LF photos in NYTimes and questions about film holders

[arkady n.]

A 3 part post : <br><br>

 

(a) So that you know (if you care) : There are two LF photographs of

democratic presidential hopefuls in Sunday NYTimes. In my

(admittedly limited) opinion they are excellent portraits of the

candidates. <a

href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/weekinreview/22TIER.html">http

://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/weekinreview/22TIER.html</a><br><br>

 

(b) Can someone explain to me how the cutouts (tabs?) are on the

bottom of the photos? I only used a 4x5 several times and had cut-

outs on the top. Is this due to different film holders?<br><br>

 

© Can anyone take a stab of figuring out which LF format

(4x5,5x7,8x10) was used for these shots? Which lens?<br><br>

 

I hope this thread will not turn into discussion about the

candidates.<br><br>

 

Thank you in advance for your responses!<br><br>

 

arkady n.

[art_haykin]

a) How can you be sure these are LF (large format) shots?b) Exactly what do you mean by "cutouts (tabs)" on the bottoms of the shots?c) Assuming they are LF shots, which I doubt, how would YOU go about determining this?Personal note: These are, in my view, little more than mug shots with painted on smiles taken with a 35mm or MF camera using a Rembrandt and a modified Rembrandt lighting scheme.Josef Karsh needn't look to his laurels.

[arkady n.]

Oh, crap! I forgot that the images on the NYTimes website is not full frame pics! I was looking at the actual newspaper where they are printed full frame with borders.

 

Sorry

[d._kevin_gibson]

Actually I rather like them - a nicely ironic, tongue in cheek use of typical portrait studio kitsch to emphasise the smiley, plastic Mr Nice Guy feeling of both the article and the whole "real life" event of politics in america - high kitsch at its best.

 

Even online they certainly look like LF to me - possibly even a wider lens - I really like the look you get for portraits using a 250mm lens on 8x10. Though these are probably something longer - or Kerry's chin would have looked like something out of Harry Potter - you can't push irony too far into caricature.

 

I'm guessing the cut-outs aren't showing on the online version as opposed to the print? Either way, the cut-outs would be on the top and bottom of the two longer sides - so you would normally have two on the right with he horizontal format - top and bottom. But if the Ad flipped them or the photographer is left handed, they could also be on the left... Where are they on these?

 

 

(P.S. rather like A. Adam's for landscapes, Karsh is really the high priest of a sort of romantic/nostalgic studio portrait kitsch)

[arkady n.]

The cutouts are in LRH and LLH corners for both photos. The film name is showing as Kodak 400NC (the words are upside-down)

[walter_glover]

Arkady,

 

This might interest you. An article on Digital journalist by david

Burnett about covering the election trail with a 4x5.

 

http://digitaljournalist.org./issue0402/dis_burnett.html

[michael_briggs2]

Seeing the film edges of sheet film isn't proof that a LF camera was used -- sometimes people add these to an image taken with a smaller camera. They don't always get it right -- I think I once saw in an ad a color picture with the notch codes of Tri-X. I hope that the NY Times wouldn't add fake evidence of how a news photograph was taken.

[fred_de_van]

This may or may not explain the film notches if 4x5 is really the format being used. Somewhere on this forum is a posting that a lady was using a Littman to shoot the pols at work. The very odd and unwieldy Littman used vertically would need the film holder to be inserted from the bottom to prevent the foucus knob from being above the shooters head. The film was upside down relative to being used in a real camera. I had an assistant once who would load holders with the notches at the top. drove you nuts if there was a need to duck into a darkroom to check what film was in the holder, or when unloading, that would produce the same effect.

[brian_ellis3]

If these photographs are from the N.Y. Times wouldn't the tabs be on the far left rather than the bottom?

[leonard_evens]

Brian,

 

Isn't it a matter of perspective? From the far right, the NY Times does appear to be on the far left. From that vantage point you would need an extemely long lens which would compress everything from the middle to the far left.

[michael_briggs2]

<p>The photos at <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/weekinreview/22TIER.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/weekinreview/22TIER.htlm</a> are credited to Fred R. Conrad of The New York Times. There is an article by David Burnett about his photographing the campaign with an Aero-Ektar and a Speed Graphic at <a href="http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0402/dis_burnett.html">http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0402/dis_burnett.html</a>. If another photographer is using a Littman, there would be three photojournalists covering the campaign with 4x5!</p>

[michael_briggs2]

<p>The posting and photographer that Fred was thinking of: at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Rx7">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007Rx7</a> William Littman says that three photographers are using a Litmman 45 (modified Polaroid 110) for some of their work covering the presidental campaign. He provides a link to <a href="http://www.pdnonline.com/photodistrictnews/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2071563">http://www.pdnonline.com/photodistrictnews/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2071563</a>, which describes Beth Keiser's use of 4x5 B&W for Reuters. She is using Polaroid Types 55 and 51 and scanning the negatives in her hotel room -- an interesting combination of traditional and digital methods.</p>