Large Format Portraits

[dancook]

When I google 'large format portraits' a tide of impressive images hits me like a wall.

My first thought was, what do I need to do to get into large format photography - but I remember that old adage, a good camera does not make you a good photographer..

- So yes, people doing portraiture with large format cameras, particularly of celebrities - are likely experienced in that category. You're less likely to see poor large format images because it's not a format for the masses.
- I analyse the photos and ask myself what makes them good? most of them are really quite 'plain' on the face of it - often just looking directly into the camera face on. Is it because they are celebrities, good looking people, or they have subtle hints of character and good lighting?
- The perspective of the face, the face filling the frame quite uniformly - it's hard to put my finger on what FL would achieve this on FF and would I be able to get that look combined with such a shallow DOF

I would have to try it out take photos with perhaps 85mm f1.2 or 200mm f2 wide open, see how will my results differ.

Perhaps it's a job for stitching, would it require for example a 85mm 1.2 with extension tube?

Any thoughts as to what creates the appeal of large format and what could be achieved with FF to replicate it?

 

[petersmart]

Having looked at several sites etc I'm seriously underwhelmed!

There seems to be nothing there that a good photographer with a decent FF camera could not achieve.

How to achieve the shallow DOF? - a lens above 70mm and a large aperture - simples.

 

[HoppyUK]

All those things you've listed play a part.

Technically you could get close enough to the pictorial effect with a full-frame camera and very fast lens, though it's not the same as using a large format film rig, from either the photographer's or sitter's point of view. They're big and imposing, especially when used close which is a common trick, hard to use and demand a static subject, strictly one shot at a time.

Combine that with a skilled photographer and a celebrity subject, and there you have it.

 

[pingu666]

lf can resolve a lot of detail, film has a certain look, the old lenses where flawed in various ways, got movements, the focal length vs fov too, larger formats can have a look that's hard to replicate

 

[AshleyC]

Although your looking at vastly cut down images in a web browser so they dont really represent what a real large format Neg can produce. The OP has only mentioned compositional elements which have nothing to do with the format being used.

The still life's ive shot on large format really do stand out from anything ive taken with a FF camera. Detail, tonal and colour representation is all superior. Id love to take it into a studio and do some portraits with it

 

[dancook]

Yes I forgot to mention the tone and monochrome finish, I do like that as well.

I think I'm going to have to start with some 85mm 1.2 face/shoulder portraits, maybe if I try to emulate the look - I can determine what I'm missing, if anything, from what I am drawn to.

A project as it were

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

I've been trying to remember how much 10" x 8" Paranoid Polaroid film was per shot last time I used it or even how much 5" x 4" b/w was, but alas I can't. I can though tell you that AFAIC, one reason for the characteristic look of many large format portraits was the cost per exposure. If ever there was an incentive for getting it right first time, that was it ...

ETA - Richard makes a very good point about the imposing nature of the camera, especially when parked on a studio stand relatively close to the subject. They tend to leave the subject feeling obliged to enter into the spirit of things

 

[HoppyUK]

Yes I forgot to mention the tone and monochrome finish, I do like that as well.

I think I'm going to have to start with some 85mm 1.2 face/shoulder portraits, maybe if I try to emulate the look - I can determine what I'm missing, if anything, from what I am drawn to.

A project as it were

You might want to try 50/1.4 or even 35/1.4. And continuous light, not flash.

Check the perspective in some of those shots, and look at the eye pupils - small, with lots of coloured iris. Both draw you in to that compelling gaze.

 

[dancook]

Funny you should mention 35mm.... I just this moment took a head and shoulders portrait with a 35mm @F2, the eyes were a little concealed, but good for a laugh

I used LR distortion slider to look less exaggerated in the nose area, because if there was ever a time to make your colleague look their best - it's when you ask them to try on a wig and hat you just bought for a home photoshoot

JD B+W by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

Check the perspective in some of those shots, and look at the eye pupils - small, with lots of coloured iris. Both draw you in to that compelling gaze.

Can't find the two I was looking for, but these will do. Scanned with a cheapo Epson scanner off straight darkroom prints ...

 

[dancook]

Has anything been done to the eyes in processing?

 

[Steve]

When I google 'large format portraits' a tide of impressive images hits me like a wall.

