Landscape photography bias in LF?

[cyrus]

Would you agree that there is a greater tendency in LF photographers to be landscape photographers -- (perhaps an influence of Adams? or tendency to equate big negatives with big scenes?)

[Richard M. Coda]

When I was younger I tended more towards landscapes... now, at 48, more towards abstracts and architecture, although I would never pass up a good landscape.

[Daniel_Buck]

I've often wondered this as well. For me, I like shooting landscapes LF because I the slower pace of shooting LF gives me more a sense of 'being there' in the landscape, a sense I don't get when I can pull a smaller camera up to my eye and slap the shutter and move on. If I have the chance to take my 4x5 or 8x10 for landscapes, I'll do it! If there is not room or time for a big camera, then I'll just take something smaller.

I suppose that subconsciously (and maybe a little bit consciously?) it seems more 'proper' to shoot landscapes with LF because that's how it was done by the photographers of the past that I admire. I've always enjoyed shooting landscapes though, so moving to LF hasn't really changed my shooting subjects all to much.

[Vaughn]

LF is an excellent tool for landscapes, thus it tends to be used for that. Same with architectural work. One certainly would not find an abundance of street photographers on a LF forum...LF just is not the tool of choice for that.

So I think that, in general (exceptions abound), that it is just a matter of picking the tool for the job. I began my photography with a Rolleiflex -- without knowing about AA and the LF "tradition", I was photographing the landscape and using the Rollei like a LF camera...on a tripod, f22 and long exposures -- moving to a 4x5 seemed a natural progression.

Peter Gowland's development of a TLR 4x5 was his attempt to create a tool for a genre (glamour) that would provide a larger neg but still function like one of the more "normal" tools of that type of photography.

Vaughn

[Wally]

The land stays put throughout my 4-10 second exposures. It's what I _can_ take pictures of.

My portraits with a 4x5 tend to be much more posed than candid, thanks to how long it takes me to focus that narrow depth of field when I want the background out-of-focus. The fact that my subjects are often squirmy doesn't help.

It's OK, I've accepted it.

And sometimes those posed portraits come out nice.

[jb7]

Architecture, interiors, and increasingly, people-
I've never used my 4x5 for landscape,
well, one without buildings in...

j

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

For many years LF street photography was done with crown and speed graphic cameras. The work was not as publicised as that of the formal landscape photographers. I think those using LF have gotten tired of the rocks and trees and have moved on to something else. If we use this forum as a sampling tool, you will see there are few landscapes, we got a lot of portraits, closeups, architecture, etc.

[Nick_3536]

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAPstrand.jpg

I will say it's harder to setup a tripod in the middle of a crowded street and go unnoticed.

[Vaughn]

Before roll film, everything was large format...some just larger than others;)

I suppose many of us eventually drift away from landscape as we age and carrying a LF set-up becomes more work than we want to undertake, or other reasons such as seasonal weather. Hopefully I will have another decade or so of carrying an 8x10 in me...which will put me around 65 yrs old.

Vaughn

[Anupam]

That's only because my ShenHao sucks at action sports :)

[Walter Calahan]

I love doing LF portraiture. I don't think we're biased to do landscapes with LF, it's simply a better tool for landscapes. Ever try to follow-focus with an 8x10 camera at a rugby match?

[windpointphoto]

Remember the first time you had the big camera set up in front of the snow covered mountains? I know it's a cliche, but oh man, what a great feeling. It was like, I have arrived!

[Hugo Zhang]

I will shoot any subject interesing and willing and can be still long enough for me to set up my camera and squeeze the shutter.:)

[Steven Barall]

Maybe it's just the right tool for the job. Also, there is a wonderful contemplative aspect to large format photography that is comparable to the experience of "The Landscape" whatever that means to each of us individually.

[domenico Foschi]

True, more in the US than in other areas probably.
But then again, LF is more prevalent here in the US.
then, yes.
Sorry, espresso has still to kick in....

[John Kasaian]

Standing amidst the splendor of creation seems to me to be a great way to spend one's time.

A camera is a good excuse to do that.

The bigger the camera the bigger the excuse.

Plus I get a picture to prove that it actually is a great way to spend my time!

[domenico Foschi]

I will shoot any subject interesing and willing and can be still long enough for me to set up my camera and squeeze the shutter.:)

...and who will be willing to sign a release form...;)
You got the bug as well, didn't you?

[Ed Richards]

Landscapes are usually (not always, of course) detail rich, so the inherent advantages of LF in rendering fine detail offset the drawbacks in easy of use. I will second the other reasons - it holds still, and it does not need a model release.

