Experiments with borrowed 8×10 Deardorff
I have no idea why I wanted to try this. Maybe because, with the H2 camera, I can’t get a lens that’s any faster than f2.2. I want a 1.4 lens, but on an H2. So I go fantasizing about shooting 8×10, trying to drop the background soft. It’s been a gut-wrenching few days. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Newfound respect for anyone that can pull 8×10 off successfully.
Firstoff, my true feeling is: Don’t mix Film with Digital. If you’re going to shoot film, then call a real lab and pull a CPrint. It’s like making out with your sister or something — some things just ought to be kept separate. And don’t go messing around with lame Epson software or lame SilverFast, and try to scan the color negs. It’s just wrong. Do it right, go to a real lab, and pull a real Cprint. Just one opinion.
These frames are just tests with my friends. Just to see: “Is the 8×10-ness effect enough to justify the hassle factor of shooting it?”. (My qualified answer is: If you’re gonna put it on a website, or even put it in a book, CMYK, then it’s not worth the trouble, because the 8×10-ness just won’t show. But if you’re going to make a 30×40 killer CPrint and frame it, and put it on the wall at AIPAD, then yes, it’s worth it). There are also several frames from this local Dungeons/Dragons thing that happens in a local park here; I shot those yesterday afternoon. These are not keeper images; this is just me, trying on a new suit, seeing if it fits. (Not sure it does).
The whole thing about approaching strangers is made much easier when you walk up with a wooden Deardorff, compared to a Joe-Anybody Canon. Or even Hasselblad. That’s part of it for me, too — to use the camera in a small way to overcome my fear of approaching people on the street. There just seems to be this paranoia in the culture about being photographed; maybe everyone’s watching too much FoxNews. Like my friend Hollis says, “They’ll put their whole damn life on Facebook or a webpage or a blog, but God forbid you’d shoot a photograph of them.” So the Deardorff helps. You walk up with a hundred year old wooden monster of a camera, and it’s sort of an instant message that says, “Hey, I’m kinda serious here; I’m not a weirdo”.
But the downside is the Fear Factor about composition, and seeing everything upside down on the ground glass, and the trying to compose under a dark cloth, and then the biggest thing — making sure the subject doesn’t move out of the focus range, after you’ve closed the lens and pulled the dark slide. Made worse in my case, because I’m wanting to shoot wide open at f5.5, and the depth of focus is inches. They move a slight bit, and the whole frame is soft. So yes, lots of angst about the operation of the camera. I guess if I traveled with two assistants, it might be faster, but when you’re standing on the street with someone, one half of your brain is trying to maintain an intelligent conversation with them, and make sure they don’t get bored and leave, and the other half of the brain, simultaneously, is figuring meter readings, bellows factor, trying to remember if the lens is opened or closed, and freaking out about them moving. When you’re shooting people, alone, with 8×10, the inside of your brain is going a million miles an hour, like the 10 Freeway at rush hour.
Of course, I’m not going to get comfortable with shooting people with a Deardorff in one weekend, but this first weekend was nerve-racking and stressful. Hell, just having enough film holders loaded, when the lab is now closed three days a week, is angst unto itself. (I have to go to the lab, to use their holding room, to load film. Lab is closed; I have no film).
Andrew George was nice enough to let me borrow this camera. I bought a 360mm lens off of ebay to go on it. The camera used to belong to Slick Lawson, so it’s got some good JuJu on it.
Will I keep shooting this format, and commit to actually buying one? I have no idea. Can’t imagine shooting a real job with one. I’ve gone thru the initial 30 sheets, and I’m going to think about it for a few days, to see if it’s still calling my name. What I know is: I love the act of shooting the picture with this camera, but the post-production, after working with a Phase back for so long, seems very archaic and sloppy and Fred Flintstone, and not in a good way. I just had to write something down, and vomit out all this angst about the camera, and the scanning, to get it out of my system.
{Update, May 19th: I got mad today, and sat down and rescanned several images. Converted them, toned and bleached. Not sure if they’re any better, but they’re damn sure different. New page, just scroll down.}
Sleeper, from Elmington Park.
Tommy, (one armed monster), at Elmington Park.
Two Girls Fighters, at Elmington Park.
Harvie, (ringleader), at Elmington Park.
Buddy Jackson, after I photographed his new work for his upcoming show.
Brent Stewart. (neg copied to digital back, and then messed with).
