Jump to content

Does large format inhibit your creativity?


keith_laban

Recommended Posts

Theoretically the large format camera has the potential to be a very creative tool. With all those movements the possibilities would seem to be endless. Unfortunately I see little evidence of creative or original work and much obsession with perfect front to back focus and other formulae.

 

<p>

 

Whilst I see much exciting work on 35mm and medium format I am surprised by the lack on large format. I admit it could be that I am not looking in the right places!

 

<p>

 

Does the large format camera actually inhibit creativity and if so why? I am particularly interested in photographers personal work, not their commercial output.

 

<p>

 

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

 

<p>

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My photo's ... none of them are in focus -- worked hard to do it to.

Here's the thing. If your photo is the target, you can machine gun

with a 35mm and after 36 exposures get a hit, or you can use the

view camra like a morter ... and miss. It hurts to miss, but you

can snap of 3 cannisters of film and still miss.

I like to take my time. I could be just as bad with 35mm. So, I'd

have to conclude with, you can be just as good or bad with either,

it's your style that counts.

Dean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I shoot medium-format, not large-format, I do find that

using a view camera tends to cramp my style, at least a little.

 

<p>

 

In fact, for much of what I'm shooting these days -- abstracts, urban

landscapes, etc. -- I've gravitated toward using my Minolta Autocords

(a '50s vintage TLR) instead. They're not only smaller, lighter and

quicker/easier to use, they have a lens that imbues my images with an

aesthetic quality that I've been unable to duplicate with any other

lens. Better still, since I compose my images as squares, they don't

have to be cropped later. However, when movements are necessary or I

need to focus closer than 3.5', then I dig out my Toyo 23G and drag

it along with me instead.

 

<p>

 

In a perfect world, I'd probably substitute a three-lens Hasselblad

Arcbody outfit for both cameras but as my photography is still a non-

income producing hobby, the cost is too high for me to justify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith, quite the reverse! The secret is to use movements only when

necessary and for the camera not to get in the way of what your

trying to make/take/create. When I first got my LF camera I wanted to

use movements all the time!! Sometimes I could have taken the photo

just by focussing!! Remember the mantra "its not the camera but the

person behind it, its not the camera but the person........"

Regards Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith,

 

<p>

 

There is a lot of creativity with large format, but done in the

context of what a large format camera's strengths are. That is a

very precise rendering of the subject in greater tonality, depth and

detail than other formats. If I want part of the image to be skewed,

have limited depth of field in focus, converging parallels etc, it is

my decision with the controls of the camera.

 

<p>

 

Recently I have started using a Holga 120 plastic camera for the fun

of it, after seeing some really wonderfull work by a couple of

friends. I am attracted by the focus- sharp at the center and softer

as you move to the edges. I like the idea that you never know

exactly what you will get with each shot. That you have settings for

focus and only two aperatures permanently set at 1/100. In other

words it is the total antithesis of LF. No thinking, planning the

shot, choosing lens, camera position, aperature filters etc. Just

compose and shoot.

 

<p>

 

Of course the Holga is not my pinhole camera, not my Nikon FE or FA,

not my Mamiya 330 and not my 4x5 or 8x10 camera. Each camera and

format promotes a certain style of creativity with its strengths.

 

<p>

 

One needs to be careful about comparing work across formats. Most

photographers choose a camera and format because it is the right tool

to make their statement.

 

<p>

 

One is not going to see the more fluid and spontaneous work done in

35mm with LF because it isn't possible, unless you are very adept at

using a Speed Graphic. Some subject matter can be photographed with

both medium and LF, but if the photographer's vision includes 30x40

or larger prints, he is probably going to choose LF to acheive the

final results. Sometimes you just need to have a different "tool" to

acheive your vision on paper.

 

<p>

 

If you do not read them already, View Camera has a fairly good

sampling of work by contemporary LF photographers, and Black and

White Magazine frequently highlights photoraphers in the Spotlight

section who use LF in a variety of ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, not at all. In fact it is the reverse. As one poster

said, you can machine gun 35mm and still not get what you want. Large

format makes you work your subject, makes you slow down and makes you

see differently. The poster above said that he started with a Holga...

