Shift in thinking...

[michr]

So I went out this morning for the first time in 15 years with film as my main medium. The old 6x9 performed smashingly, but I noticed something in my workflow that I figured would happen, but wasn't truly prepared for. I found myself looking for the perfect composition rather than experimenting a bit more with subjects. With my digital workflow I often try compositions that I may not be wholly sold on at first knowing that there's little risk if things go awry. As such I was only able to trip 4 frames. I'll plan on shooting the remaining frames this week but it's not what I expected.

I'm sure with a bit more comfort with the 6x9 I will end up trying more in the field, but right now I struggle a bit feeling free to shoot in the same way I'm used to.

Just a few thoughts from someone making the flip back into analog space.

The situation you describe is part of the reason I dropped film almost entirely in the last year (the other was money). The way I see it, when approaching a subject or scene to photography it, you have so many axes of freedom. Add a tripod and you reduce those, add the cost of film and further reduce them, add the chore and expense of developing film yourself and reduce it further, add a limited supply of film, reduce it further, require complicated set up and procedures (like with a large format field camera) reduce it further, require complicated and time-consuming material (like with pouring your own plates) and reduce it to almost nothing. Heck, I felt so much more compositional and experimental freedom when I could just drop it off and have the film processed. Those were the days.

 

[jtk]

So I went out this morning for the first time in 15 years with film as my main medium. The old 6x9 performed smashingly, but I noticed something in my workflow that I figured would happen, but wasn't truly prepared for. I found myself looking for the perfect composition rather than experimenting a bit more with subjects. With my digital workflow I often try compositions that I may not be wholly sold on at first knowing that there's little risk if things go awry. As such I was only able to trip 4 frames. I'll plan on shooting the remaining frames this week but it's not what I expected.

I'm sure with a bit more comfort with the 6x9 I will end up trying more in the field, but right now I struggle a bit feeling free to shoot in the same way I'm used to.

Just a few thoughts from someone making the flip back into analog space.

I shoot both...digital as well as 6X9/35film. I don't make more exposures either way because I don't have any reason to do so. I blame that on Minor White roots

 

[Doc W]

Thank you, I will add digital diarrhea to my technical term compendium.

I was thinking of adding it to my workflow, but perhaps that is not a good term to connect with any kind of flow.

 

[Gimenosaiz]

I tend to use my digital cameras pretty much the same way I do my film cameras, I explore viewpoints and framing by eye, then make one or two exposures. I'll do additional shots with either medium freely, however, if what I'm seeing seems to warrant it. If the exploration is a whole roll, so be it.

+100

 

[jack straw]

When I came back to film from digital, I was a little overly selective, but I think it was mostly because it was new again. I remember the first medium format roll I shot, each frame was exposed as judiciously as uncorking a bottle of Dom Perignon. I'm still more selective than with digital, but only in a good way. I've found that when you do darkroom printing, the final product really becomes a labor of love, and that connection really improves what you decide to put on film and how you do it. It's hard to describe, but I am guessing you all know what I'm talking about.

I try to make myself shoot more all the time--if nothing else it is a joy to look at the extra shots on the contact sheets, like a photographic diary, even if they aren't all masterpieces. More of a sketchbook. And I've gotten some real keepers in unexpected places--both shots which were spontaneous but came out excellently, and those sentimental moments that you wouldn't want to forget.

The other week I was taking photos for Christmas cards of my kids in the front yard with Portra 400, and I don't normally shoot color so I wanted to burn through the whole roll in one sitting so it wouldn't tie up that camera forever. Early on I thought I had shot maybe 20 frames, I looked down and I was on frame 7! So much for spray and pray. Film changes your perspective!

 

[Arklatexian]

As a person who does not use our little digital camera for my "serious work" nor do I want to, I assure anyone interested that I am NOT familiar with "digital" terms, so what in ____ is "chimping"?......Regards!

 

[jtk]

Regarding dislike of "workflow"... It's a highly useful term. "Useful" is the key word.

Some here seem to be as negative about color film as they are about "workflow." How do they allow themselves to use computers, rather than quill pens and india ink?

Having processed all sorts of film, mostly E3, E4, and B&W professionally as well as at home, now enjoying scanning and inkjet, I'm afraid I'm polymorphously perverse...or too much in love with photography...to let myself be restricted by fear or age.

"Chimping" refers to confirming a shot by looking at the digital camera's screen, rather than simply moving along the way we do with film.

 

[jtk]

As a very flexible, generic term, workflow is quite useful. It provides a nice shorthand for something like "detailed list of the steps I take, in the order I take them, when I'm accomplishing a particular task.
So it doesn't bother me.

Yes, obviously.

When I came back to film from digital, I was a little overly selective, but I think it was mostly because it was new again. I remember the first medium format roll I shot, each frame was exposed as judiciously as uncorking a bottle of Dom Perignon. I'm still more selective than with digital, but only in a good way. I've found that when you do darkroom printing, the final product really becomes a labor of love, and that connection really improves what you decide to put on film and how you do it. It's hard to describe, but I am guessing you all know what I'm talking about.

I try to make myself shoot more all the time--if nothing else it is a joy to look at the extra shots on the contact sheets, like a photographic diary, even if they aren't all masterpieces. More of a sketchbook. And I've gotten some real keepers in unexpected places--both shots which were spontaneous but came out excellently, and those sentimental moments that you wouldn't want to forget.

The other week I was taking photos for Christmas cards of my kids in the front yard with Portra 400, and I don't normally shoot color so I wanted to burn through the whole roll in one sitting so it wouldn't tie up that camera forever. Early on I thought I had shot maybe 20 frames, I looked down and I was on frame 7! So much for spray and pray. Film changes your perspective!

Only if your "perspective" is mere habit.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The larger film format goes the more boring outcome shown is.
This is why I ditched LF.

Your talking in your case, correct? Otherwise, I would have to strongly disagree.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Your talking in your case, correct? Otherwise, I would have to strongly disagree.

I'm looking at LF images of everyone else who just like me, no status, just hobby. In my case I'm finding them not interesting to say at least. With some rare exceptions.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The situation you describe is part of the reason I dropped film almost entirely in the last year (the other was money). The way I see it, when approaching a subject or scene to photography it, you have so many axes of freedom. Add a tripod and you reduce those, add the cost of film and further reduce them, add the chore and expense of developing film yourself and reduce it further, add a limited supply of film, reduce it further, require complicated set up and procedures (like with a large format field camera) reduce it further, require complicated and time-consuming material (like with pouring your own plates) and reduce it to almost nothing. Heck, I felt so much more compositional and experimental freedom when I could just drop it off and have the film processed. Those were the days.

Digital vs film is so outdated talk...

The situation you describe is part of the reason I dropped film almost entirely in the last year (the other was money). The way I see it, when approaching a subject or scene to photography it, you have so many axes of freedom. Add a tripod and you reduce those, add the cost of film and further reduce them, add the chore and expense of developing film yourself and reduce it further, add a limited supply of film, reduce it further, require complicated set up and procedures (like with a large format field camera) reduce it further, require complicated and time-consuming material (like with pouring your own plates) and reduce it to almost nothing. Heck, I felt so much more compositional and experimental freedom when I could just drop it off and have the film processed. Those were the days.

I choose from something like twenty films. I'm not sure if 17 $ bottle of rodinal and 15$ fixer which lasts for year are any cost at all in self developing.
But tripod and such are good points on why I think LF is not worth it.
I print from expired Kodak cinefilm as well which cost next to nothing, BTW.

 

[removed account4]

I'm looking at LF images of everyone else who just like me, no status, just hobby. In my case I'm finding them not interesting to say at least. With some rare exceptions.

hi Ko.Fe
you're on the wrong websites
if you wander over to largeformatphotography.info
you will find lots who love lf and might be is similar to you ..
but not many street shooters ..
haven't done it in a while, but i sometimes do street shooting
with a 4x5 box camera .. its a lot of fun especially since you
can't focus or use the milk glass viewer

 

[darkosaric]

+ 1*1023

IT department goes on a dinner as a team building event. They eat, drink...and then when they needed to pay - the waiter says "472 $ please". The IT boss: "please round it on 512 $".

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm looking at LF images of everyone else who just like me, no status, just hobby. In my case I'm finding them not interesting to say at least. With some rare exceptions.

We all see not so interesting imagery, regardless of format. It's the person behind the camera that matters, no?

 

[Ron789]

Thinking before shooting is always good.