[Louie Powell]

Landscapes are usually (not always, of course) detail rich, so the inherent advantages of LF in rendering fine detail offset the drawbacks in easy of use. I will second the other reasons - it holds still, and it does not need a model release.

Another way of saying this is that landscape works better in LF than in smaller formats BECAUSE the large format is better able to capture the detail that exists in the landscape.

Agree with the point about LF tending to be used more when the subject doesn't move. But I also like LF portraiture - for the detail and tonality.

[Daniel_Buck]

landscapes do move! Clouds move, often faster than you would like, haha! They just don't move as fast as other subjects I guess.

[David_Senesac]

I shot landscapes with 35mm SLRs for many years because I did not want to be encumbered with a larger camera and had it was simply a serious hobby without business concerns. I knew if I wanted to make a business with my 35mm images they would real only be valuable at a stock photography level. And having been to many galleries, I knew the advantages of prints made from MF and particularly LF film. Thus a decade ago when I decided to step up to the larger formats it was because I felt to actually sell larger sized quality landscapes prints, one absolutely needed to move to the larger film formats. Before the mid 90s and the advent of early drum scanning, then Evercolor prints, Photoshop, Kodak Pro Photo CDs, and the Lightjet 5000, printing from 35mm transparencies via enlargement lenses was rather abysmal. Even with these new technologies 35mm sourced prints could only be sized up to about 10x15 inches if one wished to have comparable detail to what a 4x5 can show at even 30x40. Any landscape photographer that has looked at larger prints made from larger film will certainly be envious of what can be achieved because as a print becomes larger it also becomes more realistic with greater potential for detail. And in fact really large prints over 30 inches are large enough that a near viewer can start to almost feel they are right in the scene.

So my answer is landscape photographers gravitate to larger format of the view camera with its movements, and especially 4x5, simply because one can print much larger with considerable detail that is often more impressive. ...David

[cyrus]

Well I can understand why landscape/architectural photogs tend to go for LF (right tool for the right job)

The question I guess is really the reverse: do LF photogs tend to go for landscape more often.

Background: this issue came up when I was setting up for a series of indoor shots of a favorite inanimate subject using an 8x10. Occurred to me that most people would have used MF but I needed the larger neg.

Anyway, there seems to be something psychological about an LF camera that pushes me to go outdoors with it rather than indoors, for some reason. Perhaps all those photos of AA standing on the roof of his van in Yosemite...

[Brian Ellis]

Until about the late 1990s, by which time most pros switched to digital, I'd guess that in terms of # of sheets per year, product photography was the single biggest use, followed perhaps by architecture, portraits, and other studio stuff, not to mention the 1950s and before, when virtually all photo-journalists (including sports photographers) were LF users. I think it was Eugene Smith who had to fight a battle with the Life magazine photo editors in order to use 35mm. But today, when most LF work is done by amateurs, landscape is probably the most common general subject. Since the subject doesn't move, and since detail and depth of field are often important in landscape, LF is a good tool for that kind of photography. Plus many of us would rather be hiking in the woods than trying to battle an urban crowd.

[Gordon Moat]

I think there is a landscape photography bias on this forum. Part of that likely comes from a desire to get away from the city and people, and get out into the great wide open spaces. There are also many here who enjoy hiking and backpacking, and a wealth of information on packs and other gear.

My landscapes are urban, or populated, so in the traditional sense they are not what many here might expect. I was born in a city, grew in mostly in cities, and generally enjoy cities and people, so those are things I like photographing. Images I shoot for my work tend towards lifestyle, automotive, transportation, and less often other things.

There is also somewhat of a bias on this forum towards B/W images, though some very nice colour images show up on occasion here. Anyone shooting larger than 4x5 is probably shooting more B/W than colour, partially due to cost, but in some cases due to a lack of available colour emulsions.

Anyway, I am not complaining at all. I shoot 4x5 transparency, and rarely anything considered wilderness, so I am likely in the minority here. As a popular saying goes, variety is the spice of life.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Leonard Metcalf]

My love for landscape photography lead me to large format... As Stephen says
...it's just the right tool for the job.

[Kirk Gittings]

Would you agree that there is a greater tendency in LF photographers to be landscape photographers -- (perhaps an influence of Adams? or tendency to equate big negatives with big scenes?)

I'm not sure what your point is. Truely? Is this a chicken and egg thing?

Though he is not known so much for it AA photographed many people with his LF cameras, as did Edward Weston and many of the great "landscape" photographers. For me personally, as someone said above, my love of landscape and architecture led me to LF. I started with 35mm, then 6x6. I did some good work in those formats, which still stand up today, but I was not satisfied with the image quality till I got into 4x5. because of both camera movements and great detail.

