Is there a place to share LF photos online

[Ken Lee]

Is there a forum/site which lets people show Large Format photos - that is, only Large Format ?

[Juergen Sattler]

Yes, there is, it is called the f32 Large Format Photography Community at http://www.f32.net/. They have different categories and one is called "Photography critique" where you can post your photo and have the members of the forum give you feedback. It is exclusively Large Format!

Juergen

[Philippe Gauthier]

It's not quite as specialized, but my own site (currently being upgraded) features a photo critique forum devoted only to LF pictures. Most of the critique activity has recently shifted to the newly implemented photo albums; I'd gladly set up a LF forum if a few members asked for it. Actually, I'd love it. I feel rather alone right now. My site is 100% free.


http://photopixel.tilttek.com

[paulr]

I'm always skeptical of forums that exclusively show "large format photography," as opposed to Good photography.
They typically seem to have a cameral club/popular photography feel to them--lots of emphasis on cameras, f-stops, and photo 101 ideas, lots of generic and derivative imagery, and very little sense of connection to the history of the medium, the history of art, or anything going on in visual culture, good or bad.

I come to a forum like this one because it's about craft--how to do what needs to be done to make an image. So specificity to certain f0rmat makes sense. When I want to look at art, though, I'm not sure why I would want to select a group of images based solely on its creators using a similar tool to the one i use. I can learn a lot more about making a great image from looking at work by Andre Kertesz, Robert Frank, or William Eggleston than I can from looking at work by Ansel Adams, Jack Dykinga, or Fred Picker. My allegiance is to a depth of seeing and a level of visual sophistication, not to a minimum negative size.

[Jonathan Brewer]

Paul R...........................................Never has anyone said it better.

[Gem Singer]

Paul and Jonathan, after all, this is a forum that is devoted to large format photography. That's what attracts me to it. Digital, as well as small and medium format photographers, have their own forums. If I was interested in looking at images made with digital or smaller formats, I would participate at the appropriate forums.

[Jonathan Brewer]

Eugene

All he's stating is his philosophy about what he appreciates as art, and why he comes to this site, I happen to agree with him, that doesn't demean or diminish this forum, if he or I continue to participate in this forum or any other, then it is a given that it must be of value to us, which it is.

' When I want to look at art, though, I'm not sure why I would want to select a group of images based solely on its creators using a similar tool to the one i use.'............................there's nothing in this statement about putting images of a different format into this forum, it's a statement about what he looks at and why.

Whether or not what he said answers the original question, I think he put things in their proper perspective, whether anybody on this forum agrees with Paul or not, many folks on this forum have MF and 35mm gear that they use in addition to their LF gear, .............a while ago when one gentleman who used primarily 35mm passed away, homage was paid to him by the folks on this forum. Why? You can practice one thing and recognize the art of someone else.

[paulr]

Thank you Jonathan, well said.

I hoped to point out my appreciation of this forum when I said,
"I come to a forum like this one because it's about craft--how to do what needs to be done to make an image. So specificity to certain format makes sense. When I want to look at art, though, I'm not sure why I would want to select a group of images based solely on its creators using a similar tool to the one i use."

This isn't a call to start threads on Minox cameras, photograms, or digital point 'n' shoots. Just a hope that when it comes to looking at images, we can get past the idea of "large format photography" as a meaningful art genre. The museum of modern art has a Department of Paintings and Sculpture, not a Department of Paintings on Canvases Larger Than Sixty Inches. I know this sounds glib, but it's something to consider.

Large format cameras are wonderful tools, and do what nothing else will do. But the great work comes from people who use the tool to serve a VISION, not to serve a fetish. A forum like this is a great place to learn how to use the tools. If you want to look at work, though, which seems to me to serve the larger purpose of inspiring your vision (and maybe also your soul, but that's another topic), the emphasis should be on work that has more to offer than a shared tool. There's so much great work out there, in so many formats. And so many media. If you're a landscape photographer and you haven't taken a close look lately at Cezanne, Van Gogh, or Corrot, then maybe it's time to put down the camera for a while ...

I'm certainly not telling anyone to NOT look at large format pictures. Most of my favorite photographers used large format, at least some of the time. I'd be lost without Strand, Weston, Atget, and a half dozen others. For some reason, though, I don't see work of their caliber on websites labelled "Large Format Photography." In those places I tend to see camera club level work that at its best seems to aspire to what I see in stockhouse catalogs. I can only guess why this would be; my suspicion is that it's because the photographers and curators alike put the emphasis on the nature of the tool and not the depth of the vision.

[Gem Singer]

Jonathan and Paul,

Both of you seem to have misunderstood my response. I was merely concerned because Paul's response did not address Ken's inquiry. I got the impression that Paul was putting Ken down for limiting his quest to photos taken exclusively with large format equipment. I own and use smaller format equipment as well as LF equipment. I'm certain that Ken also does.

I still do not see why Ken's request would evoke such a response and all of the ensuing discussion on the subject of art appreciation.

[Jonathan Brewer]

Actually the first paragraph of his response answered the relevance of Ken's question for him, doesn't that consititute a relevant answer?