A VERY IMPORTANT TIP Large Format Photography with the Deardorff 8 by 10

[@archerpiperii2690]

Back in the '90's I shot 8x10 while doing commercial work. The images were stunning...it was something that digital has just never quite been able to capture for me. Phoenix, AZ

[@MichaelWellman1955]

I fell in love with 8x10 25 years ago. There is nothing like it. Thanks for sharing.

[@bthemedia]

Must have been a rare lens to shoot f4.5 with 8x10 coverage! Such a classic camera and workflow though - with still amazing results!

[@MichaelWellman1955]

Max aperture was 5.6 they were suppose to expose at f45

[@lichtmaler]

I am having a 4x5 and I think my next step will be shooting 5x7 / 13x18. The enlarger is already a brick. You need a lot of space for an 8x10 enlarger. The Deardorf is a beauty - no doubt.

[@nicksknackstech]

I saw one once. Took up a whole room lol. I want to go back and ask them to enlarge color on it.

[@benelgar-white1174]

So, it's not 9 stops, it's 6. 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 32, 45. Also you absolutely can overexpose large format film. It's still the same film as in a 35mm camera just cut to a different size and shape. All the principals of iso, aperture and shutter speed still apply. I'm guessing you shot on Portra which is famously resilient to overexposure and would make sense for this shoot since it's brilliant for skin tones. Good thing you nailed the focus since at 8x10 an f5.6 is about the equivalent of manual focusing an f0.7 on full frame. You got a great image out of it.

[@luissalazar2021]

Great teaching, great job, great art, and great teamwork thanks for sharing

[@sydneybrink4188]

Interesting video, but what was the very important tip? Also, I never stop the lens all the way down, it degrades the image. It is called lens diffraction.

[@RobMoses]

That camera is bananas!

[@fkp-1353]

FWIW the lens you show in the video looks like its the Schneider 300mm APO-Symmar f6.8, not the f5.6 version.

[@bojackphotography3451]

Once I get good with medium format, ill be moving to 4x5, then to 8x10

[@gearoidjefferson263]

What about an 11x14?

[@TeteRecinos]

9 stops! Hot damn. Was it slide film or negative?

[@tylershieldsvideos]

negative slide film would have been destroyed

[@toulcaz31]

@@tylershieldsvideos Was it Portra?

[@tylershieldsvideos]

Negative film

[@user-lu8mc3wo3i]

Great video. I fell in love with the Deardorff 8x10 when I got a book of Avedon portraits. Just curious what serial is your 8x10?

[@user-ti9zc1xv2b]

Not sure why you can't oveexpose LF film?

[@lichtmaler]

you can

[@bunyowbub]

Mr. Shields's supposition is VERY misleading. Of course you can overexpose film to the point of being unable to recover usable image data. He overexposed by 6 stops, which isn't enough to ruin color negative film. If he had been using a transparency emulsion, he would certainly have ruined those sheets beyond redemption. Its unfortunate that many are going to read his remarks and take them literally.

[@user-ti9zc1xv2b]

@@bunyowbub I've had great looking portra that was over exposed 8 stops lol

[@sidneyrago]

audio terrible

[@bunyowbub]

Gentlemen, it is grossly misleading to state that “you cannot overexposed film” (not to mention that the difference between f5.6 and f45 is NOT 9 stops), because your example is almost certainly at the farthest point of overexposure and still being able to retrieve usable information. Please don’t tell people things like this - they might actually take you literally.

[@davidrichards6718]

over exposed by 9 stops and that result, mmmm dubious, the shadows would be registered as highlights on the film and the highlights way out of the range of colour neg film which has a latitude of about 6 stops(ish), I suppose you could have cut the development by a few stops, but never heard of a 9 stop pull in processing. f 4.5 on 8x10 is a rare lens too. he might have set the lens wide open, probably 5.6 or 8 and used an appropriate shutter speed for the film stock.

[@user-ti9zc1xv2b]

I've succesfully pulled 10 stops before, extreme cold developer.

[@SmalltimR]

I think 5.6 works out to be 6 stops to 45

[@bunyowbub]

@@SmalltimR Correct. Mr. Shields cannot count, it seems.

[@iankuc6827]

Max density of the negative film is a useful tool in situations like this.

[@alfredv9902]

He said it was exposed at f5.6 (and should have been at f45). At +5 overexposure, very decent results are possible, 6 stops over is believable. See link. kzbin.info/www/bejne/imSyeq2gndpsm9E

[@toulcaz31]

What saved you also is that the subject is quite far from the camera. At 2 meters from the subject you would have got about 7cm of DOF. That camera was Richard Avedon's favorite outdoor camera by the way...

[@tylershieldsvideos]

its a great camera

[@toulcaz31]

@@tylershieldsvideos Did you try the Sinar Norma 8x10? That was Avedon's studio camera and a beautiful machine work.

[@dleach02]

and why can't you overexpose?

[@Machster10]

Good story. Yes a happy accident indeed!

[@creepyloner1979]

you can't overexpose 8x10???? film doesn't give a fuck what size it's cut down to. 8x10 overexposes exactly the same as 35mm. ffs.