Is"the effort" really what makes LF photography great?

[Micah Marty]

Pardon me if Im out of bounds here, but Ive often wondered if large-format pho tographers talk too much about the travails of their chosen medium. Go to a larg e-format photographers website and youll likely find lengthy discourse on the heavy equipment, the unwieldy format, the time-consuming setup, the expensive fi lm, the demanding pre- and post-exposure steps to making the ultimate print. Dit to for books by and about LF photographers: in the introduction or the back ther es invariably an essay or a note explaining that readers should not expect simi lar results unless they are prepared to suffer greatly for their art the way tha t photographer does, on a daily basis. Even on this website newcomers are (to my reading) over-warned about the huge leap they are making, from "easy" 35mm and MF photography over to "our side," excruciatingly difficult LF photography.

Dont get me wrong: Im presently working in 4x5 and 8x10 (and have worked in 11 x14), and I agree that large format photography can be very demanding, expensive , unwieldy, and frustrating. But must we repeatedly tell everyone it is so? Must that always be the starting point, the most important thing to stress about the art? I guess it troubles me when it goes beyond legitimate advice or explanatio n to making "the struggle" the primary badge of honor, elevating us LF martyrs a bove the teeming "lesser endowed" masses, with their puny cameras and postage-st amp sized film. We end up emphasizing means over ends, accentuating the creator more than the creation, focusing on "the tools" and "the process" instead of the final product. Its almost as though we want photographsand photographersto b e judged based on the format used rather than the final result. A great photogra ph cant speak for itself, were saying: viewers must be told how much energy wa s expended to produce it before they can decide whether they like the image or n ot.

But what really makes a great photograph? I recall the words of a younger photog rapher who was lucky enough to spend time in the darkroom with large-format impr esario Paul Strand, often acknowledged to be one of the greatest photographers ( and fussiest printers) of all time. Strand, the younger man wrote, "never let me forget that the ultimate goal was to produce a picture, not a print."

Thoughts?

||||||||||||

[Daniel Taylor]

I think there is a resonance that occurs, between process, method, and outcome. I have always sensed it was healthy and out of respect for the medium and those that blazed the trail before us.

two climbers reach the top of Everest. one carries oxygen, the other breathes only the air off the Himalays unaided. we judge the outcome as both standing on the peak, but the climbers understand the difference.

[Scott Walton]

It is amazing the giberish that some put on the toating of equipment. The means to the end is the beautiful quality that is derived from the LF craft and to me it is worth the time and effort. To me it is preferred and not that combersome but that is what I prefer. Scott

[Bob Finley]

There is a definite theme of slow-demanding-heavy and of course the always mentioned "contemplative" nature of large format. I am a recent convert who found all of the above to be true and apparently attractive because I tend to ignore my other formats in the quest to master this one. I've often thought (and my 35mm friends often wonder) why go to so much bother when you can get the same image so much easier other ways. My answer is that I can't get the same results either techinically or in my own personal satisfaction from 35mm as I can from a view camera. I enjoy the process as much as the results but I know that most people wouldn't, otherwise APS wouldn't exist. I also am very glad that the warnings about the difficulties were out there. I have often felt like an idiot after one or the other mistake only to find that most everyone makes the same mistakes and has the same problems rasseling with the beast. I think it's wise to warn people so they don't jump in blind. These same warnings (which I got in abundance) only served to make it more attractive. The effort is worth it.

[Sean Billy Bob Boy yates]

If I've ever had a point posting on this forum, it was that L.F. doesn't have to be expensive and onerous and as techno-oriented as some folks seem to think it is or want to make it seem.

[Alex Corbishley]

I agree with Bob, I am glad for all the "warnings" about LF. It helps me not make the same mistakes myself. Some people overdo it but what can you do....

As to the equipment, I don't think that much stuff needs to be lugged around for LF. I use the same backpack as I did for MF. The lenses I use now are lighter weight and I use 2 instead of 4. Film is heavier, but QL isnt too bad. The field camera is 6 lbs but a 6x7 with prism and backs, etc... weighed almost the same. I think the weight problem is solved by how you approach it and how much $$ you spend...(Gitzo)

The best part is viewing highly detailed chromes on the lightbox. My advice to people shooting landscape is to seriously consider LF if they are looking at a medium format system. Personally I "see" better using the ground glass than looking through a tiny prism. And the cost is about the same as new MF.

It is a big leap from 35mm but if you are technically minded and heed the advice out there you can do this with very few mistakes. When I processed my first box of Velvia QL all of the pictures came out, most were in focus and I had no light leaks. I got the same results from a box of TMAX loaded by hand - except one neg fogged on one corner.

LF can try your patience at times but for me it is a time to relax, enjoy the view and try to place what I see on the film.

[Brad Evans]

I totally agree aith Micah and Scott. I want to gag myself with a loupe when I hear such gibberish.

Rebel! Proclaim to the world your LF pictures were "snapped" with an APS camera. Hehe.

[Paul Szopa]

Micah: I would offer this suggestion. For those of us that prefer working in large format, each photograph is an event. From looking until we see something worth "the effort" of setting up the equipment through printing the negative, that photograph is unique. Even to the point of developing one negative at a time for more precise control. Some of us brag about how much equipment we carry in order to be prepared for that one shot, others of us bitch and moan about how much equipment we have to carry in order to be prepared for that one shot. But in either case, the effort is a part of the process. What makes LF photography "great" are the finished photographs made by careful workers, and the association with others who share our preference for this type of equipment. I (And others, I'm sure.) would never tell anyone to jump right into large format without giving serious thought to "the effort", to say nothing of the expense. But we'll be there to help out any way we can should someone new to LF need a little support.

[J.L. Kennedy]

I haven't noticed much complaining going on in this forum, but it is the only one that I frequent. Where are you seeing this?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Indeed there are people who heroize "the effort" of large format photography a bit much, but I think the technical medium is not irrelevant to the meaning of the work.

This became particularly clear to me when I saw the Carleton Watkins exhibit some months ago at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. I couldn't help but think, even as I admired his remarkable compositions and the fine tonal gradations of his albumen prints, what it must have taken, when any trails that existed in the Sierras would have been rough at best, many years before Ansel Adams was out there with his relatively compact field camera, for Watkins to get to the base of Half Dome with his 11x14 or thereabouts plate camera, heavy glass plates, and portable darkroom for mixing collodion and coating the plates, then making an exposure without a light meter, and getting it all home on said trail without those big sheets of glass breaking. Knowing something about "the effort" here can really change one's appreciation for the photograph.