I disagree.
Many of my best photo's I took without thinking; many of my most boring photo's were the ones I spent time thinking about. Thinking or feeling; engineering or emotions?

 

[removed account4]

didn't st ansel make moonrise over my ham sandwich without thinking too much..
they say its his most popular photograph ( and breakfast )

 

[Ron789]

hi Ko.Fe
you're on the wrong websites
if you wander over to largeformatphotography.info
you will find lots who love lf and might be is similar to you ..

I'm on that forum and to me it illustrates it perfectly: the smaller the format, the more interesting the images. I'm fully with Ko.Fe.

 

[removed account4]

IDK ron789
i think its like andrew said
sometimes it depends whose behind
the lens not just the format size ..
there's been an awful lot of un interesting
boring horrible small format photographs
(i've taken thousands** of them !!! )
** make that 10s of thousands !
** added later

 

[sissysphoto]

"workflow"....meh.

Agreed. I hate that over used word.

 

[Arklatexian]

I'm on that forum and to me it illustrates it perfectly: the smaller the format, the more interesting the images. I'm fully with Ko.Fe.

I'm missing something here. If you can shoot interesting pictures in 35mm, why in the world can't you shoot that same subject in LF? Something is wrong here. If the subject is easier to find in 35mm, then find it with the 35mm and shoot it with the LF correctly, using a tripod and the works. To say they see differently makes no sense unless one is looking for an excuse not to use anything but 35mm which is fine if that is what yanks your chain........Regards!...By the way, to even things up a bit, be sure to use a tripod with the 35mm.

 

[darkosaric]

Thinking before shooting is always good.

I disagree.

I have found that I think a lot how and what to shoot in my free time, but once when I am walking with the camera, I let the instinct take over in cca 50%, and I think before shooting in cca 50% of cases.

 

[Ron789]

If the subject is easier to find in 35mm, then find it with the 35mm and shoot it with the LF correctly, using a tripod and the works.

That works fine for landscapes, still lives, architecture etc. But how would you apply that to street photography and other situations with people and things changing by the second? By the time you've set up the tripod the interesting moment is long gone. Not to speak about the unpracticalities of carrying all that gear around and the effect it has on the people around.
Apart from such considerations, the main point for me is that technically perfect is not the same as artistically interesting. Many of my photo's are unsharp, have motion, are out of focus, double exposed etc. For me photography is not about making a technically perfect registration of a subject but rather a personal impression that surprises and raises questions and emotions. Serendipity is one great way to achieve that.

 

[removed account4]

But how would you apply that to street photography and other situations with people and things changing by the second? By the time you've set up the tripod the interesting moment is long gone.

hey ron789
you don't need a tripod for many large format cameras
speeds graphics, graflex slr's delmars, cyclones ( to name a couple) ... not everything is a view/studio camera...
and pretty much anything you can do with a 35mm or 1/2 frame or whatever, you can do
with some sort of LF camera .. you just have to want to do it, and feel comfortable with the camera ...

 

[Nodda Duma]

Well to counter-balance the “LF is uninteresting” I will firmly state that large format and large format when particularly combined with alternative processes are absolutely fascinating. The labor and care that goes into each shot is evident and is as important as the shot itself. It adds an additional layer of humanity to the photo.

However, 35mm can no doubt make great shots as well. 35mm has its advantages as does large format (and medium), with their own position firmly established in the broad field of photography. Large format excels at certain aspects of photography as does 35mm excel at different aspects. It’s simply nonsensical to say one is more boring than the other. No one format has the market cornered on uninteresting pictures, same way as no particular format is guaranteed to produce interesting results. It just means you enjoy a particular style of photograph which aligns with your chosen format (obviously, duh).

Let’s not worry about comparing the sizes of our film and keep sharing uninteresting photos.

 

[KenS]

A number of years ago I cut a 4 x5 inch rectangle in a Kodak grey card. I attached a string (with knots) that I hold to my chin that allow me to 'see the framing' that my 75mm, 150mm and 240mm lenses from a given 'position'. I drop my hat at that spot, The move the selected lens mounted on my monorail as close to that chosen spot. I may then adjust the lens or the film standard for the 'best' final framing of what I want to record to the film. It ends up saving a LOT of both time and effort for 'other' images that may be worthy of "recording' to film within my allotted 'creative time'.

Ken