New article on starting LF at Luminous Landscape

[Bernard Languillier]

Dear all,

For what it is worth, the Luminous Landascape has just published a "short" article I wrote about entering the wonderful World of LF coming from DSLR shooting.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lf-appeal.shtml

Comments are most welcome.

Regards,
Bernard

[Dean Tomasula]

Sheesh Bernard! That's what you call short :-)

Excellent article. It's nice to see something on Luminous Landscape that's not biased in favor of Canon for a change. It's also a refreshing change to see a film article in the world of digital.

[William Barnett-Lewis]

Very interesting article; thank you for taking the time to write it up.

I am an absolute beginner to LF (having started actually taking shots in July). However I've come to do LF somewhat differently...

But most importantly, I'm a bottom feeder. Cheap is my byword. Also, I handhold about 80% to 85% of my shots. These two factors, alone, put my photography into a very different kind of place.

I have an Anniversary Speed Graphic (~1942) with, I believe it's original, 127/4,7 in a #2 Kodak Supermatic shutter. I also have a B&L 5x8 Tessar barrel mount lens that I picked up of late (works out to a 8 3/8"/6.3 in 4x5) from eBay for $11. Like I said, a real bottom feeder Glorious glass that I got stupid lucky to get so cheaply (and I had a much higher max bid in... ).

But it is a simple pleasure to be out using this old press camera the way it was meant to be used; that is perhaps the reason I enjoy the somewhat masochistic approach of handholding it. Heck, I've even used the GG to focus while handholding (the DOF at f22 - 45 is nowhere as limited as some might have you believe. Although I will admit diffraction can come into play.) Still, with 400 ISO film, stopped down lens, a good brace, and I can get as good as I've ever gotten with smaller formats. And the sheer joy of seeing the horrified looks on the digi-kids faces when you pull a darkslide (or worse yet work a Grafmatic... ) makes the hassles seem irrelevant.

Digital has a very real place in the world - and as far as I am concerned the cell phone cameras are the best thing to happen to photography since the Kodak Brownie. Why? Because they once again get people in the habit of making images. Sooner or later, some will get tired of the limitations and that is where the next generation of real photographers will come from.

In the meantime, we keep making our art and hopefully having fun while doing so. Otherwise, why bother?

William

[Bernard Languillier]

Thanks for the encouraging words, it is indeed a bit long, isn't it? :-)

Working with a press camera like this must be good fun and I fully agree with you that the process of creation is probably what matters most.

Also, another thing that strucks me recently is the lack of look of many digital images. You can of course do anything with digital images, but few people appear to do something interesting in terms of look. Working with a press camera like you do becomes all the more interesting in this regard, doesn't it?

Regards,
Bernard

[Scott Fleming]

Yea! Bernard. Good article. Nice to see it on LL too. I still read the site just to keep up on what's what but Michael's site having gone from a photography site to a digital site has been a big disapointment to me.

Too bad we don't have a board over there right now. Glad you brought it over here.

I noticed you didn't mention much about using the roll film back as regards the radical difference it makes in one's lense choices. Bet that's why you want the 58mm you mentioned. I thought I would make much more use of my 6 x 9 horseman RF back than I have but I just have not had the scratch to pick up a good WA lens. Presently having just a 150 and a 210 I don't find the RF back very usable. I've become very fond of the more normal length lenses of late.

I was gratified to read your thoughts on horses for courses. It is so true. As much as I love shooting with my Toyo 125VX I just don't see traveling with it when I go overseas. Not so much because of bulk but rather for effacacy of shooting while traveling. As much as I would love to go where I have planned to go just to shoot (Israel) that is just not in the cards. I will be with the wife and I simply cannot STAND trying to shoot LF when anyone other than dedicated photographers are my companions. So I will take the actualy heavier and bulkier Contax kit. If I could afford a new full frame digital camera (actually I can but not for just one trip a year or two) I would leave the Contax at home. (But then there are those wonderful Zeiss lenses. To heck with full frame 35mm.)

For the photography I love which is landscape ... all the benefits you list in your article for other formats and technologies IMO are meaningless. I learned the hard way. I had a wonderful 4 x 5 kit and sold it to finance the Contax 645 and lenses. As much as I love this camera it just did not do it for me as far as landscape shooting is concerned. Though I now have a better camera I still have not regained lenses equal to the fantastic lenses I let go. It's still painful. I am very satisfied with a dozen or so keepers per year and carefully composing my shots and waiting for the right conditions ... I find no trouble at all making this quota. =) I get absolutely none of the satisfaction obtained shooting LF when shooting digital cameras. None. There is just no comparison. LF is like painting or sculpting to me. Digital capture is like ... taking insurance photos with a disposable camera when somebody rearends you. This does not take into account the final product either. Give me those trannies ANY day. And the perfect large prints.

I want to give you some advice Bernard. Stop thinking you can do photgraphy with non photographer hiking buddies. Yuk. Stop torturing yourself. You need to be alone more or find some LF friends. ;^]

Thanks for the article. You did good.

[Bernard Languillier]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the nice words and final advice. I do agree with your conclusions... but still cannot help taking along a camera when I hike with others. I just cannot give up completely the possibility to try capturing this amazing light condition I could come accross. :-) I agree that the chance to capture it well without invtesting enough time is pretty low. It is likely to end up being more of a snapshot, as opposed to the carefully crafted image that could have resulted from a more commited approach.

As far as not getting any satisfaction when shooting gear other than LF. I feel that I know exactly what you mean. On the other hand, I am now thinking that it is not only the gear itself that is responsible for this. It is more the approach imposed by LF, the slow speed, the large viewfinder,... I feel that this state of mind can, to some extend, be taken advantage of when shooting smaller format cameras, even if those would not by themselves have been able to trigger this right approach. This is especially true for me in terms of composition. I am now doing with 35 DSLR compositions that I just didn't think of doing before starting LF.

Regards,
Bernard

[Bernard Languillier]

Scott,

On the impact of roll back on lenses. That is a good point, I should probably have pointed that out.

Actually, in the mean time, I have purchased a 6*12 back, which basically requires lenses closer to those typically used for 4*5 sheets. I have been using this pano back a lot more than the 6*9, because I find the 2*1 ratio to be quite original, if somewhat difficult to handle. But yes, the 58 mm was indeed mostly meant for 6*9.

Regards,
Bernard

[Mike Kovacs]

Short and sweet, eh?

I wish I could see your photos in larger size, e.g. through a clickable link.

[Bernard Languillier]

Mike,

I swear to you, they are tack sharp. :-)

The jpgs I sent to Michael were at least twice as large, I don't really know why he decided to resize them to their current size. He was kind enough to spend time reformating the Word file to .html and all, I decided not to bother him with further details like images size.

Regards,
Bernard

[Mike Kovacs]

Can't have them looking better than his digital images