How to make medium format look like large format?

[colin_dullaghan]

<p>A ridiculous question, I'll admit. But before I head further down the path of reflexive-gear-acquisition-insanity, I thought I'd ask: Is there any way to emulate the fine-grained, ethereal look of a 4x5 portrait using just the Mamiya RB67 I've already got?</p>

<p>I ask because I'm taken with this particular portrait done by that ingenious fellow who built a large-format camera out of legos. A bunch of legos, a film/plate holder and a $40 lens from eBay got him this:<br>

http://carynorton.com/legotron-mark-i/ashleylegotron</p>

<p>And I can't quite put my finger on what it is that has me so enamored of the image (the shallow DOF? The dynamic range? The ghostly distortions around the perimeter?), but I do suspect -- I'm learning, I'm learning -- that the remedy to my problem is <strong>not</strong> to just Buy More Stuff. Then again, maybe the giant negative is really the key. I kind of hope not.</p>

<p>So any advice? I've got the RB, a 65mm, 127mm and 180mm, along with a tripod and a cable release. As far as lighting, I've got a cheap, manually adjustable flash that can be fired remotely, a big floppy reflective disc that can also be a scrim if I take off the gold/silver sleeve thing, and, well, windows.</p>

<p>There are a couple shops locally that probably stock any film you might recommend, and I've got a couple kinds of developer - Ilfosol and Rodinal, I believe - that could be used to varying effects too.</p>

<p>Oh, and Photoshop CS5. But that's cheating, right?</p>

[william_markey]

<p>Frankly I don't see anything in that particular photo (love the photo though) that cannot be duplicated with your RB. Your 180mm will give you that shallow depth of field, but there's not any intricate detail in the photo that would be picked up better by a 4X5 than what you already have.</p>

<p>But I am fighting that same "bigger is better" battle myself in wanting a 4X5 over my RB and RZ...so I can't judge you!</p>

[d_purdy]

<p>I find MF comes very close to 4x5 quality if you are enlarging both. I once did a test to see the difference and set up a still life and then shot it with 4x5 and a good sharp lens, then I shot it exactly the same except with my Pentax 67 and similar perspective lens. I used Acros processed in Pyrocat-HD for all and printed both size negatives to 8x10. In both cases the negative density was correct. I took the prints to a meeting with a couple of other photographers, both who shoot LF and MF. I asked them to identify the LF print and the MF format print. They both got it wrong. they thought the Pentax 67 neg print was the LF. <br>

That said, you get perspective control with LF as well as focal plane control and you also get a larger neg for contact printing. However what you gain with the capabilities of a LF camera is IMO offset by the constraint of having to use a tripod and look at the image upside down under a dark cloth. And it takes a lot longer to snap the picture.... "OK hold that pose now while I close down the lens and cock the shutter and insert a film holder and take out the dark slide" </p>

 

[john_a5]

<p>Every camera and lens has its own look. The link you posted is a good example of that. I have used 7 different modern MF cameras over the years and can generally see differences in images made with each, sometimes very minor and others fairly obvious. But none of those "main stream" cameras will create the same result I get with a Holga or the $10 folding camera from the 20's I bought.</p>

<p>In this case, I am sure the older lens as well as the lightfastness of the camera were contributory to the look more than the 4x5 format. In fact, look back one page--click the arrow--and you will see varying effects of the light leaks on his other 3 shots from the day. The image you like in your link is being affected by those same issues, but the dark background makes the effect somewhat different. In fact, I am sure that how long he waits, after pulling the darkslide, will make a significant difference on his outcome--more time, more the leaks affect the film.</p>

[colin_dullaghan]

<p>John, that makes perfect sense. The photographer did mention that the light leaks are a dominant factor in what comes out of that lego camera, and I've of course noted (and liked) similar effects with my Holga.</p>

<p>Come to think of it, maybe what struck me about the "Ashley" image (even in comparison to the other items in his series) was that peculiar combination of Holga/RB effects -- plastic-camera light leaks and aberrations around the outside of the frame combined with RB67-style stunning sharpness in the middle.</p>

<p>Now I'm debating whether my chances of approximating his success are better with the Holga on a tripod with a dark background (won't be able to do anything about the softness in the center, and everywhere) or by using the RB and just experimenting with imperfect handling of the negative. It'd be fun to try either way.</p>

<p>And D Purdy, your experiment is pretty conclusive that I (and William) are right to hesitate about "upsizing", and I appreciate you sharing the details. It sounds like you did indeed control for all the variables. Do you know, from looking, if there's any of that perspective-control or focal-plane control going on with this image? I'm no expert on those kind of camera movements, and am unsure if you'd even use them for a portrait like this anyway. I all can't imagine how he'd accomplish it with Legos!</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Colin, I just read your response and since I am here, that lego camera doesn't have any movement that I can see--and not likely given the materials themselves.</p>

<p>It would be a bit more difficult to see perspective control on a portrait like this even if the camera did have movements--so close and no real reference points but focal plane movements could be seen possibly--might not recognize the "in focus" adjustment as much as the intentional out of focus adjustments. The latter isn't so much DOF over the entire image but you would see sharp eyes, for instance, with focus fall off as the view moved away from the eyes--getting more pronounced as it moved further from that point--on things that were on the same or near the same focal plane as the eyes. In fact, because you change the relationship of near far focus versus just aperture DOF, the background, if there was a reference, might start to look more in focus than shallow DOF with just the aperture being wide open.</p>

[colin_dullaghan]

<p>Ah. Thanks for the explanation. I do think I've noticed that effect in some large-format work in the past, but never knew how it was accomplished.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>I think you should find a nice window and put your subject next to it and have them look out it. Diffuse sidelight is a lovely thing, and that is what is key to giving this photo the look it has. Sure, the format does not hurt, but lighting is key. <br>

Anything where your fill is not directly above (thereby creating shadows under the eyes and nose etc) can make a huge difference in a portrait. One of my photo instructors used to call it garage door light -- garages often have incredible light, as they give full body, straight on fill and do not have any light coming from overhead. <br>

So, I would try your 127mm wide open or a half stop down, from about 1.2 to 2m away on a subject lit well. Load a roll of a long tonal range film, such as TMX 100, Acros, Delta 100 or PanF and hope for the best! </p>

[leighb]

<p>You can't.</p>

<p>LF cameras are far more versatile, with more movements than any MF camera.</p>

<p>If MF looked just like LF, nobody would shoot LF.</p>

<p>I shoot both, including 4x5 and 8x10, and they're distinctly different.</p>

<p>If 35mm looked like MF, nobody would shoot MF.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Doesn't a medium format view camera have more movements than a Lego large format camera? I think Colin is more asking about how to reproduce the feel of the photo he linked, rather than can you make a medium format and large format shot identical. There are always going to be differences, but in this particular case, I think it is more lighting and composition making the photo, rather than the fact that it was shot with 4x5. If you really want to create the feel, in addition to using similar lighting, try finding an old film back and then ripping out all the felt from the light seal area. Shine around there with a flashlight and you might get something similar! </p>

 

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>I think it is more lighting and composition making the photo</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's true of every photo, regardless of the format used.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>The beauty of the Legotron camera may also be its appearance. Which portrait subject would be intimidated by such a jolly and colorful looking camera? The ability of that photographer to obtain natural expressions fron his subjects is maybe a bit related to that. You cannot easily transform your RB into a camera with the internal reflections or light leaks of the legotron, but maybe you could try other approaches to obtaining images with imperfections, like applying slight amounts of vaseline or condensation on a UV filter in front of your lens, or providing light camera shake during a long exposure, or using a light soft effects filter (Ex. B+W WZ1 or WZ2). What John A says about LF use is no doubt important, but you cannot achieve that with most MF gear. What Stuart says about type of lighting is important, if that is what you find particularly appealing about the referenced portrait. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p><em>"How to make medium format look like large format?"</em><br>

