LF and MF are quite often tripod based, giving limited movements of the camera, which may be fine for a static scene. However, I remember seeing a shot in Valencia which made me sprint to the location distance I wanted and once there I could adjust my angle/height to the exact composition I wanted (all in a very short time frame). This my overiding consideration for preference of 35mm.
I don't see how that can put 35mm head and shoulders in front of MF and LF, especially since MF and LF have bigger images, better resolultion and more flexibility in framing
Remember that one format camera is not going to be universally suitable for all subject matter, especially as skills and diversity build up over time.
I agree that one format is not going to be universally suitable for all subject matter. But how can you claim LF and MF (given tripod mount) give more flexibility for framing?
By practicing what I preach!I'm referring to the size of the format.
How is a tripod going to restrict composition and framing?
Because you can't instantly move the camera 2cm to the left, or 20cm lower, or 1 metre closer in a fraction of a second.
I don't think that is practical in action at all. Prior to docking the camera on the tripod, it is common to walk around eyeing the subject (with any format camera), and repositioning the tripod to that point. Nothing more should normally be necessary, especially nothing more with LF given the complexity and time needed to set adjustments. I've never ever needed to move the camera in a "fraction of a second": what's the hurry? If I need to tweak the image, and never quickly, I employ a tilt-shift lens, but that is entirely a separate matter to movement of the camera, which does not change.
Because you can't instantly move the camera 2cm to the left, or 20cm lower, or 1 metre closer in a fraction of a second.
If you are photographing living and moving people that is very different indeed to the premise of photographing stationary subjects how were any of us to know what you were referring to?. If speed, spontaneity and automation is important, use whatever camera you wish for the subject if it needs speed and portability, but one cannot assume it is necessary better than MF or LF in skilled, experienced hands using less automation and refined, paced technique. Remember for decades and decades MF was the only format photographed for weddings, with many beautiful abstract processional movement images created by locals I know of (additional to static portraiture). Weddings have also been shot on pinhole cameras (!).
Probably then, MF and LF is not for those stepping from the comforts of SLRs photographing action to MF and LF, but experimenting with processes and methods in the bigger, more cumbersome and thought-intensive format can be just as educational and foregoing much-loved creature comforts of 35mm.
I agree, but would also point out that the way of working I am suggesting is completely devoid a of thought-intensive process.
I agree, but would also point out that the way of working I am suggesting is completely devoid a of thought-intensive process.
Then photography is not for you!
The best images are created in the mind's eye with considered thought. The camera is just a black box to hold the film. I don't care much for the hot-shoe-shuffle of positioning/repositioning of the physical camera and whatnot. I'm interested in capturing the image as I have envisioned it. Please move on from small matters.
Now, go out and get some photography done.
some photography is made with considered though
but i would say that not all the best photography is.
there are plenty of photographers who don't think
or don't have to think because it is second nature.
it IS possible to make photographs without thinking about it.
just as it is possible not to take 1/2 hour or an hour to compose and meter &c
a "view" with a large format camera
... i don't think i have ever spent that long ... ( 24 years with LF )
i have plenty of better things to do with my time than pointless meter readings
and waiting a hour to depress the shutter. if it took me that long to expose a frame
( i can't see why 35mm would be any different ) i'd have studied dentistry.
I don't think that is practical in action at all. Prior to docking the camera on the tripod, it is common to walk around eyeing the subject (with any format camera).....
I haven't got LF...yet!
BUT...I have 30-odd 35mm cameras and one MF...I rarely use 35mm nowadays unless I'm shooting fast action stuff where autofocus and fast shutter are handy, or when I need something compact because I'm not on a photo trip but don't want to be without a camera.
Also occaisionally just because a Contflex or a Bessamatic can be fun to shoot with...
So...motorsports and action, 35mm. Everything else MF.
LF when I get my hands on one!!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?