Would you say that LF photography is . . . [Archive]

Vaughn

7-Aug-2007, 22:19

Well, when I started out with LF, I was still male, but I certainly was not middle-age, nor balding. I was 23, full beard and a ponytail...and just starting a 13 year career as a gov't seasonal employee, taking care of campgrounds, counting fish, then packing mules and building trails. Thirty years later I have long lost the ponytail as well as a good amount of hair on the top...but still have the beard.

LF is a big part of me. "Exciting? Glamorous? Arousing? Exhilirating? Sensational" are not terms I would normally attribute to myself on a day-to-day basis, so I tend not to attribute them to my photography either. If others find those attibutes in my photographs, all the more power to them.

When I am out wandering around with my 8x10, I am thinking of just the light...along with the myrid of little thoughts that constanty float around one's brain. I practice the art of seeing...and I need lots of practice!

Fun...definitely. Enjoyable...yes. And exciting in the respect that I feel a thrill and a sense of wonder of seeing the light and knowing that I don't have to get it on film to benefit from the experience, but it is nice when I can.

I took my boys on a bicycle ride yesterday to a most magical spot. Towering rocks rising from the sand, elk with huge racks grazing on the beach grasses, spruce and redwoods for the backdrop in one direction, the Pacific Ocean in the other. I'd like to take the 8x10 back there someday...but if I don't make it, that light will never leave me.

Vaughn

Daniel_Buck

7-Aug-2007, 23:18

I'm 23 years old, and just getting into LF shooting! I think the main reason I like it, is because it's so much different than any other type of shooting. The large negative aside, I really enjoy using the camera. My shooting with 35mm got slower and slower (read: methodical) so I tried medium format shooting, but didn't click as well as I would have hoped. My Uncle was gracious enough to lend me one of his spare 4x5 setups, and I think I have found what I was looking for! A camera setup that matches the methodical way of shooting that I have started doing in 35mm.

I'm a slight bit saddened though, because nobody I know does this type of shooting, so that usually means I'm out shooting on my own (which doesn't always bother me, sometimes I prefer it), but it's not like going out shooting 35mm with friends/coworkers together.

Bill_1856

8-Aug-2007, 00:15

Try, "Exhausting!"

Pete Watkins

8-Aug-2007, 00:18

Eccentric, perfectionist, control freaks is possibly the best way to describe many of us.
Eccentric, what other artform / past time requires one to use either an antiquated piece of equipment, or equipment based on antiquated designs where the user to wrap his head in a black cloth to use it?
Perfectionist, many L.F. users are. Why would anybody consider using 11x14 sheet film rated at 25 A.S.A. (or however it's designated nowdays)? You can't see grain on a 400 A.S.A. contact print (O.K. the eyes are getting old, but I can't see any grain). Control freaks, we just don't want to use the lenses designed by the camera manufacturers and a couple of independent companies do we? We want the means of using hundreds of different lenses from hundreds of manufacturers dating from the year dot. The good old "if that lens design was good enough for Julia Margaret Cameron/Matthew Bradey it's good enough for me" syndrome. Not to mention all those who use alternative printing methods because the image produced on paper from the likes of Ilford, Forte etc. is just not good enough, they feel that they don't have enough control unless they've sized the stuff themselves.
Just a few thoughts!
Pete.

Greg Lockrey

8-Aug-2007, 00:28

Or am I going through an early middle age crisis?

Yep. :p

Capocheny

8-Aug-2007, 03:24

Glamorous?... definitely NO. Especially after you've just packed your backpack full of gear around for the past several hours and are now hot, covered by perspiration, and dog-tired!

Masochistic?... ABSOLUTELY! Especially, when you play the role of a donkey/Sherpa and lug 50 to 60 pounds of equipment around on your poor aching back! And, your legs are screaming, "What the &%*&E did I ever do to you???"

Chick-magnet?... perhaps! Especially when they clamour around your equipment asking about the big screen on the back of the camera and exclaiming, "My, what a big lens you have!" [In the same vein as Little Red Riding Hood and the big, bad wolf. :)]

Fun and Exhilarating?... YUP! Especially, when you get back a properly exposed and sharp negative (or, at least, when you get back a neg that you had visualized whilst looking through the groundglass! :))

All in all... definitely worthwhile!