If you keep your enlargements at 4X6 or below nobody will be able to tell the difrerence.</p>

 

[john_a5]

<p>I don't know, but as I read a lot of this, it seems to be going further away from what the OP was asking about. I think the quality that shows in his example has everything to do with the camera characteristics--how light leaks and how it reacts given light dark areas and time.</p>

<p>I think it is like looking at a print made from a wet collodion plate. The coolness of that process is the process and you can't really replicate it with filters or even Photoshop. And if your technique kind of sucks--look at Sally Mann's work--it can even look that much cooler. (you have to see how she works and even her own comments about her process to appreciate that comment).</p>

<p>Whatever Colin decides to try will be different--probably even if he made a lego camera--it wouldn't be the same one. But that is the fun of photography and the analog processes, you may not replicate but you may end up with something even better and more unique. And it is often educational and fun along the way.. although it can be tedious as well...</p>

[phillip_lea]

<p>I think I understand what you like about the picture. Grainless but not perfect and technical-looking. The light leaks don't do that much for me but they produce a glowy look around the subject and that is nice. Ways I might go about this:<br /> 6X9 box camera with a jury-rigged uncoated auxiliary teleconverter in front of the lens, natural light filled with off-camera flash, slow film and a tripod. Crop to 6X7. You wont have the kind of control that made her eye come out so lovely, but I'll bet that was an accident.<br /> $40 lens off eBay adapted to RB. Legos optional.<br /> Give in to GAS and replicate the light leaks in printing, if needed.<br>

<br /> Phillip</p>

<p> </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Well, before T-Max came along there was a very marked difference in quality between LF and MF. T-Max and similar technology films were a complete game changer, and today, unless you need the movements of an LF camera then there's not much to be gained from using 5x4 in terms of pure IQ.</p>

<p>I don't see any mystical or ethereal qualities in that portrait that couldn't equally have been taken using MF or even a decent DSLR and wide-aperture lens. Besides, let's remind ourselves that we're looking at a <em>digital</em> web image of a few hundred pixels high and wide. Not at an original 20" x 16" silver-gelatine print with a scale and tonal depth that could show us any real quality. So let's not be fooling ourselves that we can see things that aren't really there. Otherwise we might as well just stick our negs or slides onto the cheapest flatbed scanner we can find, apply a load of USM, put them up on the web and be done with it.</p>

[colin_dullaghan]

