There is no format more extreme than large format, where the negatives dwarf even the biggest medium format sensors and each frame costs upwards of $5. With such intense costs and demands, would you use it to photograph something as important as a photo assignment for The New York Times? This neat video takes you behind the scenes with a photographer who did just that.
Coming to you from Bryan Birks, this interesting video takes you behind the scenes of a photo assignment for The New York Times in which he used a 4x5 large format camera. The fascinating thing about 4x5 large format is that its negatives are almost 15 times larger than full frame, and that means incredible levels of detail, along with some useful features that are not available when using larger formats unless you invest in specialized lenses. The major drawback of large format is the cost, with each negative costing about $5 (and that does not even include processing!). It also takes extremely precise technique to get the most out of each frame. Nonetheless, when you get it right, you will be rewarded with images unlike anything you have seen before. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Birks.
That was a very long video with TMI. LoL
Shooting portraits with 4x5 is what it is, a slow deliberate way of shooting that rarely allows "spontaneity", and these photos demonstrated that. Sort of pensive, sad, quiet expressions...
I don't expect that the "4x5 ness" will carry over to the printed/or uploaded NYT story as the photos shown would have a similar look if shot with a fast 35mm, 55mm, 85mm etc.
Seems to me the idea of shooting 4x5 was in the mind of the editor and photographer as a special process, style or technique. So I guess it served a purpose...
On the bright side the photographer probably only shot 4 or 6 sheets of each person, so there was not a lot of time wasted deciding which shot was best.
Hi Mike, some good assumptions on your part but not quite. I shoot 4x5 as my main medium and have for two years. I use it for everything. The stiffness that I talked about was because of my own lack of direction and the subject matter. It wasn’t the easiest to meet up with people and shove a camera in their face. A lot of emotions.
If you look at my other work I lean towards the sad and pensive…that’s just the way I am. I don’t like overly happy photos.
As for the TMI part…my subscribers want information on this sort of thing so I always try to explain thoroughly instead of keeping certain information private like a lot of other YouTube photographers.
The NYT did end up running a full spread in color. Four shots were 4x5 and one was in digital. The editor didn’t give a damn what medium it was shot on but they hired me on my previous work which was all 4x5.
Just wanted to reply to some of your incorrect assumptions for others.
Thanks for the reply.
Although I do applaud any and all work done with Large Format, nothing in the results in the video really gave me the sense that 4x5 was used. Pretty standard depth-of-field (i.e. no LF super-bokeh and the like), no obvious need for camera standards movements, etc. You probably could have completely gotten away with Medium Format film and still maintained your film look with less expense and time for these assignments. Often with gallery displays of wet prints made from my Mamiya7 I have been asked if they were shot with 4x5. I've even made use of a Hasselblad Flexbody to get rudimentary movements and near 4x5 quality with gear that is a fraction of the weight that could get me into tighter places, and with tighter time constraints than a field camera. Of course, I finally started doing 5x7 with a wooden field camera, as there really is no substitute with landscapes and other situations. I'm getting too old to take 8x10 monorails on backpacking trips (even Ansel Adams used pack mules!), but I really wish I could!
I enjoyed your story and your video, I only wish you would have revealed a bit more about your equipment, film, and processing used; but that's just me!
Well done!
I think that shooting large format portraiture is part looking for the technical quality but also about creating a psychological dynamic between the photographer and subject.
If you show up with a tripod and a camera that looks like it is from the 50s and takes 20 minutes to set up and focus, with no polaroids (?) and only take a few frames the subject knows it is something special. Not just a couple snapshots.
Perhaps, yet the nature of large format often produces rather stilted portraits, and these are no exception. This sort of thing always makes me wonder about the intent. Are we trying to portray the subject as they are? Or are we trying portray the photographer's treatment of the subject? In the end, I guess it would be whatever pays the bills!
I think there is a lot more of the photographer shooting in their large format style than showing the personalities of their subjects.
Platon with his portraits of powerful people are shot to look like a Platon photo.
The same with the headshot guy with the triangle lighting trick, sit here and look at the camera.