Stereo Realist, plus Burke & James 4x5 Press, plus parents

[doug grosjean]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>My step-mom asked me to photograph her and my father recently. I was thrilled, as I'd been wanting to for a long time, and had asked, but she's camera shy and I'd been turned down. So to be asked to photograph them was wonderful. I'd been wanting to shoot them both for years because my Dad is 80 years old, a good looking man, and although I hope he lives another 40 years the odds are against it.</p>

<p>I set up a little studio in their backyard, consisting of a black velvet backdrop on a 4'x4' frame. It's like origami, you fold it into 3 circles to put it into the bag. Then you pull it out and it goes "Fwap!" and it's a 4'x4' frame. I also bought a piece of gray fabric that I could drape over the black, so I had 2 backdrops. All was chosen for size and portability, ie, I can carry it on my motorcycle if need be. The backdrop was set up in the shade of the garage, so light was soft. 3 kitchen chairs (2 for the subjects, one for me to stand on so I could shoot from on high) completed the setup.</p>

<p>Mostly I shot digitally, with my Nikon D90. But an awareness of manual mode was very helpful, as shooting against a black backdrop tends to make auto-cameras over-expose. I moved quickly to produce the kinds of photos my step-mom wanted, and I had both parents' full attention and cooperation, and I think I did well. For the digital pics, see my portfolio here at P'net. They're good-to-excellent; digital isn't the darkside and it isn't a handicap.</p>

<p>But, once that was done, I also had some classics with me: a Stereo Realist 3D camera and a Burke & James 4x5 press camera. I wanted to get some 3D shots for the uniqueness of that format, and also some 4x5 shots for the shallow depth-of-field and the unique look that 4x5 gives to a subject on black-and-white.</p>

<p>Attached first are the Stereo Realist shots. These are meant to be viewed with the cross-eyed technique, ie, cross your eyes until you see 4 images. Then uncross them slowly until you see 3, and the middle image will be 3D.</p><div></div>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Sorry for it not viewing inline... I didn't want to shrink it any further.</p>

<p>Here is the 3D image of my Step-Mom, Marty Grosjean.</p><div></div>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Finally, I shot 1 image each of my father and my step-mother using the Burke & James 4x5 press camera. The shot of my father is excellent - focus is on his face, every pore and whisker and crease identifiable, and depth-of-field so shallow that while his face is sharp, the tip of his nose is not.</p>

<p>This is cropped down to about 2/3 the size of the original negative, scanned at about 600 DPI, and still comes out to about 14 megapixels. But it's the overall look of the image that I love, the detail....</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[richard_beisigl]

<p>Great photos as usual Doug.<br>

Cherish every moment you have with your dad and all of your older family members.<br>

We lost our dad over 30 years ago when he died at the age of 59, and our mom passed away 18 years ago.<br>

Our younger brother died last year, so our older brother and I are the last of the old line.</p>

 

[doug grosjean]

<p>Here's a detail of the 4x5 shot, showing my Dad's skin and the detail captured by that 90 y/o beat-up press camera. The camera itself is good, but nothing special. And it's a hassle, to me, to mess with 4x5 developing and scanning. But now and then, usually when I point the camera at something that's also about 70-80 years old, real magic pops out the other end, and I'm amply rewarded for investing the time.</p>

<p>And I think that shooting with the old cameras also makes me a better photographer when I shoot with modern ones. I consider it to be cross-training..... :)</p><div></div>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Richard, thanks! I try. I also expect that when the time comes that we separate, that I'll wish I had spent even more time.</p>

<p>Something else, a lesson I'll share... shooting on the black background with the Stereo Realist is pretty awful. You have no idea where each photo ends, on the negative. You just have these busts on the film, and zere density in the background.</p>

<p>I got around it by scanning several of the busts at once, then copy-pasting them around as needed. But the automotic scanner at the custom lab I shop at, choked on the negs. And one look at the zero-density background, and it's obvious why.</p>

<p>Gray would be better. Or get around it as I did, by scanning yourself.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Richard - I've also been lucky to realize the unique individual that is my father. I have taken photos of him doing rather mundane stuff (at least to him): hand-cranking his Model T Ford. Working on my Jeep at his shop. Posing in front of his automotive training certificates that date back to the late 1940s. A 360-degree pano of his entire shop for 2009 Father's Day.</p>

<p>Now, several years after I've taken a lot of those shots, time has moved on. He added an electric starter to the T after hurting his shoulder, so he doesn't hand-crank it anymore. That photo opp is gone. Others are, too.</p>

<p>Meantime the past still exists in those photos. And it's those mundane shots that seem really cool, when you look at them and say out loud: "Wow! I remember when Dad ______________."</p>

<p>Oh, and the histogram from dSLR is a wonderful exposure meter for the 4x5..... :)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Superb. I'm a big fan of both large format and 3D and these are really nice. I'm sure everyone was pleased with them too.</p>

<p>I've never tried portrait work wtih my Stereo Realist or my various 3D attachments. Then I don't do a lot of it in 2D, for that matter. It's really effective in your shots, and the black background really works, difficult as it was.</p>

<p>Here's one of my Stereo Realist shots of the local National Guard Armory.</p><div></div>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Thanks, JDM. The black background was an experiment that I didn't think would work, as my step-mom wanted a black shirt. But with their salt-pepper hair, I thought it might be great.</p>

<p>Turns out that the black shirt disappeared in the background (as I figured), but it was an asset, not a liability. Any body geometry imperfections disappeared along with that shirt, leaving just the neck and face. My step-mom loves it. As soon as she saw it in the viewscreen of the dSLR, it just struck her, and that was it.</p>

<p>I did the 4x5 and the Realist work just as a lark. And because I thought to myself how cool it would be to have a 3D likeness of my Dad, 40 years down the road. Often when I shoot, I ask myself if the photo is something that will be interesting 40-50 years out. </p>

<p>Nice Realist image! Question - does the exposure & color vary slightly on your Realist between left and right lens? Mine does, just enough to annoy me. And looking at yours, I think maybe I see more pink cast on the RH than the LH image. Maybe that's just the way they are?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Actually, I think the lens matching was not always what it could have been,<br>

but I think some of the difference above might have come from some not-too-successful efforts at post-processing that did poorly when I converted to sRGB for posting.</p>

<p>I don't think some of these things are quite so obvious in the original slides as they are in scans, either.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>My step-mom has seen, and loves, the digital stuff. But I didn't process the large-format film for a few days, so.... unknown. I emailed it to her.</p>

<p>I expect it won't be liked, just due to being so detailed. Mature people want the camera to capture them as they were 20 years ago, not now. So I'm concerned that the 4x5 shot may be too good to be popular.</p>

<p>But I love it. That's my Dad, that's how he looks, imperfect or not. I like having such a precise record.</p>

[cliffmanley]

Now you Guys got me going. I'm going to have to go out and shoot a roll of stereo. I mean, who wants to look at a flat picture anyway? Maybe I can get someone to haul me up to the horse show tomorrow. So look for them in the next few days. Your 4x5 shot is great Doug.

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Pretty creative stuff, Doug. What lens were you using on the 4x5? It looks like a 150mm, possibly a tad short for portraits, when a 210mm was the generally-accepted minimum, though I prefer a 270mm. But the quality is certainly there, and the portraits of your Mother-in-Law worked well on the black background. Great 3D effect! Overall, a great record to have and a fine photographic exercise.</p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>The B&W picture of your father is magnificent. The light is just right not too bright nor too dull and brings out a chiseled and sculpted face that is characteristic of his age. Very nice! Thanks, sp.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Thanks all, for the kind words.</p>

<p>Rick - I just checked and the lens is a Voightlander Heliar, 135mm, f4.5, in a Compur shutter. I knew it was short for that, but it's all that I have for that camera. Focus distance was about 6', and I shot about about f6.3 @ 1/25 on a too-small tripod on Kodak T-Max 100 film. So on paper, it looks like I did everything wrong. <g> </p>

<p>While shooting digital, I was using a 70mm lens on the D90, to try for shallow DoF, to ensure that the background became just a background.</p>

<p>On the 4x5 shot, I was trying to get as much depth of field as I could while not letting the exposure time get horribly long, in the shade. Given all the ways it could go wrong (long exposure, shallow DoF, spindly tripod, breeze, subject movement), I'm amazed it turned out at all. </p>

[Troll]

<p>I'm getting Pseudostereo -- The right and left images seem to be reversed.<br>

PS, good looking 80 year old.</p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Hi Bill,</p>

<p>Yes, the right and left are reversed so people could view them with the cross-eyed technique. And thanks, I think he looks good too for 80 y/o! He's still working at his car-repair shop 5 days a week, about 40 hours.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Inspiring stuff, Doug. Your Dad's portrait is great.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Great Job Doug! Excellent results with the 4x5! Your Dad looks healthy and ready to go! Excellent record for the ages! I too have some problems with the Realist image as they come together to 3D the one is a little higher it won't quite resolve but I see enough to get the effect. I suspect she will be happy with these too because the background works so well

[hillary_charles]

<p>Very nice, Doug. I wish I could get my parents to sit for portraits like those. They're in the same age range and last time I put on a slide show of my recent stereos (also taken with a Realist), they REALLY hated how they looked! You are so right about mature people. </p>

<p>I wouldn't give up those slides for anything, but there's a new rule in their house: No close-ups of them ever. But if I happen to take any, just don't show those at the next slide show. Maybe if I show them how wonderfully yours turned out...</p>

[Troll]

<p>Doug, for the cross-eyed technique the R/L should be in their correct positions (right image on the right, left image on the left.</p>

[hillary_charles]

<p>Bill, you're describing the parallel "free-view" technique. Doug has the images positioned correctly for the cross-eyed method. I can only view cross-eyed and the stereo pair looks great.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/freeview.html">http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/freeview.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

[cliffmanley]

The fact is that Doug has one of each (side by side and cross eyed). also the rt and left images are different sizes and not aligned perfectly so it's hard to see without much depth to look at.

 

Here is a shot I took today in both cross eyed and in side by side mode. Can you tell which is which ?

[cliffmanley]

mode A<div></div>

[cliffmanley]

mode B<div></div>