Interest in LF, has digital really changed it at all?

[Jorge]

Like you I consider an ULF photographer one that is making in camera negatives in these sizes. But then you will run into those who say they are "image makers" not just "photographers" (as if their work is better just because they are "image makers")....as such they are using big pieces of plastic so they are ULF photographers..... I dont buy it, but there it is...

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

Michael Slade's comments above regarding his ULF work raises an issue for me. That is, what is the definition of an ultra-large format photographer.

My initial leaning would be to limit the definition of LF and ULF to people who are making in-camera negs on large format film. What are your thoughts?

Allen,

After reading my post where I used the ULF term, I thought the same exact things myself.

I am going to have to re-think my definition of what I'm doing. It is not the same as traditional ULF work where the camera is the instrument exposing the negative. I'm thinking I'll just have to call my enlarged digital negatives, EDN's or something like that.

For me to use the phrase ULF in regards to my digital negatives is disengenous, and not totally accurate.

I'll refrain from that phrase until the time comes when I'm making large negatives *inside* the camera.

Thanks for raising the issue. It helps clarify some things in my mind.

 

[jimgalli]

Same flag went up for me when I read your post Michael.

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

Yeah, I wasn't very eloquent or accurate using that phrase. No offenses intended...olive branch extended.

 

[Fintan]

Does anybody really think that someone considering LF would look at the decrease in the variety of film and paper or the production of LF cameras and say "nah, not for me" because of it?
-Bob

None of the posters so far are really qualified to answer this question. Pure and simply because you are already LFers.

I'm a MF user so heres an answer to your question.

No, the decrease in film options would not deter me from going LF. I'm looking out for a particular make/model at the moment and will pounce as soon as I see the right deal.

I'm interested in a larger negative, perspective control and pos/neg and doing polaroid manipulations of a larger size. Its also the format I havent discovered yet.

What I dislike about LF is a certain snobbery. For me the camera is just a tool not a measure of your ability/status.

And No, digital hasnt changed that......

 

[laz]

What I dislike about LF is a certain snobbery. For me the camera is just a tool not a measure of your ability/status.

Hey who let this peon into the LF Forum! Sargent at Arms, remove him forthwith!

 

[Fintan]

Hey who let this peon into the LF Forum! Sargent at Arms, remove him forthwith!

Are u challenging the fighting irish?

 

[laz]

Are u challenging the fighting irish?

What was that I heard? The squeak of a MFer here in the club? Porter set the traps, vermin afoot!

 

[markbb]

Did somebody say the "d" word? I think LF has always had 2 camps. Those who were striving to make fine art and landed in LF or ULF and came to love it, and those who were striving to make a living and were forced there in order to get the quality they required, but hated it.

I don't agree with this analysis. I, for one, don't fall into either camp. I moved to LF (via MF) for many reasons, but the main ones were:

1. Full control over the image on the GG.
2. Better control of the POF.
3. It forces me to slow down and think.
4. Larger negs.

You may argue this is making 'fine art'. As I don't know what 'fine art' is (apart from a marketing phrase), you might even be right. But I didn't make the transition for any arty-farty reasons - I wanted better control over the images I make.

I still contact print 10x8, everything else is printed on traditional silver halide paper (including Fibre based) and developed, washed etc in wet chemicals. There just happens to be a digital step on the way.

 

[laz]

You may argue this is making 'fine art'. As I don't know what 'fine art' is (apart from a marketing phrase), you might even be right. But I didn't make the transition for any arty-farty reasons - I wanted better control over the images I make.

I believe the point is simply that there is a commercial reason and an art reason. Despite your distain for the thought of it, the goal of your reasons are purely artistic. Your aim is to make photographs of a higher quality closer to your vision, like it or not my friend, that is what fine art is.

But I think your point re: your use of digital is more than valid and I don't dispute it. But here a APUG the animosity toward digital is a complex reaction to the loss by analog photographers of the tools of their art and the feeling by some that it is not part of the art they practice.

While I don't advocate the slaughter here of anyone who steps into APUG with "the taint of digital" on them I think it is generally accepted that it is a sore subject and there are plenty of places elsewhere to discuss it including the ghetto here at APUG known as the "grey area" sub-forum.

Maybe APUG needs a digital bashing forum and software that instantly transports any mention of "the technique whose name shall not be uttered here" to it for "discussion" (bashing)

-Bob

 

[MattKing]

The only ones who would be interested in going to film are those who would be interested in going to LF. That is not a lot of people. Definately not your average Joe SnapShooter. Of course the average Joe Snapshooter will not be interested in a big ol view camera anway.

I'm not sure about this Mark. I think this really only applies to those photographers whose technique and desire and appreciation for capture of fine detail exceed the capabilities of all but the highest end digital equipment.

It seems to me that it is likely that the majority of people who would be interested in going to film would be happy with 35mm or MF.

I of course am steeped in the film part of the photographic world, but it seems to me that the results I see from my 35mm and MF equipment and materials are sufficiently different, as to be noticeable by anyone who is even slightly more quality conscious then the above-noted "average Joe SnapShooter". The greater exposure lattitude of colour print film is just one of the advantages of film that I think is apparent to a careful and curious person who has used digital, but is interested in improving their photographs.

In the case of amateurs, photography is like a lot of other hobbies, people who catch the "bug" are more likely to want to explore the various alternatives. The availability of reasonably priced, hiqh quality 35mm and (in the case of used) MF equipment may draw many people in to an experience which, on the surface of things, is much more familiar and accessible than the apparently exotic experience of LF and ULF.

I looked briefly at the photographs in your APUG gallery (I do like your work). I noted particularly your photo titled "Darren hanging out the train window". It is shot on 35mm, and it's a deceptively simple, well composed and well exposed shot which would be enjoyed by many. It is the sort of photograph that a lot of inexperienced digital amateurs would like to be able to take, but might have difficulty capturing. I could envision many people looking at it and saying "If this is the result I'll get, I'd like to use film".

The vast majority of people who use digital, formerly did or would have used a point and shoot camera, and a one hour lab. Arguably, digital is better suited to their requirements (instant mediocrity, and shoot and discard lots until you get one you like). In the past, they could move into higher quality equipment and processing, without changing the medium (film). Now, they have a choice if they want to get better results - improve their equipment and learn better techniques in the digital arena, or choose film, and improve their equipment and learn better techniques in the film arena. I am of course of the opinion that the payoff is better if film is chosen.

There is still a significant number of people out there who shoot the smaller film formats (mainly 35mm), but have it processed and printed in labs. The numbers of labs and film users have decreased greatly, and are likely to continue to decrease, but there is still likely to be a significant number of film users after the numbers stabilize. I would suggest that a significant percentage of the film users who have stayed with film do so because they are good photographers and get quality results. They may not create exhibition quality work, and they may be unlikely to participate on this site, given how much of the discourse here is related to processing and printing, but I am sure that they still are happy about their photography, and recommend their approach to others. I would suggest that it is exposure to people like them and their good quality photography that will cause the majority of those who want to change to film, to do so. Very few of those people are likely to even consider LF, at least at the start.

just my $0.02 worth,

Matt

 

[laz]

In the case of amateurs, photography is like a lot of other hobbies, people who catch the "bug" are more likely to want to explore the various alternatives. Matt

My point exactly Matt. A few short years ago amateur photography was considered un-cool, the realm of paunchy old men. Now cameras are showing up everywhere and more will answer the siren call of film.
-Bob

 

[Struan Gray]

I was drawn to LF in search of grain-free tonality. That is something that digital does extremely well, and in that respect I would swap my 4x5 for a low-noise 16-20 Mp system in a heartbeat if I could find one at a reasonable price.

My other motivation was the interplay between what is in focus and what isn't - a mixture of bokeh and depth of field effects. The larger the format, the larger the objects you can fuzz: I love the way you can make your local town look like a model railway layout, especially if you start doing anti-Scheimpflug tricks. This is very hard or impossible to do in smaller formats.

In general, I don't think digital photography per se is going to be a lead in to LF, any more than instamatics or disc cameras were. The vast majority of digital snapshooters will be like the vast majority of film snapshooters, except they can share their pictures more easily, and are glad not to have to handle negatives when they do.

Where LF currently offers an advantage is for the advanced amateur who wants a higher raw image quality and can now afford late model sheet film equipment to get it. It will be interesting to see how long that remains the case. Digital will get cheaper, and analogue will get more fernickety as suppliers and processors disappear.

 

[coriana6jp]

In general, I don't think digital photography per se is going to be a lead in to LF, any more than instamatics or disc cameras were. The vast majority of digital snapshooters will be like the vast majority of film snapshooters, except they can share their pictures more easily, and are glad not to have to handle negatives when they do.

Where LF currently offers an advantage is for the advanced amateur who wants a higher raw image quality and can now afford late model sheet film equipment to get it. It will be interesting to see how long that remains the case. Digital will get cheaper, and analogue will get more fernickety as suppliers and processors disappear.

I don't completely agree with this, I used to shoot 35mm exclusively years ago and then moved to DSLR a couple of years ago, I was completely unsatisfied with the Digital Workflow, and ultimately bought a LF camera due to my unsatisfaction with digital. I know at least two other people who have done the same thing. Several others I know agree sitting infront of the computers is not they way the want to work.

My two yen worth.

Gary

 

[Struan Gray]

I can fully understand and respect your position. The question is how representative it is of the general picture-taking population, and of the subset who are engaged enough to call themselves 'serious'?.

Supposedly, View Camera is about to publish a 'State of the Market' survey of suppliers. That might provide some real numbers. My anecdotal evidence is that there is an active amateur resurgence of LF, but that the professionals are abandoning sheet film as soon as the economics and logistics allow it.

There has been a resurgence of interest in alt processes here in the Nordic countries, but they are being used as print processes, not so much as photographic ones. The people taking the courses and workshops have interests from printmaking and other applied arts, and don't necessarily share the concerns of traditional photographers. I personally think that's a good thing, but it isn't pushing a general trend towards LF film as a capture medium.

 

[laz]

In general, I don't think digital photography per se is going to be a lead in to LF, any more than instamatics or disc cameras were.

This is where I think your logic breaks down. Instamatics and disc cameras did lead people into other formats including LF.

Such cheap and easy cameras have contributed greatly to the popularity of photography as a whole and therefore increased the number of people exposed to the possibility of LF.

-Bob

 

[colrehogan]

I think the internet has done more for LF than anything else. It's given people an avenue to others also interested in LF to communicate.

 

[roteague]

I think the internet has done more for LF than anything else. It's given people an avenue to others also interested in LF to communicate.

I think you are spot on Diane. I've been doing 4x5 for years, not real seriously, it wasn't until the Internet (and APUG) that I realized how many people are doing LF. Before that, I thought the community was much smaller than it is.

 

[Struan Gray]

laz, I don't think the driving force behind Disk, APS and instamatics was a desire to get people hooked onto a path towards larger formats and more serious photography. From the Brownie onwards the point was to get people 'churning' through the process, using consumables without ever being forced to learn or understand what they were doing. Most people I know who are seriously engaged with photography were inspired by photographs taken by other people, not by their own efforts with cheap consumer formats.

In this respect digital is an advance, since the average digicam does produce better photos than the average Disk or APS camera, or the vast sea of single-use cameras that until recently were Kodak's main outlet for film. But there is still the same drive towards passive ignorance that was in the mass-market film world, and people have been conditioned to expect poor results from their own efforts with a camera.

 

[BradS]

I think the internet has done more for LF than anything else. It's given people an avenue to others also interested in LF to communicate.

Yes. This is the thing exactly. I had only a very vague idea of what LF was all about 'till I started reading about it on the 'net. I'll blame Phillip Greenspun and Ken Rockwell for opening my eyes to LF.

 

[laz]

laz, I don't think the driving force behind Disk, APS and instamatics was a desire to get people hooked onto a path towards larger formats and more serious photography.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that is was the purpose of simple cameras to lead to LF. I'm saying that the more accessible in general photography is the more chances there are for a greater number of people to want to move up in format, or in the case of digital move to film.
-Bob

 

[Struan Gray]

I don't think I misunderstood. My point is that the market for accessible photography is structured so as to keep its users within that market. I think the idea that having lots of people using low end cameras will stimulate interest in high-end cameras is mostly wishful thinking.

 

[laz]

I don't think I misunderstood. My point is that the market for accessible photography is structured so as to keep its users within that market. I think the idea that having lots of people using low end cameras will stimulate interest in high-end cameras is mostly wishful thinking.

Okay then we shall agree to disagree. I will be wishful, you can believe in the tyranny of the market structure.
-Bob

 

[Struan Gray]

Awwww. You're no fun.

I am always surprised at how few people relate their own personal picture taking to the professional images that surround them in western societies - and how many passively accept the dismal quality that cheap film and processing and/or low end digicams condemn them to.

My wife says I'm a snob. She's right. (Actually, she said I am "differently judgemental", but I think she's just trying to make up for the lack of ribbon in her hair when I came home this evening.)

 

[laz]

Awwww. You're no fun.

Oh you still wanna play huh? (I was afraid you were getting testy. Must have been your Nordic reserve

My wife says I'm a snob. She's right. (Actually, she said I am "differently judgemental", but I think she's just trying to make up for the lack of ribbon in her hair when I came home this evening.)

Snob? I thought you were an anarchist or at least a communist? Me, I'm a little bit of both with a generous measure of old hippie.

Got my first camera a Kodak Instamatic which was so simple to load and use that the photo market took off. Camera's were everywhere and .....well you know the rest; one thing led to another and I now shoot LF

-Bob