keith_laban Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
dean_lastoria Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
audidudi Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
paul_owen Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
james_chinn Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
scott walton Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
richard_deimel Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 It's not the camera, it's the photographer who's creative. LF movements foster creativity by allowing much more and more precise control of all elements, but it comes down to the individual photographer and his style, and what he's comfortable working with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_billups1 Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
wilhelm Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 It ain't the format, it's the G.D. tripod! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan brewer Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
walter_glover Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
david richhart Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
jonathan_brewer1 Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 WOW!...Eidetic! One things for sure Walter, nobody'll ever accuse you of having a slim vocabulary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter brown - www.peterbro Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
fw1 Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 Only after I gave up my Nikon and went to 4x5 did I feel that I was actually part of a creative process. <p> Eidetic - that's stuffed with duck feathers, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan brewer Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
rob_pietri3 Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
nathan_congdon Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
echard_wheeler Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 Two of my favorite photogs. Sally Mann and Jock Sturges use 8x10. They're work is very uninhibited. <p> ec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperfocal Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 <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 More sharing options...
james phillips Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
jonathan brewer Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
charlie_strack Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 No, I don't think LF inhibits my creativity. I don't think any equipment can inhibit my creativity. I only have me and my brain to blame. Too bad. I'd like to blame something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cesar_barreto Posted January 11, 2002 Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now