• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Handholdability of medium format cameras

Not that it matters here but i find your assumptions pathetic to say the least.
Im a master of fine arts at the academy of fine arts Vienna, a painter and i have studied van Gogh.
Even though I agree that on the brink of expressionism there were many examples of impressionists already using elements from 'the future ' I would have to say that (apart from the early body of work) talking of van Gogh as a (post)impressionists means not having understood the artist. Sorry.
If the phrase 'pioneer of expressionism also comes up in YOUR Google search, even better, as it is exactly what he was.
So please stop insulting from whatever (more and more) ridiculous point you are standing.

And for his brush strokes resembling out of focus areas, well if that's how you feel..
I doubt any art historian will share your point of view.
But also that doesn't really matter.
Nice day to you.
 
grat said:
... Anyone who shoots 6x6 (as an example), has probably looked at the rule of thirds at least once and thought "You have got to be kidding me!".
Click to expand...
Rule of thirds works extremely well in square format, IMO

 
xya said:
o.k. folks, I'll no longer follow this post. since how many pages there's nothing about the op's quite interesting question?
Click to expand...
you just never know when a thread decides to come out of a closet, then it's anybody's guess where it will go.
 
The point of view on Van Gogh by one reminds me of the joke that describe a post WWII parade. All the soldiers are in step but one and his mother announces that "All the soldiers are out of step in unison but my son."
 
Amazing! Fascinated by the meandering course of some threads. This one started with someone unable to hold his camera steady, but then began to discuss a myriad of topics.. This is one of the charms of APUG.
As for square, the rules of composition do apply. However, composition depends upon the frame. The square frame represents stability. Difficult to make dynamic composition, not impossible but difficult. For me, the square gives more wiggle room for composition when printing.
 

Some reject the square format because they do not have the intelligence to compose in said format.

​
 
Just looking at your clumsy, on the nose condescension, I have a very hard time believing you have any background in academia. You'd be more sophisticated in that regard if you'd seen the inside of a university.
Looking at your conclusions and assessments, I'm pretty much certain.
I'd find it totally amazing if you had a masters in these topics from a reputable institution.

You where the one who mentioned Post-Impressionism in connection to Van Gogh. So you must not have understood him.

Impressionism was among other things a reaction against, and with the new medium of photography. Using new synthetic pigment, tube colours to do what photography couldn't do, while at the same time emulating some of the truth to nature and spontaneity of the new medium. Of course the distinct brush strokes and swathes of colour is (among other things) referencing, alluding to and stylising out of focus areas of human vision and the camera. That is pretty well attested and agreed upon.

Also, curious how an alleged Van Gogh expert (or an expert of any kind) pops up on the internet, when discussion falls upon the subject.

If it doesn't matter then stop writing.
 
Last edited:
xya said:
o.k. folks, I'll no longer follow this post. since how many pages there's nothing about the op's quite interesting question?
Click to expand...
A. How nice of you to let us know.
B. Feel free to steer the thread back on what you view as the right track.

The very specific subject was pretty much exausted for now, so why not just let the thread wander as conversations tend to do?
 
Many of them are probably laws of nature in some sense of the word.
That is, they in some way or form adhere to, or are related to the common basics (and not so basics) of human vision.
Other ideas are of course cultural constructs and are intertwined to varying degrees with genetic dispositions.
Trying to look through it, or take away culture to get to the “real” reason composition (or any aesthetic principle) works, and it’s influence on perception, is flushing the baby out with the bath water.
Humans are culture, and we are by evolution set to be.

Basic ideas of composition and pleasing proportions and appealing geometry, appear in the earliest cave paintings, indicating that a lot of "it" is innate to humans.

The rule of thirds was never a classical composition technique. And when first mentioned in the late eighteenth century, it’s not at all in the form and widespread understanding and use of our time.
RoT got launched upon and held tight as the main "rule of composition" by the common prol, because it is easy to understand, remember and pass on.

The OP was unsure about the photo himself. The very fact that it's hard to get a handle on it, though it still appears homogenous and does not benefit from cropping (despite attempts) elevates it to something else. I don't quite know what, but it definitely is better than the average of this type of photo.
 
Last edited:
Good luck Helge.
May you find joy and interesting discussions.
Not with me maybe

Ps. My reference to van Gogh as a post-impressionist referred to his early work, before he moved south. All the images you posted where from his later years, so..

I didn't mean to insult you, your way of imposing yourself with a (and now your word clumsy might come to mind) initial statement about van Gogh "His paintings are basically nothing but highly swirly bokeh." , it was simply provocative
But insult was not my intention, therefore..
Sorry
 
Last edited:
grat said:
Never said it didn't. But square format is one of the best places to totally ignore it as well. It's all about what you're trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...
As everything subjective so is this argument, mine or yours. Once upon a time not using rule of thirds was a sin, sometimes the sinnest of sins. But things have evolved and I'm not going to marginalize square format as having advantage over ANY other format for whatever purpose it is to be used or message it is to convey.

Ultimately any image starts with the eye of the photographer and eventually lands in the eye of the beholder, a reason I appreciate opinions without losing sleep over ones that contradict my own. They may have a valid point, hence the appreciation, but procrastrination is just a sin I choose to avoid, if possible.
 
Sirius Glass said:
Some reject the square format because they do not have the intelligence to compose in said format.

Click to expand...
I differentiate between format, the size and shape of the image on film, and frame, the shape surrounding the limits of the picture. Some pictures do work better with a square frame, but most don’t. The advantage of the medium format square format is that it allows far more flexibility in choosing a desired frame than 35mm and smaller. The 35mm frame allows much less flexibility, hence the mantra to shoot full frame. Minox is restricted to shooting only full frame to get any kind of decent results.

The frame is a rather modern convention of Western Art.
To confine oneself to a single frame shape seems pretty limiting to me. Subject and frame work hand in hand to determine final choice. The frame of more than one painting recognized as a piece of great art was either cut down or had canvas added when artist realized an alteration of frame was needed.
 
Of course, Van Gogh was nuts.
 
While is is often said that the square is a "static" format, I think it can become more "dynamic" if a major element of the composition runs to the edge of the frame, preferably on a diagonal. Just MHO.
 
I think panoramic formats work better when you are sitting down with peoples heads in front of you. Panoramic formats work very well in a theater. On a gallery wall, however, the square format works well.
 
Panoramic pictures have their place, but again dynamic composition is difficult. As for the silver screen, I feel that Kurosawa was one of a very select few who could control wide screen. Most wide screen movies have uninteresting cinematography. Panoramic pictures do have their place in scientific pursuits and certain kinds of scenery. For 50 years I thought about getting a panoramic camera but so far have resisted this incidence of GAS.
In some ways panoramic pictures should be viewed in a way similar to looking at Chinese scrolls.
 

If "dynamic composition" also means mouvement, perhaps this...



Linhof Technorama 617 II + Super Angulon 90mm, F11 t: 1/500 sec. HANDHELD on Tri-X @ 1000 ASA in X-tol 1+1 15 min/ 20°C.
From my book 'PARIS DANS MON GAND'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register