Is "the effort" really what makes LF photography great?

[micah_marty1]

Pardon me if I�m out of bounds here, but I�ve often wondered if large-format photographers talk too much about the travails of their chosen medium. Go to a large-format photographer�s website and you�ll likely find lengthy discourse on the heavy equipment, the unwieldy format, the time-consuming setup, the expensive film, the demanding pre- and post-exposure steps to making the ultimate print. Ditto for books by and about LF photographers: in the introduction or the back there�s invariably an essay or a note explaining that readers should not expect similar results unless they are prepared to suffer greatly for their art the way that photographer does, on a daily basis. Even on this website newcomers are (to my reading) over-warned about the huge leap they are making, from "easy" 35mm and MF photography over to "our side," excruciatingly difficult LF photography.

 

<p>

 

Don�t get me wrong: I�m presently working in 4x5 and 8x10 (and have worked in 11x14), and I agree that large format photography can be very demanding, expensive, unwieldy, and frustrating. But must we repeatedly tell everyone it is so? Must that always be the starting point, the most important thing to stress about the art? I guess it troubles me when it goes beyond legitimate advice or explanation to making "the struggle" the primary badge of honor, elevating us LF martyrs above the teeming "lesser endowed" masses, with their puny cameras and postage-stamp sized film. We end up emphasizing means over ends, accentuating the creator more than the creation, focusing on "the tools" and "the process" instead of the final product. It�s almost as though we want photographs�and photographers�to be judged based on the format used rather than the final result. A great photograph can�t speak for itself, we�re saying: viewers must be told how much energy was expended to produce it before they can decide whether they like the image or not.

 

<p>

 

But what really makes a great photograph? I recall the words of a younger photographer who was lucky enough to spend time in the darkroom with large-format impresario Paul Strand, often acknowledged to be one of the greatest photographers (and fussiest printers) of all time. Strand, the younger man wrote, "never let me forget that the ultimate goal was to produce a �picture,� not a �print.�"

 

<p>

 

Thoughts?

 

<p>

 

 

||||||||||||

[daniel_taylor1]

I think there is a resonance that occurs, between process, method,

and outcome. I have always sensed it was healthy and out of respect

for the medium and those that blazed the trail before us.

 

<p>

 

two climbers reach the top of Everest. one carries oxygen, the other

breathes only the air off the Himalays unaided. we judge the outcome

as both standing on the peak, but the climbers understand the

difference.

[scott walton]

It is amazing the giberish that

some put on the toating of

equipment. The means to the end

is the beautiful quality that is

derived from the LF craft and to

me it is worth the time and effort.

To me it is preferred and not that

combersome but that is what I

prefer.

Scott

[bob_finley]

There is a definite theme of slow-demanding-heavy and of course the

always mentioned "contemplative" nature of large format. I am a

recent convert who found all of the above to be true and apparently

attractive because I tend to ignore my other formats in the quest to

master this one. I've often thought (and my 35mm friends often wonder)

why go to so much bother when you can get the same image so much

easier other ways. My answer is that I can't get the same results

either techinically or in my own personal satisfaction from 35mm as I

can from a view camera. I enjoy the process as much as the results

but I know that most people wouldn't, otherwise APS wouldn't exist.

I also am very glad that the warnings about the difficulties were

out there. I have often felt like an idiot after one or the other

mistake only to find that most everyone makes the same mistakes and

has the same problems rasseling with the beast.

I think it's wise to warn people so they don't jump in blind.

These same warnings (which I got in abundance) only served to make it

more attractive. The effort is worth it.

[sean_yates]

If I've ever had a point posting on this forum, it was that L.F.

doesn't have to be expensive and onerous and as techno-oriented as

some folks seem to think it is or want to make it seem.

[alex_corbishley]

I agree with Bob, I am glad for all the "warnings" about LF. It

helps me not make the same mistakes myself. Some people overdo it

but what can you do....

 

<p>

 

As to the equipment, I don't think that much stuff needs to be lugged

around for LF. I use the same backpack as I did for MF. The lenses

I use now are lighter weight and I use 2 instead of 4. Film is

heavier, but QL isnt too bad. The field camera is 6 lbs but a 6x7

with prism and backs, etc... weighed almost the same. I think the

weight problem is solved by how you approach it and how much $$ you

spend...(Gitzo)

 

<p>

 

The best part is viewing highly detailed chromes on the lightbox. My

advice to people shooting landscape is to seriously consider LF if

they are looking at a medium format system. Personally I "see"

better using the ground glass than looking through a tiny prism. And

the cost is about the same as new MF.

 

<p>

 

It is a big leap from 35mm but if you are technically minded and heed

the advice out there you can do this with very few mistakes. When I

processed my first box of Velvia QL all of the pictures came out,

most were in focus and I had no light leaks. I got the same results

from a box of TMAX loaded by hand - except one neg fogged on one

corner.

 

<p>

 

LF can try your patience at times but for me it is a time to relax,

enjoy the view and try to place what I see on the film.

[brad_evans2]

I totally agree aith Micah and Scott. I want to gag myself with a

loupe when I hear such gibberish.

 

<p>

 

Rebel! Proclaim to the world your LF pictures were "snapped" with an

APS camera. Hehe.

[paul_szopa1]

Micah: I would offer this suggestion. For those of us that

prefer working in large format, each photograph is an event. From

looking until we see something worth "the effort" of setting up the

equipment through printing the negative, that photograph is unique.

Even to the point of developing one negative at a time for more

precise control. Some of us brag about how much equipment we carry

in order to be prepared for that one shot, others of us bitch and

moan about how much equipment we have to carry in order to be

prepared for that one shot. But in either case, the effort is a part

of the process. What makes LF photography "great" are the finished

photographs made by careful workers, and the association with others

who share our preference for this type of equipment.

I (And others, I'm sure.) would never tell anyone to jump right

into large format without giving serious thought to "the effort", to

say nothing of the expense. But we'll be there to help out any way

we can should someone new to LF need a little support.

[j.l._kennedy]

I haven't noticed much complaining going on in this forum, but it is

the only one that I frequent. Where are you seeing this?

[david_goldfarb]

Indeed there are people who heroize "the effort" of large format

photography a bit much, but I think the technical medium is not

irrelevant to the meaning of the work.

 

<p>

 

This became particularly clear to me when I saw the Carleton Watkins

exhibit some months ago at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. I

couldn't help but think, even as I admired his remarkable

compositions and the fine tonal gradations of his albumen prints, what

it must have taken, when any trails that existed in the Sierras would

have been rough at best, many years before Ansel Adams was out there

with his relatively compact field camera, for Watkins to get to the

base of Half Dome with his 11x14 or thereabouts plate camera, heavy

glass plates, and portable darkroom for mixing collodion and coating

the plates, then making an exposure without a light meter, and getting

it all home on said trail without those big sheets of glass breaking.

Knowing something about "the effort" here can really change one's

appreciation for the photograph.

[stewart_ethier1]

One possible explanation for the phenomenon that Micah observed is

that commercial photographers may need to justify to their potential

clients the added time and expense of LF. Top-level architectural

photographers need to charge several hundred dollars per shot, and to

an unsophisticated client this will, without some explanation of the

burdens and expenses of LF (as well as the benefits), seem exces

[james___]

Because it is different! Period. The images are different also. Most

35mm and some of the MF users are happy snappers. The camera is for

them, a capturer of fleeting moments in life. Not something easily

caught by the cumbersome LF system users. Most small format users

shoot film at a prodigious rate compared to LF users. And because of

this difference in type of image and rate of film use, the two basic

styles are profoundly different. 35mm shooters generally shoot a

subject from many different angles hoping to luck out.(hahaha) Whereas

LF and their some of their MF cousins contemplate each potential

image. It takes time to setup for each shot unlike handheld cameras.

The equipment is heavy and misery likes company. And the process of

developing each type of film and printing the images. LF means detail,

detail, detail. 35mm and their MF counterparts just print for the life

of the image. Most print small due to their inherent weaknesses in

resolution. Most printing of LF is for spectacle(large) and not for

action like their puny 35mm distant relatives. Ouch! Did I say that?

And just like a backpacker fresh from 7 days out in the field, when

passing someone just starting out at the trailhead the chest seems to

get a little bigger along with the head. And the stories! Oh those

stories told at the trailhead and the last campfire at night. Same

with the LF shooter. It is different! So enjoy it. Praise it's

abilities and whine about it's problems. It's all about having fun.

But I can shoot my Speed Graphic w/flash and push film through it

until it starts smoking. Curtain shutter at a 1000th of a second can

really freeze the action too and with such a large negative. OOOOh,

that large negative. Oui ve. James

[sean_yates]

"Oui ve" ?????

 

<p>

 

Wazzat?

 

<p>

 

French for "Oy Vey" ?

[charlie_strack]

Format is a very personal thing, and in some cases defines our

personalities better than any other aspect of photography. And there

is a place for all types of formats and personalities.

 

<p>

 

I was at Yosemitie recently, when a grand view appeared. I was in a

parking lot with at least 30 other people. The sun went behind a

cloud. The bus left with most of the 30. Then the few others using

large and medium format left. One guy and I remained to see if the

sun would shine upon us again. He was using a 35mm SLR and I was

using a 4x5. I suspect someday he'll move up to LF. He has the

patience.

 

<p>

 

I don't think 4x5 is demanding, expensive (it certainly costs less to

get into a 4x5 view system than one of the MF SLRs), unwieldy, and

not at all frustrating. Above 8x10, and I think some of these come

more into play.

 

<p>

 

I find it easier to get good results with 4x5 than with any other

format, which is why I use it. If I found something easier, I would

use it because I am lazy. (Lazy is good. It makes us invent easier

ways of getting the same results.)The hardest part of 4x5 work to me

is developing, but my Bogen daylight tank fixed that.

 

<p>

 

I don't think we ought to brag or think heroicly (sp?) about our

efforts. Let our pictures speak for themselves.

[james___]

Whatever the Jewish mothers on old movies always say after hearing

their sons did something wrong. Is that how you spell it Sean? See you

learn something everyday no matter how brain dead you are. Lumberjack

[sean_yates]

Es tut mir leyd. Ikh veys nit. Ikh bin an Amerikaner.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I've never seen any books on LF photography that insist on you "suffering for your art". I have seen books books written about photographers where a writer

who is not a photographer is impressed with all the gear. The basic mindset for most large format photographers is patience, not penance. In my own large

format photography efforts it often seems like there are long periods of contemplation punctuated by a moments of frenzied activity. And Paul Strand was

absolutely correct.

[e._l.]

Back to the original question: The reason some LF people lord their

equipment over others is because they think it makes them more

prestigious. They think a larger camera means they have better

photographs, not just technically, but in all aspects. It is a status

symbol. I attended a camera club meeting last year to hear a friend

speak. Their two "large format guys" sat together, in the front row,

isolating themselves from the group. They were special, don't you

know, they use 4x5. Their arrogance was alarming. I have heard it

many times, "Well, I used a 4x5, so of course it's sharp as a tack

and smooth." I get a big kick out of them. Little do they know I have

a different LF for each day of the week if I want. I just let them

ramble on.

[ben_snyder1]

Yo Sean,

I always spelled "Es tut mir leyd. Ikh veys nit. Ikh bin an

Amerikaner." as "Es tut mir leid. Ich weiss nicht. Ich bin

Amerikaner." Do you speak western German, the type one might hear in

Punxsutawney, perhaps?

Anyway, anyone who hauls a 5x7 Linhof with a wooden tripod and

several film holders miles into the wilderness is ostentatiously

masochistic.

[n_dhananjay3]

There is more to it than suffering and equipment. Somewhat like

fishing. I mean, serious fishermen use trawlers and nets .... DJ

[daniel_taylor1]

maybe it is simpler. maybe, we feel like we have struck the

motherlode. we have stumbled upon and tripped the light fantastic,

and in our sense of wanting to share it with the world, we extend our

tripods, set our sights, and puff out our chests a bit too much. I

think it is that we are so enchanted with the process .. it is so

wonderful to behold, and that we want to share it with everyone.

