PDA

View Full Version : Giving up the view camera---am I nuts?



Steve Williams_812
29-Dec-2005, 08:11
I have been struggling for the past year with a decision to abandon the view camera as a tool in my photographic arsenal. The evidence (film shot) shows that I am not using it as I once did. Down from hundreds of negatives per year last year to a mere 15 this past year.

For a variety of reasons my available time to photograph has changed and the projects I am working on run parallel to daily activities so I have been carrying my Leica with me most of the time. I have continued to work on a landscape project that has developed from my near daily dog walks. I have been using the Leica for this as well but am not pleased with the print quality much beyond 5x7 inch prints.

So I have been considering an alternative to my 8x10 camera---the Mamiya 7. I toyed with the idea of going back to 4x5 but it would present the same issues as the 8x10---slow and not as mobile as necessary.

I borrowed a Mamiya 7 from a friend and it certainly fits into my life and the dog walks. I suspect I will be happy with the print quality since I used to be pleased with negatives from other medium format cameras.

I wish I could afford to keep the 8x10 and get the Mamiya but I just don't have the cash.

And last, my back gives me occassional problems that carrying the big camera around does not help.

So there you have it. Am I neglecting to consider something in my thinking?

steve

Scott Davis
29-Dec-2005, 08:22
Look into something like a Speed or Crown Graphic, with a 90mm lens. That will get you the 4x5, but in a form factor designed for handheld use. You can put it on a neck strap and carry it with you, self-cased and ready to use. Don't forget to add a grafmatic 6-shot film holder. Then you don't have to worry about carrying film holders separately. That combo is not much bigger or heavier than a decent set of birding binoculars. If that's still too much, look into one of the 6x9 Graphic cameras - that will let you use rollfilm, and a wide range of lenses, and still give you some of the movements you've come to expect with your view camera, that you won't get with the Mamiya 7. And, the 6x9 Graphic will actually be smaller than the Mamiya 7. You can close it up and stuff it in a large coat pocket.

Guy Tal
29-Dec-2005, 08:23
Steve,
Unless you're contact-printing, the biggest difference is likely the ability to use movements. Since you're comfortable with the Leica, the Mamiya 7 will be an easy transition - it's a large rangefinder and works very much the same way.
If printing digitally from good scans, the 6x7 frame will give you an astounding amount of detail (print quality is subjective obviously, but I find my 6x7 and 4x5 chromes produce comparable results up to 16x20 or so).
The Mamiya lenses are some of the sharpest you will find anywhere. If it's a better fit for your lifestyle I say go for it. You can always pick up another 8x10 down the road, probably for the same or less than what you will get for your system today.

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography (http://www.scenicwild.com)

Dan Jolicoeur
29-Dec-2005, 08:31
The Mamiya 7 is a fine camera, and the prices of them on ebay have been through the roof. How you can compare the print quality to an 8x10 is another matter. If the view camera doesn't fit into your work at this time, and you can not afford to keep it sitting around then sell it. Although to me cameras are like guns, and I was always told once you buy one don't sell it. That being said I have sold view cameras to upgrade, and guns all with regret. You may want that Mamiya 7, but find another way to fund it or wait until you can afford it. Again I think the price is a little high at this time.

Ted Harris
29-Dec-2005, 08:36
I would quibble with Guy a bit in that I start to see the differences between 6x9 and 4x5 after 11x14 but tht is only a smallquibble and the Mamiya 7 has superb optics. OTOH as already mentioned the main thing you are giving up is the movements adn for my work they become critical in a lot of landscape shots. There are a wide variety of small form factor, light weight 4x5's that you can consider and you may even be able to keep using many of your current lenses.

Oren Grad
29-Dec-2005, 08:58
Steve, I've had substantial experience with all three of the camera types you mention - 8x10, Leica and Mamiya 6/7, and understand your frustrations with both the very large and the very small. Certainly, if the logistics of the 8x10 are making it impossible for you to enjoy photography, it's a good idea to consider a change.

In my experience and for my taste, the Mamiyas, while excellent cameras overall, are an uncomfortable compromise. On the one hand, the Mamiya is just not nearly so comfortable or fluid or versatile in hand-held use as an M-Leica, because of the square or squarish formats, the longer focal lengths (hence reduced DOF), the slower maximum apertures, and the increased size and weight. On the other hand, the Mamiyas make for awkward tripod cameras, because the framelines depart very substantially from what you actually get on the negative for subjects from midrange to infinity.

OTOH, these things may not bother you. If you've tried a 7 and are comfortable with it, it's not crazy. I'm not sure the lack of movements is a big deal, though I do miss front rise a bit when I'm working with wider lenses on a squarish format. I don't think a 2x3 Graphic is a substitute for a Mamiya 6 or 7 - the handling is wildly different, and to my taste, even less suited to quick and fluid snapshooting.

As for 4x5, I think that whether that is a good compromise for you depends on whether you want primarily to do tripod-based work or hand-held snapshooting.

Al Seyle
29-Dec-2005, 09:04
>>> I have continued to work on a landscape project that has developed from my near daily dog walks.<<<

What dog did you have that would wait around while you shot 8x10? My wife won't even do that!

I compromised with the "Texas Leica" Fuji 690 III 6x9 rangefinder for "walking around" shots. Good decision.

Doug Dolde
29-Dec-2005, 09:12
The Mamiya 7 is a great camera and the lenses are incredibly sharp.

The only real downside is you can't see through the lens. The meter looks at the lower right quadrant I found so there can be a tendency to blow out bright sky on transparency film Using a 1 or 2 stop soft threaded grad filter can be a big help in this regard.

John Berry ( Roadkill )
29-Dec-2005, 09:27
I agree with Al. I had the GSW 690 II and loved it. I only sold it as I'm like a lot of us here, want a new toy you gotta move somthing.

Ted Harris
29-Dec-2005, 09:36
Regarding my earlier post ... I do not own and have not used the Mamiya 7 extensively. OTOH, I have used a "Texas Leica" for some 12 years and it is now nearing 300 on the second time around on the counter. It is as close to indestructible as you can get in a camera and a joy to use. I can esily handhold it in most circumstances down to 1/15. No, it does nto replacea view camera but it does do yeoman duty in many instances.

Another thought,if your dog has the patience to wait while you etup and compose with an 8x10 then what about the ultra lightweight 4x5 options, the Toho or the Gowland?

John O'Connell
29-Dec-2005, 09:37
Is it operating speed or light weight that you want?

You can get lightweight field camera setups that probably go below 12# including a tripod. That's less than half the weight of my superlight 8x10 setup. A field camera will never be as lightweight as a Mamiya 7, but you'll have movements, lens options, TTL viewing, and bigger negatives.

If you've been seduced by the operating speed of the Leica, why don't you sell it instead for the Mamiya 7? All you'd really lose is the fast aperture normal and short tele lenses which always work best at around f/4 anyway . . . (Just an ex-Leica user tempting someone else to leave the fold, too.)

Frank Petronio
29-Dec-2005, 09:44
I used to worry a lot about having all these different formats running in my work until it dawned on me that experimenting with different cameras is part of the process and enjoyment of being a photographer. Also I found that by mixing the formats up, it helped me overcome the doldrums and slow spots - something new always motivates me to go shooting.

The secret is to dispassionate about the camera equipment and more passionate about the photos. A 30x40 print from a Leica or a Holga can be a beautiful thing, just as a 6x6 cm contact print be as well.

Personally, my advice is to get one good camera that you can have a passionate affair with, shoot a lot of stuff, and then dump it. Forcing your self to move on is often a healthy thing.

Why not concentrate on the Leica for awhile, since it suits your current lifestyle? I never cared for the plastic Mamiyas, as I used to have a Mamiya 6 system - sharp as a tack but not very elegant or fun to use.

