Miniature faking?

Just do some free lensing with your M9. Un mount the lens and hold it flush to the cameras lens mount without twisting to lock in place then tilt or shift. You'll get somewhat similar results without spending a dime
 
Looks to me like Burnett was definitely using movements in some of those shots. Many do look like "straight" shots making use only of the shallow DoF.

Given his artist pass (or whatever is was called) and the length of these events, he would have had plenty of time to set-up and configure the camera so movements don't seem impossible.

Not sure what your best/most cost-effective route is to achieving something similar.
 
The equivalent 35mm lens to a 7 inch f2.5 Aero-Ektar on 4x5 would be a 50mm f0.9, if such a lens existed. The nearest real-world lenses would be a Noctilux or a Canon 50/ 0.95.

The film used would need to be slow (ISO 12) and extremely fine-grained.
 
Thanks for this.

So.. Who wants to lend me a Noctilux for a day or two?! Or a Canon 0.95!

Scrambler said:
The equivalent 35mm lens to a 7 inch f2.5 Aero-Ektar on 4x5 would be a 50mm f0.9, if such a lens existed. The nearest real-world lenses would be a Noctilux or a Canon 50/ 0.95.

The film used would need to be slow (ISO 12) and extremely fine-grained.
Click to expand...
 
I agree. My fear would be trying to learn LF from scratch, and the cost of a new system I'll rarely use again. And presumably even with movements he could focus like you do on the street, at a point where the action will definitely be happening in advance?

Paddy C said:
Looks to me like Burnett was definitely using movements in some of those shots. Many do look like "straight" shots making use only of the shallow DoF.

Given his artist pass (or whatever is was called) and the length of these events, he would have had plenty of time to set-up and configure the camera so movements don't seem impossible.

Not sure what your best/most cost-effective route is to achieving something similar.
Click to expand...
 
That's the problem with large format, other than press cameras (with few, minimal movements), it's not really made for snapshots. It's made for slow, careful tripod composing. And is a lot of fun! Check out the http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/forum.php forum if you want to learn more. Or try some of those fast lenses, and/or a swing and tilt adapter.

Many people want to use digital cameras and digital post processing to replicate the way cameras worked in the past. To me, it's more fun to just do it the original way. We see fake Petzval swirls, fake wetplate, fake Instagram "old school" colors, fake camera movement blur/focus, fake short depth of field, and on and on. There appears to me an attraction to the old looks, and if you study large format portraits or landscapes taken by good photographers from the 1840s til the 1980s, you can see why the quality is attractive.

Yes, learning to do things the original way is work. But it's more rewarding than the instant, digital manipulations.
 
I totally agree!

I'm just aware that as I'm working on a new show at the same time, I may not be able to experiment and have the time that I would when I work on photographic projects in isolation.


goamules said:
That's the problem with large format, other than press cameras (with few, minimal movements), it's not really made for snapshots. It's made for slow, careful tripod composing. And is a lot of fun! Check out the http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/forum.php forum if you want to learn more. Or try some of those fast lenses, and/or a swing and tilt adapter.

Many people want to use digital cameras and digital post processing to replicate the way cameras worked in the past. To me, it's more fun to just do it the original way. We see fake Petzval swirls, fake wetplate, fake Instagram "old school" colors, fake camera movement blur/focus, fake short depth of field, and on and on. There appears to me an attraction to the old looks, and if you study large format portraits or landscapes taken by good photographers from the 1840s til the 1980s, you can see why the quality is attractive.

Yes, learning to do things the original way is work. But it's more rewarding than the instant, digital manipulations.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom