ULF and the Grand Landscape

[Frank Petronio]

Grand landscape? Just go to grad school Kerry, it will save you a lot of time and hassle.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

David Ward's excellent book "Landscape within - Insights and Inspiration for Photographers" has a good section on what defines a "Grand" and "Intimate" landscape. Of course, it is still an opinion, his, but well thought out.

Before I check out David Ward's definitions, I'll offer up a couple of my own, with a few examples. I don't know exactly how to define "grand landscape" in a single sentence other than "I know it when I see it".

Until now, all of my significant work has been shot with color transparency film and I am most familiar with the work of other large format color photographers (David Muench, Jack Dynkinga, Christopher Burkette, etc.). So, many of my examples, will be color photographs, but it is my relative lack of knowledge of current black and white ULF photographers that lead me to start this thread.

Again, I'm not trying to discount work that does not fit within my personal definition of "grand landscape". My own personal work is nowhere close to 100% "grand landscape". It's just that the general impression is that "grand landscapes" have been done to death, yet I can't really find a lot of examples of this type of work shot in black and white with ULF cameras. I can find literally millions of examples of these subjects shot by thousands of color photographers - many of them LF shooters. Since I've been concentrating on color landscapes for the last 20 years, I thought maybe I had just overlooked the work being done by black and white ULF photographers.

When the name Ansel Adams is mentioned terms like "grand landscape", "Yosemite Valley", "black and white photography" immediately come to mind. While Ansel certainly wasn't the first to shoot the "grand landscapes" of the American West, his is the name most likely to be recognized by the average American. Of course many of Ansel's most famous photographs are indeed "grand landscapes". Some examples:

Clearing Winter Storm
Tetons and Snake River
Mt. McKinley, Wonder Lake

As I said, until now I've been shooting exclusively color for many years. Here's a few examples of my own that I consider to fall into the "grand landscape" genre:

Mount Gould from Swiftcurrent Lake
Approaching Storm - Delicate Arch (apoligies to Jim Chinn)
Mount Hood - Alpenglow and Lenticular Clouds

One thing all these images have in common is they include the sky in the frame - often with some sort of dramatic clouds or strong directional light. When I think of "grand landscapes" I tend to picture dramatic scenery (mountains, canyons, etc.) combined with dramtic skies.

While some people associate wide angle shots with the "grand landscape" genre, I don't find that to necessarily be the case. For example, the Mt. Hood shot above was taken with a 450mm lens on 4x5 (3X the normal focal length) and many of Ansel's most famous "grand landscapes" were shot with lenses of longer than normal focal length. Personally, I think it's the subject and the compostion that define a grand landscape more than the format or focal length chosen.

I believe it was Elliot Porter who coined the term "intimate landscape". This is another type of landscape photography I enjoy. I've used the term "intimate landscape" myself, but for my personal work, I think the term "intermediate landscape" while not as poetic is more accurate. He are some examples of my own "intermediate landscapes":

Sandstone Face
Devil's Club and Wild Geranium
Larch Trees and Inspiration Lake

I consider these "intermediate landscapes" because they are neither distant vistas, nor are they true close-ups in the macro sense. There is a whole lot to photograph between macro and infinity. Perhaps that's why this broad category seems to be so popular with ULF and LF shooters in general. One thing you will notice in these examples is the lack of sky in the frame. While that is not a hard and fast rule, I tend to associate "intimate landscapes" or intermediate landscapes" with no sky in the frame.

Of course, these definitions are still a bit vague and some images cleary could fall into both (or neither) category. Here's an example of such an image:

Fall Colors - Zion Canyon

So, is it a "grand landscape" or an "intermediate landscape"? Is it neither, or is it both? Given the lack of sky in the frame, that would tend to rule out "grand landscape: in favor of "intermediate/intimate landscape". However, it is a "grand vista" that includes a whole lot of canyon and it was most certainly shot with the lens focused at, or very near, infinity. As I was perched up on a ledge shooting with the 450mm on 4x5, it certainly felt like a "grand landscape" and didn't feel like a very "intimate" setting at the time. However, the use of the long lens deliberately isolated much of what I was seeing with my eyes as I was standing on that ledge and gives the image a much more intimate feel that I was experiencing at the moment I tripped the shutter. So, this is an image I could go either way on.

Although I still don't think I've done a great job defining in words what I consider a "grand landscape", hopefully the examples will help. I have also bandied about a couple other terms in this thread - "urban landscapes" and "rural landscapes". Although I have shot a few of these myself, I don't currently have any examples online. In general, I consider "urban landsapes" to include everything from shots of city skylines to decaying industrial areas. "Rural" landscapes would include shots of cultivated farmland and isolated rural buildings like barns or farm houses. An excellent example of this type of work would be Michael and Paula's images in their Tuscanny books.

When I started this thread, I wasn't looking for examples of photographers to mimic or copy, or new locations to shoot. I already have in mind some things I want to shoot and I was curious if anybody else had done, or was doing, similar work. In fact, I'd be thrilled to be the first one to haul a ULF rig into some of the places I plan to shoot. Of course, if I happen to be in Yosemite Valley with my ULF gear (my family loves Yosemite, so it's a popular place for a family vacation), I'll definitely break it out and try to get some shots - even though it's already been "done to death" by others.

That reminds me of something a photo editor told me when I first started submitting my work fior publication: "Show me a familiar subject under unique conditions and I'll buy it every time". That's advice I have taken to heart and indeed it's an accurate description of many of my best selling images. It also reminds me of another prolific and very sucessful photographer whose response when told that a specific location has been done to death - "Yeah, but mine's better". Many of the places I wish to photograph with my 7x17 have been photographed a lot (perhaps not "to death") by 35mm and digital shooters, but if I'm successful in my goals, my work will still be very unique (or so I hope).

Thanks for indulging me in this thread. Even though not all the examples given fit my personal definition of "grand landscape", keep 'em coming. I always enjoy looking at great work no matter what ill-defined catgory it does or doesn't fit into.

Kerry

 

[roteague]

Thanks Kerry. Actually your definition is pretty close to mine, and pretty close to what David Ward espouses in his book - but don't let that stop you from getting the book, it really is a good book about the thought process in photography; it is not a book on technique. The photographers you mention also personal favorites of mine, although I consider Christopher Burkett more of an intimate landscape guy. Another favorite, who does the "Grand" landscape style is Joe Cornish from the UK.

This thread is quite valuable .. I'm enjoying hearing what others think about this subject.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Canadian photographer Allan King-Grand Landscape

Kerry,

Check out www.platinumvisions.com

Allan King has some wonderful photography which fits what I think you are looking for....he uses 7 x 17 and 12 x 20....mostly 12 x 20 now I think, as I obtained my 7 x 17 from him.....btw he is the photographer that informed me of apug....thanks Allan

look particularly at the Canadian National Parks Portfolio and the Southwest American Portfolio..

 

[Kirk Keyes]

One thing all these images have in common is they include the sky in the frame - often with some sort of dramatic clouds or strong directional light. When I think of "grand landscapes" I tend to picture dramatic scenery (mountains, canyons, etc.) combined with dramtic skies.

One thing you will notice in these examples is the lack of sky in the frame. While that is not a hard and fast rule, I tend to associate "intimate landscapes" or intermediate landscapes" with no sky in the frame.

So, is it a "grand landscape" or an "intermediate landscape"? Is it neither, or is it both? Given the lack of sky in the frame, that would tend to rule out "grand landscape: in favor of "intermediate/intimate landscape".

Kerry

HI Kerry -

Interesting question. Which category would you put this photo - intermediate or grand? http://www.keyesphoto.com/MtCavell.html Lots of foreground, but then a fair bit of sky and distant mountain.

Anyway - it seems to me that you are really asking about shooting old standards. The "intimate" landscapes, even if taken at well known places can often maintain a level of anonymity, as it may not be obvious where the photo was taken. Unlike the "grand" landscape, where everyone and their grandmother will recognize the location. So then one has to decide if it is worth it to take these photos, or are they overdone.

I think that there is nothing wrong with rehashing the old standards. But I think you have to try and make them your own. How you do that is entirely up to you.

When I first started shooting large format, I immediately headed for the national parks. Upon showing some photos of the Tetons to a fellow photographer, he commented that "You really have to hope for interesting weather for these types of shots." (Fortunaltely I had some interesting clouds i the photos.) A similar idea to your photo editor's comment. So interesting weather helps - like with your Mt. Hood shot.

For me, I love seeing photos of the old standards, those places are popular for very good reasons, but the photos of them do have to have something unique about them to catch my interest. The format of the film really doesn't matter to me. Although if I found out that someone's interesting color shot of the Wave was done on a ULF camera, that would add interest to me - maybe some film format envey, but really only because I am interested in large format photography and the gear used to make it.

Sorry of my ignorance, but are there any color films for ULF? All the links from above in this thread that I've looked at - none of them are doing color work. (So the B&W part of your question seems kind of moot to me.) As far as processing goes, get yourself a Jobo and you can do the processing. E-6 at home is not that hard. You will not be shooting that much film anyway, so that kind of limits the amount of time you have to spend processing it. If there are no films, maybe Fuji would do a run.

I say go for it - as long as you are having fun, and making photos that are interesting to at least you, shoot away.

Kirk - www.keyesphoto.com

 

[Dave Wooten]

Kerry,

Check out www.platinumvisions.com

Allan King has some wonderful photography which fits what I think you are looking for....he uses 7 x 17 and 12 x 20....mostly 12 x 20 now I think, as I obtained my 7 x 17 from him.....btw he is the photographer that informed me of apug....thanks Allan

look particularly at the Canadian National Parks Portfolio and the Southwest American Portfolio..

Corrected the url in re post edit www.platinumvisions.com the cover Lake Louise photo I think is a good example of grand landscape

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Dave,

Thanks for the link to Allan King's web site. Yes, many of the images on his site fit my personal definition of "grand landscape". I can't decide which I like better, his platinum images or those printed on AZO. I like them both, but would have to see the prints in person to see if I prefer one over the other.

Kerry

 

[Dave Wooten]

Kerry,

Your Mt. Hood and Lenticular clouds is one the most beautiful photos I have seen of Mt Hood! What a moment!

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

I will amend my previous comments in light of your post Kerry. There are a lot of places in the west and probably Canada that are yet to be revealed in a significant way by a photographer. So while the same places seem to get photographed over and over (easiest access probably one reason) I salute those who strive to work off the road less traveled.

I will probably be lambasted, but I'm doing an extensive project that is definitely off the beaten path, some grand lanscapes, others not-so-grand, all B&W, and it's 7x17.

If anyone would like a link I can send it privately.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

HI Kerry -

Interesting question. Which category would you put this photo - intermediate or grand? http://www.keyesphoto.com/MtCavell.html Lots of foreground, but then a fair bit of sky and distant mountain.

In my personal opinion that one qualifies as a "grand landscape", but that's just my opinion based on my own imprecise definition.

Anyway - it seems to me that you are really asking about shooting old standards. The "intimate" landscapes, even if taken at well known places can often maintain a level of anonymity, as it may not be obvious where the photo was taken. Unlike the "grand" landscape, where everyone and their grandmother will recognize the location. So then one has to decide if it is worth it to take these photos, or are they overdone.

While I have nothing against the standard road side views like Tunnel View and Gates of the Valley in Yosemite, I'm more interested in shooting subjects that may be very recognizable, but from different view points. I've been to Yosemite many times and it's almost impossible to resist photographing the Valley from Tunnel View and Gates of the Valley. Before I ever vistsied Yosemite, I'd seen countless photographs, including Ansel's, from these spots, but I was still unprepared by just how awestruck I would be when seeing them myself for the first time. That said, I am also amazed that so few photographers venture even a hundred yards from these "classic" views. On any given afternoon photographers, eventhing from the point-n-shoot crowd to serious LF shooters (is there any other kind?) are lined up shoulder to shoulder at Tunnel View, but the nearby trails are for all purposes practically deserted. I suppose some of it is attraction to the familiar - everyone wants to create their own version of this classic view, and the ease of access - huge parking lot.

I think that there is nothing wrong with rehashing the old standards. But I think you have to try and make them your own. How you do that is entirely up to you.

I'm definitely with you on this one. It is possible to make unique photographs of locations that have become classic to the point of becoming cliche'. However, it does require some extra work and being in the right place at the right time. For me, I certainly seek out these familiar locations and try to capture them at a unique moment in time. The other alternative is to invest a little sweat equity and seek out new view points or locations far from the madding crowd.

We have a lot of beautiful mountains here in the NW, some are houshold names (Mt. Hood, Mt. Rainier and thanks to a volatile temper, Mt. St. Helens), but many aren't. While it's possible to get some great shots of these famous subjects from roadside view points, there are a lot more options for people who are willing leave the pavement behind and to hike a few miles. For example, while Mt. Rainier has paved roads wrapped around it's base on three sides, 97% of the park is designated wilderness (no roads). I would not be suprised to learn that >97% of the photos taken in Mt. Rainier National Park are taken from the 3% of the park that is NOT wilderness. That leaves a whole lot of park that hasn't been "shot to death". I have seen a number of LF photographers in the Rainier "front country" (the flower fields at Paradise and of course Reflection Lakes), but other than people who have been hiking with me, I've never seen another LF shooter in the Rainier backcountry. And then there are the thousands of other peaks that may be lacking in elevation compared to the big cascade volcanos, but still offer extremely rich photo opportunities - again some hiking may be involved.

When I first started shooting large format, I immediately headed for the national parks. Upon showing some photos of the Tetons to a fellow photographer, he commented that "You really have to hope for interesting weather for these types of shots." (Fortunaltely I had some interesting clouds i the photos.) A similar idea to your photo editor's comment. So interesting weather helps - like with your Mt. Hood shot.

Definitely. Familiar location + unique weather = successful photo. But, that's not the only formula that works (as if all great photos could be forced to fit a set of simple equations). Familar subject + unique viewpoint also has a good chance for success.

Sorry of my ignorance, but are there any color films for ULF? All the links from above in this thread that I've looked at - none of them are doing color work. (So the B&W part of your question seems kind of moot to me.) As far as processing goes, get yourself a Jobo and you can do the processing. E-6 at home is not that hard. You will not be shooting that much film anyway, so that kind of limits the amount of time you have to spend processing it. If there are no films, maybe Fuji would do a run.

Not sure about 11x14, but short of a special custom order, nobody is making color negative or transparency films in the banquet or ULF sizes. If I could get 7x17 color transparency film, I'm not sure I'd shoot with it (even if I had the Jobo to process my own E-6). I'm just not sure what I'd do with it once I had it. I don't have access to a 7x17 color enlarger. I suppose I could have it scanned and output on a Lightjet or Epson printer, but I can already do that with 4x10 and get the results I desire - for a lot less money and weight. One of the big attractions of 7x17 for me is the ability to make contact prints in a variety of processes as my final output. For color, my plan is to stick with 4x5 and 4x10.

Kerry

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Kerry,

Your Mt. Hood and Lenticular clouds is one the most beautiful photos I have seen of Mt Hood! What a moment!

Dave,

Thanks. It's definitely an example of a familiar subject captured at a unique moment. It's also an example of a little advanced planning, a bit of sweat equity (even though it was taken within 20 yards of a parking lot, they don't plow the road in the winter - thus I had to go in on skis) and a whole lot of being in the right place at the right time (aka: luck).

I've told the story behind that image a few times, but don't think I've ever posted it on APUG. So, please indulge me once again...

I had just received a new pair of XC skis, boots and poles for Christmas. Christmas that year was followed by about a week of our typical winter Oregon rain - which means solid cloud cover extremely limited visibility and NO VIEWS, but fresh snow in the mountains. I was waiting for a chance to get out and try my new skis and take some photos of the mountains in the winter. Finally, the weekend after New Year's, the weather broke and we got a few days of brilliant sunshine. We went from solid overcast to no clouds at all - one extreme to the other. I decided to wait until just before the next front was moving in and I headed out on a Monday afternoon with the goal of using my new skis to reach Lost Lake on the north side of Mt. Hood. Ironically, this was the site of my first ever LF photograph many years previously, but that was in August when it was possible to drive to the lakeshore.

The lake is at fairly low elevation (~3100 ft.), but they don't plow the access road past the last house (12 miles from the lake) in the winter. In a typical year that means the road is closed to vehicle access from around Thanksgiving until Memorial Day weekend (I've been there in May when the snow at the lakeshore was still over 6 feet deep). I called the Mt. Hood National Forest office in Hood River to find out how close I could get to the lake before I'd have to park the truck and proceed on skis. They had no idea. They hadn't sent anybody up that way in several weeks and had no reports about the snow or road conditions. I decided to give it a try anyway. Fortunately, the road was snow free for several miles past the last house, and once I hit show,with chains on and the hubs locked, I was able to follow in someone's else's tracks for a couple more miles. I finally parked my truck about 3 - 3½ road miles from the lake.

From the marks in the snow, it was obvious someone had been up there sledding over the weekend. Once I got about a hundred yards from my truck, there were no more tracks. Other than stopping to climb over an occasional downed tree, the road was an easy ski even for a novice like me (I did manage one massive face plant with a 35lb.s pack on my back right was I was skiing down to the lakeshore, but nobody was there to see it, so it never actually happened).

I worked my way around to the north shore of the lake and arrived at the classic view point about 50 minutes before sunset. When I first arrived, there were a few tiny pacthes of blue in the sky and a massive lenticular cloud was blocking the top 2/3 of the mountain. I also immediately noticed that the surface of the lake was almost frozen over with a paper-thin layer of ugly brown ice. Most shots from this vantage point include the lake in the foreground, often with a reflection of the snow-covered mountain. No hope of that today. In anticipation of a the classic wide angle shot, I had almost left my longer lenses behind to save weight. Thankfully the little 450mm Fujinnon C is so small and light I didn't bother to remove it from my pack. I went ahead and set up my camera, and it was obvious that the lenticular was lifting. After about 20 minutes, it was only blocking the top 1/3 of the mountain. As near as I could tell the sky to the west was clear to the horizon and it was looking more and more like the lenticular would clear the top of the peak prior to the sunset.

I started shooting about 10 minutes before sunset, right as the lenticular cleared the peak. The first couple shots show a white mountain with white clouds and tiny patches of blue sky. The warm color on the mountain and in the sky kept increasing as the sun was setting to the west. The lenticular continued to lift and the gabs between the clouds continued to grow. I increased the frequency of my shots to make sure I caught the peak colors. I also shot a few long time exposures about 15 - 20 minutes after the sun went down and the mountain and clouds returned to their original white color, against a deep dark blue-violet sky. I don't emeber, but I might have shot every sheet of film I had with me. If not, close to it. It was one of those special times when I wanted to make sure I had the shot I wanted, and a few more as back-ups just in case.

By the time I packed up, it was already dark. So, I put my jacket and headlamp on and skied back to the truck in the dark. The trip back was faster and easier with some nice long gentle downhill runs broken only by the downed trees (no face plants this time - really).

So, that's my story behind a unique image of a familiar subject (which happens to be my all time best selling image). And I know for a fact nobody else got a similar shot that day as I didn't see anybody else within 12 miles of the lake, and you don't really get a clear view of the mountain until you reach the lakeshore. Sorry to deviate from the original subject, but as I'm the OP, I figured nobody would complain too loudly.

Kerry

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

I will probably be lambasted, but I'm doing an extensive project that is definitely off the beaten path, some grand lanscapes, others not-so-grand, all B&W, and it's 7x17.

If anyone would like a link I can send it privately.

Michael,

I don't know why you would get lambasted. What you describe sounds exactly like what I asked about in my original post in this thread.

If you don't feel comfortable posting the link in public, please PM it to me. I'd love to see what you're working on.

Kerry

 

[photomc]

GREAT Thread Kerry....Thanks. While I am not, nor do I have plans to shoot ULF (I shoot small formats now - 4x5,5x7 and 8x10 - ) this has been very interesting. While the discussion about lens seems to always follow this kind of thread, it has been most informational in many ways. It was funny, when first reading it, kept trying to come up with a someone that did ULF Grand Landscapes, and most I came up with have either been mentioned or did not shoot ULF. David H Gibson does some nice work, that could be done with 7x17 - but if IIRC he shoots 612 or 617 roll film mostly. There are a few others that use mf (8x10). If you do find some others, please post a link (Michael I would be most interested in your link - pm me please, if you really do not want to post).

 

[colrehogan]

Kerry,
What a neat picture of Mt. Hood. When you shoot color (either in a situation like that or in general), are you shooting mostly transparency or negative film? I'm just curious, as I'd love to get some shots like that, but many of the shots I have in mind would be sunrise shots due to the location. Very few would allow me to have the sun at my back at sunset.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Kerry,
What a neat picture of Mt. Hood. When you shoot color (either in a situation like that or in general), are you shooting mostly transparency or negative film? I'm just curious, as I'd love to get some shots like that, but many of the shots I have in mind would be sunrise shots due to the location. Very few would allow me to have the sun at my back at sunset.

Diane,

I shoot color transparency film. 95% of my images over the last 15+ years have been shot on Fuji Velvia (including that Mt. Hoot shot). Although I tend to shoot more sunsets than sunrises out here in Oregon (due to my proximity to the Pacific Ocean), I also do a lot of early morning shooting. In the National Parks portfolio on my web site, I have three or four images shot at sunrise (and a lot more in my files that I haven't scanned).

Kerry

 

[Alex Hawley]

Thanks to everyone for all the great links.

IMO, perhaps what stimulated the Grand Landscape more than anything was the size of Adams' prints, typically 16x20. I cannot recall him ever using a camera larger than 8x10. In fact, he wrote that an exhibition he did of 8x10 of 8x10 contact prints was "quite boring". Well, that was his opinion. Maybe that stimulated him to get that huge 8x10 enlarger. Who knows?

I will probably never own an 8x10 enlarger so I am "stuck" with "boring" 8x10s and one of these days, hopefully, 8x20s. So I don't know if any one can achieve that elusive "Grandness" unless able to enlarge to grand sizes. Enough cynacism!

My reasons for photographing the Flint Hills is that 1) they are off the beaten path and haven't been photographed to infinity, 2) some recent work has been done there by a couple notable photographers but its in color, not B&W, and 3) none of the recent work is LF or ULF.

Whether my project generates any interest outside the local region remains to be seen. Unfortunatley, my scanner is on the fritz and I can't share what I consider to be the first decent print I've gotten from there that may be in the great lanscape tradition.

Great thread. keep it up!

 

[Mike Lopez]

Jim,

I hear this a lot, and I see a LOT of color work of these locations, but other than Adams himself, I seem to see relatively little published large format black and white landscape work these days. While places like Yosemite Valley and Antelope Canyon are swarming with photographers, there are many other places in the American West that are no less spectacular that receive far less attention - at least from the large format crowd, especially the ULF "crowd" (not really enough ULF shooters around to call them a full-fledged crowd).

Back when I was shooting full time, I hit all the popular spots, many multiple times, and I frequently ran into other full time pros, but they were all 4x5 color shooters. Other than one guy shooting the Watchman from the bridge (literally on the shouder of the road) in Zion with an 11x14, I can't recall ever seeing a ULF shooter in any of these locations.

Personally, as my travel time is limited these days, I plan to shoot closer to home - here in Oregon and neighboring Washington. Plenty of "grand" subject matter within a few hours drive. I'm sure there has to be other ULF shooters here in the NW, but I have never seen any out shooting in the places I like to go. So, maybe I'll be the first to haul a ULF rig into some of the places I plan to go.

Kerry

It goes back quite aways, but check out the work of Carleton Watkins. He hauled mammoth plate cameras through much of Oregon in the 19th century.

 

[jimgalli]

Kerry, being a Norwester I'm sure you're familiar with Darius Kinsey's fabulous work from 1896 to roughly 1940 with the big Empire 11X14 camera that he hauled ALL OVER the woods up there. I read through the "Locomotive Portraits" about once every 2 years, and just recently bought the big double volume of his other work. Talk about the grand landscape! Kind of humbling. The guy did it all 100 years ago.

 

[John Kasaian]

If you want more inspiration, look at Vittorio Sella's books. Imagine cllimbing the Himalayas with big honkin' glass plates and a dark room "tent."

I feel like such a wimp!

 

[Dave Wooten]

If you want more inspiration, look at Vittorio Sella's books. Imagine cllimbing the Himalayas with big honkin' glass plates and a dark room "tent."

I feel like such a wimp!

"indeed we are such wimps" I have such admiration for the Carleton Watkin's and Timothy O'Sullivans, and the Sellas et al......not only for the hardships of travel and the size of their equipment, but for the dedication and the volume of work they were able to accomplish, Sullivan often worked with a 20 x 24, IMHO no photographer working from 1920's to the present has accomplished as much in volume of work or historical significance as this era of photographers, 20th century photographic promotions and trends have all but hidden the contributions of these photographers.....Sullivan's work for example, in the west is unsurpassed yet there is no living monument to his work....

now i ve got to get back on e bay and see if I can save a few ounces by sniping an f12.5 159 wolly for my "monster 8 x 10 point and shoot to mount on the roof of the jeep, gotta remember to save room for lots of sunscreen and my cd's and cell phone and the brewski cooler....gonna bag me some grand landscape photographs, ....

 

[Michael Kadillak]

Absolutely WE ARE complete whimps whining about the weight of cameras and lenses. A theme that has dominated the forums on LF and ULF photography for years. Our predecessors kicked our ASS in the get it done department with big cameras.

