Why do you shoot LF?

[E. von Hoegh]

Are you blaming the camera?

No. I was making a joke. Hence the winking smiley.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

ahhh yes...haters be hatin'

people don't like the truth and that's also a fact

all these control-positive people here brings to mind pee wee herman crashing his bike and then getting up and saying "i meant to do that"

Johnny, this is the behavior that got you banned over at LFPF.

If you single me out one more time and accuse me of stalking you, as you did in another thread, I will report your nonsense to a moderator. I'm now putting you on ignore. 'Bye.

 

[Rick A]

I shoot LF for the pure joy of it. No gimicks or gadgets, just photography at its purest.

 

[ntenny]

More detail could be a nice theoretical bonus but 4x5 isn't a huge improvement over 6x7 in that department and it's swamped by differences in film technology. For example, 6x7 Acros is about 35c/frame, 4x5 Fomapan (Arista) is 70c/frame and 4x5 TMX/Acros is $1.80/frame. Going to LF approximately doubles the film cost for no increase in resolution, or you can increase $$ by 6x for about one extra stop of detail. Similar price ratio (4x) for shooting E6 and about 7x if you want to shoot C41, still for just that one extra stop of detail.

I'm not sure if it makes sense to talk about "stop of detail", because the way we view images is so nonlinear. As far as information in the frame goes, the difference isn't enormous---a factor of 3 between 6x7 and 4x5, given equal film resolution---but clearly a lot of people find the visual impact of that modest difference to be disproportionate, perhaps because it crosses some critical perceptual threshold for them.

In any case, I think "detail per frame" is more important than "detail per unit area" in practice (I think that's what you're comparing above; Acros apparently costs twice as much per unit area in 4x5 as in MF, right?). One of the points of shooting large format is precisely to enlarge less, i.e., to put more film area in the image; of course that costs more per frame, and of course it doesn't make the underlying resolution of the film any higher, but it does deliver more film resolution to the viewer.

In short: It's not that you double your cost (per unit area) to keep the same resolution, it's that you sextuple your cost to triple your resolution. Diminishing returns to be sure, but somewhat offset if, like many of us, you get a higher fraction of keepers in LF.

I'm also a recovering technophile so I enjoy the challenge of using (and getting the most out of) complex toys and while that's a bad reason to choose a particular artistic approach/technology, I'm pretty sure it applies to a lot of LF users. It probably doesn't matter though as long as the technology isn't actively holding you back - I make a point of using more-appropriate toys when taking more-spontaneous photos like candid portraits in poor light, or travelling around the world.

Yeah, I'd agree with all that, except that I'm not sure technophilia is necessarily something to "recover" from. Complicated toys are fun; they're not the only thing in the world, to be sure, but they're fun. And I think some of us actually like the challenge of using nominally inappropriate toys, just out of cussedness. I know I do.

-NT

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I like the look of a contact print.

 

[Steve Smith]

One of the first things I learned from LF was pre-visualisation, that is knowing what the print will look like before I expose the negative.

and that's proof right there that there is no such thing as "previsualization".

The act of visualising the image in your mind exists. It's just the word which is non-existent. No need for the 'pre' in front of it.


Steve.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The act of visualising the image in your mind exists. It's just the word which is non-existent. No need for the 'pre' in front of it.

Steve.

Agreed. But, when I type "visualisation", folks often don't understand. It's a DIYDDIYD situation.

 

[Steve Smith]

The funny thing is that pre-visualisation (or with a z if you must) is usually attributed to Ansel Adams. However, if you look at his three books, The Print, The Negative and The Camera, the first chapter of each uses the word Visualization.

e.g Chapter One of The Negative is titled Visualization and Image Values.


Steve.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The funny thing is that pre-visualisation (or with a z if you must) is usually attributed to Ansel Adams. However, if you look at his three books, The Print, The Negative and The Camera, the first chapter of each uses the word Visualization.

e.g Chapter One of The Negative is titled Visualization and Image Values.


Steve.

I know. I don't know where the "pre" got added. Another is "proactive" - I think they mean "preventive" but I'm not sure.

 

[Steve Smith]

I think Edward Weston and Minor White used it but I'm not sure who was first or who added the pre-.


Steve.

 

[JBrunner]

I shoot 8x10 because I find well executed large format contact prints to be the pinnacle of photographic excellence. It is the method used by just about every photographer who's work I personally admire. That is, of course, just my opinion.

 

[FiatluX]

I shoot LF because it is the perfect creative process for me, even if a 30min exposure feels like I´m rushing things at times..

 

[Bill Burk]

Minor White defined "Previsualization" in Zone System Manual, How to Previsualize Your Pictures.

 

[ntenny]

I think Edward Weston and Minor White used it but I'm not sure who was first or who added the pre-.

I can't resist questions of detail, so I checked with Google Books. The earliest usage wrt photography that I could find was in 1947, in Morgan & Lester, _Graphic Graflex Photography_. The second one is in a 1951 article in _American Photography_ about Minor White, where White is quoted using and explaining the term.

It actually kind of makes sense to me; it's a shorthand for "pre-exposure visualization", which you gotta admit is a bit of a mouthful.

-NT

 

[cliveh]

Ever seen a large or ultra-large format contact print?

Not a slightly wavy one made under a sheet of glass held down by gravity. But one clamped down by 2,000+ pounds of air pressure in a vacuum contact printing easel?

You would know...



Ken

But is it art or just photographic technical perfection?

 

[Steve Smith]

It actually kind of makes sense to me; it's a shorthand for "pre-exposure visualization", which you gotta admit is a bit of a mouthful.

Well, in its long form, pre-exposure visualization makes perfect sense. Pre-visualisation does not as it implies something you do before visualisation. That something is actually visualisation so the pre is redundant. In your version the visualisation is pre-exposure - which is exactly correct.

But is it art or just photographic technical perfection?

Yes (or no).


Steve.

 

[Bill Burk]

ntenny and Steve Smith already clarified, it is pre-exposure visualization...

The Minor White definition: "...this survey of possibilities and choice is done on location, in front of the subject, before the exposure is made. Previsualization as such survey and decision is called is to be done before the exposure is made." "...The term stands for a developed ability to look at a scene and at the same time hold in one's eye the image of the print which is still to be made."

There's talk of pre- and post-visualizing, visualizing from the print back to the original, vision communicated clockwise and counterclockwise and sometimes both directions at the same time. How this sometimes reaches an almost Zen-like state, etc.

 

[removed account4]

But is it art or just photographic technical perfection?

hey clive

i think that can be asked of any photograph not just a print from a bigger than 8x10 negative.
... can't it ?

 

[papagene]

i use large format because it is a requirement for some of the work that i do.
it is primarily because of perspective control and because the negative is large enough
to view a contact print as a proof.
but that is what i tell people, the real reason i do it is because it is fun.

I agree whole heartily with John on this... because it is fun!! I really enjoy working with a large format camera. But then again I also like using my two Fuji MF rangefinders... my Rolleicord...

 

[Bill Burk]

I forgot to tell the story why I use 4x5...

When I was a young man, out of my second job after school, I stopped in a camera store and saw an Omega DII and Kodak easel. I traded in a Minolta X-370 (that I'd only bought to help out an acquaintance who was short on cash), put some money down and put the rest on layaway. Went back and got it and that enlarger and easel are still working for me today.

Classic example of cart in front of horse, now I had the means to make enlargements from 4x5. My first foray into LF did not hook me in immediately. So I went back to 35mm for the next maybe ten years. I could do a lot with Panatomic-X, Kodachrome and later Velvia. But mostly I loved the black and white.

Somewhere along the way the world changed around me and now I was in high-res online image viewing technology. I spent my working days helping people look at 300MB graphic arts plate files over the Internet. I wanted to make some demo files. Sure it was fun looking at my 16MB scanned 35mm slides with the technology, but I wasn't really impressed with 35mm anymore.

The same time, in our hallway, I had a couple prints up. One from 35mm of the Brooks Range in Alaska, another from 4x5 of Dinkey Creek. Seeing those prints side-by-side every day, cemented my desire to shoot 4x5.

So for my 50th birthday, my wife told me I could buy any camera I wanted in the world. I researched here and there, narrowed down my choices and decided on the 4x5 that was to be the last camera I ever bought... (It wasn't but it was supposed to be).

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But is it art or just photographic technical perfection?

Is the pursuit of photographic technical perfection mutually exclusive with the creation of art?

Ken

 

[removed account4]

Is the pursuit of photographic technical perfection mutually exclusive with the creation of art?

Ken

YES ! in some case ... they really have nothing to do with eachother.

 

[Vaughn]

I contact print using alt processes. The bigger the neg, the bigger the print.

And it is a lot of fun...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

YES ! in some case ... they really have nothing to do with eachother.

Are you sure, John?

Because the logical extension of your answer would be to take the position that any artist who feels the need for greater levels of technical perfection in the use of his chosen medium (in order to more clearly express his vision in whatever medium that might be) cannot, by definition, create a work of art.

Ken

 

[removed account4]

Are you sure, John?

Because the logical extension of your answer would be to take the position that any artist who feels the need for greater levels of technical perfection in the use of his chosen medium (in order to more clearly express his vision in whatever medium that might be) cannot, by definition, create a work of art.

Ken

hi ken

i can only speak from personal experience, and seeing works of art made by elementary school children.
often times it is not having any clue about what is right and wrong, what is good technique and bad which leads to great art.

i think it was picasso who said that his main gist was to create art like a child.

for me at least ... the only thing gotten from a technically perfect photograph, is a technically perfect photograph, and i find that to be a bore ... just a "document"
"art" happens when there is human touch, mistakes and imperfection ( like wabi sabi ) otherwise a robot can make art, and elephants couldn't ...

i could be wrong ...

john