Cameras

E-Mail Me

Visit my NEW site and see some different photos presented differently. It's a much slower site, due to the larger photos, but I hope you'll think it's worthwhile. Let me know what you think.

Photographic Stuff

Sharp vs. Unsharp Portaits

Cameras?

I guess I'll just give you a list of what I use. Starting with the smallest format to the largest.

Canon AE-1 Program (2 bodies) - variety of lenses, mainly 100mm for portraiture

Leica R-4 - 90mm Sumicron, the only lens I can afford (other than the 50mm)

Mamiya 645 (2 bodies) - 110mm; 150 mm lenses primarily

4x5 Cambo - Caltar 240mm lens and a 300mm Rodenstock - both Polaroid & regular B/W film

These days, about 90% or more of my B/W is done with the Mamiyas. I really love the tonal range of the larger negatives. Unfortunately, I only have a Besler 23C enlarger, so I can't enlarge my 4x5 negatives, but make contact sheets and scan those. Since I began shooting with medium format, I've virtually given up on 35mm. While it may be convenient and less expensive, it just doesn't give me the results I like to see and work with. However, since beginning to work with digital imaging, I've gotten more interested in 35mm again (the reason for this is simple -- I've got a 35mm scanner). The cost of working with medium format in color is just too damned much. So, since I've also recently acquired a Leica (well, it was recent, years ago), I'm using that for color (along with medium format). I've recently begun using one of my older lenses, a 90-180mm Vivitar Series 1, Flat Field, Macro Zoom. It's big, heavy, and as sharp as anything I've ever used (including the Leicas). Focuses to 1:2 life size and is great for portraits, though a bit sharp for all but the most perfect skin. Needs some softening for most women.

I've had the 4x5 for too short a time to really evaluate my reaction to it. I think that I really like it, but it's cumbersome and prone to my making mistakes (double exposures are really easy). Ok, since I wrote the previous couple of sentences, I've had it for a lot longer and shot a fair number of photos with the 4x5. I really like it! It's cumbersome and slow, but the results are really impressive. I've just bought some color film and it's really great to play with. The 300mm is a great lens, but it's a long lens for a 4x5 and it's hard to focus and depth of field of really shallow! Sure is a lot of fun to see the huge negatives when they're finished processing. At this point, I'm really waiting to get a new scanners, so I can work with the large format film on my computer, this eliminating the processing labs.

Film?

My personal favorite film is Verichrome Pan from Kodak. It's a great film with good, fine grain and excellent resolution. It's also got the best tonal range that I've ever seen. It's really hard to see from what I can put on the net, but my forte is a great print with excellent tonal range (I just can't stand the high fashion photography with blocked up highlights). Developing is also very easy and simple, you almost can't screw it up.

However, I have to admit that I got a great deal a few years ago and bought a couple hundred rolls of Plus-X 220 for a great price. I've used it for a long time and am about to run out. While I have to admit the it was a great buy, I'm not that thrilled with Plus-X. Will I continue to use it? Nope. Will I go back to Verichrome Pan? I'm not sure about that. I may, but then I may decide to experiment a bit and see if I prefer something from Ilford (I've always liked their films), or perhaps Agfa. Kodak may be the biggest here in the US, but there are other films with equal or better characteristics.

I just bought almost 200 rolls of Agfa Pan 100. I'm not really thrilled with it, but it was much less expensive that Kodak or Ilford, so I'm using it. It doesn't seem to have the wide tonal range of Verichrome Pan, but it saves me a lot of money, so I'm willing to make the sacrifice.

I've also recently begun to use film from Freestyle Sales in Los Angeles. It's their private brand and much lower cost than others. It's made in England (I only know one company which produces film in England, but who knows...). It may not be as good as Ilford (quality control) or some others (Verichrome Pan and FP-4 for example), but it's ok and the saving in money is substantial.

Lighting?

Hmmm. . . this is an interesting one. I started out with four simple clamp lights with 500 watt photofloods. They were awful, until I took a workshop and I found out how to make a light box. It was a revelation. But since I was using photofloods, I was very worried about heat, so I just put up a screen made of white, double-knit fabric. Worked beautifully and didn't catch on fire. But the damned lights blew the circuit breakers about every 20 minutes, so my models had a wonderful chance to relax every once in a while. It was also very easy to focus, with 2000 watts of light on the models. While it was a really great way to learn about lighting and portraiture, it had the serious disadvantage that my shutter speed was about 1/15 to 1/60 and the lenses were wide open. My favorite lens at the time was a Canon 85mm f1.8. I generally shot with it wide open to get the fastest shutter speed. While the portraits were good, they were not all critically sharp.

Then I got a 400 watt-second strobe. Boy, this was great. I had an umbrella and really felt like a professional. And my photos improved a lot. Much sharper and better. Although, the light quality was definitely different. Not as mellow and soft as the huge continuous light I'd used, but it make up for it because I was able to shoot at f11 with an effective shutter speed that could stop any motion the models could make. Then I decided to get a light box for the strobe, a nice 3x4 foot model, which I still use today.

Finally, after a few years, the original strobe gave up the ghost and was only working intermittently. So I broke down, got out the charge card and called Calumet and bought a set of three Sunpak 3000 monolight strobes. 400 watt-seconds each and they recycle quickly. I use them at 1/2 power and get really fast recycling times. I really like them and would probably not trade them unless I could get something a whole lot better. They have the power I need and have worked without any problems of any kind for years. While I'm not a full-time professional, I've used them a lot as an advanced amateur. I've done a little location shooting and they seem to be able to take a fair amount of moderately rough travel (well, putting them into the back of my car without cases or anything).

Other Hardware?

Tripods -- I have two: a Gitzo and a Bogen. I really like them both, but use the Bogen with it's interchangable mounts for most of my work with 35mm and 645. I use the Gitzo with the 4x5 and leave it on the tripod. While I use a standard head for the 4x5, my real preference is for a ball and socket head for my 645 and 35mm cameras. I used to use a lighter weight tripod till I got the larger ones. Now I keep that lightweight one in the trunk of my car.

Reflectors -- I used the home-made panel for years, putting it just to the side of the model. It was made with 1x2 inch furring, screwed together, and covered with white double knit fabric. I just got rid of it a few years ago because I bought a nice 2x6 foot Photoflex reflector. Not only is light and double sided (gold and white), but it's collapsible into a small, round, flat carrier. I also bought a smaller one that's good for field work.

Backgrounds -- I have two, a black and a white. If you light either you can get many shades of gray. These days, because of digital imaging I'm tending to use the white background more than gray or black. My one complaint about the black and white backgrounds is that when they are lit with a weaker power for a gray color (light or dark) they tend to have weird color casts to therm. With the white background it's particularly annoying: a green background, for example, when I wanted a nice light gray. I have recently acquired a muslin background, which I haven't used too much, yet. It's really very nice and quite portable, so I should make some use of it in the future.

Darkroom Equipment -- One piece of equipment that is almost unique that I have is the Salthill enlarging easel. It's heavy and unique. Why would I mention this? Because of all the equipment that I own, this is one of my favorites. It's an 11x14 and weighs 22 pounds (10kg). It doesn't move under the enlarger and, indeed, stabilizes the enlarger. It's design is called a five bladed easel and it's truly unique. Sadly, I think that the company is out of business. I feel privileged to have gotten one of their easels. I've also been lucky enough to be able to get a Thomas safelight (sodium vapor) for $25 at a a swap meet. The best safelight around and well worth the money if you spend a lot of time in the darkroom printing B/W. Many years ago, I decided that I would not be able to complain that my prints were not sharp because my enlarging lenses were poor quality, so I picked up Leitz (50mm) and Schneider Componon-S (80mm & 100mm). I've recently picked up a really good grain focuser. It sure is better than the crummy ones I've used for years. Another item that's good for years and is good for your well being (much less eye strain).

Sharp vs. Unsharp Portraits

Ok, this is where portraiture gets interesting. There are extraordinarily few women whose faces can really stand a close, serious examination. 99% need some form of softening (see Kris, one of the few perfect faces I've even seen for an example). The question is how to do it. Well, if you're a professional using Hasselblad, just get their soft focus filters, they are great, so I hear (and see in exhibitions). However, I don't have a Hasselblad, and my lenses don't take their filters. So, since I've been on a severe budget since I started, I've played with lot's of different ideas, some good... some bad.

The problem here is that you need to "take the edge off" the perfection that exists with modern, razor-sharp lenses. You don't want to make the photo mushy, with soft grain. But just take off the perfection. Ideally you want to "spread" the highlights into the shadows (or sometimes the reverse). This has been my quest for years. The problems are compounded with larger format film. While larger format film makes for beautiful enlargements, it can be devastating to a woman's complexion. This can be solved using Photoshop, but I've been taking portraits for almost 30 years. In fact, now I've begun to change my working methods -- shooting sharp and then working within Photoshop to modify and perfect the image. This way I can choose my Photoshop filter to match the particular portrait, while with a filter in front of the film, I'm committed to that level of softening forever. The other alternative was to use a softening filter over the enlarging lens. Great idea, but not really too good in practice. Ideally you just put the filter over the enlarging lens for a portion of the time. But it's not terribly good and not very repeatable.

I guess the first was simply a "soft focus filter," generic, from who knows where. They softened the image, but just made it mushy. I wanted something better.

My first success was with a "fog filter." They were great and did the job for a number of years for me. There are lots and lots of them around. I've been happy with Tiffen. I understand that the best are Harrison and Harrison, but they are extremely expensive and I believe (I may be wrong here) are only available in "series" sizes and not available in screw-in mounts.

However, I've found something even better than fog filters. Now I've switched to Tiffen "Softnet" filters. They are a mesh filter that's sandwiched between two pieces of glass. They come in graduated measures and work beautifully. Their #1 Softnet just takes the edge off a portrait without making it a bit mushy. Perfect for a beautiful woman. Need more, without losing true sharpness? Try the #2. I've never needed more than that. They also come in colors -- Black, White, and Red. Each spreads the colors differently (and the red is great for fleshtones). You can certainly make your own. Just get a pair of mesh pantyhose and stretch them over a filter or just hold it over the lens. The problem here is repeatability. The Tiffens are calibrated.

Now, there is one other method, championed by a good friend of mine. He breathes on the lens of the camera just before he takes the photo. Then he watches through the lens while the water vapor condensation evaporates and takes the photo when he's happy. Now this a very interesting method. Certainly is cheap. And the results can be stunningly beautiful. But not repeatable and not really very workable in hot, dry weather (condensation is either non-existant or evaporates too fast).

My personal feeling is that I prefer the Tiffen Softnet. It might cost a fair amount of money, but it's good, effective, and repeatable.