soul_kiss Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I am starting a big art project. I want to create snapshots/candids with all the same immediancy, lighting and setting as can be seen on a site such as www.hush-hush.com (Warning: contains nudity). I want these snapshots to be very rich and enlarged to very large sizes (40 x 60 etc) hence I thought LF would be the right format for me. Am I delusional in my beginners enthuaism!? Is LF right for such poor lighted 'snapshots'? Should I look to enlarged digital/35mm/MF? Thanks for any help, Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_dendrinos1 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 You are delusional, and I think inappropriate! I hope the moderator removes this post from the board directly. Pete Dendrinos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul_kiss Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I'm stunned that such a request for information could warrant such a reply! Okay, the website I posted may not appeal to all, nor be the best example of what I mean to do...but get real! Sorry if the link offended, but I see nothing inappropiate about my question. Thank you, Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_symchyshyn Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 "You are delusional, and I think inappropriate! I hope the moderator removes this post from the board directly." I second the motion. "I'm stunned that such a request for information could warrant such a reply! Okay, the website I posted may not appeal to all, nor be the best example of what I mean to do...but get real! Sorry if the link offended, but I see nothing inappropiate about my question." No nothing is inappropriate with your question... And you did get your answer. You are delusional in your alleged beginners enthusiasm. LF is the wrong choice for such poor lighted snapshots. You should look to enlarged digital or 35mm. I propose that you posted the link to get traffic to the site, because the answer is so obvious. joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_batla Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Jon: Large format would work well for you. You will get the the best image quality for making large enlargements and large format gives you more flexibility for working with lighting conditions. I use 35mm, medium format and large format, both 4 x 5 and 8 x 10. When I am interested in the best possible image for enlargement, I alway use the large format. If you really intend to take snap shots, that is a little difficult with a large format camera, but if you are planning to take posed shots and try to make them appear as snap shots, it will work well. Enjoy your project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul_kiss Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 Walter, it is entirely my intention to pose the 'snapshots'. Thak you very much for the answer. I shall proceed with LF, as I had thought would be the case. As for Joe and Peter...my God...your replies...I'm speechless! Thank you again Walter, Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Contrary to the replies of some of the other posters, the obvious answer seems to me to be a 4x5 press camera like a Super, Crown or Speed Graphic. They were made for essentially the kind of work you describe; difficult lighting, close quarters, unposed/moving subjects. Professional press photog's from the '40s and '50s were able to work very quickly and efficiently with these cameras, and flashbulbs. You could use Grafmatic film holders to shoot six sheets quickly, without changing holders. You shouyld be prepared for a few things, however. First, the camera outfit and film/processing for the project could cost well over a thousand dollars. Second, the quality of the resulting images is likely to be orders of magnitude greater than the examples that you provided, even at the sizes you intend. So in short, yes, LF is right for you, if you can afford it, and you can learn to operate the unfamiliar equipment in an acceptable time frame. For similar work, see Terry Richardson. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w_t1 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 between this post and the LF posts "aesthetics" and "photographing voters" I am not planning on supporting photo.net financially, that's sad, because I've pulled out my credit card recently, as I've got a lot of good info out of this site. I come here for photography only. There are plenty of other web sites if you want to talk about skewed politics, grammar, or pornography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_p_goerz Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Possibly look into a Rollei too, since most shots are of people at about ten feet a Rollei would be perfect and faster/cheaper to use. 6x6 negs can be enlarged quite a bit though I assume you mean inches not centimeters so some experimentation may be needed with the emulsion. Don't worry too much about the negative/shocked posters as they are probably the type who think a naked woman is more dangerous to society than say a 1000lb bomb that has gone a little bit off target. CP Goerz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 WT: " I am not planning on supporting photo.net financially" but you have no problem participating for free? I don't think you'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_symchyshyn Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 "As for Joe and Peter...my God...your replies...I'm speechless!" You're speechless about our replies?? C'mon... That's obviously not the kind of stuff that shocks you, get real! "Don't worry too much about the negative/shocked posters as they are probably the type who think a naked woman is more dangerous to society than say a 1000lb bomb that has gone a little bit off target." Not even close to accurate... Since we're so "shocked" about my reply... Here's why I thought it was inappropriate... These are from the link supplied. "Hush-Hush.com shows nude females aged 16 years and above, in accordance with Australian law. Please check your local laws before entering this site." "Upskirt photos of schoolgirls, teen pedestrians and shoppers" How I look at it, this is taking advantage of young children, regardless of country. So go ahead and use your 8x10 camera to take pictures of 16 year old girls at the mall... I'm sure you'll do great! joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Joe, there was a lot of varied content at that site, and you've chosen to comment on the subjects that might be non-consenting, and arguably, victims. That's a pretty big assumption based on the original post. If you have questions about the poster's intentions, why not ask him to clarify rather than assume the worst? Your reaction was presumptuous and inappropriate. If your sense of decency is anything more substantial than pure posturing, you'll appologize to Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_symchyshyn Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 "If your sense of decency is anything more substantial than pure posturing, you'll appologize to Jon." You know what, you're right. I take back my inappropriate remark towards Jon and his art project. I don't know what his intentions are, and have no right assuming the worst based on the link he supplied as reference material. joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Thank you, Joe, for rewarding my faith in people. You are truly a gentleman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louis_shu Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 If you needs are basic, you should look into the Single 45 camera, this camera is very light weight, and has the range finder focusing and framing through the same finder. This is one camera that you can shoot 4x5 as fast as you can with a 35mm. Look at his websit, may be this is the solution you are looking for, you can also call Photo Gizzmo at 212-463-0130 for more information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troyammons Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 You said it "Snapshots" I would not want to shoot those types of photos with a 4x5. Too much hassle and a long setup time. I am not so sure about the type of shooting, but it looks pretty spontanious unless they are staged. I would say a MF camera of some sort would be a better choice. Maybe a Pentax 67, or if you like rangefinders a Mamiya 7 with a fast lens. The Mamiya 7 has some super sharp lenses that are as good as they get. Also a Fuji 690 would be a good candidate. For a 40x60 enlargement a 4x5 is a good negative size to start with, but a super sharp MF photo would come close. You would lose a bit of detail though. It also depends on the lenses, film etc too. If you buy a cheap LF lens (soft) to shoot 4x5, IMO a Mamiya 7 with velvia would probably beat it. Also scanning comes into it too. Drum vs the cheap flatbeds vs quality of enlargement. Have you priced printing at that size. Its through the roof for lightjets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_hughes4 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 also use a bit of common sense---snap shots aren't usually as sharp as 4x5! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul_kiss Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 *Jay De Fehr "... 4x5 press camera like a Super, Crown or Speed Graphic. They were made for essentially the kind of work you describe; difficult lighting, close quarters, unposed/moving subjects...First, the camera outfit and film/processing for the project could cost well over a thousand dollars." The idea of such LF camera's, with their speed, being able to capture true snapshots sounds very exciting. However, such speed (and expense!) is not truely needed for my project. Creating the effect of a 'snapshot' is more than enough, rather than having the skillset and equipment to take true snapshots. "For similar work, see Terry Richardson." I know this guy's work but...and this may shock a couple of repliers to my post...he's a bit graphic ain't he! I looked over his website once and kinda liked some of his photos but some...well, I'm not to keen on this whole 'Porn as Art' thing...'Moneyshots' as art seems a bit cheap to me! *C P Goerz "Possibly look into a Rollei too..." Will do, I was concerned about the distance of the models in LF photos. *Joe Symchyshyn "You know what, you're right. I take back my inappropriate remark towards Jon and his art project. I don't know what his intentions are, and have no right assuming the worst based on the link he supplied as reference material." Your apology is well accepted. I understand that some content on the site such as the 'Upskirt' etc element is quite distasteful and agree with your reaction to it. To a degree, I also see how your initial presuposition was formed that I may be some pervert prowling the malls secreting a view camera under my raincoat! The truth is I am a young man living in a country where 16-17-18 year old women are allowed by law (how gracious!) to be healthy normal sexual beings displaying healthy normal human behaviour.As such naked beautiful young women aren't too offensive to me. *Louis Shu Wow! www.littman45single.com Very, very exciting for me! I'm indebted Louis. Seems perfect... *Troy Ammons "Have you priced printing at that size. Its through the roof for lightjets." Being a tyro, something as logical as planning costs hadn't really crossed my mind...or maybe I know its gonna cost a bomb and don't want to think about it! *ken hughes "snap shots aren't usually as sharp as 4x5!" Yeah, perfection was never the goal...cos I sure as hell will never achieve it! Thank you ever so much for all your replies and help, you have helped me leaps and bounds. A wonderful forum and wonderful people! Cheers, Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soul_kiss Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 Oh dear the Littman is prohibitably expensive.....A Graflex ??? Graphic it is for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I'd say a cellphone with built in camera would be in line with the quality and subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob. Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Oh dear, did you miss the signs on the way in: "Do not feed the trolls"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now