Buddy and Adrienne, with their garden. Sunset, Friday.
Wolf Hoffmann, in my back yard.
Hollis Bennett, in his back yard, (working with Petzval lenses).
This is great insight into the mindset. I’ve been on a huge 4×5 kick lately and have been toying with borrowing some 8×10 holders from Gooch but I haven’t done it yet.
The act is so rewarding, at least with 4×5 and developing it in my bathroom. I imagine all the hard parts of that are multiplied (at LEAST by 4) on 8×10. I have access to a Cambo that is pretty modern..I’m trying to imagine hauling that Deardorff out ANYWHERE.
Thanks for writing about your experience.
Cary
I think the portraits of Brent Stewart, Buddy Jackson, and especially the two girl fighters are the strongest.
I was using an 8×10″ at my University a couple of months back to make some paper and lith negatives for Calotyping and Van Dyke processes. I think these cameras really shine when they’re used for alternative process, large-format polaroids, or something equally weird. Shooting normal color film, especially under natural daylight, may not bring out the real impact of these beasts (they would look great with artificial light – Philip-Lorca diCorcia style). Even black and white, I think, does them more justice.
Paolo Roversi, from what I understand, shoots mostly large format (maybe not 8×10, but it’s not that big a step up from 4×5’s) for a lot of his fashion work, and he’s really made it work for him and his jobs.
No one will say in 20 years “The 5dmkII was once owned by Slick Lawson so it has some good juju in it”. That alone is reason enough to shoot 8×10.
I find the whole “go to a real lab” thing to be another failing when it comes to 8×10. I shot 8×10 exclusively for 8 years, having just recently picked up a 4×5 and hasselblad. I find inkjets from 8×10 to be an abomination (sorry Mr. Soth), but I also find farming out your negs to a printer to be almost as bad. Why take the leap if you aren’t going to print?! Why even shoot film if you farm it out to a lab in the first place? Anywho, a dorf is a huge bitch, but I bet with a lighter weight kit you would find it much more enjoyable. There are a few 8×10 + 300mm lens combos that weigh less than 10 lbs, which is less than my RZ kit!
Response to John Autry: John, Of course you make good points. Of course, having your own RA4 lab in your studio, or even in a shared rental darkroom would be great. But that probably leaves NYC as the only option for shared darkrooms any more, if even that. As for the weight, that was a non-issue for me, in shooting the Deardorff — I just left it set up in the back of my truck, and got it out, slapped it on the tripod and got to work. The massive difference in the view camera, (any view camera), and the Hasselblad is the amount of time when you see the moment, until the time that you can press the cable release. I love people; want only to do portraits, and I’m just wondering if any view camera would not be responsive enough. The closest thing ever was the old Graflex Super D 4×5.
I haven’t “sent out” a print in years. But also, as you point out, and I agree with, the inkjet approach is a far far cry from a traditional darkroom print. Not even close. Just one opinion.
There is another thing about the 8×10 too — I was describing it to someone earlier tonight — I think the posture and expression of some of the subjects in these test photos to be a direct reflection of my fear of them moving out of focus. I learned not to be so vocal in my paranoia about them moving by sheet 29 (out of 30). I realized that they were picking up, in subtle ways, in my fear, ie “Hold it, hold it, hold it, don’t move”. I had to just chill out about that, and if they moved, they moved. Better that that to strike fear into their hearts and have it show on their face, (or fit them with a neck brace).
Actually, I could write a novelette on what I have learned in the past four or five days, working with that camera.
The one armed monster is wonderful!
série impressionnante, très réussie. big bravo
les effets avec le Petzval lenses sont superbes. Cela ne doit pas etre facile a utiliser
Well sorry to say, but the shots are AMAZING. It all looks worth the effort to me. You’re not going to get that look with digital. I love them. The only thing stopping me taking the plunge also is the horrendous post. Trips to the lab and scanning etc and the associated costs of ime and money. I’ve become lazy with digital workflow and the thought of taking film to the lab etc is, well, enough to kill my enthusiasm. I enjoy the process of working with Large Format though. I blame all my future angst and there serious loss on Polaroid. (ha) If ony 10×8 polaroid was still made, then it wouldn’t be an issue.
THanks for the pics, they’re on another level.
p.s. I think you would get used to the use of the camera and it would come second nature.
very interesting points about the picked up fear factor…great you learned so much, that to me is exciting and why i loved photography in the first place.
THanks for this post.
I’m no professional and neither am I well versed in the history of photography, or the history of certain photographers. But, I do know what I like.
That last shot, of Hollis Bennett, while not overall that compelling, has probably the best setting I can imagine. The light, the diffuse-ness of it all, the fall off of focus, etc. is absolutely stunning. I’ve been following your website for years now and I don’t think I’ve seen anything that equals it. I love it.
Have you seen this new magazine looks interesting!
I’m kind of a fan of Raymond Meeks’ stuff. Old cameras & old techniques like wet plate collodion can look magical. Didn’t he shoot the Olympics on that monster camera using the wet plate ambrotype process? And there are people out there saying the new Canon’s useless for sports
Not sure about *new color emulsion* in big old cameras – and like you say, “who can really tell what it is via the web or an offset press.”
I ran across these look at the exif data they really pop off the screen.
Some of this large format stuff is kinda like shooting with an Xpan and cropping off the sexy borders – “who’d of knew if it wasn’t pointed out!”
Mark,
Stick with it….. It’ll take weeks to become comfortable with the beast. Compared to digital it’s prehistoric and it’ll make you sweat blood to get images that you personally will like. But my oh my will it be worth it.
As you’ve said before, a large print from a 10×8 camera is a thing to behold. Forget a razor sharp print from a Phase 60mp back, a print from the Deardorff will be the real deal.
I’d be interested to see your progress in another month…….
Hey Mark,
What did I do wrong? Those two links vanished!
Here they are again here’s the magazine link; http://onetwelvepublishing.com/
Here’s the – I ran across these link; http://widjita.deviantart.com/gallery/#_featured
Chris
Thanks for the supportive comments. Last night, I was pretty bummed about it. Tore the lens off the board, cleaned the camera, preparing to give it back to Andrew. More than anything, disgusted with the available scanning software.
I think with this camera, you just can’t half-ass it. You’ve either got to pull a real CPrint, or in the least, give the neg to an experienced neg scanner that has a drum. This Epson 750V just doesn’t cut it.
But today, I got mad and sat down again, and started from scratch, and rescanned most everything again at higher Rez. I’m also converting them to B/W, which helps a great deal. I will repost the results when I get finished with what Troy says, “Tuckerizing them”. I was resisting doing much post on them at first, wanting to try something new.
Mark,
Find an old Petzval Lens and stick that on your Deardorff and prepare to be amazed.
You’ll have to use your hat as the shutter though !
8×10 is nice. Get the negs drum scanned. The combination of LF colour neg film and a really good scan operator is magical. I went from fiber prints to C prints to scanned to “more skillfully scanned” to “Even more skilfully scanned” and am a fan of great scans.
Terrific C prints from a master printer are also terrific.
The things you can shoot with the camera are amazing in a way – a weird kind of admission key that opens a lot of doors.
Also – here is a HUGE HINT – load film holders in Starbucks washrooms ( I have loaded thousands of sheets in Starbucks) – the door locks from the insider, the light switch is on the inside, the baby change table is perfect, the room is dark ENOUGH, toss the dark cloth on the floor to block the light under the door.
Starbucks was made for LF film.
Nice B&W effect – but are you getting that “is she faking it feeling?”
Have you thought of getting some of that funky (old style) eastern european monochrome negative from Freestyle in CA?
That’s a nice look though!
Chris
Been flirting with 8×10 for a couple years, and just can’t put it down, either… every time I get fed up and say “screw it, it’s digital or nothing,” I come back to the big film. It’s clumsy and cumbersome and expensive and in many ways a very stupid endeavor to embark upon, but it makes you sweat for your images, and when you nail it, there’s nothing else like it. Just started a project on 8×10 with a deardorff as well… small world. Hope you keep shooting the LARP guys, too – that could be an awesome project…
Also, FWIW – I haven’t done much color scanning with the 750, but I’m more than happy with the B&W results. Silverfast can get you pretty darned close with the raw scan… scan em at 2400, sharpen, then resize down… at least that’s working for me. Email if I can help – there isn’t all that much info out there for people scanning negs anymore, so people should help each other all they can with it, methinks.
Where can you get a C print in this town?
I am serious. Is there anyone printing these days?
In twenty years I could see you looking for a HD3II-50 with the Kodak 50 Mpixel 36×48mm sensor because you miss the way the old sensors handled the highlights.
