Non traditional photographs

[ageorge]

The primary differentiating characteristic of "large format" is its unique descriptive capabilities. It's ability to capture/describe a subject with the utmost detail. All other characteristics are not unique to "large format". With stitching, you can match and even surpass these descriptive capabilities and is very relevant to "Large Format Photography", IMO.

It is my understanding that stitched images are allowed on the forum and until I hear otherwise from QT, this will continue to be my understanding.

I might be wrong but I think Donald's intention was for us to show photographs which somehow presented out of the box thinking. Your images are very traditional in the sense that while you are showing a subject matter that might be interesting (to some) they are common place now. As someone mentioned, social commentary a la Stephen Shore..... nothing new about this.

My interpretation of "traditional" was within the context of what is "traditionally" posted on THIS forum. The idealized BW landscape being the most obvious target. I feel that the images I have posted do fail outside of this "tradition". Are my images unique of all photographic traditions? Certainly not. An image unique of all photographic traditions would be an exceedingly rare and noteworthy event.

1DsII, 45mm, 2x2 stitch, 6479x6457

[Daniel_Buck]

I think everyone's point has been made. Could we stop arguing about it and get on with everyone posting photos again?

[Greg Lockrey]

I think everyone's point has been made. Could we stop arguing about it and get on with everyone posting photos again?

The more the point is made, the more we get to see these wonderful digital images.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The primary differentiating characteristic of "large format" is its unique descriptive capabilities. It's ability to capture/describe a subject with the utmost detail. All other characteristics are not unique to "large format". With stitching, you can match and even surpass these descriptive capabilities and is very relevant to "Large Format Photography", IMO.

It is obvious that you cannot seem to have the courtesy to adhere to the purpose of this forum which is the use and promoting of LARGE FORMAT, but further more insist on posting lame ass, down right boring pictures with the excuse that they are not traditional because they were taken with a dslr. If this is not stupid twisted logic I don't know what is.

Detail is not the only one of the unique qualities of LF, it is also it's ability to change the plane of focus, and just because you now can simulate the same things with PS it does not make it LARGE FORMAT.

Using a LARGE FORMAT CAMERA is not the same as using a dslr and stitching....but then this is a basic concept you apparently are unable to understand. Why don't you go to photo.net and post your stuff there and stop fouling this forum?

You are a perfect example of the problem with digital and people who use it, you absolutely have to ram it down everybodies throat just because you want to.....

You will probably answer this post with one more boring shitty picture....you know what? once you are put in the ignore list, they fail to appear.... thank god for that.

[Ole Tjugen]

Here's mine:



Linhof Technika 13x18, Xenar 300mm f:4.5, full front and (opposite) rear swing, and a smidgeon of front tilt.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Actually, you know what, I have reported your posts and would like an answer from QT and/or the moderators. Stitching dlsr images to make one big file is NOT large format nor does it make it an example of non traditional LARGE FORMAT photography...

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nice image, Ole!

[paulr]

Ageorge, I don't know what's allowed here and what isn't, and personally don't care if your pics are daguerrotypes or from a minox. But I have no idea what's nontraditional about the images. They seem to me to fall squarely in a linneage that moved from Walker Evans to Robert Adams to William Eggleston and Stephen Shore and Joel Meyerowitz, and more recently to guys like Struth and Burtynsky.

Technically speaking, stitching is already a tradition, so you're not talking about that.

It might be true that Romantic and early modern landscapes are common around here, but there are plenty of us doing work that lies outside of that (and some of us doing work in the same tradition you seem to be working in)

Or am I missing something?

[Marko]

Yep, there are plenty of places to go see digicam photos.

There are plenty of places to gripe and moan about them too...

[Marko]

Honestly and directly speaking, those among us who are using every opportunity to turn every thread and topic into an apug-like anti-digital bitchfest have no moral right to preach about respecting the purpose of the forum, since they have shown utmost disrespect toward Donald and his intended purpose by drowning this thread with their negativity.

Why is it so hard to say nothing when you don't have anything nice to contribute?

Perhaps it might be a good time to respectfully ask Donald to please restart the thread fresh and give us another chance to simply enjoy nice photographs. It might even succeed now that everybody seems to have made their point, so loud and clear...