Does large format inhibit your creativity?

[Walter Glover]

Keith,

Large Format does not impede the creativity of the creative.

A thread started last week postulated that there was little justification for the overwhelming pre-eminence of nature photography. In their responses forum members confessed to having no particular creative or artistic aspirations. They confessed that 'Art' is beyond their capabilities. They like the aparatus, materials and processes of large-format photography. They like mountain climbing/hiking/wilderness, etc. and take their camera along for the ride as a vehicle of escape.

Those objectives have little or no relationship to the 'photograph' or creativity. In all probability those nature expeditions and all other genres of photography could be adequately accomplished any camera: something as simple as a point-&-shoot with a great deal less effort and for a lot less money, a Helga, a 35mm. But that would never do. These folk use large format. Why? Perhaps as an apology for their professed absence of creativity and innovation.

I am not branding all Large Format photographers with this summation, of course. Just the vocal majority; those who seek to foster and perpetuate the philosophy of a small band of largely West-Coast photographers whose heyday was 70 years ago.

The eidetic image was novel, back then. To portray the world and the objects in it with draftsman-like precision had an impact because it was new. But the once-new is now stagnant, stale. The world has moved on but, like the Amish, many large format photographers are unwilling to break the bonds that bind them in the past. .

The perfect description of the lens is a unique property of photography; it sets photography apart from the other mimetic arts. It is not the only property of photography. Great asset as it may be, in the hands of the unthinking its monotony can render it a liability. Erudite, free-spirited and courageous photographers will continue to be creative on any formats appropriate to the task at hand. Sciolist dilettantes will only occasionly, and by accident, produce work that rises above camera-babble.

Walter

[David Richhart]

I don't think it is a matter of large format impeding the photographer's creativity.

A very large % of LF work is made up of sharply focussed images not because the photographer was impeded, but because that is the type of image he chooses to accomplish, and the controls provided by the use of LF processes are STILL the best method to accomplish that...

Sharp focus can also be extremely abstract... as in some of the works of Brett Weston, Fredrick Sommers, Minor White, and others... -Dave

[Jonathan Brewer]

WOW!...Eidetic! One things for sure Walter, nobody'll ever accuse you of having a slim vocabulary!

[Peter Brown]

Bravo Walter! Well said, and I agree with your sentiments.

Keith, here is my response to your questions;

1) >Theoretically the large format camera has the potential to be a very creative tool. <

It is.

2) >With all those movements the possibilities would seem to be endless.<

They are.

3) >Unfortunately I see little evidence of creative or original work and much obsession with perfect front to back focus and other formulae.<

How do YOU define creativity? Originality? Please give some examples?

4) >Whilst I see much exciting work on 35mm and medium format I am surprised by the lack on large format. I admit it could be that I am not looking in the right places!<

Perhaps you ARE looking in the wrong places - Isn't there just as much "non-creativity" and "unoriginal" work in 35mm and MF?

5) >Does the large format camera actually inhibit creativity and if so why?<

NO!

Kind regards

Peter Brown

[fw]

Only after I gave up my Nikon and went to 4x5 did I feel that I was actually part of a creative process.

Eidetic - that's stuffed with duck feathers, yes?

[Jonathan Brewer]

I'd forgot to mention in my thread above that Westons 'Summer Sunshine' was basically a 'portrait study', and what impressed me about Weston was that he knew his way around portraits in a format that takes a lot of time to set-up and shoot, and could still catch the spontaneous 'look' he got in 'Summer Sunshine'.

[Rob Pietri]

Nice question with many answers. Personally, I started with 35mm but quickly realized that it would not produce the quality I wanted for the type of work I was doing, nature, landscapes, etc. (in NJ of all places) My first 4x5 was one of the original Wista 45s, wood, minimal movements. The larger format and zone system, forces you to carefully compose, and balance your composition. The only movement I really cared about was the rising front so to keep the camera level and better frame the subject without converging lines. For still lifes, large format is the way to go. For stop action, obviously 35mm is the choice. The right tool for the job.

My recommendation is if you are really serious about photography, you should learn on a view camera, probably a 4x5 for economic reasons. After a few years, composition will become instinctive, the balance and feel will be automatic so that when machine gunning 35mm, you will be far more sucessful in your imagry.

[Natha Congdon]

A couple of thoughts:

1. LF selects for perfectionists, and, to SOME extent, equipment junkies. Neither of these necessarily foster creativity.

2. In any format, you need to spend a certain degree of time mastering technique before you can be creative in any purposeful way (you may generate accidental "creative" results by giving fingerpaint to monkeys, but the work will not be likely to fascinate for long!) At any given time, more LF users are perhaps in the "technique- learning" phase, as it is a bit harder to master technically than 35 mm or MF.

3. I've felt better able to express myself creatively over time the longer I've shot in LF, and the more time I spend ruminating and mulling over the shots and their meaning to me in between making them. During this time, I have certainly become a lot less obsessed with perfect focus and using the sharpest or newest lens. I've had no particular desire to gravitate to smaller formats, and now mostly shoot 8X10 and 12x20.

4. Some of the most creative portrait-makers out there today are shooting 8X10. Sally Mann, Nicholas Nixon and Jock Sturgess would be three immediate examples. There is no contemporary collection of photos that I find more evocative, beautiful and worthy of repeated appreciation than Mann's "Immediate Family." Apparently I'm not alone in this, as Time magazine recently (and surprisngly!) named her the greatest living photographer.

Nice provocative question...

Nathan

[echard wheeler]

Two of my favorite photogs. Sally Mann and Jock Sturges use 8x10. They're work is very uninhibited.

ec

[John Smith]

This is a very good question! I used to wonder the same thing and stayed out of the LF world for a long time since I didn?t see that much exciting work there, mostly statis landscape. I was impressed with that Japannesse photographers book on the Hyimlayans (circa 1970s) which was all shot with a Pentax 6x7. Ditto Robert Glenn Ketchum?s work. Thus I resolved to stick with my 6x7 and tried for about 5 years to get those kind of images. Mostly I came up empty, but did get some nice 16x20 cibas off velvia. The problem was that I was drifting towards the LF landscape genre and I just couldn?t get the DOF or perpsecitve control afforded by the Pentax. Thus I sold the gear and jumped into 4x5.

Yes, there are countless times my mind says: If you only had a hand camera ?. Or if you could pack the gear in easier and shoot dust free roll film, there are shots to be taken that you can?t get with the 4x5. But I wonder how many times a subject absolutely requires a singular format? Look what Porter did with a view camera and birds! I've always thought that no matter how great a shot is, there's some diminishment of value when it's on too small a format to do much with.

I looked thru some of Eugene Smith?s work and it?s so incredible, and it would have been difficult to take with a 4x5, although the hand- held Linhof Tech users may beg to differ. Thus I will probably get a 6.45 camera at some point. Maybe a Mamiya or Pentax that has a 55- 100 zoom. Contax is too $$$$.

Yet the creative process transcends format.

Always a tradeoff ?.