[mrpengun]

I think it is a bit of a misnomer actually--Greogory Crewdson, Jeff Wall and Andreas Gursky all use large format (and larger budgets), and (gursky aside) aren't really doing landscapes in the traditional sense. I think Sarah Jones uses medium format mostly, but her portraits and photographs of flowers are so stunningly printed that they could just as easily be large format. Sally Mann goes so far as to use an old camera and wet collodian for a lot of her photos of her kids. Certainly the subjects will always be "stagged," but I don't think I would say that landscapes necessarily "dominate" the format.
just my two pence.

[GPS]

Would you agree that there is a greater tendency in LF photographers to be landscape photographers -- (perhaps an influence of Adams? or tendency to equate big negatives with big scenes?)

Doesn't it follow logically the characteristic of LF photography logistic, lens parameters etc?

[r.e.]

It might be interesting to do a poll of this forum asking people questions along the following lines:

What is your principal subject matter when using large format - rural man-made landscape, urban man-made landscape, natural landscape, nature, still life, portrait, abstract?
Do you shoot 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 or ULF for that subject matter?
Are you a professional, photography student or amateur?

The first question might enable people to select more than one subject matter.

It wouldn't be a terribly scientific poll, but it might give a general idea of what the interests are of people on this forum.

There's another question that I think might be interesting, perhaps more interesting, but I'm not sure how to word it. I think that photogaphers can be divided into two kinds, those who construct their subject matter and those who take their subject matter as it is. Jeff Wall is an extreme example of the former. Less extreme examples are still life (including product) photographers who create a composition, fashion/advertising photographers, portrait photographers who manipulate their subjects and essentially treat them as objects (e.g. Avedon) and architectural photographers who work with artificial lighting. In the second category, I would place photographers who select their subject matter but do not manipulate it, as in the case of most rural and urban landscape photographers (people like Wall and Crewdson excepted), wildlife photographers and candid portrait/street photographers. It's possible that the distinction that I'm trying to draw here is too nuanced for a poll.

Getting back to Cyrus's question, I don't know whether most current large format photographers would identify natural landscape as their principal subject matter. On a personal level, it's a genre that I've never felt drawn to. The work that I admire most, apart from candid/street photography, tends to be based on subject matter that has been manipulated/constructed. I like fiction.

[Gordon Moat]

Avedon went through a transition of his views towards his subjects. Early in his career he remarked that he was in complete control of his subject. Towards the mid point of his career he came to feel that his subjects were controlling what he was doing. Then later in his career he came to feel the interaction between him and his subjects; there was a part of both in each image, and neither was in control of the other. This is an aspect I feel was great about Avedon, in that despite all that time doing this, he was constantly learning.

So to get back to the poll suggestions, how about:
Do you shoot landscapes?
- rarely
- mostly
- sometimes
- never

What types of landscapes do you shoot?
. . . . and then break it down to other aspects.

I don't know how this poll thing works on this forum, so I will let someone else figure it out. Offhand I would guess the results might show mostly urban and natural landscapes taken on B/W film . . . . . which I think gets back to the original question here.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[butterflydream]

I had a prejudice that LF is grandfather's camera to take calendar (landscape) photographs. Now I find myself saying to myself, "so what's wrong with that?".

[Wayne Crider]

I don't know if it is still done, but there was a time when Playboy shot all their centerfolds on 8x10, to the tune of hundreds of sheets of color film each time.

[GPS]

I don't know if it is still done, but there was a time when Playboy shot all their centerfolds on 8x10, to the tune of hundreds of sheets of color film each time.

Forget about it, that was a million years ago...:)

[Eric James]

I was attracted to LF because of its' utility in landscape photography. My second favorite photographic discipline is candid/environmental portraiture - view cameras are comparatively clumsy for this application.

[Kirk Gittings]

I don't know if it is still done, but there was a time when Playboy shot all their centerfolds on 8x10, to the tune of hundreds of sheets of color film each time.

It is all MF digital now.

[Gerry]

[QUOTE=cyrus;347877]Would you agree that there is a greater tendency in LF photographers to be landscape photographers QUOTE]

Yes thats a definate truth. I kind of find the whole landscape thing done to death, no offence to anyone but a lot of those zone landscapes start to look the same after a while. I think also for many part time photographers its easier to go out in the car and photograph a landscape than it is to do other types of photography that require more interaction with other people/time etc (nudes portraits).

My little rant on this subject a while back on my blog.

http://gerryyaum.blogspot.com/2008/02/zone-system-landscapeshavent-i-seen.html

www.gerryyaum.com