Why View The Forum? Out Of Country

[Raymond Bleesz]

I have noticed over the years that there are a good number of viewers from out of country---Swiss, France, Uk, Down Under, Iceland, Hong Kong elsewhere----viewers who often contribute & partake in the dicussions, etc.. This of course is very positive, in my opinion.

But curious to know, from far & wide, what's your take, opinions, observations on American LF photography in generalities or perhaps in specifics, from where are you posting from, and how is your LF photo work in your country different from Red White & Blue? From Colorado, USA.
Raymond

[Joanna Carter]

… your country different from Red White & Blue?
Well, the UK has a Red, White & Blue flag, France has a Red, White and Blue flag, Holland…

In fact, just look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRM/Notes/List_of_national_flags_in_red,_white_and_blue) before you assume that your federation of countries has the monopoly on those colours :rolleyes: :eek: :mad:

[cowanw]

Q.-Tuan Luong: Born in France, from Vietnamese parents
Whose country is 'out of country'.
Working on the assumption that you are not trolling, I wonder if this will spark a discussion on the philosophy of American exceptionalism.
Regards
Bill

[Lachlan 717]

What a puerile thread.

[Raymond Bleesz]

My response, not at all a puerile question---as a former educator, I stressed to my students that no question is childish or silly, and I believe in that concept myself, hence the question.

If we dismiss the flag waving, and I am indeed aware of other colors being a historian, I ask those viewers who may not reside in this country, if they have an observation or two regarding "American LF photography" or American photography in general as compared to the existing type of photography in their own homeland.

My subscriptions to foreign photo periodicals certainly makes me aware that there are differences, but I would like to hear/see your words.

This is an honest question which should promote a discussion and not on American exceptionalism---quite the contrary.
Raymond

[Denis Pleic]

Raymond,
(provided your question is bona fide, not just trolling/baiting...)

First, I did not realize that LFF is in any way an "American" forum. There's nothing intrinsically "national" in photography, be it small, medium or large format - and the name of the forum does not indicate any national requirements or determination.

Due to sheer population size and the "lingua franca" of Internet, it is obvious that US citizens (and some Canadians, obviously), peppered with a few (select) British would constitute a huge majority on an English language photography forum. (The Brits and the others, please, take this as my feeble attempt of being witty.... no disrespect intended).

Since English is my second (acquired) language, it is obvious I'll be seeking English-speaking photography forums, and since I'm also interested in large format photography, this forum is an obvious choice, seeing that there are about three, perhaps four, large format photographers in the whole of my home country :).

Now, if I were speaking German or French, there might be other forums (fora?) more relevant for me (being an European).

But, relevant in what way? Like I said above, photography is not nationally "colored" in any way. The only thing I can think of is product availability - but in my experience, for us Europeans (at least for us at the fringes of Europe), it's usually cheaper to order from the USA than from e.g. Germany.... depending on the package size and weight, obviously.

So, why am I here? Because I understand English, and can speak/write it fairly well, and because I'm interested in large format photography - same as yourself, I presume.

If you can show me what's so intrinsically "American" in your photos (apart from the obvious, i.e. scenery), perhaps I'll be able to tell you in what way I perceive it as being "different" from what I do here.

BTW, for my large format photography I'm using two Speed Graphics, one B&J "Watson" camera, with a motley collection of lenses (mostly American - Kodak Ektars, but also a Schneider here and there....), shooting 4x5 film (Efke, BTW, made locally - but I'd dare say that at least half of the forum members have at least tried the same film, regardless of the fact it's made in Croatia).

So, you should get used to the fact that we're indeed living in a global village - for us "last Mohicans" using large format cameras it is perhaps more obvious than those digisnappers with their puny sensors :)

Regards from Croatia - look it up on the world map :)

[IanG]

Where does it say this is a US Forum ? The internet is International.

Historically the US didn't make the huge switch to smaller formats in the 1930's in the same way as European photographers, and after WWII materials where often in shorter supply, in the UK for instance there were very few new cameras until the early 1950;s due to very heavy import restrictions.

The main out come of this was that almost no amateurs used Large formats in the UK until perhaps the end of the 1970's and more began to use LF as digital became more common.

In the US the LF tradition remained stronger so consequently there's far more users.

Ian

[jb7]

Regards from Croatia - look it up on the world map :)

yes, you can find lots of countries there- some people can even identify their own, even after the names have been removed ...

I was going to say what Denis said, well, except for the camera specifics- but there's no need now-

I think the main difference is in the Americana-
the National Parks, the old automobiles (we've only got cars, and they're not so pretty) the covered bridges, the skyscrapers (though the bigger ones are in the far east now),
the continental central plains with the big skies and clouds (there are others around the world, but with fewer big cameras to match) ... and so on.

The people, the portraits- now they're not so different- Are they?
The good ones stand out, and they're from all over.

btw, you don't specify your own location, so I'm not sure what country, or state, you come from-
maybe it's not so important?

[roteague]

Well, the UK has a Red, White & Blue flag, France has a Red, White and Blue flag, Holland…

In fact, just look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRM/Notes/List_of_national_flags_in_red,_white_and_blue) before you assume that your federation of countries has the monopoly on those colours :rolleyes: :eek: :mad:

The only assuption the original poster made was the assumption that everyone would recoginze the phrase "Red White & Blue". To an American that is a recongnizeable phrase; referring to the USA. Try not to be quite so sensitive.

[Joanna Carter]

The only assuption the original poster made was the assumption that everyone would recoginze the phrase "Red White & Blue". To an American that is a recongnizeable phrase; referring to the USA. Try not to be quite so sensitive.
:D The French often refer to their flag as the "Bleu, Blanc, Rouge", which are the same colours in reverse order, but the Union Flag of the UK is also known as the "Red, White & Blue", as in the song (http://www.know-britain.com/songs/therell_always_be_an_england.html)

You might think I'm being sensitive, I might think that Americans are too limited in their knowledge of the world :p ;)

[Merg Ross]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the question, but here goes.

My exposure to international photography is, for the most part, through publications and the occasional museum exhibit and a small bit on this forum. The most recent photographic publication with an international cast, that I have perused, is the B&W 2010 Portfolio Awards issue.

It displays work from photographers working in different parts of the world; the short list includes: Italy, Austria, Croatia, Israel, The Netherlands, Turkey, Hongkong, Australia, Canada, and the United States. Immediately obvious to this observer, is that there is nothing that cries out location. The work is diverse in concept, but at times also very similar, regardless of residency.

Perhaps it was not the case, say one hundred years ago, where a photographer working in a country might be unaware of work being done in a different area of his own country. This was true to some extent with the early work being done on the two coasts of the U.S. Not so today, with images bombarding the world populace every second.

[Ole Tjugen]

The Norwegian flag is "Rødt, hvitt og blått" - or "Red, White and Blue" in English.

But if I were to discuss large format photography in Norwegian, there would only be a handful of us here and we might just as well meet in a cafe somewhere. So i come here, as I have done for years.

[Joe Forks]

I've read the OP's post a half dozen times now trying to find out exactly what is so offensive about it? There must be something, because some of the answers are in fact downright offensive.

Kudos if you actually answered his question.

BTW, the thread is a reflection of the replies, so if the thread is puerile, we may want to examine the quality of the replies.

[Ole Tjugen]

I think what we all react to is the "Out Of Country" in the title - assuming that everywhere but USA is "Out Of Country".

To the vast majority of the population of the world, USA is "Out of Country".

But to answer the original question, Lf photography is much the same all over. we tend to be drawn to stationary subjects, or at least ones who either don't move vry fast or can be ordered to stand still.

some places are flat, people there don't tent to photograph many mountains. some places are far from flat, we tend to have mountains in the picture somewhere. At least more often than the "flatlanders" do. Some places are wetter than others, I have a 3 minute walk to the nearest waterfall. Other places don't have any, because they are either too dry or too flat - or both.

In short, we all tend to shoot what we see around us. As long as it doesn't run away in the time between pulling the dark slide and releasing the shutter.

[dperez]

:D You might think I'm being sensitive, I might think that Americans are too limited in their knowledge of the world :p ;)

Come on, one man's post here is hardly a good enough sample to draw this conclusion.

[Lachlan 717]

Again, what a puerile thread.

[dperez]

To the extent that the photography may touch on endemic particularities of any given culture or region, there may be some distinct differences that are notable. It's quite possible that there are elements (cultural, political, environmental, etc) that are best exemplified by natives. Certainly, if I visit Istanbul, my photography could be expected to be a lot different than someone who is a native--assuming we are both shooting similar genres.

I’m reminded of a group of foreign tourists visiting the Grand Canyon, everyone was clamoring for a shot from the nearby vista point—which is not all that different that what we would expect from American tourists. Yet there was one hold-out. An older gentlemen set up his tripod in the parking lot. His subject was a large Chevrolet Suburban. Now, I know few American photographers that would stop and photograph a Suburban sitting in a parking lot, but I can understand why this foreigner would. So to the extent that we have different sensibilities due to our environment, our socialization, our experiences, we may see and feel things differently in a photographic context, but I’m not sure how strong these differences are evident in the final print; that is to say, I’m not sure we could necessarily sift through photographs and say, “Oh this is clearly an American perspective, or this is a French perspective. It’s probably more the case at a distinct individual level, “Ah yes this is an Avedon, or this is an Ed Weston.”

My two cents.

[davkt]

First LF forum I found, lots of great information, helpful people and fantastic photography with no real indication it was a US focused site (and after coming back to it am still waiting for the UK LF forum to activate my subscription after about a month and several emails)

[dperez]

First LF forum I found, lots of great information, helpful people and fantastic photography with no real indication it was a US focused site (and after coming back to it am still waiting for the UK LF forum to activate my subscription after about a month and several emails)

That seems to be a consistent problem with the UKLF group.

