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?)
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?)
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.
Photographs by Richard M. Coda
my blog
Primordial: 2010 - Photographs of the Arizona Monsoon
"Speak softly and carry an 8x10"
"I shoot a HYBRID - Arca/Canham 11x14"
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.
Daniel Buck - 3d VFX artist
3d work: DanielBuck.net
photography: 404Photography.net - BuckshotsBlog.com
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
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.
Architecture, interiors, and increasingly, people-
I've never used my 4x5 for landscape,
well, one without buildings in...
j
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.
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.
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
That's only because my ShenHao sucks at action sports
Bookmarks