What We Photograph

[Peter Lewin]

Somewhere buried in the interminable postings about locking threads and new stricter moderating standards was what I thought was a very interesting post by Darin Boville, suggesting that to a large extent this Forum was locked in the large format past, that the photographers we post about, and our own images, are typically "West Coast School" and typical of pre-WWII photography. What seemed to be lacking was an appreciation for, and to some extent emulation of, the current batch of fine-art LF proponents. What comes to my mind as "current" is typically very "directed" people-scenes, which are then printed very large. Greg Clewson was mentioned in one thread, and (showing my senior moments) I remember at least one woman photographer who specialized in color scenes of the upper classes, designed to look candid, but really very posed, heavily lighted. There are other similar photographers, but without research the names aren't jumping to mind, although in my own mind, the images are!

Contrast that to a quote I've excerpted from Lenswork Daily: "There are several photographic subjects that come up repeatedly in the submissions to LensWork — trees and rocks, Cuba and Tibet, flower still life — but by far the most frequent subject is what we characterize as "the abandoned place." The problem with most of these portfolios is that they are not only abandoned but forgotten and, to be blunt, inhuman. That is to say, they are not only abandoned but they don't appear to have ever been occupied ..." The Lenswork subject matter is definitely what we post here as well.

So, "in honor of Darin" but also because I think it will prove interesting, how about some discussion of both why we (and I certainly include myself) tend to gravitate to the same rather hackneyed subjects, and also whether any of us venture into studio lighting, strobes, "set up" scenes, or anything more typical of the contemporary fine-art scene. Is our photography only about the enjoyment we get producing it (which is therefore rather independent of subject matter, it is "the journey" we enjoy, more than the end product) or should our photography be about something else?

[Kirk Gittings]

For me I shoot what I like, what moves me and that is largely the architecture and landscape of my home state and the SW. I'm not trying to prove anything to any art critics, former instructors or mentors. I'm not seeking to do anything "new" but just do it with meaning and do it well. Luckily that has resonated with others and I have found a solid audience for my work.

[jcoldslabs]

Speaking only for myself, I can offer a few observations:

1. The most well known LF photographers, at least to me, are the giants of the medium, most of whom happen to have produced their best work 50+ years ago. That's not to say I am not aware of more contemporary artists, but in the case of someone like Gregory Crewdson, whom I admire greatly, he does not influence me much because I cannot emulate or replicate his style without money and lighting expertise far above my pay grade. The upshot is that the LF photographers who influence me tend to be disproportionately from a different era.

2. Large format photography, perhaps unfairly, seems much more governed by "shoulds" than smaller formats. I cannot shake the notion that I should have an even distribution of tones in my prints, that I should have a full range of densities in my negatives, that the Zone System or BTZS methods should be applied to my image-making. The glacial pace at which the practice of LF unfolds leads me to over-think what I am doing while I am doing it. When shooting roll film of any size I tend to shoot more instinctively, on the fly. This leads to lots of crappy images, but often more expressive and risky images, too. Yet I enjoy the process of LF photography more than I do other formats.

3. Large format photography is a much more laborious undertaking than most other forms of photography--bigger cameras, bigger accessories, more expensive film--and as such is less conducive to experimentation, especially for the hobbyist. If I decide I want to shoot a series of 8x10 transparencies, I am looking at around $20 per shot, including processing. At that price I am far less likely to try something risky, either exposure-wise or subject-wise. Instead I will probably stick to safer, more established subjects and compositions, things that I am fairly certain will work. I have two boxes of Polaroid 8x10 film gathering dust because I have yet to find an image that seems "worthy" of the $15 a pop it will cost me to click the shutter. But I have shot many 4x5 Polaroids of all kinds of subjects, good and bad, which is much easier to do at $1-$2 per shot.

4. In regard to your last point, I take photos for the fun and satisfaction of doing so (echoing Kirk's comment above), and I find the process of LF the most personally rewarding. Making a statement or imbuing my work with meaning beyond the personal is not something I think about. Maybe I should, but that interferes with my enjoyment so I tend not to.

Jonathan

[Richard Wasserman]

I am most interested in the built environment, architecture, and the political and social ramifications of what it takes to build it. For years I photographed only in black and white, and have relatively recently undertaken a project in color (how daring and contemporary of me!). I do all my work out of my own curiosity and have found it to be well received by people ranging from fellow artists, to buyers, to scholars. It's been an interesting journey.

[chassis]

There are some guys on this site that shoot in the genre you refer to. SergeiR, for one. There are a couple of others.

[Vaughn]

I photograph the light reflecting off the landscape. Judging by my photographs, it is easy to see that the redwoods is where I tend to hang out. And I like to head to the desert occasionally to kill off the ear-fungus and dry out the wood of my tripod. So more trees and rocks! But it is nice to toss the boys into the photographs.

Alex, Bryce and Calder
Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park
Scanned 8x10 Pt/pd print

[Winger]

Speaking for myself, I'm relatively new to LF so I can't set up and take a shot quickly like I'd need to with people in the shot. I'm also lots more comfortable in the woods by myself than dealing with people. At least a hike with a camera is still a good hike if the shots suck. I wouldn't mind learning about "newer" photographers, but don't even know where to start.

[C. D. Keth]

Like most people probably, I do shoot what interests me. I often look at or even set up a shot and then pass because I think it's pretentious or because it's too much like something I've seen before. I suppose in time I'll gain the confidence to know myself better and to shoot whatever I want and make it mine.

[jnantz]

hi peter

it is hard for me to say exactly what i take photographs of ...
i am not too particular when it comes to subject matter. i would rather
expose paper in a camera than film, and if it is hand coated, even better.
i enjoy the mistakes almost more than the perfection ..

[Bernice Loui]

Remember what happened when Sally Mann did a project on death?



Bernice