Damn, they just don’t make them this way any more.
Small world, I was just looking at used 4X5 Crown Graphics and then checked in on your blog. On the web I can’t quite see what it is that you’re looking for with the 8×10, and I agree with your conclusions that the results just won’t show enough unless you start printing those 40×60 wall hangers. You get such fantastic portraits, partly because of the speed and spontaneity of shooting digital, so I can’t really see equaling that with large format film.
That being said, I do have a turn of the century 8×10 B&W print here that is amazing. It’s a family portrait and must have been a contact print. To appreciate it however, I do have to get out the loupe.
Let’s face it though, your H2-p45 stuff is amazing too. I imagine that you should play with whatever gear that you think might excite your creativity even further. I just saw a Holga pinhole camera . . . maybe I’d like to experience that “pinholeness” at least once in my life. Maybe not.
I am a bit late on commenting on this experience of yours. I having seen some frustration in your experience i’d like to put in a word for the 8×10 or view cameras in general. It is the very process of the taking the image that is worth the experience. The results, cprint, laser print, or webimage are important but it is the experience, the change in approach to the subject, the dialogue that is set up with the subject b/c of the steps the photog must take to get the image that is important. I must say it is a character building endeavor.
Working like that, it’s almost a meditation. The camera dictates a certain pace.
You’re definitely on to something with it, but don’t be hard on yourself about how you are interacting with the subjects. I think some of their expression has to do with them taking the whole thing a lot more seriously because of the camera. Not just that you appear to be a more serious photographer than the average Joe with a digital cam, but that they are wanting to participate in an older, bygone process the same way you are. Every subject’s body language says they feel a bit more gravity to their need to pose and present themselves than they would normally care about. Interesting social study on both sides of the camera.
Mark, the conversion to black and white with some punch is what those needed. I was a bit bummed with the first set, your work usually is absolutely incredible and those really didn’t have ‘that’. Now with the conversion and some work, they are your usual incredilbe work! Good job of sticking with it.
8×10 portraits are hard, I’ve been doing 4×5 forever, but the 8×10 is just another beast altogether.
Here’s one on 8×10 I shot of Peter Murphy back in the ’80s:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimherrington/3196791769/in/set-72157612571862228/
[...] I’m a large format junkie, and like reading about anyone’s experience with it. Photographer Mark Tucker (the Jim Beam Whiskey shooter…) does just that here. [...]
Mark, I’ve really enjoyed following your blog the last few weeks. Thanks very much.
My problem with digital is I feel like the camera focuses too much on the out-of -ocus areas. So there’s no smooth fallaway. It’s like it goes from super crisp to absolute blur and there’s no transistion.
I like the 8×10 stuff very much, and while digital has 10 million advantages, it still doesn’t look like this, does it?
I hate that on pictures taken with all large format camera people are waiting, waiting, waiting. Rarely photographers avoid this, but I surely can’t do it. I try it several times.
B5
Mark,
keep at it. 8×10 is great but you have to fight with it. I have been fighting with it for 8 months now. but I have used 4×5 for over 8 years. Every camera has its place. Sometimes a pin hole camera will work, sometimes you need a view camera to give you that great look or an 8×10 to overwhelm you with detail or the moodiness of that view cameras focus while sometimes you need the speed and detail of the P45 or even sometimes a cell phone is all you need. Concept is key in choosing. Would you ever shoot a commercial job with an 8×10? maybe. but it is a little terrifying if you are used to the instant pleasure of digital. you KNOW you have something good while film makes you wait in the end I feel like a lot of the time shooting with out the instant preview can allow for a magic of amazing results not just good.
I’m liking the portraits of the fantasy / roll players. did you see the documentary DARKON?
Mark, I’ve always been a fan of your work. I’m glad that you have this blog now!
Looking through this thread…liking what I’m reading about the process being more important. I have tens of thousands of Canon digital images which seem to lack the heart and soul of what I used to do with 4×5’s, the occasional 8×10, and pinholes. Reading this is wanting me to look more at Alistair Thain’s work, as well as dust off those behemoth cameras that are sitting in the back!
Anyway, if you’re interested in a cool 4×5 (no, I don’t have one of these, but I think it might be right up your alley) check out the Littman 45s (http://www.littman45single.com/).
Hell, I just think it’s cool to see Wolff (ex-Accept guitarist/photographer) standing in Mark’s backyard.
hello old friends.