<p>Good points, all. And thanks to all for the insight and suggestions. With so much new information and so many new ideas, I just had to do some tinkering, so this morning I attempted to incorporate some of what you've all said into a test shoot with my favorite subject -- my endlessly patient wife. <br /><br />Since Stuart Richardson clued me in further to the magic of diffuse sidelight, and because on this rainy North Carolina morning we had just about the right kind of effect, it seemed, I decided to take full advantage of "garage door light" in a literal sense. Our garage faces more or less east, and we do indeed get some great morning/early-afternoon light through the frosted panels toward the top of both doors. <br /><br />So after moving aside some bikes and strollers and the like, I took William Markey up on the suggestion of the 180mm, and numerous others' urging to use slow film and a tripod. As for a subject "lit well," I wasn't quite able to accomplish that, as I'm still acclimating to my flash and relied here on just the natural light and a white foamcore panel leaning up against a kayak at camera right. (Couldn't find my reflector disc.)<br /><br />Looking at the results, though, I think it's apparent that you've all given great advice on lighting and composition (the dark background was supplied by a deflated blow-up mattress thrown over some stacks of storage bins, by the way). <br /><br />Still, at least looking at this Polaroid test shot, I'm thinking I agree with you, John A, that the camera characteristics are having a significant effect versus the Legotron. The light leaks just aren't there, though I may be able to try faking them digitally I suppose, and no matter what I do I can't imagine getting the RB to do what a wet colloidion plate does. (I've long admired Sally Mann's work too.) <br /><br />To Phillip Lea's point, this shot, even on Polaroid, is still coming off comparatively "perfect and technical-looking." Maybe some of the other suggestions -- vaseline, condensation, camera shake, filters, etc -- will help in future experiments, or maybe that box-camera + uncoated teleconverter idea will be the ticket. <br /><br />Oh, but looking back at the point D Purdy made about LF taking longer to set up: This may have been a little quicker than futzing around under a dark cloth, but with my amateur antics and tentative technique, not much! I already felt I was taxing my subject by asking her to hold still for a full second… (Opening the garage doors brought it down to only a 1/4-sec. exposure, which isn't such a challenge.)<br /><br />And on the "long tonal range film" suggestion, what you're seeing here doesn't quite qualify -- it's just the Fuji FP100B I had loaded in the Polaroid back for the RB. But this was just the test shot, and I followed it up with a (7x6, rather than square) exposure on real film afterward. Looking forward to seeing how it comes out.<br /><br />Thanks again, guys. Oh, and Rodeo Joe, sorry about doing precisely what you were dreading -- I slapped the Polaroid right on a Canoscan 8800 and put it right here on the web! Rest assured, though, I'm far from done with it. As John said, it's been educational and fun so far, definitely. I wish I'd undertaken this process of trying to replicate an inspiring shot a long time ago.</p><div></div>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Colin, I would say that looks pretty close, particularly if that is just the polaroid! The negative is going to have much better tones, and you will of course have to process it to your liking. Either way, it's good that you are just going out there and doing it, as that is the best way to learn. Even if you don't get things looking exactly like the shot you liked originally, it will help you develop and hopefully get something that is more your own image...something unique to your own style. Basically, don't get frustrated if you cannot perfectly replicate the look -- it's kind of beside the point... As you figured out, just trying to replicate it is a big learning process and will likely help a lot, even if you do not wind up with something that is exactly what you were going for in the beginning.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If you still want the effect of light leaks and internal camera flare, then just place a couple of bits of paper along the sides of the mirror-box of your RB. Otherwise "fake it up" in PS. There's nothing wrong with afterwork; it's almost as old as photography itself. Look at the work of O. G. Rejlander for example. And how do you think those early landscapists got their well-defined cloudy skies with only blue-sensitive materials? Answer: pencil work! </p>

<p>BTW, an MF lens with a definite "look" to it is the Schneider Radionar 80mm f/2.8 - as found on Franka Solida 6x6 folders and others. In fact an old folder would be a good place to start if you want to puncture the bellows for light leaks and scrape the black paint off the inside to get flare and partial reflections.</p>

[nathan_bonsal]

<p>Inside the mirror box of the RB, you can add some pieces of scotch tape, or even paper held down with same. Don't destroy the blacking, defeat it. Another thing you can do is to modify a film back with a paper cutout of whatever reflectance you want so that behind the film, there's a white surface- but not everywhere. You can even add a little foil tape to the lens mount from the back (inside the camera). You can add a piece of cellophane over the lens with a round hole cut in it. There are a million creative things you can do to create artifacts or intentional defects. To get some idea, just remember what a perfect camera has to have- you can <strong>defeat</strong> any combination of them and end up with interesting results:<br>

Light tight box<br>

nonreflective interior (dull blackness)<br>

unobstructed light path<br>

well ground lenses that are clean and color-corrected<br>

lens axis perpendicular to film plane and centered<br>

black behind the film so that light only gets one shot at absorbtion<br>

film is held flat<br>

aperture is round<br>

aperture is centered with respect to lens axis<br>

<strong>the entire exposure is made with the same aperture- ie the aperture blades are held immobile during exposure</strong><br>

one exposure per frame of film followed by isolation from additional illumination<br>

process chemistry is proper for film type and agitation is consistent with all areas of film receiving the same process<br>

film is not scratched or damaged and the film has not passed its expiration date</p>

<p> </p>

[colin_dullaghan]

<p>Those are all great ideas, Nathan. Thanks for the reminder of what I'm (not) missing -- that I perhaps would rather be.</p>