Shooting 8x10 Portraits

Thanks for posting Marc. Interesting to watch and without doubt instant film has a place. Personally though I prefer to stay with standard negative film not least of all as innumerable prints can be obtained unlike ( afaik) from Polaroid where only one is available.
 
Asha said:
Thanks for posting Marc. Interesting to watch and without doubt instant film has a place. Personally though I prefer to stay with standard negative film not least of all as innumerable prints can be obtained unlike ( afaik) from Polaroid where only one is available.
Click to expand...

Well all that to get an inferior quality shot compared to a very good 35mm digi camera or even a MF film camera using neg film, I understand about a bit of fun and instant pic but..............................
 
excalibur2 said:
Well all that to get an inferior quality shot compared to a very good 35mm digi camera or even a MF film camera using neg film, I understand about a bit of fun and instant pic but..............................
Click to expand...

Seriously? Every thread?

Although now you've said it countless times and at the danger of potentially derailing another excellent thread, what in your mind makes then 'inferior'? Can you quantify it?

I thought were were some stunning, beautiful photographs made there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gazmorton2000 said:
Seriously? Every thread?

Although now you've said it countless times and at the danger of potentially derailing another excellent thread, what in your mind makes then 'inferior'? Can you quantify it?

I thought were were some stunning, beautiful photographs made there.
Click to expand...

All I said was "inferior quality" which has nothing to do with the results from the subject shots....so can't see what you are complaining about. I would think anyone using an 8X10 camera is using it for outstanding quality that would thrash 35m digi cameras and even MF film cameras.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
All I said was "inferior quality" which has nothing to do with the results from the subject shots....so can't see what you are complaining about. I would think anyone using an 8X10 camera is using it for outstanding quality that would thrash 35m digi cameras and even MF film cameras.
Click to expand...

And failed to quantify what you regard as inferior quality whilst once again coming onto a thread where you have no interest and telling people that what they or others are doing (actually doing, being creative, creating work with value and at a much better level than 99% of the poeple on here) is sub-standard. This is photography. People should talk more about it. Iroinic, eh?

Anyway, so it doesn't go the way of other threads, this is my last comment on the matter.

Oh and, I can only assume what you mean by inferior quality and I can't say I agree. These look brilliant, IMO.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
And failed to quantify what you regard as inferior quality
Click to expand...

If you are using an 8X10 camera (and even the thought of lugging it up a mountain for scenic views like in Photographyonline site) would you get all the tones in B\W and colours also sharpness....... using instant film compared to neg film. But have always said:- horses for courses or what ever turns you on.
 
Oh come on! I can't believe this thread has caused an argument.

Brian, it's not about image quality or equipment portability (the clue is the word Portraits in the thread and video title and not Landscapes so no-one is asking anyone to lug the camera up a mountain).

I've no idea what has gone on in other threads but please keep it out of this one. I've just had a 2 year hiatus from photography and have recently treated myself to a new camera so that I can ease myself back into it. Because of that, I've been spending a lot of time on YouTube and this vide popped up. I posted it in here because I though people might find it interesting, I actually thought a lot of the photos were ver good, especially considering the age of the equipment. I honestly didn't expect to find and 'pixel peepers' in this section of the forum.
 
Marc said:
Oh come on! I can't believe this thread has caused an argument.

Brian, it's not about image quality or equipment portability (the clue is the word Portraits in the thread and video title and not Landscapes so no-one is asking anyone to lug the camera up a mountain).

I've no idea what has gone on in other threads but please keep it out of this one. I've just had a 2 year hiatus from photography and have recently treated myself to a new camera so that I can ease myself back into it. Because of that, I've been spending a lot of time on YouTube and this vide popped up. I posted it in here because I though people might find it interesting, I actually thought a lot of the photos were ver good, especially considering the age of the equipment. I honestly didn't expect to find and 'pixel peepers' in this section of the forum.
Click to expand...

What's most important is the views of 8X10 users here and why they use that format and do they think instant shots is what they would use...come on start posting.
 
I know very little about LF Polaroids. Do you get any sort of negative like (I think) you did with the older peel apart Polaroids I have a vague memory of way back in the '60s and '70s?
 
The only Polaroid I've used was an SX-70. Not quite 10x8...

Rereading this thread though, I thought I'd respond to Brian's comments about (what I think it amounted to) the low quality image that Polaroid delivers, by citing a photographer whose standards are not usually regarded as low.

Everyone and his neighbour has heard of Ansel Adam's triology Camera/Negative/Print but the original series had a few more volumes, one of which was on Polaroid photography. Naturally Ansel didn't use Polaroid for anything that mattered, so it was the natural choice for him, when asked to make a presidential portrait, that he chose Polaroid.

And he used 20x24.

An even bigger crime against professional standards...
 
Tintypes are metal polaroids
I, without doubt, would love to shoot a 10 x 8 metal polaroid, well its a direct positive at least.
I think the form factor has a big bearing on my enthusiasm for the idea.
Ok, 10 x 8 on film is superior, but a 10 x 8 polaroid with a decent bit of glass in front of it will shoot a fair picture, not designed to be enlarged of course but we have film for that....:)
 
joxby said:
Tintypes are metal polaroids
I, without doubt, would love to shoot a 10 x 8 metal polaroid, well its a direct positive at least.
I think the form factor has a big bearing on my enthusiasm for the idea.
Ok, 10 x 8 on film is superior, but a 10 x 8 polaroid with a decent bit of glass in front of it will shoot a fair picture, not designed to be enlarged of course but we have film for that....:)
Click to expand...

Well be the first here to show the difference Polaroid ver neg film for 8X10 on the same subect ;)
 
Last edited:
If there isn't a difference, it negates the "Polaroid is inferior" argument. If there is a difference, it provides an artistic (and possible technical) reason to use it.

Given that Edward Weston made contact prints from 10x8 negatives, I assume that some great photographers see no need to go larger, so the unenlargeabilty of Polaroid isn't necessarily an issue.
 
I used Polaroid Type 55 in the 1970s for things that needed to reviewed quickly, before printing. It was messy, horribly expensive and despite what some people claim, not as useful as conventional material for detailed work. On the other hand, it was the only game in town. If someone wants to use it these days, then let them but I would regard it as eccentric behaviour... :naughty: :exit:
 
StephenM said:
If there isn't a difference, it negates the "Polaroid is inferior" argument. If there is a difference, it provides an artistic (and possible technical) reason to use it
Click to expand...

Well you can't judge anything (or difference) unless you see it ;)
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I used Polaroid Type 55 in the 1970s for things that needed to reviewed quickly, before printing. It was messy, horribly expensive and despite what some people claim, not as useful as conventional material for detailed work. On the other hand, it was the only game in town. If someone wants to use it these days, then let them but I would regard it as eccentric behaviour... :naughty: :exit:
Click to expand...

Eccentric behaviour??........Seems like I will have to expose some then! lol
 
Asha said:
Eccentric behaviour??........Seems like I will have to expose some then! lol
Click to expand...

Watch out for gendarmes exposing yourself o_O and there always the debate about darkroom ver inkjets prints to wind people up. :D
 
Asha said:
IMO debates and wind ups are best avoided , hence why I prefer to spend my time in this section of the forum
Click to expand...

I only mentioned darkroom ver inkjet prints as a bit of a joke as I had just browsed a forum discussing this and after reading all the posts wasn't any wiser. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top