Cheers

Per Madsen

8-Aug-2007, 03:55

Large Format photography is photography's answer to "Slow Food".

Walter Calahan

8-Aug-2007, 04:08

Zen

cyrus

8-Aug-2007, 04:54

Large Format photography is photography's answer to "Slow Food".

My point was that perhaps there's some room to make LF a little more...sexier. A bit more zing and pizzaz. Not just content-wise (though there's certainly room for improvement there too - its all turning into photographic Muzak) but look at your average LF photographer - balding middle aged male - and the overarching influence of the LF Gods - all other middle aged males. That can't be a good thing. There has to be a way to make this less of a middle aged male thing and more of a youthful, exuberant thing.

paulr

8-Aug-2007, 05:08

You suppose we should hire a publicist? Who might use our funds to pay someone sexier than Paul Caponigro (say, the Olsen twins) to be seen around L.A. popping out from under dark cloths?

I'm in.

Diane Maher

8-Aug-2007, 05:31

I am happy to say that I am not a middle aged male doing LF photography. :)

MIke Sherck

8-Aug-2007, 06:12

You may think that you need a sports car, but you don't. It's tough getting an 8x10 outfit into one of those little things. ;)

Mike

Scott Knowles

8-Aug-2007, 06:12

Exciting? Glamorous? Arousing? Exhilirating? Sensational? Why not?

Damn, I was told LF photography was a chick magnet. All the times I'm working at it, all I get is people with strange looks, kids wondering and the occasional older woman who thinks either it's cool or I'm crazy.;)

I enjoy the process, the time, the result - ok, when it works and thinking why when it didn't, and the whole experience. And sorry, while I started when I retired from my first career (photography has been a longtime hobby), I'm not balding with hopes the ponytail lasts the rest of my life.

And the other side is that it, and the rest of my photography, keeps me connected to life and the world. I'm a (genetic) lifelong sufferer of Dysthymia (chronic low depression) and don't use drugs because of the effects and side effects, but use exercise, hiking/walking, reading/writing and especially photography to keep it in control.

And I sure do love those really good 4x5 transparencies.

As for making it jazzier, the cameras could be in bright colors with holders for attachments for cellphones, ipods - to record your personal dialog and information or audio and video files to explain it to observers, etc.? Just a thought.:)

riooso

8-Aug-2007, 06:37

Walter has it right
Richard

Bruce Watson

8-Aug-2007, 06:50

I am happy to say that I am not a middle aged male doing LF photography. :)

I'm happy to say that I am a middle aged white male doing LF photography. :)

Bruce Watson

8-Aug-2007, 06:57

I was out with a group of LF photographers and it occurred to me that most were male, middle-aged, balding . . . Not that there's anything wrong with that but does it influence LF photography in a negative manner?

Cyrus, I think you are worrying needlessly. Why should anyone want to spend effort in recruiting people, any people, into LF? LF is very much a self-selecting field. What makes it interesting, what keeps the bar set so high, is that most people practicing the art found their way to it by their own path for their own reasons. They do it because the really want to.

That's what's important, and the fact that few of us (none?) erect any barriers to keep anyone who wants to practice the art out. Most of us go out of our way to help people who want to learn the art -- that's what this forum is all about. That many (most?) of us fit one demographic group or other isn't really even very interesting.

I think a far far better use of your time is to make more photographs. Leadership by example and all that. Make cool and interesting photographs, show people what can be done, and maybe some of them will be inspired to try it themselves. And maybe some of those will be in a demographic you desire. And maybe not. It's not in our control. Nor should it be.

Pat Kearns

8-Aug-2007, 07:12

Chick-magnet, YEAH, just look at Frank's pictures......nuf said!:D

Patrik Roseen

8-Aug-2007, 07:34

I wish I had known about LF when I was younger but maybe I would not have been ready for it then. To me it is the fact I need to slow down and the quality rather than quantity that thrills me.

If we wanted to make more people aware of LF and maybe increase the numbers of LF photographers we could become more active on a forum like photo.net, i.e by posting photos on the critique forum. Maybe a collective synchronized effort on a certain day or week, and the postings should include information that is was done with an LF camera this or that.

It's been a while since I posted anything myself, I gave up on receiving feedback...can not fight the 'digital noise' alone where every snapshot is published.

I also have a personal webpage on a Swedish photoforum where I have published links to both Linhof and Schneider to make people understand that there is modern gear still being produced and that it actually is hightech (sort of)...

Terence McDonagh

8-Aug-2007, 07:47

I think your search for the perfect photography vest answers your question.

Jack Flesher

8-Aug-2007, 08:02

Contemplative.....

Hugo Zhang

8-Aug-2007, 08:12

cyrus,

It all depends how you look at things.

Exciting and exhilirating? Yes, with pains.

Glamorous? Surely you may have a slim chance to create long lasting glamour if you have talent and work hard. But you are surely set yourself up for disappointment if you seek it as a goal.

Arousing and sensational? There are much better activities out there than LF photography if you are looking for these two things.

I like LF photography because it is a solitary activity for me to escape from other "glamorous, exciting, arousing and sensational" activites. I rather like the idea of being a middle-aged male enjoying every moment of my life. Last year in the FINA Masters World Championship, I finally understood age was very relative when I saw people in their 90s raced and competed in the pool and people in their 60s with better bodies and looks than many 20-30 years old.

LF should be one of our obsessions. But we will be miserable if it is the only one. There are many other things in life for us to enjoy and we only live once.

paulr

8-Aug-2007, 08:24

I think like with most things, the results can be sexy; the vision can be sexy; the passion can be sexy.

A bunch of old guys sitting around obsessing and arguing about technical details, and lamenting the lost values of days gone by: not usually sexy.

Jim Galli

8-Aug-2007, 09:01

Satisfying.

Relaxing.

I do it mostly for one person. Call me selfish.

Marko

8-Aug-2007, 09:07

I'm happy to say that I am a middle aged white male doing LF photography. :)

Me too, along with the beard. :)

I was always attracted to LF, but when I was young, I couldn't afford it. Then I became able to afford it but simply didn't have time for any photography for a long while. Then I didn't have the space for the darkroom. Then came digital and all of a sudden I had both the space and the equipment, and I could get some time for it.

Now that I can finally both afford LF and have (some) time for it, the time has made me fit into the stereotype. Oh, well, at least I still don't have neither time nor reason for crisis.

Bruce, you hit it right on the head with the other post. I don't see any reason to go evangelizing something whose charm is precisely in its individuality. I'm just happy that I can, finally, enjoy it and discuss it with the other like-minded individuals here.

Well, at least until all the mistakes I make in the process and all the grumpy, middle aged white males on this board start upseting me... :)

Alan Davenport

8-Aug-2007, 09:34

...all of the above, plus:

less expensive than 35mm photography!

Gordon Moat

8-Aug-2007, 09:37

. . . . impressive.

Honestly, I would not use large format film and cameras if not for the results possible to generate with this gear. Throw a 4x5 transparency on a light table, and nearly anyone can be impressed by the potential.

I do agree with one of the comments above that more younger people should be encouraged to get involved in large format photography. Unfortunately, I think this is a problem with photography in general. Many younger people might be able to afford a P&S, a camera phone, or maybe a very used and old 35mm. Few will be able to afford the cost of large format gear, nor to shoot much film. I think the expenses are one factor against younger individuals getting more involved in large format.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Capocheny

8-Aug-2007, 09:40

My point was that perhaps there's some room to make LF a little more...sexier.

There has to be a way to make this less of a middle aged male thing and more of a youthful, exuberant thing.

Hi Cyrus,

LOL... How about we design a special printing of darkcloths that involves great palettes of color - BIG, BOLD, and VERY, VERY BRIGHT COLORS? :)

Versace kinds of colors. :>0

Cheers

cyrus

8-Aug-2007, 09:54

Cyrus, I think you are worrying needlessly. Why should anyone want to spend effort in recruiting people, any people, into LF? LF is very much a self-selecting field. What makes it interesting, what keeps the bar set so high, is that most people practicing the art found their way to it by their own path for their own reasons. They do it because the really want to.

That's what's important, and the fact that few of us (none?) erect any barriers to keep anyone who wants to practice the art out. Most of us go out of our way to help people who want to learn the art -- that's what this forum is all about. That many (most?) of us fit one demographic group or other isn't really even very interesting.

