• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Landscapes with medium format

I have never operated something as flexible as a Hasselblad; in my view it's the perfect compromise of weight, quality and flexibility; an almost perfect camera system in my view.
 
Any approach that works for a person is indeed legitimate, no matter what others might want to say. And shooting square to intentionally end up in an entirely different shape is just as well.

When I take a square, I do what I can to think square and compose accordingly as I find substantial cropping later an unnecessary waste of film.

Movements when needed, which is not always the case, trigger another way of composing since movements put additional dimension to the process. Those who mastered the effect of movements on the final outcome have it a lot easier taking advantage of it. New to it, I'd say should tak it slow, as instead of making things better, they might as well turn out well outside expectations since not everything is that easy to see on the ground glass. So yes, movements can be of great help, but just as good cooking is not often equated with complex routines, similarly good shooting does not always have to be.
 
RalphLambrecht said:
I find the Hasselblad with it's square format and beautiful selection of High-quality optics ideal for landscapes; something Victor Hasselblad successfully convinced Ansel Adams of by the way,.
Click to expand...

He convinced me too.
 
This may have been mentioned earlier, but Ansel Adams used a Hasselblad for almost all of his pictures in his later years. Even one of his most famous images, "Moon and Half Dome," was shot with a Hasselblad.
 
Let's not forget that most of Ansel's Hasselblad pictures were cropped into rectangles.

And BTW, Warhol's remark that "Art is what you can get away with" really shows why he was such a crap artist. I happened to see his recent retrospective at the Whitney and I was appalled. Yes, he got away with a lot, and the public bought into it in a big way. But in retrospect most of it was ugly, boring and stupid. Just MHO.
 
Warhol was a true Artshole.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I had a similar reaction when I saw it at SFMoMA.
 
Wasn't he a secret alien from outer space helping the Men in Black?
 
I like the miniature Crown Graphic. Many lenses can be adapted as can many backs - 645, 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9. You have rise and shift and can manage other front movements
with a little effort.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thogt that Andy Warhol WAS shot with a square format camera, which was a Hasselblad BTW...
 
As I recall, only James Bond had a personalized Hasselblad that could 'shoot'...
I wonder if Warhol was considered as an enemy by MI6?

 
macfred said:
Not sure about this but it's a well known fact the CIA funded abstract and pop art during cold war.
Click to expand...

Really, and what garbage can did you liberate that from?
 
Warhol is a stale commodity. I never want to see another Warhol or Avedon; it's like having yet another Starbucks on every single street corner. Precisely why I didn't join the SFMMA organization - have visited there for a few exhibits I actually wanted to see. Nor do I give a hoot about who did or didn't use a Hasslebad. If one enjoys a square earth, by all means continue to enjoy. I like to stretch my horizon, if you'll excuse a pun. CIA funding abstract art? - now that's a good one. Next time I walk up to a Rothko painting I'll have to examine it for pinholes with little camera lenses behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register