The comparative value of Larger format shots..

I look at the best photos posted on this website, and of course

typically they are now from digital PS and 35mm cameras. A few come

from MF and LF. In fact I can recall at least one LF photo selected

for POW. But the ratio is vastly in favor of smaller cameras.

 

My question is: would you rate a photo differently if it from a LF

camera, as against a dinky digital gadget capable of giving out

perhaps no bigger than 3 Mega Pixels. Obviously the photos posted

here are small enough that perhaps 3 Mega Pixels are an overkill! But

that is what we see: small photos.

 

I know how hard it is to get one good shot on LF (or MF too) camera,

as compared to say 35mm format! But the point I am asking is:

 

1. what counts? Should we look for the impact, and just chuck out the

film size as the criterion for creativity or technique!?

 

2. Talking of impact, would you consider that a LF image would be

possibly enlarged much more, and the size does add an impact of its

own!

 

Please note, this is not a LF vs. rest debate, or digital vs film or

something like a A vs B debate. Many thanks.

The answer depends on the purpose of the photograph. If one wishes to enlarge enough to view from a distance, a LF image makes 35mm or digital look like a toy. If one it photographing subjects that require movements of LF equipment, 35mm and digital simply cannot do the job unless one uses a digital back on a LF camera.

If one it taking shap shots to post on the internet or to keep in an album, 35mm is great and digital is ok if you get a decent, meaning non-ink jet-print. If you want to post in the internet and not print, digital is hard to beat. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. But if you want a very high quality image to enlarge, 35mm and digital just will not do the job as well as LF.

I don't think the subtlety that LF is capable of can really translate to the computer screen in a forum such as this.

I judge images here independent of what equipment was used to make the image.

Most LF photographers don't seem to give two hoots about who has a good snapshot up on photonet.

 

so first, they tend not to bother posting (a good number of them don't even have scanners) and secondly, it really isn't important to most of them. (so both reasons explian in part why you don't see much LF on the photonet galleries).

 

The photonet galleries are their own little self contatined world with their points systems and often highly cliched images. Lets say that's not where most LF photographers are (I can't imagine, say, a LF photographer from the LF list who might be a Guggenheim Fellow with exhibits all over the globe and numerous books taking the time or having the inclination to pop up a few images on the photonet galleries...?)

Lakhinder,

 

In this context (ie the internet) it doesn't matter what format the image was captured with. What counts (as always) is the quality of the image as it is presented to us. Since all the images here are small digital files, they are what we should judge.

 

I believe the LF Photo of the Week you are referring to was probably my "Haunted Wood" image. If we were to lay out the print of that against some of the smaller digicam prints and judge them, things might change, but online, it doesn't matter. If we need to assess the way an image was formed to assess its value, it becomes an exercise in futility due to the infinite number of ways we can work an image.

 

Cheers,

Graeme, your image and Bobby Douglas's (Crystal Mill) come to my

mind as LF POW.

I briefly thought the same thing a few months back, that format should be taken into consideration. Coincidentaly (not) I just started using a LF camera. I was blown away by the results from my darkroom, but the photos themselves weren't received quite so well on photo.net. I thought "man, if you could only see this 16x20."

 

But all that is kinda pointless. I like Graeme's response a lot, and a few others here. As a novice, shooting lots of cliche shots that lack imagination and are hopefully just really nice to look at, photo.net is invaluable in improving my work. I like it that my LF stuff is judged right alongside DSLR work. It helps me focus on things like lighting, composition, subject matter. Really important stuff. It's just too easy to look at a plain vanilla b/w dramatic landscape (I'm blessed with amazing scenery nearby) from the big camera and say THAT'S IT, that's what I was looking for. Photo.net and the egalitarian approach to image rating helps push me beyond that stage.

 

However, I retain the right to assume that any rating below a 7/7 on any LF piece I post has been provided by a nitwit. It's just too much work to not carry that sword of self-delusion.

 

Mac

It shows in larger sizes on the wall, but not on the computer. Ilug the stuff around for the fun.

<p style="margin-bottom: -5px">I'm sure for every 1 LF photo taken, there is a 100 MF ones and 1000s of 35 mm/digital ones. So, it makes sense to me why there are relatively few LF image photos winning POW.</p>

 

<p style="margin-bottom: -5px">I like that my LF/MF images are rated right alongside that of the smaller formats and folks are ignoring formats and equipment. It does keep it in perspective. If we were getting judged on our 36" x 45" prints, it would be another matter, of course, but we're not. </p>

 

<p style="margin-bottom: -5px">Images here are being rated on aesthetics and originality. And, while I would agree that LF's capabilities can (and should) affect aesthetics, I would hesitate to say it has any bearing on the "originality" rating. Percentage-wise, we LF-ers take just as many photos of waterfalls, sunsets, and trees as the rest of the photographic community. There really is some great stuff coming from all formats.

 

<p>Regards, Bruce     <a href="http://www.brucegcollier.com">www.brucegcollier.com</a></p>

maybe you consider, that the qualities that produce a huge impact with a LF shot and carefully printed picture don't show up at internet.

The reception of tiny pixelpictures at a (typically) uncalibrated screen require a totally different concept, then a well framed and physical available print under a good lighting. Also nothing compares to the feeling of literally diving into a 5x7 or more slide first without, then with loupe. Not even a print.

So IMHO a computer-screen is just not an adequat medium for most receptional concepts wich lead to LF photography.

You may remember movies wich totally suck at a TV screen. Or imagine a imagine a soccer game in a cinema without talking to your friends, lots of beer a.s.o.

Martin

It's all subjective my friend. I see very few photos that I call good, much less great - including my own! Format is irrelevant to quality - it's also a much different experience - I doubt that Larry Clarke or Nan Golding or Ryan McGinley could do their work with a calumet 45 and it's very possible that the above would care to or know how to use one!<div></div>

Last week I took a long weekend with my 35 mm (Provia) and my 4x5 (old Tri-X). Shot a roll of Provia but no Tri-X. I didn't find what I wanted. I think this is a pretty common experience: you take your LF gear on a trek, and some days you don't shoot anything. Other days, you make 4 or 6 exposures, and they are stunning.

 

My wife and I are part time professionals, switching to full time in a few years. We shoot weddings, portraits, etc., in color and b/w. But the LF treks I do for me.

 

I think I enjoy LF because it has NO automation, requires a discipline sequence of actions simply to make an exposure, and requires me to slow down and think about what I want to do before I do it. I did not understand "previsualization" until I started shooting LF. Now I do.

 

I don't post LF because you can't appreciate the image unless you see a gloriously large print.

 

/s/ David Beal ** Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

"I did not understand

"previsualization" until I started shooting LF. Now I do."

 

So help me out here - if you "pre-visualize" something, at what point to you actually visualize it?

You actually visualize it when you see the final print in all its glory.

 

Randy

"You actually visualize it when you see the final print in all its glory."

 

Er no - that's seeing. Visualize: "to form a mental image of" or "to make visible to the mind a thing not visible to the eye" (when you can actually see it, you don't need to form a mental image of it - that's the whole point).

 

So, when you visualize the photograph, you form a mental image beforehand of how you imagine it will look like.

 

So, back to my original question - At what point before you visualize it do you "pre-visualize" it and what the heck does it mean? How do you "pre" form a mental imgae of something - what is the stage before you form a mental image of the photograph?

AA says to previsualize the finished print (including, I guess, the printing method, developer, film base and all) before even pulling the trigger.