Folks here talk about getting their 4x5 gear down to cutting ounces and I want to bust a gut. What happened to deciding to haul an 8x10 or a 11x14 with all of the gear and simply deciding to head to the gym for the four time a week workout with weights and cardio to accomodate the load? Seems to me like that is where the emphasis needs to occur. Yes, it is easier to drive to a location and drop the tail gate of the truck, but that leaves 100% of the off road photography off limits to LF photographers by default. When I go back into the winderness areas I have only seen one 4x5 shooter in nearly 5 years and he had two Lamas with him packing his gear.

Off to the gym!

 

[Steve Sherman]

sssssssssssssssh!

Don't tell everyone about the 5 % of us (ULF) who still take every piece of ULF gear way out into the wilderness just so we don't miss that once in a life time shot which we are all chasing.

Yes, great thread!

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

I got side tracked with work and family obligations, but I wanted to take the time to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. Although I'm still looking for examples of current (or recent) photographers shooting "grand landscapes" with ULF cameras, I found all the topics covered worthwhile.

I am well aware of the work of Carleton Watkins, William H. Jackson, Timothy O'Sullivan, etc. and full of respect and awe for what they accomplished and the places they hauled their mammoth cameras, glass plates and portable darkroom tents. I have several books featuring the works of these legends and their contemporaries. William H. Jackson is an especially interesting character who had a very long career as both a prolific photographer and painter. Fortunately, there are multiple autobiographies and biographies available on Jackson. His own "The Pioneer Photographer", originally published in 1929 was re-issued recently complete with all of Jackson's original text and over 150 of his photographs. It's a great account of his early years photographing the American West.

Of course, when it comes to the weight of our gear and the convenience of getting to the trailheads on paved roads in air conditioned vehicles, we have it way easier than these pioneering photographers. Heck, the invention of film was a huge step forward in convenience and weight savings. Knowing where these guys went, when they went there and what they had to haul along to photograph the undeveloped American West was part of the motivation for my original question. If they did it 100 - 135 years ago, why are very few people shooting the American wilderness in the "grand landscape" style with ULF cameras in 2006? I keep hearing "it's been done to death", yet the examples most often cited are almost always work created over 50 (or even 100) years ago. As good as these guys were, I simply can't believe they exhausted the possibilities for creating great photographs of the American wilderness, and given the widely accepted "done to death" retoric, I'm surprised by the dearth of examples of current ULF photographers working in this classic genre.

As I stated previously, "done to death" may very well apply to some places, but mostly by color photographers, 35mm and digital shooters, and mostly locations that are readily accessible by automobile. Based on the responses to this thread, it seems like there were more ULF photographers shooting remote western landscapes 120 years ago than there are today. Can that really be true?

Kerry

 

[Dave Wooten]

As I stated previously, "done to death" may very well apply to some places, but mostly by color photographers, 35mm and digital shooters, and mostly locations that are readily accessible by automobile. Based on the responses to this thread, it seems like there were more ULF photographers shooting remote western landscapes 120 years ago than there are today. Can that really be true?

Kerry[/QUOTE]


Kerry I think it is true.....the mammoth camera in the day of the geo survey teams was the contemporary ultimate in producing images used to settle and identify the American West, the ULF camera and the plates and chemistry used was state of the art and the mule so adapted to the rocky and desert west was the ultimate "4 wheel" of the day....never the less, present day photographers have much to add today using the perspective and the great advantages the ULF cameras offer....."shot to death" I don't think so" the surface has not even been scratched!

 

[roteague]

Folks here talk about getting their 4x5 gear down to cutting ounces and I want to bust a gut. What happened to deciding to haul an 8x10 or a 11x14 with all of the gear and simply deciding to head to the gym for the four time a week workout with weights and cardio to accomodate the load? Seems to me like that is where the emphasis needs to occur. Yes, it is easier to drive to a location and drop the tail gate of the truck, but that leaves 100% of the off road photography off limits to LF photographers by default. When I go back into the winderness areas I have only seen one 4x5 shooter in nearly 5 years and he had two Lamas with him packing his gear.

Thank you Michael, your comment is spot on. Granted, I don't shoot ULF, but I have very little use for the attitude of being more concerned "comfortable" than with carrying the necessary equipment, IMO that attitude only breeds mediocrity.