What is the absolute worst piece of advice aboutLarge Format you have ever gotten, read or over heard?

What is the absolute worst piece of advice about Large Format

you have ever gotten, read or overheard?<P>What piece of

'common knowledge" turned out to be just plain dumb when you

looked into it?

Without any doubt,Merklinger's focusing tome!("Focusing the View

Camera")What a long winded pointless piece of literature!Page after

page of formulas & charts & graphs,all trying to tell you to tilt the

front board a bit!IMHO,this is a concise compendium of stale bullsh-t!

Ive yet to meet any one that has benefited from the good profesor's

words.

I did a stupid thing yesterday out at Lake Travis in Central Texas. I

pulled out the dark slide and set it on top of the camera to help

block light from the film holder. I turned my back for a minute,

looked up, and it was gone. I didn't want to admit that it could have

blown into the lake, but it had. Thankfully, I managed to retrieve it

before I left.

I would have to agree with Edsel... the thought of a bevy of

photographers in the field, debating whether to use the hinge rule or

the Scheimpflug rule, and trying to estimate "J" is frightening.

Merklinger's book, which I read and enjoyed (his other one, "Ins and

Outs of Focus" is even better), would be totally unnecessary if it

weren't for the fact that EVERY other large format book that mentions

the Scheimpflug rule fails to mention that this rule gets you only

half the way to where you want to go. Like every other large format

photographer, I focus by eye, and not charts, but some understanding

of the theoretical underpinnings is helpful when you are first trying

to grasp what is happening on the ground glass. Unfortunately, most

books stop at the Scheimpflug rule. All that rule tells you is your

plane of focus will be somewhere in all the universe of possible

planes that intersect with the lensboard/camera back intersection. It

doesn't tell you anything else, and it is completely useless (by

itself) for teaching anyone anything about how to focus a view

camera. This was extremely frustrating to me, because I knew there

had to be another factor, but all the books (including Stroebel's)

acted like the Scheimpflug rule was the end of the analysis. I

couldn't tell if I had a massive brain tumor or all the books were

wrong -- each was equally (un)likely.

<p>

Merklinger proved the books were wrong, and gave me the other half of

the equation. Of course by the time I found his book I had given up

on the theoretical underpinnings and was just focusing by eye, but his

book explains very well what happens. His other book is great at

resolving that other problem: why whenever I use the hyperfocal

distance scale on my roll film cameras my pictures are fuzzy. And no,

he doesn't just do the standard circle of confusion math and conclude

you should use the f8 scale when you are shooting at fll. Both his

books are excellent works, but I agree, you wouldn't want to apply the

theory directly to practice. Nobody really does that, I suspect: the

book is about teaching you the why and how of what happens, so you can

apply the theory in the field by eye.

<p>

The worst advice I ever got was to buy stuff new. Or wait, maybe the

worst advice was to use TMAX.

I know I'm in the minority, but I much prefer a reflex viewer to a

dark cloth.

<p>

Someone told me early on that reflex viewers were worthless, and that

no serious photographer would use one. Rather than trying it for

myself, I struggled with a technique that didn't suit me.

<p>

On the positive side, that experience helped evolve Rule #0: If it

works for me, it's good. Phooey on what everybody else thinks.

Early in my 4x5 experience, I attended a weekend workshop during which

I set up a shot in which there were a series of perfectly vertical

trees in the foreground flanking a steep downward slope leading to a

waterfall. I wanted to get the slope and the waterfall in perfect

focus and so tilted the rear of the camera to establish a Scheimpflug

relationship. Noticing that the tops of the trees were now way out of

focus, I asked the teach how I could correct the problem. His response

was to tilt the front of the camera in the opposite direction to

compensate for the rear.

That LF makes you better, you make yourself better, 35mm brings

out one quality, MF brings out another, using LF, you rise to the

occasion, but it was always in you, the demands of LF are just an

excuse to bring it out or you wouldn't have voluntarily bought a LF

in the first place.

<p>

Also the idea that Kevin touched on, that some folks scoff at the

idea of using a reflex viewer with a LF camera. My binoc. reflex hood

works for me, besides, I grew up in LA, so bending over and then

putting a dark hood over my head is being too trusting a soul for me,

although my hat's off to anybody who does it that way.

I also read the Merklinger articles, and they are a nice explanation

of why things work, but I still just eyeball the glass. It's faster

and easier. I don't care how big angle J is. My bigger problem is

with Zone System "gurus" who go into excruciating detail without

telling you anything. For instance they may say "decrease the f-

stop" but never say if you are to use a smaller aperture (higher f-

number), or use a smaller f-number (wider aperture). Then to

compound their crime, when you do the math, the effective EI always

seems to go *down*, no matter if they are talking about N+2 or N-2

(or whatever). I'm not dumb. I understand that pushing film

increases contrast, pulling film decreases contrast. So why all the

double-talk?? Of course many are just trying to hook you into buying

their latest book (probably more double-talk).

"Don't bother with large format. You can do everything you can

do with sheet film with medium format better and cheaper.

Large format is dead."

<p>

I originally received several comments like this from

"enlightened" individuals when I was first considering moving up

to 4x5. I wonder what they'd think if I told them I was doing all

my personal work in 8x10 now.

I've gotten this one more than once, and 2 of my personal best pics

are the results. A workshop teacher says "you're wasting your time,

that shot will never work, the highlights will be all blown out", and

a second one, I'm setting up for an interior shot by tipping my lens

through a broken window pane of a long abandoned pipefitters shop that

has stopped in time and a couple of guys with medium format's and

tripods are saying "What the hells in there to take a picture of??"

So come on you nay-sayer's, I need another good shot!

"It's not worth the trouble and expense."

<p>

"Nobody can tell the difference unless you make ridiculously

large prints."

<p>

"No one does that these days."

<p>

"Why would you want to use that camera?" (A Sinar Norma)

"It takes terrible pictures." (True enough, if you insist on only

using three-year out of date polaroids)

In 5 or 10 years there won't be any film...everything will be

digital.

.1 over film base plus fog. That, and filling out little notecards on

zone placement for every exposure I made. The first piece gave me

marginal negatives for years, and the second just wasted a lot of

time.

<p>

But Ellis, need to do the flip side on another thread - What about the

best advice?

Im always amused by the "techies",that shoot LF.They would have you

believe that only a yaw free camera with a modern($)multicoated piece

of glass will do.The truth being that an old battered bellows & a

funky single coated,vintage lens can give you the same or better

results!The smaller formats & (of course digital),is all about

technology.Fast glass & automatic everything is great,when you need

it.There is a simple purity to LF work,that the other formats dont

have.Trying to modernize LF is an effort in futility.LF is all about

the images,not the cameras!Seeing those gorgeous prints is what its

all about.Sure a yaw free body & a $2K lens are nice,but unnecessary!

I can't resist this one. About 3 weeks ago I was taking some

nightime shots at a university campus and a japanese

exchanage student sees me fiddling with my 7x17. He began

berating me. 'What are you doing! There is no picture here. This

is nothing. Why are you doing this!' He walked away and actually

spat on the ground in disgust. Needless to say, the photo has

now been printed in palladium and is beautiful, in my opinion.

This is the first time I've actually encountered hostility about a

composition.

<p>

Clay

<I> Im always amused by the "techies",that shoot LF.They would

have you

believe that only a yaw free camera with a modern($)multicoated

piece

of glass will do.The truth being that an old battered bellows & a

funky single coated,vintage lens can give you the same or better

results!</I><P> Not necessarily. It depends on the work you are

doing atthe moment. But for most fB&W landscape and portrait

photograsphy I have to agree with you.

Usually advice given is meant to help someone, but if I had listened

to and implemented all the ideas proffered about photography and life

in general, I would either be a lawyer, or someone who is strapped in

a hospital bed feeling the spittle inch down my chin. Here is a

sampling of well-meant advice that my poor life has received

throughout the years :

<p>

�Why do you read so much? You should watch more TV�.

<p>

�Your going to give her this for her birthday? It�s a picture of

weeds! I�d dump a man if he gave me this!�

<p>

�With the amount of hours you spend in the darkroom, your going to

burn out.�

<p>

�I wouldn�t buy an expensive camera if I were you. You will probably

fiddle with it for a few months, and then never use it again.�

<p>

�Your overexposing your film by 3 stops?!� followed by incredulous

laughter.

<p>

�Leave the print in the developer between 1 1/2 to 3 minutes.�

<p>

�I use wood glue when mounting my prints.�

<p>

�Get a job.�

Worst piece of advice - Start and stay with 4x5 as it is the most

popular format and is the only possible remnant for conventional

photography in large format. Buying a 5x7 camera? Have you heard of

the Edsel? 8x10 and larger is completely unnecessary in every aspect.

<p>

Worse piece of "Common Knowledge" - Use film/developer combinations

that the pros use as they have done all the work for you.

This isn't a single piece of advice, but a pattern of advice that is

insidious, and it comes from the great Adams, whom I love to pieces in

general: The advice, diffused throughout all his instructional

writing but concentrated in The Camera, is to have a bunch of lenses

to get you through all these kinds of situations that arise. This is

bad advice for beginners, and it can get the most experienced LF

photographer off-track. Beginners should be told to get "a" lens and

then get their heads under a darkcloth. Money should be spent on

film, chemicals, and printing paper. -jb

Can't take a picture in the wind.

<p>

I just got back from California where I took some pictures in

considerable amounts of wind (on the coast, where I almost lost my

balance due to wind on one occasion). Using a Tachihara (which I've

heard is not rigid enough for windy conditions) and no umbrella

(because the umbrella I had was about to collapse in the wind) I took

pictures anyway. I even had to steady the quickload envelope with my

hand (touching the camera... ooh! bad!). Slides came out acceptably

sharp anyway.

ha!! what a great thread. well my contribution is not a bad piece of

advice, just the best comment i've ever gotten by a passer-by. over

the years as i stand next to my camera at night in downtown Seattle,

making multi-hour exposures of urban trees, i've gotten quite a number

of hilarious comments, wierd looks, people thinking i'm everything

from a cop doing surveillance to an astronomer shooting the stars.

but the best one was this 17-year-old punk-looking kid with his

girlfriend who walked by with all their earrings and raggedy clothes,

and without even slowing down he looked at my camera, and up into the

tree, and said "oh yeah, tree shots" and they kept on walking.

HA!!!!

<p>

~cj

That you can't make images that are worth a darn shooting in mid-day

light.

jeff, i couldn't agree more. it's always amazing for me to see guys

out with their massive 35mm rigs-- several camera bodies, a whole

collection of lenses, a linear foot of filters, a bunch of

different kinds of film, all in an enormous padded bag that's twice

the size of my 4x5 bag (which is an old rucksack that contains my

camera, one lens in an old cardboard box, 5 filmholders, light meter

and some knicknacks). i shot for 7 years with only a 210mm lens, then

four years ago bought a 135mm lens that i have only taken one picture

with so far-- i see everything in "normal" perspective so i have

little use for additional lenses...!

<p>

~cj

<p>

~cj