Handholdability of medium format cameras

[Helge]

Nice example of hand-holding. I would crop foreground out when printing. Maintaining a full frame image only works when maintaining a full frame image works.
Cropping out the foreground will also give the same image a shift-lens would have produced on 6x4.5, without a shift lens.

Are you nuts? It’s exactly the symmetry of the mirrored and juxtaposed mountain range and the wire and the stones, over the absolute straight centerline, that takes this from another cliched “look, I found another landscape with absolutely straight lines!” photo.
It took minutes of care to line that up.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Are you nuts? It’s exactly the symmetry of the mirrored and juxtaposed mountain range and the wire and the stones, over the absolute straight centerline, that takes this from another cliched “look, I found another landscape with absolutely straight lines!” photo.
It took minutes of care to line that up.

The foreground provides the viewer with a place to stand rather than be hovering over the water.

 

[guangong]

When first introduced Hasselblad was a commercial success in spite of mechanical deficiencies of 1600F and 1000F because it was designed to be handheld. When Hasselblad’s redesign produced 300C, they retained original shape and dimensions. No other MF SLR comes close with regard to ease of handling. No extra hand grip needed. Same can be said of TLR Rolleiflex. For general photography keep it simple. Folders can be held steady when relaxed and loose. Leaning up against a wall or post won’t help if the body is tense.
Focusing with camera at belly or stomach level must only work for little people.

 

[ic-racer]

Are you nuts? It’s exactly the symmetry of the mirrored and juxtaposed mountain range and the wire and the stones, over the absolute straight centerline, that takes this from another cliched “look, I found another landscape with absolutely straight lines!” photo.
It took minutes of care to line that up.

Nothing wrong with your interpretation for sure it is a great image and I hope you didn't think I meant YOU should crop that out. I'm used to working with view camera with tilt so I personally would be upset and crop that out or used front rise only it were my image. I occasionally get unintended negatives like that because, as you may or may not know, closely examining the very top of the ground glass for a sharp image can be difficult, especially with an 8x10 camera high on a tripod.

 

[Helge]

Nothing wrong with your interpretation for sure it is a great image and I hope you didn't think I meant YOU should crop that out. I'm used to working with view camera with tilt so I personally would be upset and crop that out or used front rise only it were my image. I occasionally get unintended negatives like that because, as you may or may not know, closely examining the very top of the ground glass for a sharp image can be difficult, especially with an 8x10 camera high on a tripod.

But you’d make the composition much less appealing.

There’s is a whole theory of pictorial composition, that is not an “exact science”, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and that there isn’t millennia of experience and guidelines. (vis-a-vis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox)
Our visual systems, while varying a tiny bit from person to person, has a lot in common.

Symmetry might have been out of fashion for the last hundred or so years in the pictorial arts, but that doesn’t mean it is without merit or place.
Our visual systems react very strongly to symmetry and mirroring of any kind.

This is a better photo than

This

 

[grat]

It's very subjective. Personally, I like both photos, but I find the out-of-focus foreground to be somewhat jarring. My brain attempts to process the foreground into being as sharp and detailed as the rest of the photo, and it simply doesn't work. I agree that it adds something to the frame, but I'm not sure if the positives outweigh the negative.

But it's not my photograph. My interpretation isn't, and shouldn't be. the same as yours.

 

[Helge]

It's very subjective. Personally, I like both photos, but I find the out-of-focus foreground to be somewhat jarring. My brain attempts to process the foreground into being as sharp and detailed as the rest of the photo, and it simply doesn't work. I agree that it adds something to the frame, but I'm not sure if the positives outweigh the negative.

But it's not my photograph. My interpretation isn't, and shouldn't be. the same as yours.

We should aspire to that.
Unsharp foreground as a no no, is one of those recent inventions that everybody has latched onto, and behave like it was always cut in stone.
It can work.
Of course it can, just like most “bad things” done right.
And here it does, I’m pretty certain.

Aesthetics is not ultimately subjective, and is not “a matter of taste”.
That is a late twentieth century trope, via diluted and misappropriated enlightenment and later art critique and theory (in the idealistic rush for general education and liberal arts for everyone).

One of the first things to remember when taking a photo is that you are dealing with a two dimensional medium, and it will be first and foremost be experienced as that.

 

[MattKing]

It's very subjective. Personally, I like both photos, but I find the out-of-focus foreground to be somewhat jarring. My brain attempts to process the foreground into being as sharp and detailed as the rest of the photo, and it simply doesn't work. I agree that it adds something to the frame, but I'm not sure if the positives outweigh the negative.

But it's not my photograph. My interpretation isn't, and shouldn't be. the same as yours.

Aesthetics is not ultimately subjective, and is not “a matter of taste”.
That is a late twentieth’s century trope, via diluted and misappropriated enlightenment and later art critique and theory (in the idealistic rush for general education and liberal arts for everyone).

One of the first things to remember when taking a photo is that you are dealing with a two dimensional medium, and it will be first and foremost be experienced as that.

Aesthetics may not be mainly subjective, but they are variable.
They can vary with medium, with geography, with cultural influence and with time.