Steve Williams_812
29-Dec-2005, 09:56
Thanks for all the comments, they have been helpful.

I have considered carefully the loss of movements that comes with a hand camera. While I have used movements on occassion the way I work just hasn't called for them much. Basically I was after the big negative.

When I acquired the Leica about 6 years ago it was a revelation for me. It just fit me perfectly in a way that no SLR ever did. And it continues to work. But I do still need a better negative for some of my work.

One of my play Websites shows the difference between what I do with the view camera and the Leica. Click on my right eye....

http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/s/f/sfw3/sfw3/index.html

John---no tempting me away from the Leica. I use it a lot. Keep wearing out the counter gear.

Frank, thanks for the thoughts about having the affair, shoot a lot, and then dump it. Basically that is what I always do but I have trouble with the dumping. I had a long passionate affair with the view camera but it is time to move on.....

thanks,

steve

Oren Grad
29-Dec-2005, 10:24
Steve, I think your Leica stuff is great. Looking at your LF work too, I also think that, if you're not committed to contact prints, aren't making huge enlargements and are willing to adapt to the frameline nuisance, you could accomplish a lot of the things that you're trying to do with the 8x10 by putting a Mamiya 7 on a tripod and working carefully with a film like TMX or Delta 100.

David Richhart
29-Dec-2005, 10:25
Keep the big cameras and go for a less expensive medium format camera. A decent Koni-Omega Rapid can be found for around $200. A great, professional quality, rangefinder camera in 6x7 format. You can always sell the LF gear later...

http://members.aol.com/PAugello/Cameras/Koni.html

Nick Morris
29-Dec-2005, 10:45
Hello Steve;
I went through a similar process several years ago, but with a Koni-Omega - same 6x7cm format.
But for me the shooting process was the same, basically setting up on a tripod, and if I was going to do that, why not 4x5, and if 4x5, why not 8x10. So the Koni-Omega went. For hand-held event or family photos, I use a Rollei TLR, and just got a Canon S70 digital. But for what I consider "serious" work, its the 8x10, and the contact print. Cameras are tools, you use them to achieve the desired result, though sometimes use of a particular tool and process is part of the desired result. And sometimes its just about getting a decent picture to record the moment, or maybe a fresh prespective by using a different camera or format after using only one, and having it get a little stale.

CXC
29-Dec-2005, 10:45
If you don't want to mess with LF, don't mess with LF. Find a better or more fun tool, and use it.

The 3 Fuji's and 2 Mamiya's would be good choices. As are the Mamiya TLR's, which are the best value for a MF camera with changeable lenses, IMHO. Downside is they are bulky and very heavy. My choice for a handheld MF is the Brooks-Plaubel Veriwide; a little restrictive with its wide 47mm SA, but a nice big 6x10 neg you can easily crop from.

No one has yet mentioned those Polaroid conversions to 4x5, such as the Littman. They seem awfully pricey to me, but they are compact and light, with a huge negative.

I agree with Frank that changing cameras is a good way to stir up the creative juices.

Eric Leppanen
29-Dec-2005, 10:54
Steve,

After shooting mostly LF for the last five years, I "rediscovered" my Mamiya 7 system last year. Sometimes hauling around that huge LF backpack just took the fun out of a trip, and to my eye the M7 yields 16x20" prints closely comparable to those from the 4x5. Use Delta 100, TMX, Acros or maybe even Efke 25, and I think most folks won't see much difference versus your 4x5 work.

If you're down to only fifteen LF shots per year, then clearly this format no longer works for you, and it's time to move on. The nice thing about the vibrant used market (Ebay, etc.) in camera equipment is that you can usually sell items at or near your original purchase price, so if you elect to switch back from MF to LF down the road, you can likely do so without taking a big financial hit.

darr
29-Dec-2005, 10:55
I have never shot with an 8x10", but did have a 5x7" until recently and my biggest reason for letting go of it was its weight. I am a smaller built female (5'3") and close to 50 years-old, so I accept it as wanting to lighten my load. But, I have been a professional photographer and visual artist all of my working life, so I had to find an alternative because producing work is what my life is all about.

I decided it was time to clean out my gear since I had an idea of where I wanted to go with trading up or down. One set of tools that I decided to let go of was my Nikons. I have grown to not care for the smaller 35mm format and I wanted to replace it with a medium format that I could use as a street camera. I shot Hasselblads professionally for 20+ years and got use to their optical quality, so I knew what high quality optics from a medium format system could produce. But, as an artist I have always preferred the 6x7/6x9 and 4x5/5x7 formats, so I decided the Hasselblads would go as well.

I concluded that I wanted a medium format that operated as close to my Nikons, but without the extra weight and it had to employ first-class built in metering capabilities so I could leave the meter at home and bracket if necessary. The optical quality had to be as good as the Hasselblad. This is when I bought my first rangefinder, the Mamiya 7II. About three years ago, Mamiya had a promotion going on for the 7II and I saved close to $450 on a new body. I then purchased a used 65mm and 150mm w/optical finder off the auction site. I immediately found disappointment with the 150mm (retired portrait photographer so I may be picky on telephotos) and sold it back with no financial lose. But the 65mm I use operates as good as or better than my Hasselblad with a 50mm on it.

I had to get use to using a rangefinder due to it being non TTL, but the advantages I found quickly outweighed this disadvantage. I grew to appreciate one usage of the rangefinder design was the ability to use a Red 25 filter with infrared film and not having to deal with the usual visual dilemma that follows. In closing I can say that I am very happy with the Mamiya 7II as it has filled the spot of my fast street shooting camera that produces superior 6x7” transparencies; sharper than my Pentax 67II. The metering has always responded to my likes and it is by far the lightest medium format camera out there. BTW, I traded in the 5x7” for an Ebony SV45U and love it as well as it is half the weight of my past 5x7".

Steve Williams_812
29-Dec-2005, 10:57
Thanks Oren for the compliment and suggestions for the Mamiya 7. I think you are right, I can adapt to the framelines and I don't make big enlargements. I have to admit the reason I first moved from 4x5 to 8x10 was I fell in love with the contact print. I have an 8x10 enlarger but I don't use it. I can't duplicate the feel of the contact print. Unfortunately I might be too lazy to use the 8x10.

I like to integrate the camera into my life (take it with me all the time) and I just can't (or won't) do it with the view camera. I recently bought a Vespa scooter and I see a lot of things while I am riding and want to have the camera with me. I've been shooting informally with a little pocket digital but want to begin a new project related to riding. Some of the stuff can be seen on my BLOG:

http://vespalx150.blogspot.com/

I don't consider myself a careful craftsman when it comes to photography. I do what I need to do to get what I want. I went through all the zone system testing and used it for awhile but just didn't care to do it. I consider myself a careful observer and need a tool to carry along.

David: A good friend and fellow 8x10 user had one of the Koni cameras for years and loved it. I never warmed to it, just seemed too clunky for me.

Thanks for the feedback.

steve

Oren Grad
29-Dec-2005, 11:57
I like to integrate the camera into my life (take it with me all the time)

The Mamiya 6 is actually better for this than the 7. The size/weight specs look almost identical, but the lens mount on the 6 collapses while that on the 7 is fixed. That means that I can fit the 6 with lens and a few rolls of film into the same tiny little shoulder bag I use to carry an M-Leica, or into the corner of a case that I'm carrying for other reasons. Can't do it with the 7; carrying that is more of a production, where life starts to revolve around the camera.

Another plus with the 6, at least for my taste, is that the lenses for the 7 are newer designs that have picked up a bit of the fuzzy-mealy OOF look that I dislike in Fujinons. The 6 lenses, especially the 75, are mercifully free of that.