After being persuaded to stop being such a technical shooter, a few

friends handed me a Holga and told me to just shoot, don't even look

through the view finder... I said what a waste of film and time. Boy

was I wrong! I shoot corporate and sometimes there is no room for

"creativity" and that is where I refresh my batteries and shoot with my

4x5 and Holga in the great outdoors. Some of us, commercial shooters,

persue a different avenue like Kallitypes, Platinum and other

alternatives that require large negatives and this is another way to be

more creative in our everyday lives... at least this is my story. Large

format shooting helped me be more methodic and focused in what I was

doing in every format!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Keith,

 

<p>

 

Good question. I suppose it depends on individual tastes and

definition of what "exciting work" is. Each format has its

advantages and disadvantages. If there is one thing I have learned

from photography, it's that there is always a trade off. I may gain

an advantage in one area with a particular format but give up

something else in return. I think this is what contributes to it

being so challenging and enjoyable though.

Perhaps you could provide some links to some images that you feel are

exciting and of interest. Then I could get a better idea of where you

are going with this.

I will admit though, that many of us large format photographers fall

into the technical rut and sacrifice creativity as a result.

But again. I feel you have a valid question.

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

 

<p>

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got all three formats now so I would say this, you see the

shots of Kertez, Eugene Smith, Scavullo, Gordon Parks, Avedon, and

plenty of others, what was original or distinctive or imaginative

about the work was independent of format.

 

<p>

 

I'm excited as hell about my 810 and its gigantic negative, which

is why I've just started to get into contact printing with it, but

35mm and MF are formats that also have their strengths that aren't

always that readily apparant.

 

<p>

 

I dislike firing off my 35mm gear 'machine gun' style in a

somewhat blind attempt to 'come up with something', rather I use my

35mm gear to first get the shot, and then bracket and recompose and

try things. The happy accident where you try something and get an

interesting result you can use for later photographs is what I live

for, when I'm not trying to do a portrait.

 

<p>

 

You don't have a big neg with 35mm, but for me it's the 'you've

got the shot, now try something different' format, without the time

factor and pressure of wasting the $2.00 a pop for B&W, $7.00 a pop

for color in LF(810).

 

<p>

 

MF is of course still rollfilm, the films a little cheaper but

the negatives bigger but you can still try things, and I'm not saying

you can't try things with LF, it's just harder to do. Sure there are

folks who use a 35mm like a movie camera and just run through a roll

with the expectation that they'll be something there.

 

<p>

 

Nowadays you can do that with some MF, but regardless of format,

I like taking the time to look through my camera and size things up

and making reasoned decisions along with some idea for choosing a

particular exposure.

 

<p>

 

You can't sell 35mm and MF short, even though if I had the chance

to go back to the exact moment of every keeper that I've gotten in the

other formats and redo them with a big LF negative, I would. That is

the exact reason you have different formats, 'out and about' when I'm

carrying around a 35mm, I like to hang my 35mm under my armpit, and

most of the time nobody notices I've got a camera until I raise it up

to take a shot, which gives me a tremendous advantage that I wouldn't

have with the other formats.

 

<p>

 

In terms of the issue of originality with LF, I would refer you to

the 'Keepers of Light', a book on alternative processes which

inspired me to get into LF and contact printing, which has LF work by

the masters as creative and fresh and original as anything ever done

in the other formats.

 

<p>

 

I recently saw an exhibit in LA of Edward Weston and there is a

Masterwork called 'Summer Sunshine' which has the freshness of shot

that was 'caught' in spite of the fact that it was done in LF.

Perfectly composed, exposed, and executed.

 

<p>

 

In addition to the commercial,landscape, and architectual work

that some folks do here, there is portrait and street scene work, and

the whole spectrum of subject matter in LF that you would find in

35mm/LF. There may be a style and a subject matter in LF you may not

agree with or find boring, but if you check out everything in LF as

I've done, and the work of the masters since the beginning, it's all

there in whatever flavor you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith,

 

<p>

 

Large Format does not impede the creativity of the creative.

 

<p>

 

A thread started last week postulated that there was little

justification for the overwhelming pre-eminence of nature

photography. In their responses forum members confessed to

having no particular creative or artistic aspirations. They

confessed that 'Art' is beyond their capabilities. They like the

aparatus, materials and processes of large-format photography.

They like mountain climbing/hiking/wilderness, etc. and take

their camera along for the ride as a vehicle of escape.

 

<p>

 

Those objectives have little or no relationship to the 'photograph'

or creativity. In all probability those nature expeditions and all

other genres of photography could be adequately accomplished

any camera: something as simple as a point-&-shoot with a

great deal less effort and for a lot less money, a Helga, a 35mm.

But that would never do. These folk use large format. Why?

Perhaps as an apology for their professed absence of creativity

and innovation.

 

<p>

 

I am not branding all Large Format photographers with this

summation, of course. Just the vocal majority; those who seek

to foster and perpetuate the philosophy of a small band of largely

West-Coast photographers whose heyday was 70 years ago.

 

<p>

 

The eidetic image was novel, back then. To portray the world

and the objects in it with draftsman-like precision had an impact

because it was new. But the once-new is now stagnant, stale.

The world has moved on but, like the Amish, many large format

photographers are unwilling to break the bonds that bind them in

the past. .

 

<p>

 

The perfect description of the lens is a unique property of

photography; it sets photography apart from the other mimetic

arts. It is not the only property of photography. Great asset as it

may be, in the hands of the unthinking its monotony can render it

a liability.

 

Erudite, free-spirited and courageous photographers will

continue to be creative on any formats appropriate to the task at

hand. Sciolist dilettantes will only occasionly, and by accident,

produce work that rises above camera-babble.

 

<p>

 

Walter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is a matter of large format impeding the

photographer's creativity. <p>

A very large % of LF work is made up of sharply focussed images not

because the photographer was impeded, but because that is the type of

image he chooses to accomplish, and the controls provided by the use

of LF processes are STILL the best method to accomplish that... <p>

Sharp focus can also be extremely abstract... as in some of the works

of Brett Weston, Fredrick Sommers, Minor White, and others... -Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo Walter! Well said, and I agree with your sentiments.

 

<p>

 

Keith, here is my response to your questions;

 

<p>

 

1) >Theoretically the large format camera has the potential to be a very

creative tool. <

 

<p>

 

It is.

 

<p>

 

2) >With all those movements the possibilities would seem to be endless.<

 

<p>

 

They are.

 

<p>

 

3) >Unfortunately I see little evidence of creative or original work and much

obsession with perfect front to back focus and other formulae.<

 

<p>

 

How do YOU define creativity? Originality? Please give some examples?

 

<p>

 

4) >Whilst I see much exciting work on 35mm and medium format I am

surprised by the lack on large format. I admit it could be that I am not looking

in the right places!<

 

<p>

 

Perhaps you ARE looking in the wrong places - Isn't there just as much

"non-creativity" and "unoriginal" work in 35mm and MF?

 

<p>

 

5) >Does the large format camera actually inhibit creativity and if so why?<

 

<p>

 

NO!

 

<p>

 

 

Kind regards

 

<p>

 

Peter Brown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd forgot to mention in my thread above that Westons 'Summer

Sunshine' was basically a 'portrait study', and what impressed me

about Weston was that he knew his way around portraits in a format

that takes a lot of time to set-up and shoot, and could still catch

the spontaneous 'look' he got in 'Summer Sunshine'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice question with many answers. Personally, I started with 35mm but

quickly realized that it would not produce the quality I wanted for

the type of work I was doing, nature, landscapes, etc. (in NJ of all

places) My first 4x5 was one of the original Wista 45s, wood, minimal

movements. The larger format and zone system, forces you to carefully

compose, and balance your composition. The only movement I really

cared about was the rising front so to keep the camera level and

better frame the subject without converging lines. For still lifes,

large format is the way to go. For stop action, obviously 35mm is the

choice. The right tool for the job.

 

<p>

 

My recommendation is if you are really serious about photography, you

should learn on a view camera, probably a 4x5 for economic reasons.

After a few years, composition will become instinctive, the balance

and feel will be automatic so that when machine gunning 35mm, you

will be far more sucessful in your imagry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts:

 

<p>

 

1. LF selects for perfectionists, and, to SOME extent, equipment

junkies. Neither of these necessarily foster creativity.

 

<p>

 

2. In any format, you need to spend a certain degree of time

mastering technique before you can be creative in any purposeful way

(you may generate accidental "creative" results by giving fingerpaint

to monkeys, but the work will not be likely to fascinate for long!)

At any given time, more LF users are perhaps in the "technique-

learning" phase, as it is a bit harder to master technically than 35

mm or MF.

 

<p>

 

3. I've felt better able to express myself creatively over time the

longer I've shot in LF, and the more time I spend ruminating and

mulling over the shots and their meaning to me in between making

them. During this time, I have certainly become a lot less obsessed

with perfect focus and using the sharpest or newest lens. I've had

no particular desire to gravitate to smaller formats, and now mostly

shoot 8X10 and 12x20.

 

<p>

 

4. Some of the most creative portrait-makers out there today are

shooting 8X10. Sally Mann, Nicholas Nixon and Jock Sturgess would be

three immediate examples. There is no contemporary collection of

photos that I find more evocative, beautiful and worthy of repeated

appreciation than Mann's "Immediate Family." Apparently I'm not

alone in this, as Time magazine recently (and surprisngly!) named her

the greatest living photographer.

 

<p>

 

Nice provocative question...

 

<p>

 

Nathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very good question! I used to wonder the same thing and

stayed out of the LF world for a long time since I didn�t see that

much exciting work there, mostly statis landscape. I was impressed

with that Japannesse photographers book on the Hyimlayans (circa

1970s) which was all shot with a Pentax 6x7. Ditto Robert Glenn

Ketchum�s work. Thus I resolved to stick with my 6x7 and tried for

about 5 years to get those kind of images. Mostly I came up empty,

but did get some nice 16x20 cibas off velvia. The problem was that I

was drifting towards the LF landscape genre and I just couldn�t get

the DOF or perpsecitve control afforded by the Pentax. Thus I sold

the gear and jumped into 4x5.

 

<p>

 

Yes, there are countless times my mind says: If you only had a hand

camera �. Or if you could pack the gear in easier and shoot dust free

roll film, there are shots to be taken that you can�t get with the

4x5. But I wonder how many times a subject absolutely requires a

singular format? Look what Porter did with a view camera and birds!

I've always thought that no matter how great a shot is, there's some

diminishment of value when it's on too small a format to do much

with.

 

<p>

 

I looked thru some of Eugene Smith�s work and it�s so incredible, and

it would have been difficult to take with a 4x5, although the hand-

held Linhof Tech users may beg to differ. Thus I will probably get a

6.45 camera at some point. Maybe a Mamiya or Pentax that has a 55-

100 zoom. Contax is too $$$$.

 

<p>

 

Yet the creative process transcends format.

 

<p>

 

Always a tradeoff �.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>"Does the large format camera actually inhibit

creativity...?"</I><P>No.<P>How are you defining creativity?

There is a difference between creative seeing which might be

going on even if you think you are looking at a technically straight

forward image, and technical gimmickry. On the other hand there

are far too many photographers who are way too content in just

making a technically perfect and emotionally and intellectually

dead image. <P>Photography is just a medium for visual

communication, and primarily it is first of all a medium that

touches you on a sensual level ( the beholding of the image or

the print) and then you feel it on an emotional level, After awhile

you start to consider it from an intellectual distance. If the image

fails on any of these levels, it is a failure. But who can say what

an individual viewer's emotional or intellectual capacity? All you

can do as an artist is try to be true to your own vision of the world.

if you are good and honest to your own standards -- and if you

have really pushed against those standards and found which

are durable -- others will also respond.<P>

Here are the names of some photographers who work primarily

or partially in large format and whom I think are very creative:<P>

Richard Avedon<P>John Sexton<P>Robert Adams<P>Mary

Ellen Mark<P>Nicholas Nixon<P>Sally Mann<P>Jack Dykinga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Keith,

 

<p>

 

As a newcomer with less than two years experience with large format I

would say "yes it does inhibit my creativity". This is probably

because when using other formats the compositional options are less

distracting. With MF or 35mm you have a choice of perspective

framing , lens selection and camera placement all of which can be

explored rather easily and quickly by handholding the camera. When a

person shoots using a large format camera you have movements which

offer you more to be creative with but require more time to learn and

understand. Also the image is larger encouraging you to spend time to

better frame your subject as well as being upside down bring about a

different part of your brain into play. The necessity of always using

a tripod also tends to reduce spontaneity into the shooting session.

Not being able to quickly handhold and focus an impromptu shot tends

to complicate things a bit.