I too found the out of focus foreground jarring in the example posted. I am much more comfortable with an out of focus foreground that transitions gradually into an in focus subject.

But I agree that my interpretation doesn't affect the validity of yours.

Tat being said, I'm always happy to suggest a crop. Just as I'm always happy to receive suggestions from others. I think that a good photograph tends to contain all sorts of value, and it is not unusual to find that when others come upon your photographs "fresh" they see things that aren't as obvious to the photographer, and prioritize things in ways that may make better use of what is there.

FWIW, this is the crop that appeals to me:

 

[etn]

I too found the out of focus foreground jarring in the example posted. I am much more comfortable with an out of focus foreground that transitions gradually into an in focus subject.

FWIW, this is the crop that appeals to me:

Matt, thank you for your comments! Every day is a school day.

 

[Helge]

Aesthetics may not be mainly subjective, but they are variable.
They can vary with medium, with geography, with cultural influence and with time.

I too found the out of focus foreground jarring in the example posted. I am much more comfortable with an out of focus foreground that transitions gradually into an in focus subject.

But I agree that my interpretation doesn't affect the validity of yours.

Tat being said, I'm always happy to suggest a crop. Just as I'm always happy to receive suggestions from others. I think that a good photograph tends to contain all sorts of value, and it is not unusual to find that when others come upon your photographs "fresh" they see things that aren't as obvious to the photographer, and prioritize things in ways that may make better use of what is there.

FWIW, this is the crop that appeals to me:

View attachment 256638

Now it’s just like a lot of other “lines through a landscape” images.
You robbed it of its interesting geometry, in the dual translation and mirroring of some of the horizon lines.

Some of the basic compositional rules followed in the original was:
Repetition. It creates “meaning” to seemingly insignificant, random details. In the same way a seemingly badly played sequence of notes reveals itself to be a delightful new invention, in music.

Negative space. Again this technique, instills a “yin yang” effect, where everything feels meaningful and connected, and the 2D nature of the image is shown attention.

Breaking the rules. That can work when it is obviously done on purpose to provoke and create tension.

Rule of odds. There is an unequal number of dark and light bands to counter the symmetrical bisection of the photo. This is lost in the crops.

And so on.

These links might be of interest:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetic_relativism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetic_absolutism

One age old, and recently rediscovered (by add guys, through work with among other things focus groups) is that people are generally very bad at vocalizing/writing down what they really think of a product or piece of art.

And they are even bad at being honest and straight with themselves, letting all kinds of mental bias, and superficial cultural flotsam and jetsam come into play.

People will scathingly criticize something new and different (even subtly different) initially, and then later become ardent supporters/users of the same thing.
Often without acknowledging it, or making up some kind of add hoc explanation to themselves.

If you want peoples “honest opinion” on something, you actually need a great deal of experience and smarts to get useable results.
Often only time will be the true arbiter.

 

[MattKing]

You robbed it of its interesting geometry, in the dual translation and mirroring of some of the horizon lines.

And by cropping, I increased the emphasis on the many lines that remain.
Which increased interest in them.
It also increased "slightly" the weight given to the background to the scene - the almost invisible but still very important features of the hills in the background.
But not everyone will weigh those different factors the same way I would.
Any time I see reference to compositional "rules", I suggest that people spend some time with similar compositional rules in different cultures. It may give them some sense about how inductive such rules are - induced from many representations that reveal common expectations and experience, rather than derived from some sort of first principals.
Compositional rules can be handy shorthand, but they are dangerous if used as crutches. And they are too soft and insubstantial to ever be "broken".

 

[ic-racer]

This is a better photo than
..
This

It is your photograph, so of course it is. That is the fundamental concept behind being a visual artist. Determine what you like and show it to the rest of the world,

 

[Helge]

And by cropping, I increased the emphasis on the many lines that remain.
Which increased interest in them.
It also increased "slightly" the weight given to the background to the scene - the almost invisible but still very important features of the hills in the background.
But not everyone will weigh those different factors the same way I would.
Any time I see reference to compositional "rules", I suggest that people spend some time with similar compositional rules in different cultures. It may give them some sense about how inductive such rules are - induced from many representations that reveal common expectations and experience, rather than derived from some sort of first principals.
Compositional rules can be handy shorthand, but they are dangerous if used as crutches. And they are too soft and insubstantial to ever be "broken".

A surprisingly number of these rules are, or look very much like they are universal and grounded in “first principles”, that is cognitive biases. How scenes are analyzed, and how the most basic parts of human vision works, starting with the simple processing in the retina.

The first ever painters abided by them, even with edgeless “canvases”.

For example, there’s is a theory that the Asian painting style, of simple lines and and strong contrast (which has been tremendously influential in the west since its import and popularization), is actually grounded in the same evolution that gave the east Asians slightly different folds around the eyes and a complexion different from the Caucasian. IE strong arctic sun. This induced slight cognitive bias to view the world a certain way.

But of course a large part of how we look at images is due to cultural ballast (exactly how much is impossible to say since it’s very interrelated with the innate). But:
A. That is not cheating or wrong.
B. That cultural ballast is remarkably homogenous in a given cultural group.

And very importantly, it’s not reductionist.
There is infinite room to play, explore and evolve within these rules, tools and cultural dogma.

By your crop, you “revealed” yourself as part of the modern school of mock essentialism or folk minimalism.
Knowing when to cut and when not to, is essential in any art.
Being naively, aping/learned minimalistic to the detraction of the depth and roundedness of an photo, is just as bad as being naively too inclusive.

Every element should play a role, but less is not always more.

Of course a lot depends on the scale the image is meant to be viewed at.
Photos for mice can’t convey the same “ideas” as a wall sized mural.

There is an unfortunate tendency to compose for Instagram or photo competition judges scrolling through a list of thumbs.

 

[Helge]

It is your photograph, so of course it is. That is the fundamental concept behind being a visual artist. Determine what you like and show it to the rest of the world,

And you are looking for appraisal, approval and ultimately prestige from your images, if you show them off.

So you want other people to like them, without feeling they have to, or indeed can fix them up.

Again, relativism. It’s ultimately circular reasoning and turtles all the way down.

And no, it’s not my photo.

 

[ic-racer]

This isn't Prince's either...

And no, it’s not my photo.

Of course, this isn't Prince's ether, though it is cropped the way he wanted. Too bad it is not medium format, because it could segue back to the original discussion.

 

[MattKing]

By your crop, you “revealed” yourself as part of the modern school of mock essentialism or folk minimalism.
Knowing when to cut and when not to, is essential in any art.
Being naively, aping/learned minimalistic to the detraction of the depth and roundedness of an photo, is just as bad as being naively too inclusive.

Every element should play a role, but less is not always more.

Of course a lot depends on the scale the image is meant to be viewed at.
Photos for mice can’t convey the same “ideas” as a wall sized mural.

There is an unfortunate tendency to compose for Instagram or photo competition judges scrolling through a list of thumbs.

Nothing aped here - and to assign such a label to someone's personal preferences is on the edge of rudeness.
I have preferences, and they are no doubt quite conservative in many ways, but I would never have the unmitigated gall as to tell someone that their preferences are naive.
Or to tell someone that I could do better than they have done with a photo that matters to them.

 

[Helge]

Nothing aped here - and to assign such a label to someone's personal preferences is on the edge of rudeness.
I have preferences, and they are no doubt quite conservative in many ways, but I would never have the unmitigated gall as to tell someone that their preferences are naive.
Or to tell someone that I could do better than they have done with a photo that matters to them.

I’m sorry you took it as a personal insult.
“Naive” needn’t be as negative as you seem to think.

Trouble is, on the internet everybody is an expert.
I just happen to actually be an educated expert (saying it is always construed as wild megalomania sadly), but would have as hard a time proving it, as anyone proving anything online.

With art there is a general feeling that anything goes.
The second there isn’t lives or money at stake, as with engineers, scientists and medical professionals, when something isn’t strictly scientific in the common sense of the word, have fuzzy edges (as most concepts do), and is partial subsets of other concepts, people seem to think everybody’s opinion is roughly of equal worth.
That goes with politics, aesthetics, psychology, morals etc.

Have you considered that cropping someone’s photo could also be viewed as an insult?

Though obviously not in this case as the photographer thanked you. But it might have been different.

 

[Arthurwg]

But you’d make the composition much less appealing.

This is a better photo than
View attachment 256607
This
View attachment 256608

Sorry old chap, but just the opposite is true. The OOF foreground is simply ugly and out of place. Take a look at Van Gogh, who used a lot of foreground.

 

[Вormental_old]

I liked the blurry foreground.

 

[Guantons]

The Bronica RF645 and Mamiya 7 are both made to be hand held.

 

[Вormental_old]

@Guantons you clearly did not read the first post.

 

[bluechromis]

Agree about Mamiya C TLR's. I will say that my C330 f is MUCH easier to use hand-held with the side handle. I often hear warnings not to use a Pentax 6 x7 handheld. But I think those fears are exaggerated. I have learned to pop up the mirror just before snapping shot to reduce vibration. Yes is is big, heavy and noisy. But it is very intuitive to use hand-held, just like a big SLR. The meter in my prism is accurate. When I want to go lo-fi there is the Brownie Hawkeye, the Kodak Cresta II and Holga all of which are super easy for hand held.

 

[Helge]

Sorry old chap, but just the opposite is true. The OOF foreground is simply ugly and out of place. Take a look at Van Gogh, who used a lot of foreground.

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.

 

[dave olson]

My Hasselblad 503CW is handholdable, with its strap around my neck. My Rollei TLR 3.5F is handholdable with its strap around my neck. The best handholdable medium format I can think of is my Pentax 645N. The handgrip is built in the camera balances nicely even with the Pentax 300mm. When I was younger I carried a Pentax 6x7 around, but as I got older it became more of a pain.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

I am so enthralled we have such an expert on composition and art contributing to this discussion and the site in general.