large format portraiture, 8x10 and 11x14

[keith_wright]

I want to improve my large format portraiture work. I'm shooting

with a pair of Eastman 8x10 cameras and also have an Eastman 11x14

that I'm just now beginning to test. My immediate goal is to create

several "ideal" black and white negatives and begin experimenting

with the platinum printing process.

 

Following are two questions where I would appreciate your opinion.

 

Push Processing: In my work in 35mm and to a lesser extent in

medium format I have stayed away from push processing due to the

change in the image quality. However, since I typically shoot at

sundown with fading light, I could certainly use a few more f-

stops. Does anyone out there have experience with push processing

8x10 film, and what is your opinion on how it looks?

 

Lens: The other "limitation" I may currently have is my lens. It

is a wonderful Schneider 360, but has extremely limited dept of

field when shooting portraiture. Does anyone have a suggestion as

to what lens(es) are good for portraiture in large format?

[phillip_p._dimor]

While I don't do 8x10 (i'd love to start, though!) I do have a little bit of experience with pushing 4x5 film and using faster lenses.

 

When I pushed TXT to 800 and 1000 (developed in Acufine and Microphen)

I lost a bit of shadow detail. More contrasty, that was my major observation. I have friends who can't sit still, and me with no real studio lighting or even a way to trip my flash.. It's tough.

 

As far as lenses go, I only own one lens in a shutter (broken shutter at that). Everything else is a barrel lens, generally older Kodak Anastigmats. Those old KA's have large apertures, like 4/4.5

The image quality is pleasing to me.

 

I have a 10" Kodak anastigmat that I believe would cover 8x10, they did make them longer too. It's one of my favorites.

 

You'd probably have to use a packard shutter with the barrel lenses.

 

Even a petzval Darlot, or a Wollensak portrait/soft-focus lens..

 

Just my opinion and all but I hope that helped a little.

[bruce_barlow]

Make 'em hold still! I make 8x10 portraits with 1/2 second exposures and rarely miss because of subject movement. Just be clear telling subjects what to do and how long they have to hold still (most of mine are of children 13 and younger. It's the adults who blink, expecting flash).

 

My 355 lens is terrific for 8x10 portraits. Focus on their eyes, and depth of field will get you there.

 

My son took a waist-up 8x10 contact print of himself and scanned it into Photoshop. He enlarged it on the screen and called me over. "Daddy, is that you?" Reflected in his eye was the photographer, his camera, the house, etc. Amazing.

 

Portraits in large format are buckets of fun.

[leonard_evens]

I don't do 8 x 10 or 11 x 14, but there are some basic optical principles that should apply. It is well known that in the close-up range, the total DOF depends primarily on the scale of reproduction or magnification, and, with that kept constant, it is relatively independent of focal length. The usual definition of "close-up" is within 10 times the focal length. For larger format lenses, that is likely to include much of the portrait range for anything except environmental portraiture of full figures. For a 360 mm lens it would be 3.6 meters, and even for a lens of half the focal length it would be 1.8 meters.

 

In addition, for larger formats, you tend to get less DOF for the same angle of view and same f-stop.

 

Your best bet then would be to use a wide angle lens with the subject back as far as you can put it without making the image too small. Of course, that might place the subject too close to the lens and provide inappropriate perspective. You could also try to stop down as far as subject movement will allow because of the longer exposures. Finally, increasing the intensity of your illumination as much as is practical will allow the use of smaller apertures.

[jay_de_fehr]

Hi Keith. I do a lot of 8x10 portraiture in available light, and enjoy it very much, but I can relate to your concerns. In my experience, push processing is largely a matter of taste, but to make negatives with the density range required for Platinum printing requires a lot of development for my low contrast lighting portraits. Extended development will not salvage much shadow detail. I don't consider push processing a realistic option for 8x10 negs to be printed in platinum. As for lenses, the above poster pretty much said it all. There's just no getting around shallow dof in LF portraiture because of the close focus distances involved, regardless of the lens used. Judicious use of camera movements will optimise your focus placement, but real increases in dof are problematic due to the wide apertures used in order to shorten exposure times. Despite the technical impediments, nothing compares to a well made, contact printed portrait. I've inadvertantly started a tradition of 8x10 birthday portraits. Whenever a local kid (my kids range in age from 12-17) has a birthday, they show up for their birthday portrait. I dedicate one film holder to the portraits, and keep it loaded. I make the two exposures, and print the best of the two resulting negatives. It has become a very fun and rewarding project. Good luck with your platinum prints.

[jay_de_fehr]

Here's one of the "Birthday portraits"<div></div>

[melvin_h_j_tan]

Hi Keith,

 

You might find this link very useful...and inspiring.

 

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0408/howe-miller.html

[lbi115l]

Push process to your heart's content. I've pushed T-Max 400 to 3200 with no problem. Printed at contact it looks as amazing as usual, and enlarged to a 16x20 it looks fine too.

 

Just make sure to choose a developer appropriate for such processing. I like T-Max RS.

[john_kasaian1]

For a lens in the 14" focal length, you might find that a Commercial Ektar, while not a soft lens, will give excellent results. Karsh used them with superb results. The old Wollensaks like the Verito are really delightful soft lenses that are classics in every sense of the term, but they are huge and heavy---evaluate the strength of your front standard before committing to one! Dagors---of course! If you want a "long" one for big head shots be prepared to shell ot the $$$$$. BTW, a 10" Wide Field Ektar seems to me to have a slightly "slimming effect" on people. You might this find useful for full figure portraits YMMV (your subjects might appreciate that!) Good Luck!

[janvanhove]

I might just be old-fashioned, but if you want "ideal" negatives, forget push processing

over one stop, or you will lose some details or gradation along the way, and will come

short of what platinum printing can give you... Longer exposition times are not highly

problematic in portraitures, and times in the 1 secong range are reasonable...

 

As for your lens, it is a little "short" for portraiture in 8x10 and very short for 11x14...

typical "portrait" lenses fall in the short tele range, which means roughly 1.5 to 2 times the

format diagonal, which are 12 and 18 inches respectively in your two formats. The

suggestions towards using "softer" lenses for portraitures are a matter of personal

preferences and i personally prefer using the sharpest possible lens for a given format.

Large format and platinum printing are able to render incredible amount of detail, you

might as well use it !

 

And for the shallow depth of field, the larger the format, the bigger the problem, there is

no lens trick to escape it, longer lenses mean shallower depth of field, period. You'll have

to live with it or use artificial lighting to balance the smaller apertures you will need for

larger depths of field.

 

Good luck !

 

PJ VH