My first thought was, what do I need to do to get into large format photography - but I remember that old adage, a good camera does not make you a good photographer..

- So yes, people doing portraiture with large format cameras, particularly of celebrities - are likely experienced in that category. You're less likely to see poor large format images because it's not a format for the masses.
- I analyse the photos and ask myself what makes them good? most of them are really quite 'plain' on the face of it - often just looking directly into the camera face on. Is it because they are celebrities, good looking people, or they have subtle hints of character and good lighting?
- The perspective of the face, the face filling the frame quite uniformly - it's hard to put my finger on what FL would achieve this on FF and would I be able to get that look combined with such a shallow DOF

I would have to try it out take photos with perhaps 85mm f1.2 or 200mm f2 wide open, see how will my results differ.

Perhaps it's a job for stitching, would it require for example a 85mm 1.2 with extension tube?

Any thoughts as to what creates the appeal of large format and what could be achieved with FF to replicate it?

Totally agree. There is a beauty and mystery to some LF portraits that you don't see anymore. You hear stories from the past of primitive people refusing to have their photos taken as they thought it would steal their soul. And looking at some LF portraits I can understand this.

A few thoughts on the images that came up when I googled LF portraits;

Quite a few were wet plate collodion process which is enjoying a renaissance. This adds imperfections around the frame and does funny things with colours; reds can appear black, eyes can look a bit spooky. Not something that could be replicated in camera digitally but I imagine there is some way of doing it in photoshop.

Several photos were definitely taken on old petzval type lenses that were made 130 years plus ago and have a distinctive shallow dof, rapid fall off from centre and swirly bokeh. The good news is that you can buy a modern petzval lens for Canon and Nikon DSLR if you have the budget from lomography. http://shop.lomography.com/vi/brass-petzval-nikon-mount

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

Has anything been done to the eyes in processing?

Having now looked a bit closer, yep, it looks like I did lighten the whites a touch when I first opened the scan files, but I'd have to find the prints to check by how much. My point in posting them was actually more to do with engagement with the camera than the "drawing in effect", but that effect's certainly there bigtime in both (wet) prints.

Care to guess the format?

 

[dancook]

Having now looked a bit closer, yep, it looks like I did lighten the whites a touch when I first opened the scan files, but I'd have to find the prints to check by how much. My point in posting them was actually more to do with engagement with the camera than the "drawing in effect", but that effect's certainly there bigtime in both (wet) prints.

Care to guess the format?

Definitely great eye contact, format hmm.. 35mm?

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

Definitely great eye contact, format hmm.. 35mm?

Yep, well done. 85/1.8 on a Canon EOS1N. It wasn't difficult, but I suspect a lot of people would have been led astray ...

 

[dancook]

I'm not sure my TC plan will work, either that or it will work very well with the field curvature @Steve speaks of

Super-fast lenses don't work well on extension tubes. You'll get some serious loss of contrast and sharpness, and then a lot of field curvature which will make things even worse at the frame's edges. Assuming the EF 85 mm 1:1.2 is extension-focused, with a 25 mm extension tube you'd be able to focus from 0.48 m to 0.41 m (or 1' 7" to 1' 4"). In order to start the working range where the lens without extension tube stops, you'd need a 9 mm extension tube (or a bit shorter than that when the lens has
internal focusing).

think my ext tube is 12mm anyway

 

[ianmarsh]

Two lovely shots there Dan.

If you haven't already seen it, then Gregory Heisler's "50 portraits" is probably worth a look. He shots on all sorts of medium-large cameras (all 50 shots detail the camera, lens, film and lighting used) and some of them are stunning. I've no idea whether the camera is making a real technical difference on some of the shots but he talks at length about the impact on sitters of setting up big cameras and of being able to talk to them without hiding behind a viewfinder.

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

...the impact on sitters of setting up big cameras and of being able to talk to them without hiding behind a viewfinder.

The thing about not hiding behind a viewfinder was even noticeable at weddings when switching from a waist-level finder on a 120 SLR (or TLR, even) to 35mm. But regarding the impact of the camera on the sitter, when I stared doing portraits on 35mm (particularly with the EOS1N then the 1D series) rather than 120 or large format, I tried first taping over the big white "Canon" logo with matt black tape, then painting the lettering itself out with matt black. To this day, I'm convinced that it made a difference when working at arm's length or thereabouts ...