OTOH, the 6 is square, which some people find hard to get used to. Perhaps most important, and the reason I can't whole-heartedly recommend the 6, is that it's been out of production for about a decade now, and Mamiya America has run out of replacement winder assemblies. So if something breaks in the film wind and it needs a whole new assembly rather than just an adjustment, you're stuck. Not that the wind mechanism is especially vulnerable so far as I know, but if it does go, it's a problem now.

Something to think about, anyway. If you don't share my Fujinon-allergy and don't need the utmost in compactness, I'm sure you could be really happy with the 7 as well.

Eric Leppanen
29-Dec-2005, 12:37
P.S. The Lowepro Photo Runner is a great little fanny pack for a Mamiya 7 kit. It will hold the camera, three lenses, film and filters without problem in a small, compact package.

www.lowepro.com/Products/Beltpacks/classic/Photo_Runner.aspx (http://www.lowepro.com/Products/Beltpacks/classic/Photo_Runner.aspx)

Roger Richards
29-Dec-2005, 12:47
Hi Steve, I also recommend you have a look at the Mamiya 7. Like you, my gear inventory also currently includes Leicas, which are used for personal B&W shooting. But for my current documentary projects I use a Mamiya 7 for a walk-around camera when shooting with my 8x10 Phillips is not practical. The lenses for the Mamiya 7 are astoundingly sharp. As others here have mentioned, the quality up to 16x20 rivals 4x5. The drawbacks are the lack of close focusing ability (1meter/39 inches max) for the lenses I use, the 43mm and 80mm. The 43mm is amazingly free of distortion for such a wide lens. Many people, myself included, got into this system so we could use this marvelous optic.

The Mamiya is a bit slower to deploy than your Leica, which is much faster in practical use. The Mamiya lenses also cannot be changed as quickly, and you get 10 shots to a roll of 120, or 20 with 220. Others have reported problems using 220 but I have never seen it. I carry the Mamiya 7 and lenses in a small Domke F3X bag, which is perfect and fits all the film and accessories I need. The Mamiya 7 bodies are not as well built as Leicas, but they are still plenty rugged and I have no complaints whatsoever. I clearly recall how pleasantly surprised I was when the first negatives came back from the lab. Despite the compromises of the camera, you will not be disappointed if first class image quality in a small package is what you need.

Wayne Crider
29-Dec-2005, 12:55
Interesting thread that probably most of us can relate to. I'm always looking for a easier to use camera while trying to retain individual sheet processing and lots of film territory as I contact print. I also need to use ND filters.

You didn't metion anything about using a tripod with the Leica. Do you not use one on your walks? It seems to me that a Leica should be able to produce better and larger prints then 5x7.

jonathan smith
29-Dec-2005, 13:09
I have always hankered after one of those 6x7 rangefinder cameras. I prefer the 8x10 but it is a project to set it up. I would say don't mess with 4x5 as it's almost as time consuming to deal with film holders and such.

Oren Grad
29-Dec-2005, 13:27
It seems to me that a Leica should be able to produce better and larger prints then 5x7.

Wayne, that depends on your taste in print character. My M-Leica glass is superb, and I've done plenty of experiments with a Leica on a tripod using slow film, but I just don't like the look of a 35mm negative enlarged more than about 5x. I can very much dig Steve's point of view.

David Rees
29-Dec-2005, 13:37
As others have said, the Mamiya 7 is an excellent camera in many ways. It has been my mainstay for landscape work for the past 7 years, and coupled with a Nikon 8000ED film scanner, gives me scans which deliver 20x30" prints. The lenses are as good as people say.

People have mentioned the niggles -- a couple more to ponder on. I find the 43mm quite difficult to use, for two reasons: (a) the lack of close focus, which imposes limits on the close foreground / distant background shots I often like with a wideangle, and (b) the accessory viewfinder. It is, though, a VERY high quality wideangle.

For landscape work, the 65mm lens is my mainstay. Used at least 75% of the time. If only buying one lens, give thought to this one.

If buying on eBay, check out the UK prices (see www.ebay.co.uk). Prices are often lower than in the US (true for medium format in general), and you don't face onerous import taxes, unlike us heavily taxed Brits. Right now there are none for sale, but once the holiday season is over, there is usually a couple of camera bodies, and a selection of lenses, posted at any one time. If cost is a consideration, don't ignore the original Mamiya 7 body -- the differences to the M7 Mk II are minor, and I actually prefer the operation of the original M7. In particular, the move of the remote release socket to the left side on the M7II precludes its use for me, since I like to use Kirk L brackets on my Mamiys 7 bodies, which block the socket on the M7II.

Finally, if buying 2nd-hand, budget $100 or so for a service, to ensure the camera is working properly, and that the focus is right. One responder mentioned problems with the 150mm lens, which is common if the focus is not spot-on (sadly, this occurs all too frequently with the M7s, both Mk I and Mk II).

BTW, I'm currently building my first LF system, based around a Wista DX 5x4, and enjoying it thoroughly. However, my Mamiyas are NOT going anywhere -- they are just too darn good!

John Layton
29-Dec-2005, 13:48
You know, Frank might have a point about the need to "move on" once in a while. I'd like to suggest that you consider, as a walking around camera, a used Rolleiflex TLR. An F model (2.8 or 3.5) from the 60's, fitted with a Maxwell screen, is a wonderful device in its simplicity, precision, and design concept which for me facilitates an intimacy with both process and subject similar to that which I find with a view camera - with the major difference (the "moving on" part), aside from the lack of movements and film dimensions, being the embracing of the square format.

I design and build view cameras, and will always use them. But I also use Leicas and Nikons, have used the Mamiya 6 but had troubles with the electronics frying.

I've had an on again off again affair with Rolleiflex TLR's going back many years. I currently own a Rollei 3.5F, and with it both pop up and prism finders, plus a Rolleinar #2 close up lens. This camera combines some of the better attributes of both reflex and rangefinder cameras, as while offering reflex viewing, the image doesn't go blank while exposing. Used off the tripod, I find the Rollei to be very quick and unobtrusive around people - while as a tripod camera, peering down into the rich, bright Maxwell screen, I can lose myself in a subject much as I can with a view camera.

I also find myself becoming more "visually resourceful" with the Rollei, due its the lack of lens interchangeability, which I often find both refreshing and inspiring. Having said this, I also must say that I once owned a Hasselblad SWC along with a Rollei TLR - and this pair was, right up with a Leica with 28 and 50mm lenses, my favorite "walking around" combo.

George Stewart
29-Dec-2005, 13:51
Perhaps the smartest thing to do would be to dump all the film equipment and replace them with a full frame Canon DSLR. The quality in a 16x20 print is outstanding, although lacking in absolute resolution compared to larger formats. You could add a 24-70 f/2.8 and some TS lenses. If your need for quality went up you could shoot a mosiaced image (static scene of course) and stomp LF into the ground.

Ken Lee
29-Dec-2005, 14:08
"I immediately found disappointment with the 150mm (retired portrait photographer so I may be picky on telephotos) and sold it back"



May I ask, what is the problem with the 150 - particularly for portraits ? I have often thought that the Mamiya 7 with the 150 would be good for hand-held portraits.

David Rees
29-Dec-2005, 14:23
The 150mm has a closest focus distance of 6ft -- which precludes "head" or "head and shoulders" shots.

It also is quite difficult to get the focus dead on -- esp. if the camera focus is not set up absolutely right. Mamiya will rectify this if not correct, but outside warranty it is not cheap: UKP45; not sure what the US price would be.

For landscape work, the 150mm is stunning -- light in weight, and "sharp". Sadly, not an ideal portrait lens.

darr
29-Dec-2005, 15:05
"May I ask, what is the problem with the 150 - particularly for portraits ? I have often thought that the Mamiya 7 with the 150 would be good for hand-held portraits."

I am accustomed to WYSIWYG with the portrait setup I had used for many years and found the Mamiya 150 setup did not perform as such. The viewfinder attachment seemed to be an estimation of where the image composition actually was and for me that was not going to work. What David Rees has stated above concerning closest focus distance and sharp image focus I found to be true as well. If you wanted to use softars, warming filters, etc. you would have to guess at their effect for whatever f-stop you selected.

I shot hundreds of portraits and candid events on a weekly basis for many years and had developed a precise and effective way of capturing the compositions that people paid for, so my experience may not count towards someone who uses the 150mm lens for an occasional portrait or for landscape work. When I photograph portraits, I feel my equipment demands rest in the ability to perform speedy compositions with as little attention to the equipment as possible. I think if you fuzz too much, so will many of your subjects and that in my opinion is not the way to get successful portraits. But I love my 7II as I stated above; just not for close-up portraiture with the 150mm.

Steve Williams_812
29-Dec-2005, 16:22
Thanks again for all the feedback. I just re-read everything and a comment from Frank Petrino stood out:

"The secret is to dispassionate about the camera equipment and more passionate about the photos."

I have attached myself to the view camera as a piece of equipment even though I am not using it. I talk about it an not the photos.

Time to let it go. I can always buy another is needed...

thanks again,

steve

Henry Ambrose
29-Dec-2005, 16:56
I'm off in 8x10 land right now but if I were you with my cameras to pick from I'd grab my Mamiya 7 and take off! I think it would work very well for your pictures. As far as I'm concerned its the greatest walking around camera there is. If you go for one lens get the 65 (but don't reject the 80). I've seen a couple of cameras and lenses go for $1100 - 1200 or so on eBay. You just have to watch for a while to get a deal. Or call Jim at Midwest, he may have a good deal on one.

As an alternative you might consider a Hasselblad. You can buy a pretty nice complete camera for under $1000, the 80 you'll most likely get is a fine lens and it is a SLR so you will get what you see onto the negative and it focuses close if you add a tube. I'm suggesting this only because you might find it interesting to have a camera with different capabilities than your Leica. A Hasselblad would be a very different sort of animal for you to experiment with and still very useful for "walking around with a camera."

I enjoyed looking at your pictures - you should never sell your Leica. I bet your prints look great. For me a 4x6 to 6x9 from a Leica is a wonderful thing to look at - just big enough and not too much enlargement. I have been enjoying these smaller prints lately.

Brian Ellis
29-Dec-2005, 17:20
Of course you're not nuts if there's other equipment that suits your needs better than LF. My only question would be your choice of a substitute. Mamiya 7s are fine cameras and the lenses are reputed to be among the very best. But in today's world I wouldn't buy a medium format system, I'd buy one of the 10 mp digital cameras from Nikon or Canon.

Ken Lee
30-Dec-2005, 09:01
"I am accustomed to WYSIWYG with the portrait setup I had used for many years and found the Mamiya 150 setup did not perform as such."



What would you recommend today ?

darr
30-Dec-2005, 10:18
"What would you recommend today ?"

Ken Lee: did you get my prior e-mail?

Ken Lee
30-Dec-2005, 11:16
No Darr - I didn't receive anything.

darr
30-Dec-2005, 11:22
Ken: I re-sent my original e-mail. Let me know if you do not receive it. It was sent through the e-mail address of your web site "contact" page.

Frank Petronio
30-Dec-2005, 11:27
Just to fester further... I got into the Mamiya 6 system hole hawg, buying three bodies so I could have a dedicated Polaroid back and different films. I thought it would be the "be all, end all camera," replacing my need for 35mm and 4x5 in one swoop. Not only did it fail -- 35mm (or digital) is still advantegeous for low light -- and 4x5 still had significantly better resolution and compositional control (ground glass viewing).

The 150mm lens for the Mamiya was lousy to use for people shots too. In fact, I hated the system for portraiture even though I was purposefuly trying to have a loose, "Leica-style" approach to my subjects. But it should make a nice camera if all you will ever do is landscapes and street photography. Just get the 50 and/or the 75 and go at it.

But the point is, try something different, then you get bored, try something else. If you find something close to perfect, you can either just keep using it or buy it again from eBay or Midwest Photo.

Ken Lee
30-Dec-2005, 14:15
Sorry Darr. Perhaps there is something wrong, wouldn't be the first time. Thanks !

Steve Williams_812
30-Dec-2005, 15:52
Well, I made my decision, packed up my 8x10 Zone VI camera this afternoon and sent it off to Midwest Photo in trade for a Mamiya 7 with an 80mm lens. I will probably sell all the lenses, holders, cases, backpack, and other stuff on eBay. I think I will dump the JOBO too. If any of you need some things let me know.

I've been using my friend's camera and found it immediately an extension of the Leica. So I am confident that I will be making more photographs. For the past few years I have been struggling to simplify things and only have the things I need. This is another step in that direction.

The down side is that I won't have a large format camera anymore and will have to become a voyeur here.....

steve

darr
30-Dec-2005, 18:12
Ken: "What would you recommend today ?"

Tough question since I retired a few years ago and have been out of the portrait studio business since then, but I did use the Hasselblad 500 CM for 20+ years and never regretted it. Before the Hasselblad, I tried a Bronica ETRS but found it to be somewhat flimsy and I do not care for the 645 format. After my studio retirement in 1998, I sold all of my Hassy equipment and within 2 years I started missing the portrait work. So I purchased a Mamiya RB67 just for grins since they were much cheaper than a used Hassy system. I used it a few times, but I have decided it is just not for me. I guess I just got use to the one piece Hassy chrome body and its 150 mm portrait lens was superior for my tastes. The RB is a larger camera and focusing is different (bellows extension) than the spin of the Hasselblad lens. Last year I decided to buy a used 500 CM, 80mm and 150 mm lens with a reflex viewfinder and I tell myself I will sell the RB at some time in the future. There are a lot of portrait photographers that swear by the RB, and I wish so much for the 6x7 format, but I am so accustomed to the Hasselblad that I just felt the need to return to it.

I started in the portrait business back in the late 70's and I think there are probably many other options out there today that I am unaware of. Dare I say digital? What worked for me was to find the photographers that were doing the kind of stuff that I wanted to create (and get paid for) and follow their steps until I found my own nitch. I found Monty Zucker (http://www.montezucker.com/index.html) to be an inspiration. I utilized the benefits and guidance of the Professional Photographers of America (http://www.ppa.com/splash.cfm) for retail/professional studio operations. I did successfully complete the PPA's certification program and utilized their salon print competitions to help market myself professionally. I am not interested in hyping myself, but I did well if being booked two years ahead is a mark of success. Some of my past clients included Ray Charles, The Fox Theatre, Ritz Carlton, Kodak, and I did photograph a few famous weddings, one being baseball player Jason Veritek (now with the Boston Red Sox).

If I was you, I would look at the PPA for some info and look at who is doing well in the portrait business in your area. I worked in the Marietta/Atlanta Georgia area and was affiliated with the Georgia Professional Photographers Association. I made many business connections that paid off through the Association. I would also look at the gear the folks that are successful at making portraiture their living at this time are using. I retired as a commercial photographer so I can finally begin a fine art career which I was always told is much more difficult; we'll see. If I can be any further help, feel free to contact me.

Kind Regards,
Darr

Ken Lee
30-Dec-2005, 20:40
Wonderful, Darr - Thanks so much !!

Diane Maher
31-Dec-2005, 06:35
Steve,
What Jobo stuff do you have that you are planning to let go of?

Steve Williams_812
1-Jan-2006, 10:27
Diane,

I have a JOBO CPP2 with lift. Several tanks including a 3005 Expert Drum for 8x10. I will try and email you.

steve

Steve Williams_812
1-Jan-2020, 15:58
Wow. Reading a post from 14 years ago is an interesting way to start another year.

My 8x10 Zone VI camera has been gone for a long time but I still find myself trolling eBay and the internet for another beast. I surrendered the camera because I wasn't using it. No projects required it and the sort of forced use just seemed dishonest. Add back problems to the mix at that time and it just didn't fit into my life.

Fast forward 14 years. I regret selling my Leica M6 system even though working with a Fuji X100F is more functional and I get similar results though now in color. Digital black and white has left me cold, most likely because of some subconscious predjudice against it. An Epson P800 upstairs makes outstanding prints though for a month long gallery show in August 2018 I used MPIX to print all the work other than two 40x60 inch prints. And almost everything was done with a point and shoot camera with a 12MP file size. I sold more prints at that show than any other of my career. There was a lesson for me that I readily forget as I chase fine grane, elegant tonality and a host of other technical qualities -- it's all about content. Content. Content. Content.

Here's a link to that show of my scooter riding work: https://scooterinthesticks.com/2018/08/scooter-in-the-sticks-a-photo-exhibition-by-steve-williams/ (https://scooterinthesticks.com/2018/08/scooter-in-the-sticks-a-photo-exhibition-by-steve-williams/)

I still have my darkroom functioning and have acquired a Zone VI 4x5 camera and a Nikon F3HP camera. Both are fun to use but suffer from the same lack of a focused project. I just sort of wander with them playing the "greatest hits" game.

It's been fun to reflect on the 8x10 days. And in fact, for a short time after the Zone VI was gone, I had one of the big green Calument monsters. But again, there was no reason to be found to use such a camera. Still, I dream.

Sorry to waste your time here. Just thought it a good way to reflect on the coming year. Happy New Year to all!

Tin Can
1-Jan-2020, 16:27
Steve, welcome back!

I read and sent your Scooter in the Cold essay to 2 riding buddies Dec 20th, 2019 https://scooterinthesticks.com/2019/12/the-physicality-of-riding/

They loved your story and writing style. I often send them riding tips as I can no longer do that in person. I moved.

and now I can't recall how I found your website, must have been a link here on LFPF. I read old threads.

One of those 2 friends sold me a ton of his father's camera gear, they both make documentary films and teach.

I ride anything on 2 or 3 wheels, many scooters too.

Steve Williams_812
1-Jan-2020, 17:19
Steve, welcome back!

I read and sent your Scooter in the Cold essay to 2 riding buddies Dec 20th, 2019 https://scooterinthesticks.com/2019/12/the-physicality-of-riding/

They loved your story and writing style. I often send them riding tips as I can no longer do that in person. I moved.

and now I can't recall how I found your website, must have been a link here on LFPF. I read old threads.

One of those 2 friends sold me a ton of his father's camera gear, they both make documentary films and teach.

I ride anything on 2 or 3 wheels, many scooters too.

I've found the riding community seems to maintain connections regardless of proximity. I have friends I communicate regularly with in Canada, Alaska, Colorado and Florida. I dare say the riding community has a connection much like I have with a lot of photographers.

There was snow this morning so that, coupled with a terrible head cold, kept me dozing and binge watching Gordon Ramsay's "Kitchen Nightmares." A friend wants to gather my view camera up and do a photo outing on Friday. A nice trip if I can shake this illness.

Have a good new year and be safe on the road, two wheels or otherwise!

6x6TLL
1-Jan-2020, 20:33
Awesome thread, and so cool of you Steve to revisit it all these years later!

I've lived with a 6x6 camera most of my life, first a Bronica SQ-Ai, later (and currently) a Rolleiflex 6008i. My "travel" camera (i.e. what your Mamiya 7 was for you) is a Rolleiflex TLR from the 1950's - light, unobtrusive, excellent image quality.

I recently acquired a 4x5 camera after many years of growing curiosity about LF. It's been an experience learning to use it so far, and I still have much to learn. I was really torn on whether to start with 8x10 or 4x5, but figured it's easier to learn on 4x5 as it's lighter, cheaper and easier to find gear for, and can upgrade to 8x10 later if I really miss having those huge negs.

It's impressive to see someone out riding in snow and ice, you are indeed a brave man (which was obvious when you said you sold your Leica, lol).

Thanks for sharing the links to your show, it's an impressive collection of shots, nice to see the story they tell, and as you point out, the gear is only there to allow us to create content, it's all about the content in the end! Something I never get tired of hearing, as I tend to forget it more often than I should.

Steve Williams_812
1-Jan-2020, 20:49
Awesome thread, and so cool of you Steve to revisit it all these years later!

I've lived with a 6x6 camera most of my life, first a Bronica SQ-Ai, later (and currently) a Rolleiflex 6008i. My "travel" camera (i.e. what your Mamiya 7 was for you) is a Rolleiflex TLR from the 1950's - light, unobtrusive, excellent image quality.

I recently acquired a 4x5 camera after many years of growing curiosity about LF. It's been an experience learning to use it so far, and I still have much to learn. I was really torn on whether to start with 8x10 or 4x5, but figured it's easier to learn on 4x5 as it's lighter, cheaper and easier to find gear for, and can upgrade to 8x10 later if I really miss having those huge negs.

It's impressive to see someone out riding in snow and ice, you are indeed a brave man (which was obvious when you said you sold your Leica, lol).

Thanks for sharing the links to your show, it's an impressive collection of shots, nice to see the story they tell, and as you point out, the gear is only there to allow us to create content, it's all about the content in the end! Something I never get tired of hearing, as I tend to forget it more often than I should.

I've had to learn to differentiate my desire for a camera from my need for a camera. Aside from the professional work I did for a living, I've only really needed two cameras for actual projects -- the Leica M6 for a long term documentation of my wife, and a point and shoot camera (currently a Canon G15) for my scooter and motorcycle photography. I have a couple other projects trying to come to life but so far I don't really need any other camera.

The desire over need came a few years after I sold the 8x10 Zone VI system. Wanted another 8x10 but didn't want to invest the cash so I bought a Calumet C-1. What a heavy, disgusting beast it was for me. With no actual need or project to fuel passion it was a pain.198927

Hope you find the content and camera to match. Focusing on content is much harder than focusing on the machinery. In my opinion!

Bernice Loui
2-Jan-2020, 09:49
"it's all about content. Content. Content. Content."

is likely the very best advice for any expressive image-maker. What an audience response to is Content First, the other image qualities second. This is why all the blather about techno details like diffraction, grain and ...... pale when compared to image content. Those technical aspects of the image do not "make" the image, it is what the image says to it's audience that makes all the difference.

Image makers tend to get caught up and wrapped up in their own views and perceptions of what Will produce their vision of an ultimate image, except what is SO important to the image maker is of little to no value to an audience.


Bernice




Wow. Reading a post from 14 years ago is an interesting way to start another year.

I sold more prints at that show than any other of my career. There was a lesson for me that I readily forget as I chase fine grane, elegant tonality and a host of other technical qualities -- it's all about content. Content. Content. Content.

Steve Williams_812
2-Jan-2020, 14:39
My earliest "training" in photography focused on technical matters related to mastering the process. Ansel Adam's books were early influences which led to an often subconscious pursuit of grain, sharpness and tonality without any consideration of the visual impact. And I hung around with other photographers of similar views which just taught me some rather dismissive responses to photographs that did not live up to the technical standards necessary for me to consider them. And a lot of other stifling habits were instilled from my Cartier-Bresson no-cropping aesthetic to an F-64 Group inspired requirement of ultra depth of field.

Not sure where or when it occurred to me that there was a world full of technically perfect and content boring pictures. And then a recognition of how I allowed technical concerns to trump expressive needs. I remember when I first saw the work of the Starn Twins with their rejection of all the "Laws" of good photography that it occurred to me that most, if not all of the rules and standards in my head were in fact arbitrary. I could do whatever I wanted. Going to art school later in life after a couple decades of commercial work in photography changed me as well. I chuckle now whenever I hear a photographer utter the magic words, "My photograph speaks for itself."

Anyways, i have a terrible cold right now and my brain is sort of bleary so I'll stop. But I agree with you, it's all about content, content, content.


"it's all about content. Content. Content. Content."

is likely the very best advice for any expressive image-maker. What an audience response to is Content First, the other image qualities second. This is why all the blather about techno details like diffraction, grain and ...... pale when compared to image content. Those technical aspects of the image do not "make" the image, it is what the image says to it's audience that makes all the difference.

Image makers tend to get caught up and wrapped up in their own views and perceptions of what Will produce their vision of an ultimate image, except what is SO important to the image maker is of little to no value to an audience.


Bernice

Eric Woodbury
2-Jan-2020, 15:29
Steve, I shot mostly 5x7 in the same kind of numbers as you for years. I also shoot 8x10, 35mm, 4x5, 6x7, and 6x9. They are all different and as I've said before, you make different photographs with different kinds of cameras. I now make more images with Mamiya 7 than any of my other cameras, but I carry a romantic attachment to large formats even as I sell off many cameras. Fuji 6x9s make a big negative and are not very expensive.

8x10 is a labor of love, for sure. It takes time to make an image with 810. Smaller is faster and easier at all steps. Don't be format shamed by using a small negative. There is nothing wrong with 35mm. It is easier and faster. You know this. You probably don't make 40 x 60 inch prints with 35mm, but it has been done. All you need to concern yourself with is: can you express yourself with the camera in your hand? That's it.

As for Mamiya 7. Wonderful. Capable (except for any close-up or macro). Kennerly published his Photo du Jour, all taken with Mamiya 7 and a 43mm lens. Citret commonly uses 35mm.

Print size is not important. Expression is. Use what you like that lets you make images to your liking.

Many happy snaps,

ejw

alfredian
2-Jan-2020, 20:26
The "Texas Leica" Fuji 690 is amazing - large negative (relatively) even for 120 format, rangefinder focus, great optics. Hand-holdable, I have yet to use it on a tripod but will some day. I have three - a mix of II and III models. Solid - actually heavier than a Chamonix 4x5 with one lens kit - film holders extra. For totally lightweight mobility the Fuji 645 is amazing, plus you get more pix per roll.--alfredian

Mark Sampson
2-Jan-2020, 22:28
To quote the late Bill Jay, "The Subject Matters". Make photographs you like of subjects that are important to you... and use the tools suited to that task. And make no excuses about the gear!
8x10 or 35mm, MF digital or iPhone, doesn't matter what you use as long as the pictures satisfy you.
Obviously on this forum we prefer big film, but that's by no means the only way. Best of luck!

mikeber
2-Jan-2020, 23:07
All that is true, but you’re limited to one lens...
A Mamiya 7 with its ultra sharp lenses provides so much more flexibility....

tgtaylor
2-Jan-2020, 23:19
Don't be format shamed by using a small negative. There is nothing wrong with 35mm. It is easier and faster. You know this...

I agree with Eric on this. Just this afternoon I stopped at the Cantor Arts Museum on the Stanford campus to view an exhibition of Edward Weston and Ansel Adams prints: https://museum.stanford.edu/exhibitions/west-x-southwest-edward-weston-and-ansel-adams One of the prints was an 11x14 print Adams shot in the late 1930's of Georgia O'Keefe and Orville Cox taken with a 35mm camera. It was superb in every aspect and you would think that it was made with a larger format than 35mm.

Thomas

Bernice Loui
4-Jan-2020, 00:12
One needs to wonder and ponder how many folks got into LF due to the influence of AA and group f64 with AA and group f64 as "priest" and their image making methods-content-process as Orthodoxy? There is no question their influence on image making remains strong to this day.

My own venture into LF began some time in the mid 1980's when a commercial photographer bud insisted that "I" get this Sinar F system. It was a bargain at the time. Previous to this the primary camera as a Hasselblad & Alpa 35mm. The group of working Foto friends coached and help me learn how to LF. Another group of friends were non-photography artist folks who insisted on dragging me to the numerous art museums in San Francisco and the SF bay area. There is no question AA & Group f64 folks influenced me early on, but as time and vast quantities of film got burned and process, AA and Group f64's influence decreased significantly. What both groups of working photographer and non-photography Art folks wanted me to do was develop my own style and way of seeing then creating images that are an extension of what has been emotionally experiences put into an image. All those obsessions of Foto perfection declined over time balanced with content and the emotional impact of the print image being what really matters.

There will be a time when the wet darkroom will happen and B&W print making can be done again. At that point the skills and wisdom gained over decades of doing this Foto stuff will be applied accordingly with the realization of what can and cannot be done in the finished print. This is much an acceptance of the current limitations of what is possible -vs- what is ideal.

For me, 5x7_13x18cm remains the sheet film format of choice for B&W prints. The most often used image making tool today turns out to be the phone camera as it is easily available as needed. The other often used image making tools are a pair of Canon M6 mirrorless cameras with a variety of Canon FD and EOS lenses as needed. Third is a Canon G15 point and shoot which gets used for a large variety of images. Images made using the view camera today are images that fit well with the demands of a view camera. The digital and phone camera is used for images that fit those tools and would not be viable using a view camera. Regardless of the image recording tool, the discipline of creating and recording an expressive image in one frame remains regardless of view camera or roll film or digital.


Bernice
Montara beach sunset via phone camera.
198980



My earliest "training" in photography focused on technical matters related to mastering the process. Ansel Adam's books were early influences which led to an often subconscious pursuit of grain, sharpness and tonality without any consideration of the visual impact. And I hung around with other photographers of similar views which just taught me some rather dismissive responses to photographs that did not live up to the technical standards necessary for me to consider them. And a lot of other stifling habits were instilled from my Cartier-Bresson no-cropping aesthetic to an F-64 Group inspired requirement of ultra depth of field.

Not sure where or when it occurred to me that there was a world full of technically perfect and content boring pictures. And then a recognition of how I allowed technical concerns to trump expressive needs. I remember when I first saw the work of the Starn Twins with their rejection of all the "Laws" of good photography that it occurred to me that most, if not all of the rules and standards in my head were in fact arbitrary. I could do whatever I wanted. Going to art school later in life after a couple decades of commercial work in photography changed me as well. I chuckle now whenever I hear a photographer utter the magic words, "My photograph speaks for itself."

Anyways, i have a terrible cold right now and my brain is sort of bleary so I'll stop. But I agree with you, it's all about content, content, content.

scheinfluger_77
4-Jan-2020, 07:54
Well said Bernice, particularly the group F64 comments. I fell into this group thinking this was the only “valid” kind of B & W photography. Pinhole work has cured me of this. As i get back into things i want to try pinholes on my 5x7, looking for some fine contact printing material there.

Renato Tonelli
8-Jan-2020, 07:38
This thread is very relevant to my current situation. I have read every post and I must say that they are all thoughtful responses to the OP going back several years.

Some years ago I talked myself into an 8x10 camera (Deardorff) and one lens, 4 holders; the lens didn't suit my 'style'. Jump ahead a few years and as finances allowed I talked myself into three Ektars - an all-American-made kit!
Problem is, I still don't use it much: the kit is bulky and heavy to lug around. I really haven't 'warmed up' to the format. When I shoot 4x5, 5x7 or 6x9 I am much more productive and I seem to enjoy it more.

I thought of reducing the kit to one lens as soon as I figure out which one I really 'must' keep. In the meantime, I have talked myself into keeping it a little longer in the hope that I will 'warm up' to it.

Bertha DeCool
16-Jan-2020, 21:17
I like that this thread has been revived.
New to this site but not to LF, bought a Crown Graphic in 1979 for $99 with a 127mm Ektar and a Voitlander Apo-Lanthar 15cm (and no, not a thief, just lucky) that has been used, languished and been used on and off for 40 years. Started in school with 35mm but have also lost interest, bought a Rolleiflex 3.5E Planar in the mid-'80s that has become like an extension of my arm over the years but, on a trip to my wife's homeland of Bosnia last year, finally admitted I just don't see things square.

So came oh so close to selling it to fund a Pentax 67 for the format change but, for sentimental reasons, couldn't bring myself to do it (financial and spousal considerations prevent having both). So I officially recommitted to 4x5, happily. No darkroom access at this point but I have been shooting for transparency and developing thru dr5 Lab in Iowa, to scan and inkjet which brings about some moral qualms of its own but which I had resigned myself to, all the while wishing I could justify contact printing 4x5 in the tub. But they're just that bit too small for my eye and tastes.

Here's the fun part. My late teacher's late teacher, Gerda Peterich, had left her equipment and papers/images with my teacher. When my teacher passed, his daughter and a few of my peers who've all remained close decided that, as I'm the last LF and film holdout, her Kodak 2-D 5x7 with lenses were to be mine. Perfect size for contact printing, still doable w/o full-on darkroom.

And here's where the whole thread ties together for me. While a 5x7 won't work with a scooter (or my '97 Triumph), I have come from the f64, never ever crop, strict Zone System school of thought and practice, to the point where it's an unconscious process. But one of these lenses I have inherited is a Nicola Persheid 36cm which some have been kind enough to point out sells for relatively obscene sums of money and which I plan to flog like a rented mule. I can appreciate the Pictorialists and that soft-focus is very much not out-of-focus and I now look forward to learning an entirely different way of seeing (and I do have a couple of sharp-as-a-tack lenses as well, so...) some 45 years after I first set foot in a darkroom.

And a friend's daughter, who has an excellent eye, has started a photo business that is thriving, and has just started to fart around with a Spotmatic, will be gifted a working 4x5, with lenses (maybe not that Apo), some boxes of b&w film, my old copy of The Zone VI Workshop, and the advice to find a spot meter.

mikeacar
16-Jan-2020, 23:08
I agree with Eric on this. Just this afternoon I stopped at the Cantor Arts Museum on the Stanford campus to view an exhibition of Edward Weston and Ansel Adams prints: https://museum.stanford.edu/exhibitions/west-x-southwest-edward-weston-and-ansel-adams One of the prints was an 11x14 print Adams shot in the late 1930's of Georgia O'Keefe and Orville Cox taken with a 35mm camera. It was superb in every aspect and you would think that it was made with a larger format than 35mm.

Thomas

Agh! How did I miss this!?

Oh, Adams's Surf Sequence is on exhibit. I should go see that.

-- Mike

Steve Williams_812
22-Jan-2020, 18:18
Good thoughts Bernice. One thing you wrote stood out -- "There is no question AA & Group f64 folks influenced me early on, but as time and vast quantities of film got burned and process, AA and Group f64's influence decreased significantly." That is my experience. More and more I find my own vision and voice with a camera without the heavy-handed influence of other photographers that was once present.

I miss the jewel like quality of an 8x10 contact print. It remains with the 4x5 but the image is too small. I find myself thinking more and more of swapping the 4x5 for a 5x7 camera...


One needs to wonder and ponder how many folks got into LF due to the influence of AA and group f64 with AA and group f64 as "priest" and their image making methods-content-process as Orthodoxy? There is no question their influence on image making remains strong to this day.

My own venture into LF began some time in the mid 1980's when a commercial photographer bud insisted that "I" get this Sinar F system. It was a bargain at the time. Previous to this the primary camera as a Hasselblad & Alpa 35mm. The group of working Foto friends coached and help me learn how to LF. Another group of friends were non-photography artist folks who insisted on dragging me to the numerous art museums in San Francisco and the SF bay area. There is no question AA & Group f64 folks influenced me early on, but as time and vast quantities of film got burned and process, AA and Group f64's influence decreased significantly. What both groups of working photographer and non-photography Art folks wanted me to do was develop my own style and way of seeing then creating images that are an extension of what has been emotionally experiences put into an image. All those obsessions of Foto perfection declined over time balanced with content and the emotional impact of the print image being what really matters.

There will be a time when the wet darkroom will happen and B&W print making can be done again. At that point the skills and wisdom gained over decades of doing this Foto stuff will be applied accordingly with the realization of what can and cannot be done in the finished print. This is much an acceptance of the current limitations of what is possible -vs- what is ideal.

For me, 5x7_13x18cm remains the sheet film format of choice for B&W prints. The most often used image making tool today turns out to be the phone camera as it is easily available as needed. The other often used image making tools are a pair of Canon M6 mirrorless cameras with a variety of Canon FD and EOS lenses as needed. Third is a Canon G15 point and shoot which gets used for a large variety of images. Images made using the view camera today are images that fit well with the demands of a view camera. The digital and phone camera is used for images that fit those tools and would not be viable using a view camera. Regardless of the image recording tool, the discipline of creating and recording an expressive image in one frame remains regardless of view camera or roll film or digital.


Bernice
Montara beach sunset via phone camera.
198980

dodphotography
22-Jan-2020, 19:39
Good thoughts Bernice. One thing you wrote stood out -- "There is no question AA & Group f64 folks influenced me early on, but as time and vast quantities of film got burned and process, AA and Group f64's influence decreased significantly." That is my experience. More and more I find my own vision and voice with a camera without the heavy-handed influence of other photographers that was once present.

I miss the jewel like quality of an 8x10 contact print. It remains with the 4x5 but the image is too small. I find myself thinking more and more of swapping the 4x5 for a 5x7 camera...

The one issue I consistently find myself coming back to is how I perceive others, their pictures, and their rationale behind format etc.

For example...

Barbara Bosworth shoots 810 color, inkjet prints but at fairly normal sizes so makes me feel that the power of the format is lost in the final product.

In a more related scale, Ben Horn does the exact same thing. 810 color and drum scanned but printed at 13x19, that’s weird to me.

Bryan Schutmaat shoots 45, but inkjet prints everything that fairly large sizes, like 40 inches.

Alec Soth shoots 810 color and specifically describes himself as a book artist, so an 8.5 x 11 book justifies the need to shoot 810 color?

At the end of the day these folks make good pictures and the format doesn’t matter, make good pictures and you spend less time talking about this stuff.

I’m in the same camp, not enough focus on the work and too much on inanimate objects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andrew Plume
23-Jan-2020, 02:48
Bertha

I enjoyed reading your post, a great story indeed

regards

Andrew

Tim V
23-Jan-2020, 02:48
Alec Soth may describe himself as primarily a 'book artist' in terms of how his larger bodies of work are conceptualised and more often seen / distributed, but a huge part of his practice is in mounting exhibitions and print sales. Sleeping by the Mississippi was all printed as optical c-type prints for exhibition (from memory variable sizes but mostly 20x24"?) Later for Niagara he drum scanned and made huge light jet prints on c-type paper. These are also stunning. These days he has his own drum scanner and makes large prints from scanned film using latest HP Inkjet technology – he runs a small custom scanning and printing lab from his studio. In any event, he also shoots digitally with Hasselblad and Nikon cameras. He also says that the process of shooting LF is very important to him – the way it slows him down and creates a kind of theatrical atmosphere to the picture taking event, particularly when making portraits – more so in most if not all cases than strictly technical quality related to the large 8x10" negative. I suppose like most artists, certainly all the artists you've listed, the question, "Couldn't this work be done in a more logical, easier or indeed better way?" should probably be rephrased, "Why is this set of processes important to them?"