I think a far far better use of your time is to make more photographs. Leadership by example and all that. Make cool and interesting photographs, show people what can be done, and maybe some of them will be inspired to try it themselves. And maybe some of those will be in a demographic you desire. And maybe not. It's not in our control. Nor should it be.

Yeah, but its wasn't really a question of recruiting people or hiring publicists, it was Just a self-reflection and consideration of the general state of LF - just thinking out loud. It wasn't just the looks of the fellow LFers that had me thinking, but also the content of their work - misty, romantacized dreamlike landscapes mainly - no "zing", something good for the walls of a convalescent home. Even their nudes were "artsy" which I suppose is what they're "supposed" to be - but why can't nudes just be sexy and glamorous anymore?

Once a group forms (like here) people tend to naturally conform to group values, and create "in group" and "out group" categories which ultimately serve to exclude others. Conventions about what is "good" or "right" are created, along with social hierarchies. That's the social animal in us. Maybe good to be aware of that.

But you're right - back to photography . . .

(Can you tell I've been struggling with my photography content? LOL!)

cyrus

8-Aug-2007, 09:57

Hi Cyrus,

LOL... How about we design a special printing of darkcloths that involves great palettes of color - BIG, BOLD, and VERY, VERY BRIGHT COLORS? :)

Versace kinds of colors. :>0

Cheers

I don't see the problem with that. In fact many years ago I wondered out loud why cell phones were all sorta dull gray or black instead of wild colors with weird and fun shapes. Cameras can also be made to look cool. This is the only life you get - have a litte fun fer chrissakes!

Capocheny

8-Aug-2007, 11:00

This is the only life you get - have a litte fun fer chrissakes!

Hear, Hear! :)

Cheers

Scott Knowles

8-Aug-2007, 11:20

Walter has it right
Richard

Maybe, but I prefer the Tao of LF photography. When you're standing there you can't explain it and if you can explain it you're not understanding or doing it. I'm still on the road to seeing the images and being one with my camera. Now if the rest of me and the equipment will help...

Bruce Watson

8-Aug-2007, 12:29

It's blazing hot here (38C with a dew point of 26C) so I'm staying inside and cleaning stuff up. That doesn't take a huge amount of my available brain power so I've been using my spare CPU cycles to think about this some.

I think there are a number of things that push the LF demographic toward us middle aged men. One is expense. The total outlay for a workable kit, even if everything is bought used can be significantly more than, say, a decent 35mm SLR system (which can also be bought used). This implies more disposable income, which in turn implies older people.

Another is time. While people using SLRs typically "compose with their feet" (that is stick the camera to their face and move around the scene composing, focusing, and snapping away as they go), your typical LF shooter works off a tripod. LFers typically have to think about what they want to do, compose without the camera, then decide how best to capture that composition, then set about setting up their tripod, then their camera, then carefully meter the scene... All of this is typically too slow for younger people (at least, it was too slow for me when I was in my teens and 20s). Middle aged people seem to find the pace more acceptable. Clearly, some more than others.

Another is the social aspects, or the lack thereof. LF photography is pretty much a solitary pursuit. This may account for the seeming lack of female LFers. I myself find it very difficult to carry on a conversation while I'm working a scene, so much so that my wife brings a book along. When she's done working the scene with her digicam she settles on a rock to read and wait for me. This would drive most women (and not a few men) to utter distraction.

Yet another is the availability of time off. In America, young people just starting off in their careers get next to no vacation time. I find that to be effective it's best for me to explore an area for a week or so. Scouting, taking note of when the light is probably going to be right, returning as many times as necessary to get the right light, etc. Most younger people here have difficulty doing that due to the lack of time off to pursue the vocation.

Finally there's weight. If you want to put your equipment on your back and hike into the wilderness to photograph stuff that's farther then 100 meters from the car, well, at a certain age you aren't going to be able to do that any more. This tends to rule out people of retirement age and older. Which again implies middle aged men.

I'm just saying, there are a number of things that push the demographic toward middle age men.

And people like me, who have been run through the mill of American industry, aren't looking for cutting edge avant-garde flash and dash. What I look for is peace and beauty. I'm looking to restore my soul, not challenge it.

So, middle aged men making photographs of calm, peaceful landscapes might well be the norm. I don't think that's a bad thing. And it may well be different in other cultures where different conditions prevail.

David_Senesac

8-Aug-2007, 18:27

Your choice of words like glamorous, arousing, exhilirating doesn't really apply to any photography except those in fashion or the female body haha but I think I understand what you are getting at.

Before the mid 90s without scanners, erratic optical enlargement chemical process printing, and color print media with short lifetimes, except those with more professional end uses, there was little reason for color photographers to embrace large format so instead they tended to work with the more popular smaller formats, specifically 35mm Kodachromes or the new emerging Velvia. So my first statement would be that large format color photography has been undergoing rapid changes the last dozen years plus and what we are doing today for color work is not at all static as one might describe say with those who work with large black and white contact printing. Thus large format color photography today has a whole new world out there waiting to be captured and printed large in new and exciting ways. At the same time we are undergoing a continual evolution with computers, imaging software, digital cameras, and all manner of digital printing that is and will remain much more in the public awareness. Unless one is interested in making expensive really large prints, I can't see why a person would bother with large format color. Far easier to deal with using inexpensive tiny compact digital cameras or for middling quality D-SLRs. So we view cameras users are guaranteed to remain part of a largely ignored by the public exclusive club of mainly older middle aged photographers with enough photography skills, financial resource, and output intentions, to continue along in the shadows. And the media won't ever turn the light on us except for brief flashes because we represent too puny a masss market.

That all said, I can expect my own color landscape photography audience looking at exhibited work to be quite excited when looking at my considerable collection of large prints simply because only a small percentage of the general public has ever walked through the doors of quality galleries or museums much less seen larger sizes of large format color prints. And that is exciting. ...David

Andrew O'Neill

8-Aug-2007, 18:48

I don't see the problem with that. In fact many years ago I wondered out loud why cell phones were all sorta dull gray or black instead of wild colors with weird and fun shapes. Cameras can also be made to look cool. This is the only life you get - have a litte fun fer chrissakes!

I wonder what my Canham would like with a coat of pink paint?

otzi

8-Aug-2007, 19:19

Another is the social aspects, or the lack thereof. LF photography is pretty much a solitary pursuit. This may account for the seeming lack of female LFers. I myself find it very difficult to carry on a conversation while I'm working a scene, so much so that my wife brings a book along. When she's done working the scene with her digicam she settles on a rock to read and wait for me. This would drive most women (and not a few men) to utter distraction..

Escapism, and tinkerer with craftsman like sensibilities.

Robert Hughes

8-Aug-2007, 19:36

At least half the film photographers working out of my local art center (Glen Echo Park, Washington DC) are women. By and large they shoot MF . Only a couple other LF shooters here.

Capocheny

8-Aug-2007, 20:19

I wonder what my Canham would like with a coat of pink paint?

Andy,

I'll pay for the paint!!! :) :)

Cheers

Greg Lockrey

8-Aug-2007, 21:22

...that they sure do look like they know what they are doing. :rolleyes:

Uri Kolet

8-Aug-2007, 21:45

Thank God large format photography is not really popular; would you want every snap-happy tourist cluttering up the view with gear like ours? The best thing about the dark
cloth is that there's room for only one person under it!

Vaughn

9-Aug-2007, 00:25

The best thing about the dark
cloth is that there's room for only one person under it!

You need a larger LF camera...then there would be room for a little smooching. The only rule is that all four feet have to be on the ground...a two-headed tripod is not nearly as stable as a one-headed tripod!

vaughn

Jim Jirka

9-Aug-2007, 09:53

....the wave of the future. :)

cyrus

9-Aug-2007, 12:02

Why is it that the kids can afford to sink tons for money into a car stereo that rattles my apartment windows as they drive by, but can't afford a LF camera especially nowdays with the cheap prices? Because their cars get chicks (then rattle their tooth fillings out of their heads?)

paulr

9-Aug-2007, 12:07

There's nothing stopping the ULF crowd from building a couple of subwoofers into their cameras.

Probably want to turn the volume down while you're making an exposure, but that should be pretty easy to remember.

Dick Hilker

9-Aug-2007, 14:33

Maybe "seductive"?