[roteague]

Whose country is 'out of country'.

Well the original poster wrote:


From Colorado, USA.

So, it's kind of obvious.

I don't understand the big deal. "Out of Country" doesn't mean inferior, it means "out of country" from the original posters point of view.

[bsimison]

:D The French often refer to their flag as the "Bleu, Blanc, Rouge", which are the same colours in reverse order

Je pense que le nom de drapeau de la France est, "drapeau tricolore", ou "les couleurs", n'est-ce pas? :D

As for all this patriotism...let's not fight amongst ourselves. There are too few of us large format shooters left. :D

[davkt]

That seems to be a consistent problem with the UKLF group.

Oh well at least it isn't anything personal then! No great loss with this place to frequent and the fadu (film and darkroom user) UK forum (and probably lots better on my wallet that all the large format goodies for sale are the wrong side of the ocean!)

[Joanna Carter]

Oh well at least it isn't anything personal then! No great loss with this place to frequent and the fadu (film and darkroom user) UK forum (and probably lots better on my wallet that all the large format goodies for sale are the wrong side of the ocean!)
Hi, sorry it's been so long but you are now approved. We have had quite a lot of spam applicants recently and I was hoping that folks who really were genuine would write asking what was happening. I don't know what address you wrote to but, unfortunately, I have not received any mail about awaiting applications.

[rdenney]

One related question that comes to my mind is whether there is a cultural aspect to the selection and representation of subjects. Lots of American photographers seem to concentrate on wild nature--the natural scene preferably obviously without showing any of man's influences. This may come from a particularly American concept of the value of the natural scene expressed in that fashion. I don't recall seeing so many landscapes from Europe where such care to exclude works of man has been given.

Artistically, these landscapes showing vast infinity detail reckon back to particularly American concepts of pioneering into unspoiled land, and revering it (before, of course, spoiling it). I'm thinking of the paintings of Frederick Church, for example, which seems different to me as a distinctly amateur art historian from European late Romantic art. The unspoiled landscape may be a vocabulary of expression that just fits the American psyche, even when practiced by non-natives.

Naturally, I'm reminded of Ralph Vaughan Williams's essay on national music, where he expressed the importance of modern British composers being true to British musical roots, without necessarily lapsing into nostalgia. The Tallis Fantasia that Struan and I admire is an example--the tune is English Renascence (note spelling) but the setting is modern English impressionism (yes, with French influence but not really easily mistaken for the work of a French composer). He made the point that British composers should be no more ashamed of their vibrant musical heritage (pre-Handel) as one would expect an American composer to be ashamed of jazz.

A revision of the question might be: Do European photographers who have never traveled to the U.S. look at the never-ending infatuation we have with unspoiled landscapes and wonder what we are thinking? Do you think my notion that such a portrayal has a strong American bias is wrong-headed?

Rick "writing this from Brazil and therefore in country" Denney

[GPS]

Indeed why -when you can do so in your own country anyway? :(

[jnantz]

the origins of this forum were the greenspun / lusenet forum
which was located in the usa from what i remember (cambridge mass ? )

i am not really sure what american photography is ... it
can be said to be pretty much anything

[Steven Tribe]

The original question about differences - well I don't have enough experience or overview to draw real conclusions.
Certainly what locations/objects that exist in a country makes a difference. We have nothing like Yosemite in Denmark - so the idea of seasonal visits to capture snow, fall colours etc. at a location that has been recorded by photographers for over 100 years appears odd. It is bit like everyone who visits Cuba (both photographers and tourist - myself included) has to have images of the Buicks, de Sotos etc. filling Havana streets.
I think in Europe many have a real fear of producing Picture postcard photographs.

It is perhaps of note that the 2 best known Danish photographers active in the United States (Jacob Riis and Jacob Holdt) choose exclusively social circumstance motives. But I don't think either was/is an LF practitioner.

[davkt]

Hi, sorry it's been so long but you are now approved. We have had quite a lot of spam applicants recently and I was hoping that folks who really were genuine would write asking what was happening. I don't know what address you wrote to but, unfortunately, I have not received any mail about awaiting applications.

Thanks Joanne,
The last email chasing up was sent on 2nd Nov to postmaster at lf-photo dot org dot uk (hopefully the spambots won't pick that up!) the address that autofilled in my email when I clicked a contact link somewhere on the forum. If you've got a pending app from dtalbot just bin it now as I think I might have applied again from a none webmail addy in case that was the problem.
Regards
David

[GPS]

Hi, sorry it's been so long but you are now approved. We have had quite a lot of spam applicants recently and I was hoping that folks who really were genuine would write asking what was happening.
...

Hopefully the spammers won't pick that trick either...;)

[kev curry]

...the Union Flag of the UK is also known as the "Red, White & Blue", as in the song (http://www.know-britain.com/songs/therell_always_be_an_england.html)



''THERE'LL ALWAYS BE AN ENGLAND''. Aye right...wheres the puke bucket! 'The Union Flag of the UK is also known as the' Butchers apron and for good reason!

[Sirius Glass]

Several things of note:
1) Many countries use the tri-colors of Red, White, Blue or Bleu, Blanc, Rouge.
2) Every national flag has at least on to the colors Red, White, Blue or Bleu, Blanc, Rouge.
3) Photons work the same way all over the world.
4) Photons work the same way all over the universe.
5) Photons have no respect for various languages.
6) Photons have no respect for national boundaries.
7) Photons work the same way in the optical path for both analog and digital cameras. They do not discriminate.

I think that pretty well covers it.

Steve

[GPS]

Why not? If you travel abroad and want to keep in touch...?:confused:

[GPS]

Several things of note:
...
3) Photons work the same way all over the world.
4) Photons work the same way all over the universe.
5) Photons have no respect for various languages.
6) Photons have no respect for national boundaries.
7) Photons work the same way in the optical path for both analog and digital cameras. They do not discriminate.

I think that pretty well covers it.

Steve

What a load of nonsense!
3. Photons do work differently in a lens and out of it...
4. Photons work differently in the black holes and out of it...
5. How do you know?
6. Of course they have - just put a Berlin wall where it was and you'll see the shade it makes...:rolleyes:

[Sirius Glass]

3. Photons do work differently in a lens and out of it...


All photons follow the laws of physics.


4. Photons work differently in the black holes and out of it...


All photons follow the laws of physics.


5. How do you know?

If you believe the photons do not follow the laws of physics, then prove it. The world is sitting on the edge of its seat to see if your comment is anything other than hot air.


6. Of course they have - just put a Berlin wall where it was and you'll see the shade it makes...:rolleyes:

Non-sequitor. Illogical.

[GPS]

All photons follow the laws of physics.
....

Which doesn't deny in anything that photons behave differently in different situations, does it...?
:)

[Shen45]

At least this has tangentially altered course in a good natured way.

[GPS]

I wonder myself! :confused: There is so much other interesting stuff to see abroad!

[GPS]

...

Non-sequitor. Illogical.

Com'on, you forgot to say that all photons follow the laws of physics...;) If you believe the photons do not follow the laws of physics, then prove it.

[Merg Ross]

Again, what a puerile thread.

Yes, you suggested such earlier, and unfortunately have been proven correct by the diatribe of the last few posts.

However, I do believe that there is the opportunity to consider the question, perhaps awkwardly titled, and provide a meaningful response. Several have done so.

[GPS]

Why not..? When will you be back? :)

[Joanna Carter]

''THERE'LL ALWAYS BE AN ENGLAND''. Aye right...wheres the puke bucket! 'The Union Flag of the UK is also known as the' Butchers apron and for good reason!
Aaah yes, that song takes the same old imperialist attitude that sparked my original comment :eek: How easy it is to forget such things could be offensive to those of other nationalities. My apologies to the Scots, Irish and Welsh who may have found offense.

[kev curry]

I doff my cap, good answer Joanna.

[Lachlan 717]

Yes, you suggested such earlier, and unfortunately have been proven correct by the diatribe of the last few posts.

However, I do believe that there is the opportunity to consider the question, perhaps awkwardly titled, and provide a meaningful response. Several have done so.

I should also add Narcissistic.

[sultanofcognac]

Is the colder weather affecting people's temper and attitude?
I thought it was a worthwhile and relevant question - the original post (does anyone remember it?)

Raymond: I notice that some (not all) American LF photographers try to emulate Ansel Adams (and other ground-breakers) work. Not necessarily the same shots (although some do make pilgrimages to his old sites) but the same style.

I think those who don't have Yosemite to visit have different visions and feelings about their subjects (I am not generalising about American photographers - please don't start a thread on that AA comment). I mean, for example, I find few imitating Cartier-Bresson's work.

I am an American living in Switzerland and France and I tend to photograph the old standards - the Swiss Alps and French vineyards - only because they are so accessible to me and are constantly changing. Vineyards change constantly throughout the seasons - some due to the viticultural trade but mostly from nature's touch.

As it is so with LF photographers in America, when shooting locally one is limited to one's surroundings and imagination - which is why many of us travel to face new challenges.

I am a member of APUG and one German-speaking LF forum, but spend most of my time here because of the openness and the experience(s) the members share.

Most of my life I've shot 6x6 and 645 - I didn't even know that I could one day own an LF camera. Not until I was in Germany about 15 years ago visiting a friend did I actually have a chance to see and touch one. That was quite a revelation (and yes, it was straight to evil bay I went).

Here in rural France I am one of two that I know, possibly three LF photographers within a 30 km radius (I don't know if even anything exists beyond the boundaries of 'my world' :eek: ).

I envy those in large cities where old buildings can be found, interesting architecture and great nighttime subjects - but the grass is always greener, etc.

When I travel to Switzerland I tend to take the train as opposed to flying, as I can drag along any of my LF cameras and tripods without having to prepare them for baggage-handler abuse or worry about paying extra for their 'seat'. But here in Europe train travel is very comfortable (in Western Europe anyway) and many people take advantage of that fact. Train travel is less expensive, one can work on the train or watch a movie on a laptop or iPad. . . I love it.

Also, most cities over here are not so 'threatened' by photographers. Some people have had problems in Paris (although I never do), but all in all, breaking out an LF camera mostly attracts the curious.

I was in Washington, DC last week for business and wouldn't have dreamt of pulling out anything larger than a point-n-shoot. I went to shoot a monument from a city street with a long lens two years ago and two security guards and two policemen were on me in a trice! The building I was shooting past was a public library (closed - Sunday), so not important, but I was not allowed to shoot any buildings!

America used to be the land of the free but times have certainly changed. To me, that is the main difference in trying to shoot there and doing so here in Europe.

I hope this is a somewhat coherent answer to the original question :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Johnny

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hello from France !

I'm coming late to this discussion and I have no problem answering the original questions by Raymond.

But curious to know, from far & wide, what's your take, opinions, observations on American LF photography in generalities or perhaps in specifics, from where are you posting from, and how is your LF photo work in your country different from Red White & Blue? From Colorado, USA.
Raymond

First I see Northern America (and the US of course ;) ) as a place where large format professional photographers show the way to go, either by their work or by publishing textbooks & tutorials like Saint Ansel.
PLUS ;) : a huge repository of large format equipment for sale, use of this equipement & related consumables being very affordable for the hobbyist.

The last textbook/course on large format photography in French has been published in Québec by Pierre Groulx whereas many other classical French textbooks were out of print for a long time. Hence even for the French hobbyist at the beginning of the XXI-st century, North America rules as far as textbooks and examples are concerned !

Contrary to the US, in France in the sixties, large format cameras like all photo equipment sold under the tricolore flag was heavily taxed in with a VAT rate of 33% like luxury goods. No need to say that amateurs were more or less excluded from using new medium or large format professional equipment. The situation was different in Germany and the UK where the photo market, to the best of my knowledge, has always been more active than the French domestic photo market. Now that there are no longer any taxes within the EU and no VAT on used equipement, Europe has eventually catched-up with respect to Northern America as far as the supply of LF gear is concerned. And we have several European manufacturers of LF gear still very active !

Regarding the question :"how is your LF photo work in your country different from the US". Well from the hobbyist's point of view in 2010 I do not think that there are so many differences, except that shorter distances make informal gatherings between hobbyists easier ; and of course the fact Western Europe being stuffed with monuments & other subjects proper to wide angle LF photography, this is of course an incentive to re-visit our heritage in our small villages nearby where we live.

Now with the Internet, things have changed and in Western Europe we have several web sites & discussion groups dealing with large format photography, but this situation does not change, from my point of view, the interest we have about following what is going on here.

Regarding R. Denney's remark:
I don't recall seeing so many landscapes from Europe where such care to exclude works of man has been given.

This is a very interesting subject where actually the Northern American point of view has good reasons to differ from the Western European one.
One of the classical use of the LF camera in the recent past in Europe was our beloved Swiss calendars. If you look at the kind of archetypal images in classical Swiss calendars, you'll notice that, with few exceptions, the Swiss nature is most often shown in its close relationship with the presence of humans.. at least since the last glacial era ;-)
Wild & awesome Swiss mountains are shown as one of the favourite subjects, but almost all the time with Swiss-clean chalets in the foreground, spectacular railway viaducts, perfectly maintained pastures, etc... the Swiss calendar is there to remind us how harsh the life in those mountains was, and how successful those brave mountaineers have been ;)

There is a recent book by P. Desgraupes on French national parks, commissioned by the French NP administration,
http://www.parcsnationaux.fr/Acces-direct/Exposition-Patrick-Desgraupes
(equipment was a 4x5" LF camera) where the author follows the Northern-American example of excluding humans from the scene, but may be the photographer was influenced by the Northern American style ?

Regarding other classical subjects for the LF camera in France, architecture of course comes to the mind with the example of the Mission Héliographique and images of Paris by Marvillle and Atget. The Mission Héliographique in the middle of the XIX-st century aimed at recording a vanishing collection of old monuments including Roman monuments, not all in ruins like the Pont-du-Gard aqueduct which is exceptionally well preserved.
Due to long exposure times, humans are often "excluded" from the final picture, being washed-out by 1/4 of hour of exposure time...
Marville has documented & recorded for us the image of old buiding being destroyed in the 1860's when our capital was partly remodeled an rebuilt, for example at a place named "Les grands boulevards" where most famous Parisian department stores are now located.
Interestingly, many pictures of the old Paris by Atget do not show anybody in the scene, only the buildings.

A last remark is that I have discovered LF photography in 1990 when visitig the US. The fact that as a rule the US hobbyst can easily afford a LF camera and has no problem to carry it the the Grand Canyon without any risk of feeling ridiculous.
This has greatly influenced the idea that I am un urgent need to document for myslef and my family album the country where I live with the LF camera.

Since we are speaking about LF cameras in France I'm sure that the group will be interested to learn that the French photographer Raymond Depardon, better known as a photo-journalist or an art director for documentary movies has been commissioned by different local government authorities in France to take pictures of whatever he liked all over France,he mostly chose small cities in rural France. He chose to work with a 8x10" camera loaded with color negs.
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/portfolio/2010/10/02/le-monde-magazine-raymond-depardon-et-la-france-de-son-enfance_1418461_3224.html

After several exhibitions all over the country, a "heavy" book has been published.
"La France de Raymond Depardon", Ed. : Seuil, Sep 2010, 320pp, ISBN-13 : 978-2021009941

I'd be interested to get a feedback on this work from our foreign readers since the books presents an image of the good ol' friendly France stuffed with boulangeries & bistrots du coin and place de l'église et cinéma du curé and other delicious places "so French", for which I know that there is an interestest everywhere, an interest even higher than for our National Parks.

[IanG]

Yes, you suggested such earlier, and unfortunately have been proven correct by the diatribe of the last few posts.

However, I do believe that there is the opportunity to consider the question, perhaps awkwardly titled, and provide a meaningful response. Several have done so.

I think you high light the fact that the title question is itself awkward.

The OP seems to have a misconception that the forum/website is purely a US and that over shadows his other question about how LF photography differs in other regions of the world compared to the US.

To answer the OP from a European perspective you need to go to European exhibitions, buy European books to begin to see there's quite a difference in approach.

After Newhall's "History of Photography" was published other histories of Photography had to be written to reflect regional and cultural differences because Newhalls book was not a history of European photography and had less significance. A good example is Peter Turner's "History of Photography"

To understand some of the differences in US/European approaches you need to look back at the diverse directions of approach that took place in the 1930's as photography was becoming more accepted as an art form. In rather simplistic terms it's the difference in the way Kertesz, Bresson, Brassai etc worked compared to Ansel Adams, Weston etc, and how those photographers (and others) influenced future generations.

European photography often has more deliberate social and political undertones, often bodies of work are about story telling.

It would take many thousands of words to articulate & illustrate how the basic culture of LF photography changes regionally, and of course there's now a greater crossover and diversity of influences.

Ian

[bobwysiwyg]

I've been following this thread. The original poster certainly has taken a drubbing. I might have worded the OP differently, but I understood what he was asking and what he meant. I believe Emmanuel's reply has been the most "on target" in terms of what the OP was thinking and the kind of information he was seeking. Just my $.02 as they say.

[Wayne Crider]

Bravo to those answers that were able to see the OP's intent without judgment.

For myself, I would like to know who the LF masters were in Europe during the 20th Century. I would like to research some of the photo's.

[IanG]

Bravo to those answers that were able to see the OP's intent without judgment.

For myself, I would like to know who the LF masters were in Europe during the 20th Century. I would like to research some of the photo's.

In the UK you could look at John Blakemore, John Davies, Gem Southam, Thomas Joshua Cooper for starters. They revived the LF tradition in the 70's & 80's.

Ian

[c.d.ewen]

I've been following this thread. The original poster certainly has taken a drubbing. I might have worded the OP differently, but I understood what he was asking and what he meant. I believe Emmanuel's reply has been the most "on target" in terms of what the OP was thinking and the kind of information he was seeking. Just my $.02 as they say.

On target, although I would hesitate saying that I understand anything, especially the thoughts of others.

Emmanuel's and Ian's responses are the ones for which I'm following this thread. I'd also love to have some of those "out-of-country" people point out some "out-of-country" forums, if they exist.

Charley

[cdholden]

Emmanuel,
Thank you for posting the links.
While I am an American, I enjoy scenic nature shots from around the world, as well as other worlds (thanks NASA!).
Chris

[Armin Seeholzer]

For myself, I would like to know who the LF masters were in Europe during the 20th Century. I would like to research some of the photo's.

Gertrude Fehr from Germany startet the Fotoschule in Vevey, Peter Gasser, René Gröebli for Switzerland!

Cheers Armin

[IanG]

There are "Out of Country" (in the context of this thread) forums but in general they are much smaller, less diverse, and so less interesting.

The UK has it's own UKLFPG (http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/) of which Joanna Carter is a Moderator, she like many of us post here as well.

There's also FADU which has one or two LF users, again it's smaller so less significant. Both these forums despite being British have someforeign members.

If you look at this Forum and also APUG you'll see that both have a high number of members from outside the US, and in the English speaking countries it's probably related to LF (APUG -film) usage.

It's really about being a big fish in a small sea or a small fish in a big sea, where the sea is the forum.

Ian

[Andrew O'Neill]

Our flag is red and white. It's "out of country", too. ... and there are quite a few of us LF photographers. We like to photograph hockey games with 8x10's. We survive on smoked salmon, and maple syrup doughnuts. We drink only Timmies coffee. My darkroom is an igloo. Summers suck.

[Raymond Bleesz]

My response---My header certainly was not worded well, and it did cause uncertainty in its meaning. Nor was my intent to fly the flags of nationalism or imperialism-- responses in that realm came from one's own sensitivities.

The question, although posed awardly, stood. Responders come from diverse geographic backgrounds, such as Croatia, Norway, the Aegean, France, Denmark etc and from from within parts of my own country such as Texas. This was the intent of the question as posed originally. And as Merg, Wayne & others pointed out, worthy of an attempted reply.

The internet is certainly international, which makes for instantanious responses, and which can be such a learning tool. I view it in such a manner. However, the lack of civility towards one another is anathema to me. It should not be tolerated. Civility towards one another is the mark of Enlightenment.

Ian's comments, and certainly Emmanuel's were (as well as for others) informative and what I had hoped for in my original question. I learned from those responses--hopefully, others did as well-----hence the merit of the original question.

The basis of Western Intellectual History & Culture is rooted in the Socratic method--the asking of a question in order to stimulate critical thinking.

A tute a l'heure---Merci pour votra support et votra repose--tres bien.

Hopla!!!! Raymond

[Jim Galli]

I'm very late to the party as I also stumbled over the title and never even looked until this AM.

I would add this to the discussion. The human condition is such that we seem to be bored where we're at and romanticize about 'somewhere else'. Particularly true for me as I live in a virtual hub of places that LF folks all over the world dream of photographing. I can, if I get off my lazy butt and quit reading threads like this, photograph american ghost towns, Death Valley, Ancient Bristlecones, Ameican wild west, herds of wild horses on open lands, real cowboys herding cows in wide open spaces, Mono Lake and eastern sierras, and sleep in my own bed with a little planning.

I'm bored with all of that and can't think of a thing to do. See how it is. Now if JB7 would trade domiciles with me for six months, (I'm sure he lives in a vine covered cottage with thatch roof next to a pub where all the lads have a pint there in the emerald isles), then I could do some serious photographing.

You see, 'Out of Country' is where all the worthy photographs are at.

[redrockcoulee]

I would guess that between and among Canadian and American LF photographers there might be, as there is in geography, flora and fauna and human migration, more of a north south than an east west connection. Are the badlands of the Dakotas different from those of Alberta compared to the Maritimes and New England? I have been to Colorado twice, I have seen Newfoundland only on TV. The physical and cultural landscape will affect not only how we see subjects but also what subjects there are to see. Big rocks in oceans is just not possible in a semi arid environment in the middle of a continent nor are old buildings unless one means from the before the 1950s. But books, forums and the internet probably are the midst of erasing or at least diffusing these slight differences.

To the OP and others who question the sensitivity of many of the first responses, even after reading the first post four times it still reads to me "what do you get out of coming to an American forum". Perhaps that is the Canadian in me and any further comment might be approaching the political realm. "Why view the forum? Out of Country" is the title. Perhaps those who accuse others of over sensitivity should re-read the original post and the replies and try to see it in the eyes of a non-American. It is unfortunate that the lack of sensitivity of the OP tarnishes a very interesting question of is there a difference photographically between nationalities or even within very large countries?

I came here to learn more about LF photography and in the last few years I found myself more of a MF than a LF photographer but have not abandoned totally LF. American LF photographers whose work I admire include of course Ansel Adams but also Jim and Mark and another Jim plus a host of others all from this forum (with the exception of AA of course), and all work which I would never have encountered without being part of OUR forum. Plus techniques such as carbon transfer of Sandy's.

[Dan Fromm]

With respect to Emmanuel's remarks, some time ago he asked me for sample shots taken with some of my lenses to illustrate how, if at all, they differed. This for an article. I sent him a set taken with lenses ranging from short to long -- 38 mm to 480 mm -- on a 2x3 Graphic. Or two 2x3 Graphics, in the case of the longer lenses.

The set was of one of my favorite locations in the NJ Pine Barrens. I chose the spot and compositions with care. Emmanuel rejected them, saying that they weren't American enough. There were similar places in France ... The French audience he had in mind for the article wouldn't think they were of anything special.

So much for American exceptionalism. He accepted but I think won't use a later series of garden center taken in autumn. If I recall correctly -- the films are still with him -- the garden center had heaps of pumpkins, many potted Chrysanthemums, and even some potted ornamental cabbages. All very American or, at any rate, not very French.

Those who read French should visit the French LF forum. Emmanuel was too modest to mention it. Enter it here: http://www.galerie-photo.info/forum/

I find discussions on the French forum generally more literate, more literary, and sometimes at a higher level than discussions here. Re the more literary, from time to time a question is answered with a sonnet. This is not the American way.

[jb7]

... Now if JB7 would trade domiciles with me for six months, (I'm sure he lives in a vine covered cottage with thatch roof next to a pub where all the lads have a pint there in the emerald isles), then I could do some serious photographing.

You see, 'Out of Country' is where all the worthy photographs are at.


Jim, I'd gladly trade that for a visit to your spread,
can't wait to enter through the adobe arch topped by a steer's skull,
and drive my mule up that long trail to the ranch house-

Be sure to leave the keys to your lens cabinet, and leave a jug of something out, enough so I get a chance to see those little green men-

I've only been to Nevada once, drove from LA to Vegas and back in a weekend, in a rented convertible Mustang- How Gonzo is that...
we even got stopped at the border by a Bear with a dog, checking for vegatables...

Unfortunately, no big cameras, it wasn't that kinda visit- next time maybe-

It seems easier to justify a big camera over there-
there's a vastness about everything- much more so than here.

My personal difficulty is in finding a vision big enough to match my camera, but that's got nothing to do with this thread.



... a very interesting question of is there a difference photographically between nationalities or even within very large countries? ...


I think that question might have produced a lot less bristling, and a bigger ratio of constructive answers. And it's probably the same question...
A forum is a place to meet, and I wasn't aware that a passport was necessary.
Apart from the occasional exclusion of 'CONUS only', the idea of nationality seldom colours my interpretation of what I see and read here.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a global resource, and as some people have mentioned, the contributions of some of those from 'out of country' are valuable too-

This is the largest forum for big photography, and the only one I'm active in-
where I come from, hardly anyone at all uses big cameras, so I come here, and in the main, it's invaluable. Long may it continue, storms in teacups notwithstanding...

[Joe Forks]

Perhaps those who accuse others of over sensitivity should re-read the original post and the replies and try to see it in the eyes of a non-American. It is unfortunate that the lack of sensitivity of the OP tarnishes a very interesting question of is there a difference photographically between nationalities or even within very large countries?

I can tell you from my perspective I was focused on the "how is it different" portion of the question and skimmed over the rest. I was actually looking forward the answers, but was blindsided by what was posted. I'm 100% positive the OP meant no offense.

I loved Mr Galli's perspective on the post as well.

[redrockcoulee]

I can tell you from my perspective I was focused on the "how is it different" portion of the question and skimmed over the rest. I was actually looking forward the answers, but was blindsided by what was posted. I'm 100% positive the OP meant no offense.

I loved Mr Galli's perspective on the post as well.

I did not think the OP meant offense either. Without the first paragraph that would have been clear. What I was trying to refer to without being political is the trend for Americans to see (or at least how it appears from outside the States) that the world is divided into two; the USA and the rest of the world. It also seems that those who only viewed that portion were mostly from the States as well so perhaps it is not our photographic style but a view of the rest fits into our world that is different and that is why I requested folks like you who saw it the way you state to re read through the eyes of others.

Perhaps the OP could rephrase his question in a new thread as I think it could be very interesting.

[rdenney]

I did not think the OP meant offense either. Without the first paragraph that would have been clear. What I was trying to refer to without being political is the trend for Americans to see (or at least how it appears from outside the States) that the world is divided into two; the USA and the rest of the world.

This is not supported by my experience, either the assumption that Americans are typically overbearing and arrogant or the similarly wrong assumption that Europeans never are. Those who see it that way usually bring that division with them, in my experience.

Americans do tend to be plainspoken and do not usually understand the social hierarchies common in many other countries, and that may lead to usually innocent gaffes, some of which might really be offensive in other cultures but are usually just humorous (to those with a sense of humor). But when representatives from those countries come to the U.S., they are often surprised by how open society is, even though they were expecting it. That openness and social mobility is uncommon, and it has both good aspects and poor ones.

I know the sort of care that I take not to accidentally express any sense of superiority or preachiness when I am on official visits. I do wish a few of my colleagues from other developed countries would exercise the same care. Humility is in short supply everywhere, but false humility, which is even more patronizing, seems to be common enough. Confidence is not arrogance, but obsequiousness is.

Rick "in Sampa with a few examples fresh on his mind" Denney

[redrockcoulee]

This is not supported by my experience, either the assumption that Americans are typically overbearing and arrogant or the similarly wrong assumption that Europeans never are. Those who see it that way usually bring that division with them, in my experience.

Americans do tend to be plainspoken and do not usually understand the social hierarchies common in many other countries, and that may lead to usually innocent gaffes, some of which might really be offensive in other cultures but are usually just humorous (to those with a sense of humor). But when representatives from those countries come to the U.S., they are often surprised by how open society is, even though they were expecting it. That openness and social mobility is uncommon, and it has both good aspects and poor ones.

I know the sort of care that I take not to accidentally express any sense of superiority or preachiness when I am on official visits. I do wish a few of my colleagues from other developed countries would exercise the same care. Humility is in short supply everywhere, but false humility, which is even more patronizing, seems to be common enough. Confidence is not arrogance, but obsequiousness is.

Rick "in Sampa with a few examples fresh on his mind" Denney

I never said or even thought the word arrogance. Nor was I thinking of how you behave in other countries. I obviously did not express myself well.

[roteague]

The human condition is such that we seem to be bored where we're at and romanticize about 'somewhere else'. Particularly true for me as I live in a virtual hub of places that LF folks all over the world dream of photographing.


You see, 'Out of Country' is where all the worthy photographs are at.

Yep, I've lived in Hawaii for almost 13 years, and I'm plain bored with it. That's one reason I travel to Australia almost yearly. In fact, I just returned a little over a month ago from photographing in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales. :D

[rdenney]

I never said or even thought the word arrogance. Nor was I thinking of how you behave in other countries. I obviously did not express myself well.

No worries--it wasn't just you I was responding to and the subject was fresh on my mind.

Rick "thinking overbearing Americans are more common in lore than on the ground" Denney

[jan labij]

I also was surprized by the reaction to what I saw as a good question. I hope we can explore the different ways of LF work further. The point that American ( and as far as I know Canadian) Landscape photographers look for a viewpoint that avoids civilization, and Europeans include civilization, is an interesting source of dialogue.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I also was surprized by the reaction to what I saw as a good question. I hope we can explore the different ways of LF work further. The point that American ( and as far as I know Canadian) Landscape photographers look for a viewpoint that avoids civilization, and Europeans include civilization, is an interesting source of dialogue.

It is an interesting point, but I wonder if it is true?

[IanG]

It's a simplification as it discounts the whole of the US led New Topographic movement although it may reflect a more general tendency in North America where there's a tradition of shooting big wide open wilderness lanscapes.

In Europe we don't have those spaces :D

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

It's a simplification as it discounts the whole of the US led New Topographic movement although it may reflect a more general tendency in North America where there's a tradition of shooting big wide open wilderness lanscapes.

In Europe we don't have those spaces :D

IanUm, Ian, we don't have them in my part of New Jersey. Or, for that matter, in the part of Western Pennsylvania where I grew up.

[rdenney]

It's a simplification as it discounts the whole of the US led New Topographic movement although it may reflect a more general tendency in North America where there's a tradition of shooting big wide open wilderness lanscapes.

In Europe we don't have those spaces :D

But I'm not sure the New Topographics movement is particularly well represented on this forum, at least not in the photos we see posted. Nor do I necessarily include the mass of work displayed on the digital camera forums. I was responding to the question of participation in this forum, and so was limiting my observation to what is posted here.

And it is not only the big wide-open landscapes, but also tighter compositions. I'm not sure it's just a matter of not having those spaces in Europe. I know that when I'm photographing the natural scene, I work quite hard to avoid including any people or evidence of people, for reasons I do not really understand. If I were making photographs in Europe, that reaction to the landscape would be the same--it just might be more of a challenge to separate the natural scene from the people in it. It seemed to me that this desire on my part seemed to be common, and in keeping with the OP's question I wondered if there was a correlation to the different photographic traditions in America and Europe.

And certainly many Americans, even if they include evidence of man in photos of the natural scene, do so to point out the resulting damage. I wonder also if that is an American tendency, or if European photographs have the same tendency.

When discussing tendencies, of course, one must recognize that exceptions will abound, but an exception does not disprove the existence of a tendency.

I think only Europeans can tell me if they wonder why our landscapes never seem to have people in them, and only other Americans can tell me if I'm the only American who strives to exclude people from photos of the natural scene. Isn't answering questions like that what discussions on a world-wide forum are for? I might expose some unrealized bias on my part that I either decide to overcome or exploit.

Rick "with Jack, wondering if it is true" Denney

[Genevieve Ness]

Perhaps it would be more diplomatic to ask what makes photography where you are special and unique? Americans are geographically removed from the rest of the world, and most of us (Americans) will never see a quarter of our own country, much less Europe or Asia, or Latin America. If we do, it is usually in a very brief tour. Most Americans do have a little bit of foreign language instruction in high school, but there isn't much chance to practice anything other than Spanish here. Through the internet and mass media and language, most of the world has access to Anglo-American culture, but Americans don't have the same access to everyone else's culture, at least not in equal measure. We hope that we are all unique, and all special, and all exceptional in some way. It would be a little sad if we are just exactly the same. Americans would like to imagine that the rest of the world is just a little bit different from us- not worse than us, not better than us, but distinctive in some way and that there is more to the world than what we can see here. And because we may not be able to see it first hand, we really do rely on those of you from over there, where ever over there may be, to tell us about it!

[cowanw]

What a lovely first post.
Welcome to the Forum
Regards
Bill

[Genevieve Ness]

Let's put on more spin on it: What if Ansel Adams had grown up in Paris and Henri Cartier Bresson had lived in San Francisco? Both men's work has broad appeal and transcendence, but is that because they were quality workers in a universal medium, or because they were so deeply rooted in the particulars of their time and place? Adam was inspired to become a photographer by the very mountains that made him famous; his approach and break with pictorialism has parallels with American literature at the time- think Hemmingway- both deceptively straightforward, masculine, rugged, succinct. No sentimentality, no softness. I would not say these qualities are exclusively American or that Americans have a monopoly on anything or any quality, but that being an American in that time, place and era must have had an influence. And can you think of Bresson as being anything other than French? My Scandinavian/Scotch-Irish Mid-American/ New England relations have an entirely different pace and manner of relating to the world. He didn't just take pictures of French subjects; the experience of being French and coming of age between, during and after the wars, of Dadaism and of Jazz and the confluence of world cultures in France at the time, it is all in the work. Of course there is no uniform French or American way of seeing, nor do either have a monopoly on their particular style or any aspect of it, but work that has lasting appeal to many cultures across time and generations starts with deep roots in a particular time and place. I am not talking about mindless nationalism, but if you have a truly deep appreciation or sensitivity to a particular place or people, you can sometimes learn to love all places and people through the particular. The plains are beautiful because they are not the mountains and the mountains are beautiful because they rise above the plains, and when you see one with the other, the contrast magnifies both.

[jb7]

You are right, and this is about photography, and not the size of the format-
restricting the conversation to large format is throwing a curve ball ...

It's quite obvious that people have filtered their responses through their particular interests- landscapes is the obvious one- and there is so much more than that.
This is where discussions on forums become less than useful-

[Genevieve Ness]

Sorry if Bresson is off topic! Anyone doing decisive moment in Large Format? Maybe with press cameras? American landscapes don't usually include human elements for three reasons, that I can tell. The first is that the most famous landscape photographers were active preservationists who worked to create, preserve and promote our national parks. Development was something to be held at bay or prevented. The second reason is that most American architecture is so new it hasn't had time to fit into the landscape naturally. It isn't attractive. Not yet. Maybe never will be. When Americans photograph landscapes with evidence of people, it is often old barns, ghost towns, Indian ruins, downtown Detroit, etc, things the patina of time has had a chance to soften and blend into the landscape. We don't have Swiss chalets that blend into and soften the Alps. If we had anything native like that we would photograph it- falling water by Frank L. Wright is the closest to it. And the third reason is that we would rather not be reminded of wilderness lost; it is too recent and ongoing a loss to swallow just yet. Including evidence of people can come across as too strident, too journalistic/activitistic to be compelling for American tastes, if it is too obvious.

[Sirius Glass]

American landscapes don't usually include human elements because the clothes that people wear date the photograph. Without the people the photograph has a timeless quality. Was it taken yesterday? Last month? A year ago? A decade ago? 50 or 100 years ago?

Steve

[Jack Dahlgren]

I took a look at the landscapes I've taken over the past year and a half. 2/3 of them show manmade objects. But no old barns, ghost towns. In the past I've taken my share of rusty metal photos.

I am a 5th generation Californian.

[Ole Tjugen]

Another thing is that there is hardly any "untouched nature" in Europe. Even on the outermost fringes, like the mountains of Norway, show signs of cultivation if you know what to look for!

I came close with this picture, though - thanks to a fortuitous fog bank. I'm linking in the zoomable version, so people can have fun with the challenge of finding the small group of four very small buildings...

http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

Yes we DO have ghost towns and decrepit old barns...

[rdenney]

American landscapes don't usually include human elements because the clothes that people wear date the photograph. Without the people the photograph has a timeless quality. Was it taken yesterday? Last month? A year ago? A decade ago? 50 or 100 years ago?

That's part of it but not the characterization that resonates with me. Yes, I'm looking for a timeless quality, but I don't care if the image's dates can or can't be identified.

When I photograph old buildings, I'm trying to eliminate or at least minimize the role of people in those images, too. And those photographs are actually quite easy to date, as it turns out. Nothing stays the same. For example, here is an image of the Espada Aqueduct, built in the 1730's:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/espada_aqueduct111191-04_lores.jpg

This image was made in 1991, using a Cambo SC and a 121/8 Super Angulon on FP4.

Any photo of this site made more recently would show the aqueduct stripped of its foliage, and the large tree at the right is now gone, as is the house in the background. Here's how it was in 2004:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/espada-aqueduct-lores.jpg

(Not large format, and begging for forgiveness.)

For both of these scenes, I waited quite a while to make the image. In the first case, it was to find a gap in the wind to keep the vines from moving during the half-second exposure. In the second case, it was to wait for the people to be out of the image.

A photograph records a scene as it was in an instant, and that recording provides a unique historical perspective. I'm not at all looking for a timeless quality.

I think the reason I don't include people is that doing so makes it about their experience, and I want the photograph to be about my experience. When I'm there, I look past other people--ignore them. I try hard to experience a place on my own terms, and perhaps that is what underlies my desire to exclude them from my photographs. Selfish? Probably.

Is that a perspective that has American tendencies? I don't know--that's why we have these discussions.

Rick "not making value judgments--just...curious" Denney

[Brian C. Miller]

Another reason that nature photos don't include people is because the people in the area may not "fit" into the photograph. The person's clothes and demeanor changes the character of the scene, and moves the focus of the photograph to the person.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Any photo of this site made more recently would show the aqueduct stripped of its foliage, and the large tree at the right is now gone, as is the house in the background.

Same bridge, different water.

[tbeaman]

I'm interested in this, but let's please move away from nationality. Nationality is a dangerous and usually stupid concept. The OP (and yes, it was unintentionally, but still offensively written) is really asking more about cultural influences. There are disparate cultures within as well as "out of" countries. It depends on how micro and macro you want to get. There are even cultural differences that exist outside of geography (the culture within landscape photography doesn't exist without peer).

Today, the internet and the global age are changing a lot of this, so it's a very relevant subject to discuss now. I think that younger people will be less influenced by regional work, then what regional characteristics inform them as individual people. That is, they have every culture's work to sample now, which will be filtered through their own environmental upbringing.

Laslty, people get scared of generalizing (or if they're not, they're taken to task). I don't think there's anything wrong with it, as long as you're clear about it.

[rdenney]

Nationality is a dangerous and usually stupid concept.

Why must this be the case? Somehow, this touches a nerve, as evidenced by the emotion of the responses in this thread, but for the life of me I can't understand why. Why is it dangerous to acknowledge that traditions and ways of seeing are informed by the soil on which they grow? Why is it dangerous to discuss and try to understand how those traditions and ways of seeing might differ because of that different growth?

I mentioned before the treatise by the British composer Ralph Vaughan Williams titled National Music And Other Essays. In that work, he defended the notion that one can be both modern and still draw from his own cultural roots. He wrote that essay for a tour he made of American universities between the wars, and that was at a time when political nationalism was thought to be a more dangerous concept than it is today. He was devoted to English musical heritage having explored fully both folk music and also the music of the English Renascence, which was a time of great musical (and cultural) flowering in what is now the UK. He thought the Englishness of music during that period had been lost under the overwhelming influence of Handel and those who followed him, who brought German musical tradition to London following the Elizabethan period. Despite the times during which he wrote these essays, and despite his thesis, there is no hint that I can see of any anti-German sentiment in what he says, and favoring the revival of traditional British music in no way was intended to demean music rooted in German heritage.

Rick "wondering why people react so sensitively at the mention of the word 'national'" Denney

[rdenney]

I think that younger people will be less influenced by regional work, then what regional characteristics inform them as individual people.

In some ways, I agree. But one thing I have observed which I do not at all understand: Young people spend their lives sitting in front of televisions listening to news broadcasts and Hollywood shows that filter out most regional accents. And yet those same young people demonstrate the strongest of the local accents and dialects in their respective regions. I have observed this everywhere in the U.S. Wherever these young'uns (so to speak) are getting their accents isn't coming from the pervasive influence of television or the Internet. Something else happens at the regional level that maintains those regional differences.

Where I think the Internet changes perceptions is in personal relationships. As a result of online activities, I know and share interests with people all over the world. One advantage of that is that I get to learn how they look at things, and they get to learn how I look at things. But how does that learning take place (especially on word-only forums) when we can't discuss those as national differences?

Rick "who grew up in Texas but who has no regional accent" Denney

[tbeaman]

Oh, I agree with you completely. The point is that it does touch a nerve, and everything you speak of can be talked about within the context of culture instead. Even culture identified with a national label.

It's just the word has become loaded. It's also limiting, as I was trying to say.

Edit: As for your second post, I think that's kind of what I was saying. People will maintain their regional flavours by being influenced by those around them, but they'll have a greater understanding of a homogenized world culture, as well some of the regions that inform it. Things like art (yes, television, though it's been true of television for awhile) can be consumed from many more places.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Why is it dangerous to acknowledge that traditions and ways of seeing are informed by the soil on which they grow? Why is it dangerous to discuss and try to understand how those traditions and ways of seeing might differ because of that different growth?

Rick "wondering why people react so sensitively at the mention of the word 'national'" Denney

Region is not necessarily nation. Culture is not necessarily nation. I think people react to these because nationalism - particularly the strain of it called ultra-nationalism was responsible for so many atrocities in the last century, and before that and before that.

I certainly think that photographers have a very close connection to their regions (unless they just photograph products/celebrities in the studio) and it is probably more productive to talk of that rather than nation.

[Mike Anderson]

...And yet those same young people demonstrate the strongest of the local accents and dialects in their respective regions. I have observed this everywhere in the U.S. Wherever these young'uns (so to speak) are getting their accents isn't coming from the pervasive influence of television or the Internet. Something else happens at the regional level that maintains those regional differences...

I think it's a group bonding/identity thing. I grew up mostly in California but spent a few years in Hawaii as a teenager. I slowly adopted the local dialect ("eh bra, you go beach today?"). This was almost a conscience attempt to fit in with locals, in effect advertising "I'm becoming one of you now." I saw the same transformation in other young neo-Hawaiian transplants. On vacations back to California my Hawaiian dialect was dropped immediately. I've seen many (cultural) Hawaiians use heavy dialect in familier/casual settings but turn it off in formal/business settings or trips to the mainland.

Adult transplants were much less likely to adopt the local lingo.

...Mike

[roteague]

I think it's a group bonding/identity thing. I grew up mostly in California but spent a few years in Hawaii as a teenager. I slowly adopted the local dialect ("eh bra, you go beach today?"). This was almost a conscience attempt to fit in with locals, in effect advertising "I'm becoming one of you now." I saw the same transformation in other young neo-Hawaiian transplants. On vacations back to California my Hawaiian dialect was dropped immediately. I've seen many (cultural) Hawaiians use heavy dialect in familier/casual settings but turn it off in formal/business settings or trips to the mainland.

Adult transplants were much less likely to adopt the local lingo.

...Mike

I think you are right about the transplant thing .... I've lived here for many years, but refuse to talk "local". It always seems a sign of low intellect to me. ...

[Mike Anderson]

...It always seems a sign of low intellect to me. ...

Whoa dude! I felt that way too, but being a skinny new haole boy I wasn't about to reveal it.:) In hindsight, it was a valuable experience. Not the experience of feeling the need to conceal my young unworldly opinions to avoid a high school ass wuppin', but the experience that later helped me understand that it's not good to make too many assumptions about people by their language/dialect. Except for Bostonians (paak da caar in Haavad yaad). (lame joke sorry.)

...Mike

[roteague]

Whoa dude! I felt that way too, but being a skinny new haole boy I wasn't about to reveal it.:) In hindsight, it was a valuable experience. Not the experience of feeling the need to conceal my young unworldly opinions to avoid a high school ass wuppin', but the experience that later helped me understand that it's not good to make too many assumptions about people by their language/dialect. Except for Bostonians (paak da caar in Haavad yaad). (lame joke sorry.)

...Mike

I said it was a sign of it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a person is of low intellect. As Zig Ziglar always says, "you are known by the words you speak".

[Curt]

Walter Lippmann once said: Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.

It's like a quest to see other peoples views, to travel and learn; participating on an Internet forum is like that too perhaps in a more narrow fashion. It's the exchange of ideas and thoughts that bring people together.

[lenicolas]

It's realy a pity this thread turned into a troll.
I think there was food for thoughts here.

I had noticed that this forum is mostly american before, and I was strucked by how diferent europeans and americans are regarding to LF photography.

For instance, why are people like Ansel adams and Waler Evans so often mentioned by our US members while us europeans seem to pay more attention to "younger" photographers like Stephen Shore or Joel Sternfeld...

I can't remember in what thread it was, but a US member once mentioned Cartier Bresson as a street photographer. Not that this is untrue, but here in europe I believe we would rather mention Winogrand or Meyerowitz...
Also, why is Cartier Bresson mentioned so often, and Robert Franck so scarcely?
It's understood that Franck's "The American" was disliked by the US audience when it first came out 50 years ago, but what about now? Is he still not recognised as one of the most influencial photographers?


Nothing on asian, african, or south american photographers, i didn't perceive any specific trend among those members... maybe there's too few of them.

Lately, there was a discussion called "the parallel world of "art photography" and the rest of us", why did mostly US members contribute to this thread?

And finaly, among the members who shoot old/odd lenses like Verito or petzval, it seems like it's 95% americans. Why is that?

Maybe i'm confused, i've only been reading this forum for a year, and i don't read each and evry thread... But my feeling is that US members of this forum seem to be more interested in the distant past of the medium, and maybe connect LF photography to the first half of the 20th century while europeans seem to be more "contemporary".
What do you think?

[IanG]

Lately, there was a discussion called "the parallel world of "art photography" and the rest of us", why did mostly US members contribute to this thread?

What do you think?

That's an easy question as a none US member who is part of the "parallel world of art photography" I don't see all members of this forum as outside that world but often most of the replies are from those that are outside.

So in threads like this there's over simplification, These subjects need longer, illustrated replies to raw us in.

It's about contextualising work which is something most artists learn to do while at University/Art College etc, but you can learn to do this on workshops as well. Quite frequently you initially write critical essays on someone else's body of work before writing about your own work, which is not easy to do but quite liberating.

Ian

[rdenney]

For instance, why are people like Ansel adams and Waler Evans so often mentioned by our US members while us europeans seem to pay more attention to "younger" photographers like Stephen Shore or Joel Sternfeld...

There are many possibilities for the questions you ask, and for the question I have asked. One is that perhaps American large-format photographers who frequent this forum are older and more interested in the traditional roots of the medium. This group might be a block of members distinguishable from younger members who are more evenly distributed around the world. Perhaps the younger Americans are not so much different from the younger non-Americans. This could easily be the result of large-format photography being a popular hobby among amateurs in the U.S. in ways that it is not in Europe. We've already had some discussion that large-format equipment was given up much sooner in Europe than in America for various reasons.

There are certainly photographers in Europe who produce work that I, for one, completely resonate with. Nana Sousa Dias is one example, and there are others. His work certainly manages to find the natural scene sans the influence of man, in the way that I have wondered if it tended American. Thus, his work is a counter-example to what I'm asking about. And it is a counter-example to what you are asking about as well. But he may be the exception that demonstrates the rule.

So, do the (different) trends that you and I have asked about reflect a different way of seeing, or merely a different demographic mix as represented in the forum's membership? I think the only way to explore that possibility is to get away from statistical characterizations (informal or otherwise) and talk about how we see things, and how that seeing might be different. But I've just about given up that there is a way to tease that discussion out of the emotion that seems to surround this whole topic.

I suspect that C-B gets mentioned more often because so many of we amateurs have had much more exposure to him. But though I'm more likely to mention him than some other European photographers, that does not mean that I think my own way of seeing is much like his. His work is trying to capture a human element that I see to always want to avoid. Many of the famous European photographers seem, from my amateur perspective, to demonstrate the notion that if people aren't the subject, it isn't art.

Rick "probably not much more familiar with contemporary American photographers as with contemporary European photographers, except (in both cases) those who are represented on this forum" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

...
For instance, why are people like Ansel adams and Waler Evans so often mentioned by our US members while us europeans seem to pay more attention to "younger" photographers like Stephen Shore or Joel Sternfeld...


I heard Ansel Adams was better than most photographers at marketing himself and creating a brand for himself. I wonder if that marketing/branding was more effective within U.S. than outside U.S.

...Mike

[Brian C. Miller]

For instance, why are people like Ansel adams and Waler Evans so often mentioned by our US members while us europeans seem to pay more attention to "younger" photographers like Stephen Shore or Joel Sternfeld...
Adams wrote a series of instruction books, and of course people read those books. Some people actually got into photography because of Adams. Myself, I got into photography because of moonlit nights, and read Adams' books after I had read other instructional books. Adams was a very good writer, so of course people quote what has been written. Other photographers didn't do so much writing, or else they just gave an interview or two. I like reading Bill Jay's stuff, but he hasn't written as much as Adams. Other people write about photography, but they aren't photographers.


Nothing on asian, african, or south american photographers, i didn't perceive any specific trend among those members... maybe there's too few of them.
Can't follow something when you don't know about it. Some number of years ago I read about a South American photographer who made beautiful iconic street photography-type images. Turned out that he had organized all of them. So what? They were beautiful. Personally, I'd love to see more images from outside the US. So where are they? Maybe we don't see them online due to lack of computer access.


And finaly, among the members who shoot old/odd lenses like Verito or petzval, it seems like it's 95% americans. Why is that?
Look at who buys Holgas. Mostly US, right? I guess we're just weird that way. The real point to the old lenses is that they have certain effects to them, which of course are lacking in modern lenses. I have Fuji and Nikon lenses for my 8x10, but I also have old lenses. The Japanese lenses are of course modern and fantastically sharp. But what if I want a special kind of softness? Where can I get a filter that products "swirlies" like a Petzval?


But my feeling is that US members of this forum seem to be more interested in the distant past of the medium, and maybe connect LF photography to the first half of the 20th century while europeans seem to be more "contemporary".
What do you think?
If a photographer is staging everything to look like Victorian England, then I'd say the person is living in the past. But if the person is using old equipment to create a specific effect, then I say it's just using appropriate equipment. If a person is using old equipment to create a certain atmosphere in the studio, then that's just show biz, and that's fine. If a person is using old equipment because it's dirt cheap, that's fine, too. Use what you have to create what you want.

Now, do US LF photographers spend more time with "wide open spaces" than European photographers? I think so, mainly because we have more of them, and the landscape in general is more varied than in Europe. I live in Washington state, and it is more like two states in one. One side is wet with rain forests, and the other is dry with deserts. There isn't too much of a drive that seperates the two. Europeans have a lot of nifty architecture. Over here old buildings get torn down, as they weren't that historical in the first place.

Who does more LF street photography? Europe or US? Outside of news photographers, no prominent names come to my mind. Most "candid" photography has been done with 35mm.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Maybe i'm confused, i've only been reading this forum for a year, and i don't read each and evry thread... But my feeling is that US members of this forum seem to be more interested in the distant past of the medium, and maybe connect LF photography to the first half of the 20th century while europeans seem to be more "contemporary".
What do you think?

Very interesting comments and questions. I think your observations match what I see.

I do believe that the demographics are important in understanding things. The "distant past" is not so distant for some of the US members. Many of them have been alive for quite a while. One source of demographic information is the thread here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=8129

which shows age, and with some effort you could see if there is a correlation between location and age. I expect there might be.

I can't speak for other countries, but for the past few decades it seems that large format landscape photography has been an old man's game. Fairly expensive equipment, substantial time commitment, space for darkroom ... these are things that are in short supply in the time of life when you are just raising a family. In fact I think there might be a curve like the back of a Bactrian Camel with youthful perhaps student photographers at one hump and the older photographers at the hump. This would also explain the references by second hump photographers to photographers that were in vogue when they were sitting on the first hump (same as the persistance of so-called "classic rock").

Whether this is a function of Nation is unknown to me, but I would expect that many US photographers have been influenced most directly by US photographers and so the traditions started by Adams, Weston, etc. continue. The choice of subject matter IS tied to location. If you are in the desert South West, your choice of subjects is between rocks, sand, cactus and cow skulls mainly because that is what is there. Miles and miles and miles of it.

[Paul_C]

I avoided this thread for a while, but it turns out there's some really interesting stuff here. Some random thoughts on out-of-context quotes below:


You might think I'm being sensitive, I might think that Americans are too limited in their knowledge of the world :p ;)

Hey, many of us *do* make an effort to peak at a globe to see where other countries are... after we start bombing them. :p


Lots of American photographers seem to concentrate on wild nature--the natural scene preferably obviously without showing any of man's influences.

There is a persistent myth in America that Man, and the artifacts of Man, are somehow separate from nature. I don't know if this is distinctly American, but it is pervasive here.


6) Photons have no respect for national boundaries

But expression is greatly influenced by culture. This is evident in the evolution of languages themselves. There is nothing fundamental to photography that immunizes against it.


America used to be the land of the free but times have certainly changed.

I think our definition of "free" has certainly changed. Then again it was never really pure (whatever that would mean) and has been changing since the beginning. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for worse. I don't expect that to... change, any time soon.


I know that when I'm photographing the natural scene, I work quite hard to avoid including any people or evidence of people, for reasons I do not really understand.

If you figure this out at all I'd very much like to better understand myself. (read that any way you want)


I think only Europeans can tell me if they wonder why our landscapes never seem to have people in them, and only other Americans can tell me if I'm the only American who strives to exclude people from photos of the natural scene.

A photography club near me disqualifies photo submissions that include people or man-made object from its landscape category. So no, you're not alone.


We hope that we are all unique, and all special, and all exceptional in some way. It would be a little sad if we are just exactly the same.

We are all unique and special, exactly the same as everyone else. :)


American landscapes don't usually include human elements because the clothes that people wear date the photograph. Without the people the photograph has a timeless quality. Was it taken yesterday? Last month? A year ago? A decade ago? 50 or 100 years ago?

Steve

This is an interesting idea on a number of levels. For one, we do look at photographs today of, say, Evans's work for the FSA with a completely different cultural perspective than people did at the time the work was made. A large part of that I think is the disconnection of looking at something "historic."

How our photos are viewed in 20 or 50 years will be interesting.


I think the reason I don't include people is that doing so makes it about their experience, and I want the photograph to be about my experience. When I'm there, I look past other people--ignore them. I try hard to experience a place on my own terms, and perhaps that is what underlies my desire to exclude them from my photographs.

Do you worry that you're leaving out your experience of other people in the process? (aside from the ignoring part, of course)

Another person's experience you're dealing with is the viewer's. Even when that viewer is you, it's not the same you that took the photograph.

(I hope this doesn't come off as combative, I'm genuinely curious.)



For instance, why are people like Ansel adams and Waler Evans so often mentioned by our US members while us europeans seem to pay more attention to "younger" photographers like Stephen Shore or Joel Sternfeld...

There are many possibilities for the questions you ask, and for the question I have asked. One is that perhaps American large-format photographers who frequent this forum are older and more interested in the traditional roots of the medium. This group might be a block of members distinguishable from younger members who are more evenly distributed around the world. Perhaps the younger Americans are not so much different from the younger non-Americans.

I'm American and on the young side of old (or vice versa, whatever 31 is), and only used Evans above to illustrate a point with a prototypical example I thought most people would understand. I'm also a huge fan of Shore, and the evolution of photography from its historical and traditional roots up through the present day.

I don't know if my interests align with others in my age group, but it wouldn't surprise me either way.


Look at who buys Holgas. Mostly US, right? I guess we're just weird that way.

A lot of this came from a kind of rebellion against all the "perfect" imagery we were otherwise bombarded with. A desire to stand out and be different (in the end, just like everyone else.)

...and then came the rebellion against Holgas, ad absurdum.

[Lars Daniel]

"Out of country." *rolls eyes*
Who else than an american could even think about saying something like that in the context of the internet. Dude, it is the i-n-t-e-r-n-e-t.
And why is it always americans that (on the net) says stuff like "it only cost me 50." And the rest of the world goes "50 what?". Get a grip yankees! ;)

[rdenney]

"Out of country." *rolls eyes*
Who else than an american could even think about saying something like that in the context of the internet. Dude, it is the i-n-t-e-r-n-e-t.
And why is it always americans that (on the net) says stuff like "it only cost me 50." And the rest of the world goes "50 what?". Get a grip yankees! ;)

Sheesh. I thought we'd already gotten past this.

Rick "who has to remind himself to read a whole thread before responding to part of it" Denney

[rdenney]

Do you worry that you're leaving out your experience of other people in the process? (aside from the ignoring part, of course)

Another person's experience you're dealing with is the viewer's. Even when that viewer is you, it's not the same you that took the photograph.

(I hope this doesn't come off as combative, I'm genuinely curious.)

I don't worry that I'm leaving out the experience of other people. That experience gets enough expression by me using words.

The notion that my role as a viewer is different than my role as a photographer is something I've been thinking about for a while. I don't seem to be able to edit myself, or see my own work as others see it. I suspect that's one reason why I'll never really be much good as an artist (or musician, for that matter). I seem to be able to evaluate the work of others with far more clarity of thought and response.

And it's okay to be combative on that topic, because I'm dealing with an internal combat myself. I know that many artists just plain don't care what others see in their work, but I don't know how one can communicate without trying to understand how receivers work in addition to transmitters, even if the receiver is built in. That's your point, but my receiver doesn't seem to be clearly tuned to my own frequencies.

Rick "not sure if that conflict inherent in artist-as-self-viewer knows any boundaries" Denney

[Lars Daniel]

Sheesh. I thought we'd already gotten past this.

Rick "who has to remind himself to read a whole thread before responding to part of it" Denney

You are damn right I didn´t read it. Did I miss anything?:D

[lenicolas]

Rick and Jack, you might be right when you relate my observations to Age rather than Citizenship.

I don't know many photographers under 30 who use LF.
In the photoschool I atended, only 2 of us students owned a 4x5.

It might also be because every 25 y.o seems to own a car in the USA while -at least in paris- most of us don't.
I'm turning 27 soon and i don't even have a driving license... This has an obvious influence on my photography : it's very hard for me to reach places where man's influence isn't visible, and I can't lug that much gear around... Hence my subjects and themes are closer to those of the "new topographics generation" than to ansel adams... And i'm less prone to experiment with diferent lenses and looks. I use only one lens for each format, (exept with digital 35mm that i shoot for a living).

To Brian : My french heart skipped a bit when you said that "the landscape [in the USA] is more varied than in Europe". I don't realy know how varied the american landscape is ; I've only visited the east coast... But I can assure you that Europe and France has a very diverse range of landscapes. An to top it all, some of the most iconic architectures in the world... I encourage you to check THIS PAGE (http://www.linternaute.com/nature-animaux/magazine/photo/les-100-paysages-de-france/les-100-paysages-de-france.shtml) witch features a hundred diferent french landscapes. I'll remind you that France is only 80% the size of Texas, so you'll recon that having such variety of landscapes in such a small country provides a bit more photographic oportunities than most american states... Yet, we don't have as much landscapes photogs as you do, so the answer to that question should be seek somewhere else...

[Brian C. Miller]

Yet, we don't have as much landscapes photogs as you do, so the answer to that question should be seek somewhere else...

They are in the coffee shops, discussing philosophy, instead of out and about, making grand photographs!

[NicolasArg]

Well, I'm a bit late, but would like to contribute with an answer.
I visit this forum in a perhaps futile attempt to not feel like a complete freak. I live in Argentina and personally know just ONE LF shooter. I am aware of perhaps 5-10 more, that's an amazing group of 15 lf photographers and 13 of them as far as I know are not even interested in sharing o joining a web based community. So a local LF forum would be a very empty place to hang out.
I'm also pretty young in LF terms (27yo) and a novice LF user and notice quite a few members here in the same position, so that's an additional plus.
Almost all I know about LF photography I picked it from AA books and forum reading so LFinfo is an incredible place to just quietly learn.
Now on photography, I shoot landscapes, almost exclusively and live in Patagonia, so the "non touched by the hand of man" landscape is pretty much what I'm trying to do, no big differences here.
What I do find a bit intriguing, especially browsing american web galleries and forums like NPN, is the american passion for icons and tripod holes. I admire and follow quite a few american landscape photographers and notice they visit the same places during the same season year after year, producing extremely beautiful and technically perfect images but from the same locations that everybody else. From time to time I get to see on flickr or youtube some american Icon and a line of photogs shooting almost the same composition.
It's almost like the whole US is about 5 national parks.
I'm not criticizing that approach* (and for sure there must be a perfect explanation for it) and enjoy every new photo I see, but it's a rather curious fact that I think is worth to mention in this thread
*and there are a lot of exceptions.

[Allen in Montreal]

:D The French often refer to their flag as the "Bleu, Blanc, Rouge", which are the same colours in reverse order, but the Union Flag........

Hold on one minute there Joanna!!

Les Blue Blanc Rouge, as spoken by the French,
refers to the greatest hockey team every to skate on ice!
(even if we have sucked most the last few years, but out of the 101 yrs we have been skating, it is a small slump)



http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/4033/montrealcanadiens1992.gif (http://img821.imageshack.us/i/montrealcanadiens1992.gif/)

:)


The French, on a per captia basis, have a very high ratio, if not the highest ratio, of:

Photo enthusiasts
Great food
Great wine
Great looking woman

So the rest of you can stand down,
cause you are all getting way too worked up,
lets all shoot a picture, all over the globe tomorrow and on Dec. 1st post a World LF Day collection!
:)

[jan labij]

I must say, this has been an enlightening story-line on this thread. Not to oversimplify, I take landscapes because something in the scene resonates within me. I use so-called LF (4X5's) because I'm too old and racked up to drag a 5X7 or 8X10 long distances from the car. If I really gotta hoof it, I use a voightlaender 3 1/4 by 4 1/4 and a light tripod. I don't think about if someone else puts human artifacts in his photos. I just shoot what I "dig", and if someone else likes it, fine.

[Brian C. Miller]

I encourage you to check THIS PAGE (http://www.linternaute.com/nature-animaux/magazine/photo/les-100-paysages-de-france/les-100-paysages-de-france.shtml) witch features a hundred diferent french landscapes.

OK, I looked at every one of those. Each is shot in the late morning, noon, or early afternoon. Nice photographs, but I wouldn't call them dramatic. You guys really need a landscape dramaticist. Maybe that is what seperates US and French photography. The French landscape dramaticists are all painters.

I found Patrick Desgraupes (http://www.patrickdesgraupes.com/)' web page, who works in 4x5. (I'm still waiting for his Flash site to load. *sigh*) Looks like Patrick is a color-only photographer. He has some very good color photographs. I wonder if color is actually sort of a crutch, or maybe it's like sugar in a recipe.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I live in Argentina and personally know just ONE LF shooter. I am aware of perhaps 5-10 more, that's an amazing group of 15 lf photographers and 13 of them as far as I know are not even interested in sharing o joining a web based community. So a local LF forum would be a very empty place to hang out...I shoot landscapes, almost exclusively and live in Patagonia, so the "non touched by the hand of man" landscape is pretty much what I'm trying to do...Congratulations; please continue learning and pursuing fine work. From the perspective of this US photographer more than twice your age, you're in an enviable position. Someone in Patagonia with so few other LF photographers around has great potential to make magnificent, human-free images that don't require having found others' tripod holes. Enjoy!

[roteague]

Now on photography, I shoot landscapes, almost exclusively and live in Patagonia, so the "non touched by the hand of man" landscape is pretty much what I'm trying to do, no big differences here.

Patagonia is on my list of places I want to visit; just keep on posting photos!! :D

[lenicolas]

They are in the coffee shops, discussing philosophy, instead of out and about, making grand photographs!
So true :)

About the link I showed you, i don't realy dig any of those photographs, i agree with you that they lack some sense of "grandiose" or drama. I just wanted you to see the places, and think about what it's like to live less than 10 hours drive to all of these places...

Anyway, anything exotic always sounds much better to me.
I'll trade france for patagonia anyday :D
(but i'd miss the food and women though)


It's almost like the whole US is about 5 national parks.
It sometimes feels that way to me too.
And don't forget Nyc! Arbus, winogrand, meyerowitz, davidson, shore... The only major american photographer that I can think of who hasn't shot New York is Eggleston...
[though I shot there too and love it :) ]

[munz6869]

As an Australian, in a state spoilt for climactic variation and scenery (deserts, alpine areas, dramatic coastline etc), the LF photographers that inspire me (currently, after a period of Ansel-worship) are the social documentarians like Atget, and Signe Brander (who I discovered on a trip to Helsinki a few months ago) - I wanna make pictures like them, and I don't know that that sensibility is in anyway formed by nationality - perhaps politics and travel. Most local LF-ers I know I've met through cheerily ad-hoc APUG get togethers, and other than unbridled enthusiasm - print sharing reveals to me little national aesthetic commonality whatsoever! Maybe there's just too small a statistical sample...

Marc!

[Sirius Glass]

And don't forget Nyc! Arbus, winogrand, meyerowitz, davidson, shore... The only major american photographer that I can think of who hasn't shot New York is Eggleston...
[though I shot there too and love it :) ]

So you are saying that Adams, