large the camera the more thoughtful and creative the images ?

[removed account4]

thanks for responding to my post.

 

[HiHoSilver]

We do seem to flog our pet hobby horses here. Before I went back to slopping chemicals, a roll of MF ran about $3/shot. Yup, I thought about that before blazing away. The damage did me good.

 

[wildbill]

I don't recall seeing many images made with ULF cameras lately that blew my mind. It seems like those shooting larger than 8x10 are just obsessed with the fact that their gear is huge and forget what's important.

 

[blansky]

Personally I'd go the "horses for courses" cliche.

Shooting certain subjects automatically lends it self to certain formats. Not written in stone, but lends itself.

Some stuff is a no brainier, like sports, young kids, street, usually needs a nimble camera.

Other things like non moving scenics probably have a better quality output with a bigger negative. And a zen quality to taking it especially if on a tripod.

But also familiarity with equipment is also a major factor. When you're good with a system you can still be pretty fast if you need to be.

But all that being said, the larger the format, and the use of a tripod on any format, probably does make you more deliberate in your approach. Not necessarily take better pictures, but more deliberate.

I have shot with 35 to 4x5 and will say that in all cases, the smaller the camera, the more shots I'll take, and the less deliberate I will be in the decision making. But that's a discipline thing and not strictly a format thing.

But like I said, being slower and more deliberate does not necessarily improve what the outcome will be.

I once took a workshop with Sherman Hines, and he said he could never do the Ansel thing, and wait for hours for the perfect shot. His approach was while someone was sitting there waiting and waiting he could move on and take dozens more pictures. His format at the time was Pentax 6x7.

 

[Vaughn]

I would put it that LF gear lends itself to slow thoughtful use, and that its opposite is true: that 35mm (or digital) lends itself for quick in-the-moment use. But that both types of cameras do not restrict you to a particular path.

I began photographing with a Rolleiflex. When I tried a 4x5, I found that I had naturally been using the Rollei like a view camera (just minus the movements). So I think LF found me as much as I found it.

I do not wait for hours for the light -- I prefer to keep moving and track it down.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Shooting medium format, off a tripod and pre-released, I've waited 45 minutes for clouds to clear off the top of a mountain. That wasn't too long and was worth the wait.

 

[Ian Grant]

There's a lot of truth in that shooting Large format is more contemplative, it's not really the format though it's the practicalities you can't carry as much film and make as many exposures as a 35mm or 120 user so you become far more selective in what you shoot.

My experience was moving from 35mm to 120 and mainly LF helped hone my skills and the way I work and greatly increased my creativity, however that had the same effect on my 35mm and 120 shooting as it did with my LF work. It cut my film usage particularly 35mm but increase my success rate in terms of images I really liked/wanted.

As Blansky says "the horses for courses" cliche holds true and I shoot the most appropriate format for the subject.

Ian

 

[bdial]

I am more careful the larger the camera, due to the expense and effort, and more prone to try out other options with smaller cameras, but I don't think that one or the other necessarily enhances creativity.
I have plenty of boring LF negs, and many great shots in MF or 35 that weren't the first image of the subject.

I work with my digi the same way I work with my film cameras. Look, frame the the shot, make an exposure.

 

[HiHoSilver]

**slightly off topic: 'Good to see you, Blansky. 'Hope you've been very well.

 

[michaelorr]

For me, not yet found my inner creative, the camera is just the tool to bring a vision or feeling home. The creativity and vision of what will be brought back home is pretty much all determined before the camera is set on a tripod or viewfinder set to the eye. My continued failing is in the framing and perspective. I just 15 minutes ago put in sleeve an 8x10 negative where i had made a "how much sky and how much foreground" decision on a barn at the edge of a field. Last time i took a photo of this barn, from another angle and in the snow, I had a lot of foreground. I liked the result. This time i centered the barn vertically in image, didn't need the uninteresting foreground, and do not like at all the result. I could crop, but the image does not have anything like enough sky to make the result satisfactory to me. I left after shooting not understanding that i did not bring home the result i had hoped for.

 

[guangong]

It all depends

Most of my thoughts on the matter have already been discussed.However，I would like to add that it all depends upon whst one calls “creative”. The most recent email notification from Hasselblad displayed their recent winners for crestive artistic photography. Thank God that the Hassy is capable of more imaginative pictures than these “winners”. Like a painter or sculpturer，a camera can sketch，draw，paint or carve. I use formats from 8x11（minox），35mm，120，to 4x5 and each gives satisfactory results for the creative task at hand. Picasso could do more with white window paint than many other psinters withba full palette.

 

[mannbro]

does it follow that folks that use smaller formats take less creative photographs?
or does creativity have to do with things other than $$ invested in the equipment, and "process" ?

Yes, in exactly the same way as folks who use a smaller typewriter write less creative novels

Jokes aside, there are evidently creative people in all kinds of visual arts using all kinds of techniques, materials and sizes, so while a certain technique, material or size of equipment might spark creativity for some people, nothing seems to indicate that there are any universal truths.

Personally, even a tripod makes me less creative and engaged. My tripod shots tend to become dead, boring and "staged" studiums. I get too careful and controlled, put too much effort into composition and "perfection" rather than emotion, intuition and creation.

I work better when I leave my brain out and instead feel, smell, taste, hear, move around and interact, so I am much more creative, have more fun and get much better results with small, simple, handheld cameras and comfortable shoes.

Ultimately, it all depends on how you prefer to work and what you want to achieve.

 

[hazardsg]

I think it all depends on the individual. There is no right choice. Some of my favorite photographers shoot large format/ultra large format; others shoot smaller formats. Nothing about what format an image was shot on determines if I like it or not. Most people who see our images won't know or care what format camera we use. I think the medium is a choice that should be made by the individual and situation.

I currently enjoy shooting with an old 8x10 camera and am contact printing cyanotypes. The other camera I have been shooting recently is a fuji mirrorless camera. These two are about as different as can be, but I think they compliment each other very well. I prefer the 8x10 but I know there are many times I wouldn't have a camera with me if I limited myself to just the 8x10. I have had keepers from both cameras and complete failures from both as well.

I do not become more creative when I set the Fuji down and look under the dark cloth. I have found that my technical workflow has improved by necessity while shooting large format. Generally the argument is made that shooting large format can improve your images because it forces the photographer to slow down and be thoughtful with each image they make. When I hear this argument, I imagine someone shooting with digital and taking two or three thousand images in an afternoon; then trying to find the best out of them. If that is the case then I think the argument about large format could be true. On the other hand a smaller format camera can help you be more creative than a large format camera. With a smaller format film or digital camera, it is possible to thoughtfully iterate through many ideas for a theme and get feedback as to what works and what doesn't in a considerably shorter amount of time.

In the end use whatever camera works for you. If you want to be methodical and carefully compose your image, go for it! If you want to shoot quickly in the moment and try to capture the decisive moment, go for it! Either way spend time looking at what you've produced. Think about what you'd like to do. Adjust your workflow, and continue shooting. Most importantly have fun!

Disclaimer: This is just my opinion.

 

[removed account4]

man ray is known to have said " A certain amount of contempt for the material employed to express an idea is indispensable to the purest realization of this idea."

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1049168

if one is so --- thoughtful, deliberate, careful, (not to waste $ effort and time ) with one's exposures, composition, photography how does one ever be creative at all ( no matter the format ) ?

for me at least, being creative is about taking risks, not playing it safe.
people take the most risks ( creatively ) when they use something for the first time
( because they have no idea what is right or wrong ) when they are kids ( same thing )
or when using whatever their mode of creation is has become 2nd nature so they aren't afraid
to make mistakes, screw up, experiment do things you were told NOT to do because
that is what all the books or people online say &c ... most ULF photographs tend to be boring
because the materials ( unless they are expired &c ) cost a fortune and they don't want to waste their time
or money on something that costs time and money because they are just doing it for fun as a hobby, not to make "art"

 

[pdeeh]

Yes, in exactly the same way as folks who use a smaller typewriter write less creative novels

I realise you are having a joke, but of course there are people who believe (for instance) that the novelist who uses a typewriter (or paper and pen) is somehow "purer" in their creativity than one who uses a computer.

Such views have been expressed - apparently without irony - in threads on APUG, as I recall (though if you challenge me to find one I expect I'd struggle )

By the same token, there really are people who really do believe that LF (or a Leica, perhaps) makes a more "pure" or more creative photographer, and of course threads where the belief is expressed that a digital photograph is not "really" a photograph litter the place like bleached bones on the floor of a desert ...

 

[HiHoSilver]

For me, not yet found my inner creative, the camera is just the tool to bring a vision or feeling home. The creativity and vision of what will be brought back home is pretty much all determined before the camera is set on a tripod or viewfinder set to the eye. My continued failing is in the framing and perspective. I just 15 minutes ago put in sleeve an 8x10 negative where i had made a "how much sky and how much foreground" decision on a barn at the edge of a field. Last time i took a photo of this barn, from another angle and in the snow, I had a lot of foreground. I liked the result. This time i centered the barn vertically in image, didn't need the uninteresting foreground, and do not like at all the result. I could crop, but the image does not have anything like enough sky to make the result satisfactory to me. I left after shooting not understanding that i did not bring home the result i had hoped for.

Michael, your post is honest, gracious & most helpful to anyone like myself, working their tail off to learn & get better. Thank You for posting. I'm coming from never having to work on aesthetics or composition & now want be deliberate about it. Its not one of the easier learning tasks for me. It does have the benefit of being fun. 'Hope you're enjoying your journey also.

 

[Vaughn]

I realise you are having a joke, but of course there are people who believe (for instance) that the novelist who uses a typewriter (or paper and pen) is somehow "purer" in their creativity than one who uses a computer.

FWIW, using a computer over a pen does change the results, studies have shown. People note-taking with a pen have been shown to be better at processing and remembering information than on a computer or pad. I will not say more creative -- but there is a difference.

I find that my ability to being spontaneous is not reduced when I am using a LF camera. The decision to bring the 35mm camera to my eye to take a photo happens no faster than my decision to set up a LF camera. What follows with LF is slower, but being speedy does not equal being spontaneous.

 

[pbromaghin]

43 posts in less than 24 hrs. Great trolling John.:munch:

 

[pdeeh]

-- but there is a difference.

Well, yes - there is always difference between any two things that are not identical, but that is trivially true (in the logical-philosophical sense), and no inferences can be drawn about the qualitative or quantitative value of either of the things that are being compared.

 

[Sirius Glass]

43 posts in less than 24 hrs. Great trolling John.:munch:

+ 1

:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

 

[removed account4]

asking questions about creative process in the philosophy area is trolling ?
sorry, I didn't realize that ... if it gets too contentious I'll ask the moderators to close it down ...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Just like the big sex organ is between the ears, the piece of gear that makes thoughtful images is the brain.

 

[Vaughn]

Well, yes - there is always difference between any two things that are not identical, but that is trivially true (in the logical-philosophical sense), and no inferences can be drawn about the qualitative or quantitative value of either of the things that are being compared.

That was an interesting way to say "Bullshit".

But if the use of a tool can significantly alter the way one's brain receives and translate information compared to using another tool, I would call that worth noting, and not trivial. It has been noted by a poster or two that when going from small format to LF and back to small format, using an LF camera changed the way they used their small format. I think this supports my idea that tools we use can shape both our thinking and our final product.

But I do agree with you that one tool is not inherently better than another.

 

[pdeeh]

You have both misinterpreted my intention, and incorrectly attributed to me beliefs that can't be inferred from what I posted.

Accordingly, I shall pick up my ball and leave the park.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm sorry about that

You have both misinterpreted my intention, and incorrectly attributed to me beliefs that can't be inferred from what I posted.

Accordingly, I shall pick up my ball and leave the park.

But please come back and play at APUG park!