Is the L/F for the more Mature

jamie young · Apr 26, 2009

Large format to me has always been about a particular look you want, that requires a certain tool to obtain. I've always loved the detail that large film cameras give. The clarity and different look of a contact print have drawn me to large format from the start. After seeing photos by Wynn Bullock, Edward weston, Ansel Adams, etc, I couldn't wait to get a LF camera, and got my first one, a 8x10 Deardoff, when I was 18. Maturity definitely wasn't a factor for me. I still love LF photography, though I've headed more toward pictorialism for some of my work, using softer older lenses, and limited dof. This is a different reason to choose LF photography.
I think it's all about what you want your photos to be, and using the right tools to get it. The style of shooting is very different too. One shoots a lot less, and tends to think about the shot more, because of the longer set up time. My cirkut photography is a extreme example of that. Lot's of stuff to haul around. a big set up time which can also include film cutting and spooling, and processing each shot individually, makes me very thoughtful about what i spend my time shooting. It does generally take away the spontaneity of a shoot, but there are better tools for that anyway.

removed account4 · Apr 26, 2009

are there really people
who actually believe you have to be mature
to use a large format camera ?
that is like saying only immature people use
smaller cameras or pinhole, plastic or numerics ...

i mainly use a large format camera because it is fun ...
and i use half frame and 110 cameras for the same reason.

photography has nothing to do with maturity or equipment but seeing.

herb · Apr 26, 2009

Mature to use LF?

I for a long time thought LF meant 8x10 or larger. I had my first "view camera" in 1951, a Speed Graphic. Did weddings with a 4x5 speed and flashbulbs big as 60 watt light bulbs.
Now am dragging a leg, but I still shoot out of the back of the suv, 8x10 or what have you. I do digital, but the look of digital is different, and the whole setup is not conducive to really "seeing" like the gg is. I spent a few minutes under a dark cloth with Paula Chamlee at one of their seminars, and it was a revelation about what one could see just by rotating the camera about its axis.

I will be doing contact prints on silver chloride paper from digital negatives, so there is room for both.
The image is the important thing. The methods change.
Edward Weston shot 8x10, no larger, and to the best of my knowledge, did no enlarging.

dwdmguy · Apr 28, 2009

That's a toughie, I've always been a 35,120 shooter, just turned 49 but the last three years as been full force with me and my photography. I've been looking for a comfort spot not only in my style and mind's eye but on a tech level as well. I just purchased a 4x5 as I felt that I was ready for it.
So I'm not sure it's a natureal "Path" or not it just feels right for me at this cross-road.

mjs · Apr 28, 2009

Nah. I'm the most immature person I know and I love using my large format (4x5, 8x10) cameras. And my 6x6 Rolleiflex. And my 35mm stuff. And my little 4x5 pinhole. And...

I used to say that I wasn't interested in digital photography because as a computer programmer it was too much like work: I want something different for my leisure time. Lately I've added a second reason: it seems to me to be soul-less, inelegant, cheap, tawdry. I had a friend who was a talented artist and could have done well as a painter if he'd managed to stay sober long enough to market his work. His watercolors were just fabulous. But I never cared for the work he did with acrylics. Same guy, same talent, I just can't manage to look past the materials. To be fair, he had the same attitude: acrylics were what he used when he had to get something out quickly because the rent was due or he was out of booze. Watercolor was his real love, and one could tell: he respected the material and the process and, I think, there was more of himself in them.

So therefore, if LF requires someone more mature than average, more serious, with a frown rather than a grin, then I suppose that I'm faking it and really shouldn't be using big, unwieldy cameras at all. It's a good thing there isn't an enforcement division around anywhere!

Mike

Robert Brummitt · Apr 28, 2009

I took my 8x10 to a high school and the students went ga-ga! They wanted to give the camera a try but instead I let them play with my RB67's instead. I'm a mean cuss. I do the switch and bait thing.

joncapozzi · May 2, 2009

I'm 18 and shoot LF. I'm also very immature and full of sexual innuendoes. I like the slower process when shooting portraits. It really allows a different experience with your subject.

Toffle · May 2, 2009

joncapozzi said:
I'm 18 and shoot LF. I'm also very immature and full of sexual innuendoes. I like the slower process when shooting portraits. It really allows a different experience with your subject.

tsk, tsk...

Good for you, young man... at your age, still reeling from my first kisses, I hardly had the presence of mind catch a school bus, let alone manipulate a LF camera. Like my friends at the time, I was in a rush to do everything, see everything, experience everything. I think the discipline of shooting LF would have been good in my life. In fact, looking at the teens in my classroom today, I think that maybe every young person should take a manditory course in LF photography. (I started to write this as a joke, but I realize that maybe it's not such a foolish thought after all.)

Keep up your LF work. I'm sure the time spent will teach you much about yourself.

Cheers,

keithwms · May 2, 2009

joncapozzi said:
I'm also very immature and full of sexual innuendoes.

