Non-LF photographer asks perhaps a silly question

[Sassan Sanei]

Hello,

I have a question about large-format photography that I hope somebody on this forum can answer.

(The question may seem silly but it is coming from a 35 mm and digital photographer. I have never had a chance to use a large format camera.)

I have noticed repeatedly over the years that images taken with large-format cameras tend to have extremely vivid, saturated colour.

Examples:

http://www.8x10.se/pages/collections.asp

http://www.galleryonthegrand.com/artists/Michael_Fatali.html

(and many others)

Is there something inherent to the larger format that results in such colour, that does not exist with smaller formats?

Or is this entirely the result of the great care with technique, and attention to detail, that large-format photographers must place on every single exposure before releasing the shutter?

Obviously that plays the primary role, what I am really wondering is whether the larger film size, in and of itself, contributes to the intensity and richness of the colour.

(I was going to add "all else being equal" then I realized that is not possible for all else to be equal, but I hope you understand my question.)

Thanks,

Sassan Sanei

[Dan Fromm]

Color film is color film. It helps, though, not to overexpose reversal film or underexpose negative film. It may be that 35 mm and digital snapshotters rely too much on their cameras' suggestions on exposure.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

A major reason is that the majority of color landscape photographers use transparency film with very vivid, saturated colors- primarily Velvia 50, but also E100VS. The film is exposed during warm, low contrast light, such as around dusk and dawn. Also, many color landscape photographers are drawn to things with vivid colors to begin with. The things you mentioned, i.e., attention to detail, careful composition and technique, etc. play a role as well, but the primary reason is the film itself and the light it is exposed in.

-Brian www.imagesofenchantment.com

[mark blackman]

Hello.

When you post trolls like this try and be a bit original , go for something unusual. Wild claims about colour saturation belong in the beginners section of photography. Please go there.

[Brian Sims]

Sassan, If you shot the same scene with a view camera and a 35mm, at the same time, at the same exposure, with the same film, and processed it the same you could measure identical colors with an impartial electronic device. But the human eye is judgemental. We may SEE more vivid colors because the optical clarity and other characteristics inherent in LF photography. If you are curious...you should give it a try.

[tim atherton]

So far I don't think this is a troll... so

imo many of the better LF colour work doesn't really on the vivid over-saturation that Velvia and such supplies - it often gives colour for the sake of colour - that is, it uses colour as a graphic element rather than a compositional one. At it's best it generally isn't what you would call subtle - at it's worst it's garish and overpowering (to say the least).

One of the great things about using colour in LF is it allows for subtleties of tone that usually just aren't there in 35mm or digital. LF colour work, especially when printed to a decent size, excels at this and has a sense of depth and a tactile nature that smaller formats just don't have. But the use of the high saturation films just has the effect of blasting out eyeballs. It takes a subtle touch and a good understanding of colour to work in this way and to do this well.

In part, I believe the use of highly (over?) saturated film and production of such images in smaller formats is in part due to the limitations of those formats in terms of subtleties of tone and detail.

Of course looking at it on the web doesn't give that much a a realistic idea of the actual work, but:

http://www.tatargallery.com/view_all_photos.asp?art_key=73&rec_no=1

http://www.archphoto.it/Flash/SOUTHAMFL.htm

http://www.billcharles.com/sternfeld/joelsternfeld_1.htm

http://aperture.org/store/books-detail.aspx?id=269

http://www.robertmann.com/artists/southam/full_01.html

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/ (under "works")

are just a few examples

[Michael Gordon]

Fatali is against digital manipulation and printing (and we sure can't accuse his Ilfochrome's of being hypersaturated or inauthentic, can we?), so one can only assume that his vivid colors are a result of his being witness to "magical monuments of God's creation". I suppose a Duraflame every now and again hasn't hurt either.

[Sassan Sanei]

Thank you all for the thoughtful replies.

Dan Fromm: Good point, I agree.

Brian Vuillemenot: I greatly enjoyed visiting your web site. Your work is stunning! Junipers in the Fiery Furnace is my favourite.

Mark Blackman: This is neither a "troll" nor a "wild claim" but an honest observation, and if you notice the question is, in fact, posed in the "Beginner's Questions" category, and I point out that I have not myself used a large format camera. So I am fully aware that it is a beginner's question. There is no need to be insulting about it.

Brian Sims: That is a very good point and addresses the heart of my question. Thank you. I hope to give it a try one day.

Tim Atherton: The first time I saw prints from large-format (16x20 and 24x30 cibachromes from 8x10) there was a distinct, smooth gradation in tone that is simply not there in similar-size enlargements from smaller formats. Thank you for the links as well, I can see that punchy colour is not always necessary (works well for some subjects, looks artificial for others).

Michael E. Gordon: Yes, it surely helps to be at the right place at the right time, and to be patient!

Sassan

[mark blackman]

didnt notice the 'beginners section' bit. I take it back.