 

<p>

 

 

You can no longer just walk around twisting your handheld camera to

this angle and that angle exploring the possibilities but rather must

think ahead before setting up your camera with the dark cloth. If

what you anticipated is not there then much more effort is required

to relocate your shooting position in comparison to a handheld

camera. Of course with LF shooting comes the learning curve and your

mind needs time to move past the basics and return to creative

composition. This time will be different for all of us based upon

previous experience and how often you can go out and shoot with your

LF equipment.

 

<p>

 

 

For myself, I am learning so much more about seeing and compositional

elements because I now need to take my time that I feel the learning

curve is well worth the time invested. I also must add that although

it is a bit frustrating not obtaining as many decent shots as I might

with say a 35mm camera, I am most definitely enjoying my shooting

sessions considerably more. I am now more than ever before exploring

my shots from within before viewing the scene through a viewfinder. I

am forever hopeful that I will learn the view camera advantages and

that they will become intuitive in my future. When this occurs I

believe that I will have regained the creativity I may have left

behind and now will have a much better understanding of my tools and

materials.

 

<p>

 

Kind Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking 'Machine gunning' a 35mm, clouds the issue, especially in

tems of using 35mm as a learning tool. It enables you to do a lot of

different things, differently, and then move on to something else.

 

<p>

 

It is at is best when you happen upon something that is

transient, if you've camera loaded up, you've got a chance at this

brief instant, that might be gone in the time it takes to set up a

tripod. You're right about LF being the best with certain subject

matter, but I disagree with you that it's the format to learn on.

 

<p>

 

The term 'Machine gunning a 35mm', I think among other things is

suggestive of the technique of an individual who doesn't pay attention

to technique. There's no excuse in shooting that way just because you

have a motor drive, there should be attention to detail, careful

composition, and the idea that 'careless' is ok, is more a statement

on the shooter than on the gear, regardless if it's 35mm.

 

<p>

 

The Masters who I alluded to in my first thread, are the proof to

what you can do with 35mm, the fact that they did what did, isn't

dimished by the fact that they shot what they shot with 35mm. You're

not going to hear anybody say, 'yeah, that was a great shot, too bad

Kertez it shot it on 35mm'.

 

<p>

 

I remember a post a while back, where there was an individual who

was a little depressed, down on himself a little, because his LF stuff

wasn't coming out the way he'd like. He said something to the effect

of 'My shots are no good', I think that his being down might have been

accentuated by the fact that he might have invested quite a bit of

time into each shot.

 

<p>

 

I think It's a better deal to try your hardest, be careful, think

about what you're doing, and go out and do a lot with 35mm(no 'machine

gunning', with the implication of carelessness), and find your 'niche'

and 'comfort zone' and your photographic tools.

 

<p>

 

There are plenty of people here that still use 35mm along with

their MF and LF gear, I know that from their e-mails. Whatever 35mm

is or ins't, it has, and will be an important and cost effective

learning platform for countless photographers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith,

 

<p>

 

For sure, LF inhibits our steps. And makes us think. And look

carefully. If thinking and looking carefully makes one less creative,

well... that's a problem.

It took me some fifteen years of 35mm to find out that I had allways

been shooting on LF way. Although a bunch of people say I'm a "great

artist", I just try to keep having fun with photography.

When shooting LF I sense difficulties as like climbing or playing

tennis. One doesn't look for the easiest way or heaven's help.

There's a inevitable sense of "doing things" when you deal with

tripod, dark-cloth, lens setting, etc. And that's fun!

After all that trouble - print on the table - I love the idea of

seeing some work that shows my fingerprints everywhere. Not a single

sign of AF, Matrix, dpi, bits or whatever alike!

After all, I can say: I made this picture.

Good or bad, it's mine. Mistakes make me laugh and, sometimes, they

look good, indeed.

So, whatever to expect?

Geniuses, real artists, create from nothing, empty board.

Photographers usually start from something quite real, almost ready,

lying behind their lenses. Accident, sometimes can help us making

some really terrific pictures. But we can't count on that. I think we

got strugle hard to put some personal stuff into our frames, whatever

we use Nikon, Wista or Holga. And it takes some thinking. Or

intuition, I'm not sure. But I suspect that using silicon-brained

cameras and weird photo-shop tricks, we're way apart from discovering

something personal on our work. Or about ourselves.

Time usually does it.

 

<p>

 

I hope you've the patience.

 

<p>

 

Best regards. Cesar B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...