At 74, there are surely easier ways to make pictures, but for me it's the control lfreak that takes over when I want to capture every bit of potential in a picture. At a time of life when most of my peers are content to play bingo or visit the Senior Drop-in Center, I'd rather plan a field trip with my new LF gear and hope that my legs and vision hold out as long as my aspirations. Photography in general and the new-found joys of working with LF have given life much more meaning and, at this juncture, that's about all the seduction I can handle!

John Bartley

9-Aug-2007, 16:20

Fun and educational.

cheers

scott_6029

9-Aug-2007, 16:48

It's Work for sure, but it's really fun too. Contemplative is what first comes to mind, but seeing the contact prints makes it seductive too.

Dirk Rösler

9-Aug-2007, 17:51

If you think something needs to be 'sexy' or appealing to others to be desirable and worthwhile, then you are already on the wrong track.

gr82bart

11-Aug-2007, 18:17

I was out with a group of LF photographers and it occurred to me that most were male, middle-aged, balding . . . The vast majority are white too. Something I usually don't notice.

Regards, Art.

Duane Polcou

13-Aug-2007, 01:49

What are you talking about? Every "LF get together" I've ever attended was at a rather comfortable and costly residence, filled with dozens of attractive, curvaceous women wearing skin tight stripper dresses.....Oh wait, those were "MILF get togethers". My bad.

zoneVIII

13-Aug-2007, 02:48

it's slowdown the world, fun

Marko

13-Aug-2007, 08:23

Oh wait, those were "MILF get togethers". My bad.

Michigan LF get togethers? :D

cyrus

13-Aug-2007, 11:26

Don Wallace

14-Aug-2007, 06:08

Exciting? Glamorous? Arousing? Exhilirating? Sensational?

Why not?

I was out with a group of LF photographers and it occurred to me that most were male, middle-aged, balding . . . Not that there's anything wrong with that but does it influence LF photography in a negative manner? Are we in danger of being fuudy-duddy penny loafers in a red patent leather stilettos world? Or am I going through an early middle age crisis?

A related question would be: why do you think it should be glamorous, etc., in order to be a rich experience?

I find the experience of LF photography, from capturing the image to realizing it in the darkroom, to be contemplative, poetic, and profound. I think you valorize one type of experience and thus miss the beauty of others.

Of course, you could always just wear red patent leather stilettos while you focus under the darkcloth. Or maybe you could get a hairpiece and drive a fancy sports car to where you are going to shoot. That oughta work. :D

Dave Wooten

14-Aug-2007, 06:29

I know a photographer that uses a Yellow Hassy, also Keith Canham has cameras on his website in several colors-including green and purple...I have an assortment of hand painted lensboards..

cobalt

14-Aug-2007, 07:08

[QUOTE=cyrus;263061]Exciting? Glamorous? Arousing? Exhilirating? Sensational?

I alluded to this very thing, albeit not so eloquently as you, not long ago.
What is thought of as beautiful by the vast majority of fuddy duddies is actually quite boring after 100+ years.

Thank goodness for Frank Petronio. (not to put my head in his butt; the guy's work really is a shining exception to this unfortunate rule)

cobalt

14-Aug-2007, 07:10

And if I hear "deliberate", "joy to use", "contemplative", "ymmv" one more f*ing time I am going to vomit pyro.

Bruce Watson

14-Aug-2007, 08:57

And if I hear "deliberate", "joy to use", "contemplative", "ymmv" one more f*ing time I am going to vomit pyro.

Well, YMMV but I think it's the deliberate way we work that I like so much. It's contemplative and that makes it a real joy to use. But you didn't hear any of that from me ;-)

Now, is the Pyro pure enough for resale?

Don Wallace

15-Aug-2007, 07:14

And if I hear "deliberate", "joy to use", "contemplative", "ymmv" one more f*ing time I am going to vomit pyro.

cobalt, you crack me up.

Okay, it ISN'T deliberate. I almost always carry my 8x10 with me just because I like to carry things. Sometimes I even carry a lawn chair to work. So it definitely isn't deliberate.

And it ISN'T a joy to use. I would much rather be installing new software - now there is true joy.

Contemplative? Phooey. I love the shallow and fleeting and I don't spend anymore than a second or two on a shot. If that.

And to hell wtih YMMV. If you don't agree with me, you are simply wrong.

:D