I think about this often when I look at someone's work like Nicholas Nixon. I think his work, particularly his portraits are absolutely phenomenal. People might argue that they look like candid shots that could be taken with a 35mm or hand held MF camera, but then I think about the performance that must have unfolded to get the camera set up and how that affected the people in front of it. I think his portraits – like Soth's and Schutmaat's – hint at this performance with a kind of stillness and distance to them, while at the same time feeling intensely intimate.

Sorry for the long reply, it just got me thinking about how I love the process of 8x10" and that while most if not all of what I do could be done with something smaller, I wouldn't trade it for the world. When everything aligns in the field, there's no other feeling. And then there's the contact print! I love just it.

dodphotography
23-Jan-2020, 04:42
Alec Soth may describe himself as primarily a 'book artist' in terms of how his larger bodies of work are conceptualised and more often seen / distributed, but a huge part of his practice is in mounting exhibitions and print sales. Sleeping by the Mississippi was all printed as optical c-type prints for exhibition (from memory variable sizes but mostly 20x24"?) Later for Niagara he drum scanned and made huge light jet prints on c-type paper. These are also stunning. These days he has his own drum scanner and makes large prints from scanned film using latest HP Inkjet technology – he runs a small custom scanning and printing lab from his studio. In any event, he also shoots digitally with Hasselblad and Nikon cameras. He also says that the process of shooting LF is very important to him – the way it slows him down and creates a kind of theatrical atmosphere to the picture taking event, particularly when making portraits – more so in most if not all cases than strictly technical quality related to the large 8x10" negative. I suppose like most artists, certainly all the artists you've listed, the question, "Couldn't this work be done in a more logical, easier or indeed better way?" should probably be rephrased, "Why is this set of processes important to them?"

I think about this often when I look at someone's work like Nicholas Nixon. I think his work, particularly his portraits are absolutely phenomenal. People might argue that they look like candid shots that could be taken with a 35mm or hand held MF camera, but then I think about the performance that must have unfolded to get the camera set up and how that affected the people in front of it. I think his portraits – like Soth's and Schutmaat's – hint at this performance with a kind of stillness and distance to them, while at the same time feeling intensely intimate.

Sorry for the long reply, it just got me thinking about how I love the process of 8x10" and that while most if not all of what I do could be done with something smaller, I wouldn't trade it for the world. When everything aligns in the field, there's no other feeling. And then there's the contact print! I love just it.

Great response... and yes, I agree with all of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Steve Williams_812
23-Jan-2020, 07:25
I agree with all of Soth's comments as well.

Process is important to me and it's one some paths are smoother than others. It applies to photography, writing, riding my scooter or motorcycle. But I must admit that it is easy for me to become deluded in the pursuit of a tool or process at the expense of actually doing work as someone here has suggested. I know now when I become obsessive in research about some new camera and at the same time I'm not doing anything with the ones I already have, that I'm looking for the mechanical cure to a creative problem. Much like the alcoholic who decides his life will be better if he moves to another town.

For me, the problems I have come with me. I recently bought a Fuji X100F thinking it would be the "perfect" camera and I would be working again on a project. But after the novelty of the camera evaporates, I left with the daunting task of going out and working.

So back to my original question -- am I nuts for giving up the 8x10 camera all those years ago? No. I wasn't using it. Am I nuts today for thinking I need another one? Yes. Nothing magical will happen with a new camera. The magic happens when I'm out in the world, even if that world is my living room, making photographs. And the only big body of work I've produced in the past few years are the photographs I make while riding. Because riding takes me out in the world.

My friend Stephen Dirado has worked passionately with an 8x10 camera for 40 years and that effort has produced astounding work, shows, books, and a Guggenheim Fellowship. But the camera is almost incidental to the work. He's passionate about something in the world and the camera comes along. There's a lesson there for me.

For those not familiar with his work, have a look at Stephen Dirado's website (https://stephendirado.com).

Alex Soth wrote of Stephen some years back that he's probably the most under-appreciated photographer in America. Here's a link to Alex Soth's interview with Stephen Dirado (https://alecsothblog.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/stephen-dirado/).



Great response... and yes, I agree with all of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tim V
24-Jan-2020, 00:53
Thanks for clueing me on to Dirado's work, I love his series about his father and the beach portraits.

C. D. Keth
20-Feb-2020, 15:36
The one issue I consistently find myself coming back to is how I perceive others, their pictures, and their rationale behind format etc.

For example...

Barbara Bosworth shoots 810 color, inkjet prints but at fairly normal sizes so makes me feel that the power of the format is lost in the final product....In a more related scale, Ben Horn does the exact same thing. 810 color and drum scanned but printed at 13x19, that’s weird to me....Alec Soth shoots 810 color and specifically describes himself as a book artist, so an 8.5 x 11 book justifies the need to shoot 810 color?


In addition to the way large format forces you to work it also has a significant effect on people in front of your lens. Anybody who has shot in any fairly crowded area can tell you that. Apparently Avedon moved to and then continued shooting 8x10 chiefly because he liked how intimidating it was to portrait sitters. He felt he got something different out of people compared to other equipment he used in the past.

Tin Can
20-Feb-2020, 15:57
I like that idea

I like 8X10 and larger simply for the big GG

I can see better


In addition to the way large format forces you to work it also has a significant effect on people in front of your lens. Anybody who has shot in any fairly crowded area can tell you that. Apparently Avedon moved to and then continued shooting 8x10 chiefly because he liked how intimidating it was to portrait sitters. He felt he got something different out of people compared to other equipment he used in the past.

dodphotography
20-Feb-2020, 16:29
I like that idea

I like 8X10 and larger simply for the big GG

I can see better

I totally agree... my 810 pictures are better than any other format. Simply because I’m way more aware of small, minute details in the composition etc.

I also agree with how it breaks down so many barriers due the sheet size of the “old looking camera”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drew Wiley
20-Feb-2020, 20:22
I don't care what Avedon did or didn't do because I dislike his pretentious style of work. A significant strategy of his was simply to wear down his sitters until they were outright exhausted, and then catch them in an unwary haggard moment, and then call that a revelation of their inner soul; BS. But it is true that people seem to cooperate a lot more with a big camera because it looks serious. And I like 8x10 for several reasons, including the large ground glass, the greater ease of retouching a big neg, and the fact that 8X10 film is practical for both contact prints and enlarger use.

Bernice Loui
20-Feb-2020, 21:03
Agree with Drew on Avedon.. One of the reasons Avedon used strobe has to do with it's HARSH nature of lighting. It has been said, Avedon would have his sitters close their eyes, then open them just before shutter release. Closing the eyes causes the iris in the eye to open, then the sudden power of the strobe would capture the sitters eyes in a way that would not have been.

IMO, this does NOT capture the soul, essence and honest personality of a portrait sitter. It is more of photographer_artist contorting their subject (portrait sitter) as an object to meet their image goals.

Do not have any of Avedon's books in the library.

As for 8x10 film format for portraits, there is a very long history to this. 8x10 allows ease for negative fixing and more. It makes a nice contact print... IMO, the best soft focus lens images are 8x10 contact prints. Once the soft focus lens image is enlarged beyond 2X the unique and special image qualities are lost. Plus, the 8x10 ratio works well for portraits.


Bernice




I don't care what Avedon did or didn't do because I dislike his pretentious style of work. A significant strategy of his was simply to wear down his sitters until they were outright exhausted, and then catch them in an unwary haggard moment, and then call that a revelation of their inner soul; BS. But it is true that people seem to cooperate a lot more with a big camera because it looks serious. And I like 8x10 for several reasons, including the large ground glass, the greater ease of retouching a big neg, and the fact that 8X10 film is practical for both contact prints and enlarger use.