OK, after much experimenation with the 4x5, I have gleaned many interesting insights, not the least of which is a renewed understanding of why god gave us the 35mm single lens reflex camera. You are instantly brough back 100 years, to the time when photographers dreamed: "If I could only move this camera around quickly", "If I could only load film faster," and of course- "if i could only see what I was shooting." That said, of course it's been a blast-

I wanted smooth, deep, no grain enlargements, perfectly exposed. I thought medium format was a basic requirement, but going into a studio I found that with enough light and Plus-X 35mm, I could get fantastic enlargements to 11 x 14... still, curiosity pushed me on to the bigger negative...

I'm not at 4x5 on the processing and printing end yet, so I'm using polaroid negatives- they just fit into the old 23C-- I'll be looking into a rollfilm back- yes, the 4x5 is my medium format solution.... this from sunday:

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), March 26, 2001

Answers

Wow. I see you've worked out your previous lighting difficulties... the power of the gaze in this shot is astounding.

While I love large format, if what you originally wanted was MF, why not get a TLR? My Yashica-Mat (non-124-g) served me well for many years, and is *great* for portraits. Imogen Cunningham, Avedon, and many other greats depended on TLR's in the 40s, 50s, and 60s before the MF SLR cameras came of age.

-- Josh Wand (josh@joshwand.com), March 26, 2001.

josh- always good to hear from you- I have a Rolleiflex- the lens is just too damn short- the people you mentioned used them for full length or "environmental" stuff- I could not get this close and this big with a TLR without the nose sticking way out.... If I backed off with the Rollei then my subject occupies a space on the film well inside a 35 mm frame so why not use 35mm? I think you know what I mean.. this is done with a 14" ektar- 'bout like a 100mm in 35, so I can get back enough to get good perspective.... Lighting is still a challenge- this scan doesn't look like the print of course, (looks a little dark) but it shows the detail i want-

thanks for the comments- anything to post lately?

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), March 26, 2001.

Oh, wow! Remind me not to cross that guy...

Seriously: Your model is great, the expression is fantasic, and the face is wonderfully lit! Well done!!

Now, if I had to critisise something then it would be the deep shadow by his left hand, which I find somewhat disturbing. His neck turns into an blob where it merges with the hand. I'm not quite sure how to fix it: a reflector, perhaps, but without adding to the light on the face which is just so right. Certainly keep the fingers with the hand, and not down the neck.

And if I had to nit-pick: fix the shirt sleeve on the right hand. Tape down the opening or something...

But I like it -- honest!

-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), March 26, 2001.

Chris,
You're absolutely right. I completely forgot about that limitation of TLR's (can you guess how long it's been since I used mine?). On the other hand, there's always room for cropping on a square negative, though I know that's extremely sub-optimal.

No, I have nothing to post at all, I'm afraid. Far too much schoolwork-- I haven't taken any of my cameras out of their hiding places for months! You should hear from my plenty by this summer, tho. By the looks of the job market right now I'll have nothing to do *but* photography (and maybe some busking at Park Street station).

I see Allan's point about the dark shadow on the left hand... now I can see why gaffers have such things as "silk dots"-- perfect for such small things as this shadow. You could try filling it from behind his arm with a small white litedisc, perhaps?

Does it look that dark in the print? It might be a scan or monitor calibration issue. Unlike Allan, I do have some separation between the neck and the hand, at least on my screen.

-- Josh Wand (josh@joshwand.com), March 26, 2001.

Trust me, you can see detail in the print. The hand position could be better. It's the little jagged line under the chin that bugs me, but since no one else notices.... This is a Polaroid negative by the way.... I'm quite taken with them but you have got to keep those rollers clean, or you get little drop-shaped dings exactly where you don't want them...

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), March 26, 2001.

4x5

Yeah 4x5 is a nice format to work with. But in the studio it's another animal. Try an old Speed or Century with flash. Much more forgiving. You can shoot on the run. Just as easy as MF. But why use 4x5 and then rollfilm? The lenses of most MF are much better than anything 4x5. And they are cheap. But if you want the neg size 4x5 offers and the mobility of MF then try a Speed with flash. Greta set up.

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), March 31, 2001.

James-

>Yeah 4x5 is a nice format to work with. But in the studio it's another animal.

Agreed

Try an old Speed or Century with flash.

Too late already have Calumet C401 long rail with 14" lens

>Much more forgiving.

Dont need forgiveness- I want to be good-

>You can shoot on the run. Just as easy as MF.

Yeah, sure...

>But why use 4x5 and then rollfilm? The lenses of most MF are much better than anything 4x5. And they are cheap.

Dont get me started- they are NOT fucking cheap.... I got this WHOLE RIG, commercial ektar 14" EX+ and calumet view cherry for $650 from KEH... thats enough for an ugly mamiya portrait lens alone.... Another $80 for the roll back and I'm making some very nice portraits with a classic lens at portrait LENGTH for well under $1000 that I can process in a tank. AND I can move up to 4x5 when I feel like it....

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), March 31, 2001.

studio

Chris, my suggestions were just that. I have used a Speed effectively shooting portraiture. When you learn to use it correctly it is very portable and convenient. It was used in the studio for years mounted on a tripod or used hand held with flash. Back then they used film packs to speed up the process instead of roll film backs. Roll film is fine but you are losing the very thing you went to a larger format to accomplish. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just wondering why is all. A Bronicaw/lens goes for around $400 and a Kowa or Kiev for around $200/$300. That's if you wanted more portability. Just some suggestions. Your set up sounds fine for studio portraiture. Set ups like this were used for decades. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), April 01, 2001.

OK, sorry i went off on you- but look, I answered this question for josh further up the thread- These cameras come with 80 mil lenses and these lenses are too short for portraiture. If a person is serious about larger negs (MF) in a studio he or she needs at least a 180. You cannot get a large image with good compression with anything less. I ruled out S2s and Kowas because you cant find polaroid backs (or other parts) for them and when you do they are exorbitant. Kiev was not an option because I have enough junk already. I'm sorry but you're not going to put together even a Bronica or Kowa system with P- back and long lens, if you can find them, for $400.

The image shown takes up a nice 2x3 space on the polaroid negative. The distance the 14' LF lens provides, (aprox 70mm in 35 terms) plus physically backing up a bit more to scale the image down on the Ground glass to fit roll film, puts me at a distance where perspective compresses features. It's only about eight or ten feet. We dont have sunken eyes, protruding noses, we have a really nice looking guy. Take your speed graphic, stand 10 feet away from a subject, and see what you get- probably a full length shot on the 4" plane. Again, for the space the head takes up on the neg, you might as well be using 35 mm.

I have agonized over the MF puzzle- and I can't see spending $1500- 2000 for a used RB67 with backs and lenses, my closest real option. I believe strongly that all you need is 35mm, if thats all you have.... but i'd like to see what I can do with better tools. You've got to draw the line in cheaping out on gear, like spending 300 bucks on a Kiev- who has the time to repair them?

This endeavor has already seemed less like an expensive hobby and more like a blood sacrifice- but something takes me by the arm and says- you have to make these pictures-

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), April 02, 2001.

studio

I use my 210 on the Speed and get nice results on 1/2 length portraits. I mainly use ortho film for great texture on the skin. When I learn to post images on the net I'll post some here. I just like the portability of the Speed. If you can find a lens of this length give it a try. Are you using P/N polaroid? Neg or pos? By the way, nice image. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), April 02, 2001.

I am using P/N 665 pack film.... its closer to 4x5 than 2x2...

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), April 02, 2001.

The only point I'll argue (well, maybe) is the contention that good portraits need long lens compression. See Keith Carter's early work... 80mm on 'blad. See almost all of Duane Michaels work... 50mm on 35. Much editorial portraiture is done with wide and normal lenses, see Arnold Newman's work. If all you want to do is head shots for actors and models, then fine, use a 180 on a roll film camera, but why bother, 35mm is great for that kind of work.

But if you wnat to make interesting pictures of interesting people, you need to show the person as they present themselves, which means more info than you get on a drivers license photo. Head and shoulders gets boring in a hurry.

Even cropping as tight as you have here, you still made the decision to include hands and a hint of posture. I submit that to offer even the illusion of a personality, you should let us consider the subject's arms, how they position their hands, the angle of their shoulders and the way they cut their hair and dress. Remember what Irving Penn did to get good portraits of big personalities, he made them stand in an acute corner with a floor sloping toward the camera. What makes these portraits interesting is the way each personality responded with their body.

Show more body... more body, good... head shot, bad...ug... t

p.s. the only thing I don't like about this portrait (beside being too tight) is the light on the underside of his right sleeve that cuts across his collar to his left sleeve. In passing, it seems to miss his face altogether (whew) being blocked by his elbow, and throw a pointless shadow of his collar on his throat. What did you hope that light would accomplish? Did a spontaneous backofhead- doublehandgrip spoil it, but make something you liked better so you went with it? (Do you hate it when we guess?)

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), April 05, 2001.

This is about as tight as I like a regular portrait

but I have made a couple of really interesting portraits that filled the frame with the person's face. I know Chuck Close made a career out of big heads, but they aren't really about the person, they're about Chuck, and about being big... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), April 05, 2001.

OK, lets see, you guys weigh in on the same night 2 weeks after the post… Tom, if you look on my website you'll see 50+ portraits shot from all lengths. I'm a big believer in normal lenses, and have even had some success with wide (28mm) lenses though I don’t think I have a feel for them...

What I hear you saying is you like more body in a portrait, and that’s OK. You say you can’t tell anything about personality without it though, that’s kind of extreme… But I am really into faces. I thought “lets try the arms up” just to work some lines into the frame. In the neg you can see all of the arms and some torso, but I thought the look was so happening I cropped in on it… that seemed to freak altaf out completely, he started in about slashing arteries and god knows what else…. sorry, altaf…

As for the sacred trust my buddy Dylan put in me when he stood there with his arms behind his head, (altaf’s comments now) it wasn’t broken as far as he’s concerned, I can tell you he’s quite pleased with the outcome… You think I’m being frivolous, I lack seriousness, you sound somehow personally offended, well, all that’s lost on me… and what about this much vaunted teeny portrait of the white haired guy ….. I mean, that’s kind of standard issue, isn’t it? I can’t tell much about him because I can’t look in his eyes… but I’m not telling tom he’s a worthless human being because of it….

And both of you with the “what’s happening with the light?” The scanner doesn’t pick up what’s nice about it- its lighter, the keylight seems more key-like, you can see some detail in the back of the head sector… What was I thinking? “Jesus I hope I get something on this freakin’ negative…”

Always nice to hear from you though…

www.chrisyeager.com

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), April 08, 2001.

Hi Chris, I'm sorry if it seemed like we ganged up on you... I haven't posted a comment here in months, mostly because I haven't felt like I had anything to contribute to anyone's efforts.

But in response to your response to my comments...I can only go by what you have posted here, since I don't really know you except by your presence on this "People Forum".

My thoughts on focal length were motivated by your observation that "These (various medium format) cameras come with 80 mil lenses and these lenses are too short for portraiture. If a person is serious about larger negs (MF) in a studio he or she needs at least a 180." I was merely stating my own views about this point.

I didn't mean to sound extreme about portraits gotta have body or they suck... that's not what I meant to say at all. But I think more is revealed about the subject when you show some "body", and less with a tight head or face only. I was trying to imply that you might feel that way too, since this wasn't just a head shot, that you did decide to show some arms/hands and posture. I'll try to be more explicit.

Sorry about the size of my posted image, it was included just to show the perspective of what I consider a "regular" portrait... not as some "vaunted" (your words) technique or as a standard for all the world to aspire too. And yep, it's pretty standard stuff that I ripped off from Irving Penn... His "standard" stuff being what I aspire to.

As I said in my second post (this being the third) I have made a few real tight "portraits" that I liked, but I wouldn't say they offer any illusion of personality. This one I use as a logo on my business card and it works better there as a graphic, than when enlarged as a portrait. You can find a thread on it's use in that context (logo) in the archives here, if you're interested at all.

Just as a coincidence, my "much vaunted teeny portrait of the white haired guy" was made on 665, and so was this teeny face. White haired guy was with a 127 on a RB67, and the teeny face with a 180 and a big ol' extension tube... t

p.s. I'll try to be even more diplomatic in the future, if you'll try to be less defensive. Barring that, I'll not comment on your work any further, if you prefer... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), April 08, 2001.

Yes, the teeny face is a good example of a close up showing no personality, I'll give you that. Of course i want your comments, and I want to coment on your comments too.... you're in atlanta? I lived there for a year and went to couple of Bob Ginn's critique-meets. I was there when he canme in and told everyone his house burned down..

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), April 08, 2001.

ahh yeah... Bob Ginn...

As for the teenie portrait, my wife calls it the "Moon Pie Face" (sigh), it works well on the business card... really... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), April 09, 2001.