[julio_fernandez]

Couldn�t resist joining the fun. A small (large?) point everyone

missed can't be allowed to rest: Serious MF and 35mm can be every

bit as heavy or heavier than LF. A Nikon F5, no lenses weigh in at

1.3 Kg. Add to that an 80-200 Zoom and now you have a 2.6 Kg load. To

cover the shorter focal lengths and macro, the weight goes up and up.

By the time you have three lenses you are not far from the weight of

a field camera and a set of lenses. In MF, same story, only worse.

This downed on me when I weighed my MF and LF gear. MF = 30 lbs. vs.

22 for LF. The latest 350mm tele for the Contax 645 is a 'feather' at

3.8 Kg. (8.36 lb) pounds; any volunteer porters? (My Master Technika

only weighs 6.1) Yes, Focal length range, (Fx/F Standard lens) which

potentially is greater in 35 and MF accounts for much of the weight

problem there. It may be said that by limiting the lenses in 35 and

MF to the same range, 35 and MF come out lighter than LF. True but

wrong: the very justification of 35mm and MF for the serious

landscape and nature photographer is indeed this wider Fx/F range.

This wider range is great for some subjects (wildlife, tele-scapes))

but for everything else it comes at the price of quality.

Finally, in 35 and MF the lenses consist of a little glass and a lot

of metal that takes the place of the bellows in LF. These "bellows"

in 35mm and MF are expensive and heavy.

In conclusion, any one wishing to brag of heroic/masochistic deeds

can do so in any format.

Julio

[dan_smith]

Serious LF shooters 'actually' shoot with 8x10 at a minimum and the

preferred format is 7x17 or larger. Serious miniature format shooters

make up the shortfall easily by hauling around 600 f/4 tele lenses.

The quest for the biggest & heaviest cannot be set by negative size

alone.

[lightcraftsman]

No, it isn't the effort, it's the prints. But you'd have a hard time

convincing most people that large format photography is not as hard as

it looks. I tried recently in Yosemite. I was set up taking a photo of

shadows on a boulder near the base of Yosemite Falls when I heard four

people walk up behind me and a man say "That's a serious camera."

 

<p>

 

They hung around while I shot, and I offered to let them look at the

ground glass. The guy with the Nikon F100 around his neck took me up on

it, and came out from under my jacket (substitute dark cloth) mightily

impressed with my photographic skills. I started to give him a quick

rundown on just how simple 4x5 cameras are, but his eyes began glazing

over before I had a chance to show him my spot meter.

 

<p>

 

He wandered off muttering something to the effect of "I'll never be

that good."

 

<p>

 

I should have run up to him and said "You don't know if I'm any good

because you've never seen any of my prints."

 

<p>

 

The prints are what we're doing this for, and they're the reason we use

large format. And with a bit of practice it really isn't all that

difficult. I find follow focusing a swimmer coming at me far more

difficult. Ever try to follow focus with your loupe on a ground glass?

I usually just prefocus and wait for the action to come into the frame.

Gotta get me one of them fancy autofocus cameras for sports.

 

<p>

 

Now that I start thinking about it, 35mm photography is much more

difficult than 4x5. With a 4x5 we can laze around and wait until

everything is perfect. If it an't, we just pack it up and go have a

couple snorts of sungle malt. Seems that every time I shoot 35mm I'm

expected to come back with good art no matter the conditions.

[n_dhananjay3]

And on the same note. Was tucked under the darkcloth, trying to

photograph the freezing waters of Lake Michigan in Feb. Came out for

a breath of air. Saw a lady in a car taking my picture. Felt mildly

curious and I looked around and besides me was another soul with a

point and shoot, also taking a picture. The incongruity between my

setup on a tripod, with loupe and spotmeter around myneck and this

unencumbered soul with just the camera around his neck was too funny.

More to the point, I think the lady had the nicest shot of the day. DJ