Not sure what you mean; maybe you could post some examples in the gallery....

nicefor88 · May 3, 2009

I always thought I'd have an Hasselblad one day. But here I am after 34 years of SLR use and still no swedish box in sight.
I guess I never made the move for several reasons: weight, price, do I have to double everything in 35mm, and those kind of issues.
My experience with large format when I was a student photographer didn't bring me satisfaction either...

zrisso · Nov 7, 2009

I honestly don't know the answer to this question. I'd say yes in that I have never seen someone who just happens to pick up a LF camera to shoot snapshots on their Hawaiian vacation. However, I think to be able to take good photographs, you need to retain some sense of immaturity, some sense of whimsy about you.

It seems to be my main problem that I take photography too seriously at times. I need to loosen up, which is why I am hesitant to say LF is for mature photographers only. Maybe mature for the technical aspects of shooting and processing, but not necessarily in the mindset when it comes to how you see.

Leighgion · Nov 7, 2009

I always thought LF was about the big-ass negatives.

Mike1234 · Nov 7, 2009

Perhaps the more acurate way to put it is it's for the more serious-minded people who have a true passion for LF. With that I completely agree. Although I was only 13 when I entered the LF world I was very serious about it. As to your reference to age, I think this train of thought often comes much later in most individuals and sometimes never at all.

Chuck_P · Nov 7, 2009

Mike1234 said:
Perhaps the more acurate way to put it is it's for the more serious-minded people who have a true passion for LF.

I agree, but there are tons of mature folks here that are completely happy and very serious-minded with small or medium format. LF, is just that, LF.

rphenning · Nov 7, 2009

I'm 20 and I shoot 4x5 and love it. I'm pretty immature.

flash26c · Nov 7, 2009

I'm 63 and I shoot 4X5 and I love it. I'm pretty immature.

Vaughn · Nov 7, 2009

I started making photographs using a Rolleiflex in the late 1970's...I began using it in consistantly when I was 23 (1977). Not knowing it at the time, I eventually began using it sort of like a LF camera -- tripod, cable release, Panatomic-X, f22, long exposures, and looking at a reversed image on the ground glass. I started using the university's 4x5's by 1978 or so, and bought my own in 1980 (at age 26). So it was not about maturity, but just happened to the right tool at the right time for my particular mentality/personality. So after 29 years of owning LF cameras (4x5, then 5x7, then 8x10), I am not sure of my "maturity", but I still like LF.

Vaughn

Toffle · Nov 8, 2009

flash26c said:
I'm 63 and I shoot 4X5 and I love it. I'm pretty immature.

I've been a teacher for 29 years... one of the best compliments I ever got was a card from a student that said, "When I never grow up, I want to be just like you."

I shoot 4x5 and I love it.

rphenning · Nov 8, 2009

flash26c said:
I'm 63 and I shoot 4X5 and I love it. I'm pretty immature.

haha this shit made me laugh (he was copying me)

EASmithV · Nov 8, 2009

Simply because I shoot 4x5 and 8x10, I would have to say no.

coriana6jp · Nov 8, 2009

zrisso said:
I honestly don't know the answer to this question. I'd say yes in that I have never seen someone who just happens to pick up a LF camera to shoot snapshots on their Hawaiian vacation. However, I think to be able to take good photographs, you need to retain some sense of immaturity, some sense of whimsy about you.

Now you have! The last two times I went to Hawaii the only camera I took was a 4x5.

Then again I am crazy.

Gary

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 8, 2009

I feel like my work has matured since I stopped using sheet film. To me the results matter. The rest is academic.
I feel you should use the tools that give you the results you want, and the choice has nothing to do with maturity. It has to do with how you see things, and how you are able to translate your vision into pictures. For me, that's either a 6x6 pinhole camera, or a Hasselblad system. Works for me. Gets me where I want to be.

Wyno · Nov 8, 2009

Who said I was mature, they're f**kin lying I tell you.
I'm 54 now, but I started using a 4x5 when I was 24, so I don't think you have to be mature. It's more an appreciation of the quality you can achieve with LF, and the willingness to cart around heavy loads to get that quality. It may be that you are mature enough to put up with the taunts and ridicule that a lot of digital users dish out.
Mike

Mike1234 · Nov 8, 2009

There are many types and levels of maturity. I was one stoopid little kid when I was 13 but I took LF photo very seriously and I became quite good at it, IMHO. Life in general... that's a different story and I'm still fighting with it after nearly 50 years of idiocy. Passionate behavior for something bigger/better than ourselves? That's something we answer on a one-to-one basis (as balanced against ourselves and others). It's something we answer only for ourselves.

We just do the best we can. And really... who gives a shit what others think?

viridari · Nov 8, 2009

Graham.b said:
Evening all. Please no a affence at the title, i was wondering if it was the more mature of us. I say that because i look at it this way, years of skill in the photo world. Come to expect better results, no more of what they are looking for

I'm in my mid-late 30's, only been a photographer less than 2 years. I'm gearing up for LF work now for those no-compromise shots that require the highest possible quality and the greatest possible control over composition.

A year ago I was trying to figure out my first serious film camera, a Mamiya C330 TLR. Six months before that, I was shooting digital in the dummy modes. 2010 should be a fun year for my growth as a photographer.

Is the L/F for the more Mature

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency