When I started out with 'serious'' photography, now well over half a century ago, I asked questions from more experienced photographers, looked carefully at other peoples work, learned what is now called traditional composition which has actually changed very little over the years. Even since the days of the 'Old Masters' who created some wonderful oil paintings, and where I believe traditional composition started to be recognised.. If you learn the basics and develop from there over the years you should never loose the 'gift' (If you can call it that). You might get what could be termed the photographers version of 'Writers Block' It happened to me numerous times but it soon passes.
In the beginning of my photographic voyage, where I lived at the time practically every one in the club to which I belonged at the time used medium format Rollie's or the clones such as MPP Microcords, Zeiss Ikoflexes and 120 folding cameras. (No new upstarts like Autocords or Yashicas!
) plus rangefinders Leicas and a occasionally the odd Contax. Those folk knew their cameras and abilities inside and out and very few even used an exposure meter. My 1st cameras was a Fed 2 and yes I did use a meter.
Consequently I have always had a preference for 6x6 negatives although I do also use 35mm when I am out walking longish distances in open country. The square format is very useful in that you have the opportunity to 'see' a view or anything else you care to record, then in the darkroom alter the shape or format of the final print to suit. So to answer the original question, no I don't think for me anyway anything has changed out of all recognition, it has developed unconsciously to suit my needs and continues to do so because if it didn't, everything it would just go very stale. (I hope others think likewise) However with landscape especially, my images all tend to encompass the traditional compositional elements, but at the same time still attempting to keep up with the times.
I won't go into my photography involved in my work which had to be 'in your face, accurate and as it was in real life'. no artistic traditional composition was needed or indeed wanted. The camera we were provided with initially was a MPP Mk5 large format 5x4, then subsequently a Pentax 6x7 (I hated them both).
What has changed is my actual eyesight, it is no longer 20/20 and I have to check and check again that I have not included anything which would spoil what I am trying to reproduce in a 2 dimensional format.
In the beginning of my photographic voyage, where I lived at the time practically every one in the club to which I belonged at the time used medium format Rollie's or the clones such as MPP Microcords, Zeiss Ikoflexes and 120 folding cameras. (No new upstarts like Autocords or Yashicas!
) plus rangefinders Leicas and a occasionally the odd Contax. Those folk knew their cameras and abilities inside and out and very few even used an exposure meter. My 1st cameras was a Fed 2 and yes I did use a meter.Consequently I have always had a preference for 6x6 negatives although I do also use 35mm when I am out walking longish distances in open country. The square format is very useful in that you have the opportunity to 'see' a view or anything else you care to record, then in the darkroom alter the shape or format of the final print to suit. So to answer the original question, no I don't think for me anyway anything has changed out of all recognition, it has developed unconsciously to suit my needs and continues to do so because if it didn't, everything it would just go very stale. (I hope others think likewise) However with landscape especially, my images all tend to encompass the traditional compositional elements, but at the same time still attempting to keep up with the times.
I won't go into my photography involved in my work which had to be 'in your face, accurate and as it was in real life'. no artistic traditional composition was needed or indeed wanted. The camera we were provided with initially was a MPP Mk5 large format 5x4, then subsequently a Pentax 6x7 (I hated them both).
What has changed is my actual eyesight, it is no longer 20/20 and I have to check and check again that I have not included anything which would spoil what I am trying to reproduce in a 2 dimensional format.
Last edited:
