crop very loose with the older babies.

 

When shooting color I have found that I and the parents prefer a blue background over a white one.

 

Good luck!

Making 8x10 contact prints sounds to me like a reasonable reason to shoot 8x10.

I used to spend a lot of time in an office that was next to a Sears child portrait studio. Most of the children brought in were very young, many of them screamed their heads off from the beginning to the end of the session. IMHO anyone who photographs babies for a living is by definition crazy, whether they do it with an 8x10 camera or not.

 

But just as a matter of interest, the portrait studios I know of today (only a few, admittedly) including the aforementioned Sears one, have all gone digital. That means, among other things, that the people can see the portraits instantaneously, decide which ones they want at the time of the shoot, and order and pay for them on the spot. No need to wait for proofs before ordering, minimal risk from the photograher's standpoint that they won't order anything (since the photographer can keep shooting and showing the results to the client until the client sees something he or she likes). All of that is a real advantage to both the photographer and the customer. Since the general public doesn't have a clue about the quality of 8x10 vis a vis digital, I think you might have a hard time competing with the digital studios using any film based system but especially one that uses an 8x10 camera. However, I'm not a professional photograher and maybe the film based studios are able to compete with the digital studios in some mannyer that I wouldn't know about.

What is your motivation for this project John? Is it a personal project, a commercial portrait project(do you get paid for the work), for some type of organization or charity(a Downs Syndrome group of some sort)? If you are working on a personal project, then any artistic approach you choose will be relevant? Commercially speaking, this could be expensive. If profit is not an objective, or at least a primary objective and the subject is handled with sensitivity and care, I can see this as being a very emotionally charged piece of work. I have photographed babies from their moment of birth and children up through adulthood. Babies before one month are usually unanimated and are just hard to prop up. They are not going anywhere. I photograph babies with a 4x5 occasionally and the most you have to worry about is the turn of the head. Getting the eyes open is another problem. Whether shooting with the Hasselblad or 4x5, either on a tripod, the situation is about the same. An 8x10 as with the 4x5 just needs to be focused, settings made, film placed with darkslide out and ready. I usually place the baby in a sloped chair on something soft so he or she is at about a 45 degree slope with the camera pointing down at about the same angle. Electronic flash stops any motion, unless you are looking for some spontaneous blur. If you are interested in any more specific details, I would be happy to respond. I think it is an achievable goal if you have the patience. Good luck.

Gary

I shot a number of 8x10 transparencies of my daughter aged 1-6 months. I used two large softboxes, and a Nikon 360 lens. From memory, an 1800 Watt-sec softbox (even a single one), if placed close enough, will get you f32-45 (even allowing for bellows factor) on 100 ASA film such as Astia or Provia (both of which I used for this project). It's easier when they're littler, but of course the nice thing about strobes is that you will freeze any unwanted wiggling. Provided you have adequate depth of field and can afford 6-8 takes, you can be pretty assured of getting something good, if you're good with babies! We just crashed a hard drive and lost of number of digital shots of her, and so these 8X10 transparencies are actually doubly precious to us now.

 

Good luck,

Nathan

Gary, this is a personal project---I'm not going into competition with Sears portrait studios. Its something I've wanted to do for some time, but I finally hooked up with people who might be able to provide me with some referrals. I've got three infants whose parents will let me practice on, and if I can produce some worthy examples I think I can get this project started. It'll be in B+W and I've always liked the look of 8x10 contacts for portraits, but I have other options too, even taking my old Nikon F2 with a 105mm f2.8 out of retirement if I can't get those large negatives for contact printing. -----Cheers!