Handholdability of medium format cameras

chris77 · Oct 11, 2020

Helge said:
See if you won’t answer despite your put-on, clumsy, bohemian-coy, blasé.

The images posted certainly have impressionist elements, and more of those than real, expressionist elements.
You shouldn’t have used the direct phrasing of one of the first google hits: “pioneer of expressionism” (also the title of a dubious book).
That kind of gives your depth of grock away.

Like postmodernist architects are really in most senses modernists, in stance and in their use of shape and vocabulary, so are Post-Impressionists really Impressionists at heart.

There is a great deal of higher abstraction and symbolism in much Impressionism, even early on.

And the whole reason this is mentioned, is that one of the main characteristics of Impressionism and of van Goghs art, the prominent, impulsive brushstrokes, resembles out of focus areas. And are probably originally, at least partly, developed as an abstraction of that.
I never said they where the exact same thing.

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.

Deleted member 88956 · Oct 11, 2020

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!".

Rule of thirds works extremely well in square format, IMO

chris77 · Oct 11, 2020

Witold said:
Rule of thirds works extremely well in square format, IMO

Great example!!

grat · Oct 11, 2020

Witold said:
Rule of thirds works extremely well in square format, IMO

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.

xya · Oct 11, 2020

o.k. folks, I'll no longer follow this post. since how many pages there's nothing about the op's quite interesting question?

Deleted member 88956 · Oct 11, 2020

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?

you just never know when a thread decides to come out of a closet, then it's anybody's guess where it will go.

Sirius Glass · Oct 11, 2020

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."

guangong · Oct 11, 2020

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.

Pieter12 · Oct 11, 2020

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?

Maybe the question wasn't that interesting after all...

Sirius Glass · Oct 11, 2020

guangong said:
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.

Pieter12 · Oct 11, 2020

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

View attachment 256851

A while ago I wrote a little about the square format on my website: https://pdekoninck.com/Untitled-Page

Sirius Glass · Oct 11, 2020

Pieter12 said:
A while ago I wrote a little about the square format on my website: https://pdekoninck.com/Untitled-Page

Helge · Oct 11, 2020

chris77 said:
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.

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.

Helge · Oct 11, 2020

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?

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?

Helge · Oct 11, 2020

grat said:
Rules of composition are not laws of nature. They're guidelines to producing pleasing images, and usually they work. 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!".

Out-of-focus foregrounds are fine-- I agree, in this case, it breaks up the relentless horizontal imagery-- but I also agree that without a gradual transition into rest of the photo, it's disparate-- disconnected. A razor-sharp, strikingly lit landscape has been photo-bombed by a fuzzy rock.

But, that's only because the discussion came up. Ordinarily, my reaction would be "That's a really nice photo. Something about it seems a little off", and I would classify it in my brain as a slightly less than perfect image, but fantastic to look at nonetheless. I apologize to the original photographer-- Must be a bit irritating seeing one of what you should consider your better photos being dissected in a thread that's almost certainly going to disintegrate.

I think, from a technical perspective, that it should have either been focus stacked (two images, one near, one far), or perhaps this is one of those cases where scheimpflug might come in, and some front tilt might shift the plane of focus enough to bring both the foreground and the critical background elements into sharpness. I'm still learning the limits of that trick, though.

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.

chris77 · Oct 12, 2020

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

Deleted member 88956 · Oct 12, 2020

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.

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.

guangong · Oct 12, 2020

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

View attachment 256851

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.

Alan Edward Klein · Oct 12, 2020

Helge said:
Van Gogh is possibly the worst example you could give. His paintings are basically nothing but highly swirly bokeh.
But the history of painting is full of blurry and indistinct foreground elements. It’s a way of framing and it’s a way of creating context.

Of course, Van Gogh was nuts.

Deleted member 88956 · Oct 12, 2020

Alan Edward Klein said:
Of course, Van Gogh was nuts.

He was, jury is still out whether he had them too.

Donald Qualls · Oct 12, 2020

Witold said:
He was, jury is still out whether he had them too.

Before or after the ear in the mail incident?

Arthurwg · Oct 12, 2020

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.

ic-racer · Oct 12, 2020

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.

guangong · Oct 13, 2020

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.

Philippe-Georges · Oct 13, 2020

guangong said:
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'

Handholdability of medium format cameras

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Deleted member 88956

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency