Landscape photography bias in LF?

[cyrus]

Would you agree that there is a greater tendency in LF photographers to be landscape photographers -- (perhaps an influence of Adams? or tendency to equate big negatives with big scenes?)

[Richard M. Coda]

When I was younger I tended more towards landscapes... now, at 48, more towards abstracts and architecture, although I would never pass up a good landscape.

[Daniel_Buck]

I've often wondered this as well. For me, I like shooting landscapes LF because I the slower pace of shooting LF gives me more a sense of 'being there' in the landscape, a sense I don't get when I can pull a smaller camera up to my eye and slap the shutter and move on. If I have the chance to take my 4x5 or 8x10 for landscapes, I'll do it! If there is not room or time for a big camera, then I'll just take something smaller.

I suppose that subconsciously (and maybe a little bit consciously?) it seems more 'proper' to shoot landscapes with LF because that's how it was done by the photographers of the past that I admire. I've always enjoyed shooting landscapes though, so moving to LF hasn't really changed my shooting subjects all to much.

[Vaughn]

LF is an excellent tool for landscapes, thus it tends to be used for that. Same with architectural work. One certainly would not find an abundance of street photographers on a LF forum...LF just is not the tool of choice for that.

So I think that, in general (exceptions abound), that it is just a matter of picking the tool for the job. I began my photography with a Rolleiflex -- without knowing about AA and the LF "tradition", I was photographing the landscape and using the Rollei like a LF camera...on a tripod, f22 and long exposures -- moving to a 4x5 seemed a natural progression.

Peter Gowland's development of a TLR 4x5 was his attempt to create a tool for a genre (glamour) that would provide a larger neg but still function like one of the more "normal" tools of that type of photography.

Vaughn

[Wally]

The land stays put throughout my 4-10 second exposures. It's what I _can_ take pictures of.

My portraits with a 4x5 tend to be much more posed than candid, thanks to how long it takes me to focus that narrow depth of field when I want the background out-of-focus. The fact that my subjects are often squirmy doesn't help.

It's OK, I've accepted it.

And sometimes those posed portraits come out nice.

[jb7]

Architecture, interiors, and increasingly, people-
I've never used my 4x5 for landscape,
well, one without buildings in...

j

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

For many years LF street photography was done with crown and speed graphic cameras. The work was not as publicised as that of the formal landscape photographers. I think those using LF have gotten tired of the rocks and trees and have moved on to something else. If we use this forum as a sampling tool, you will see there are few landscapes, we got a lot of portraits, closeups, architecture, etc.

[Nick_3536]

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAPstrand.jpg

I will say it's harder to setup a tripod in the middle of a crowded street and go unnoticed.

[Vaughn]

Before roll film, everything was large format...some just larger than others

I suppose many of us eventually drift away from landscape as we age and carrying a LF set-up becomes more work than we want to undertake, or other reasons such as seasonal weather. Hopefully I will have another decade or so of carrying an 8x10 in me...which will put me around 65 yrs old.

Vaughn

[Anupam]

That's only because my ShenHao sucks at action sports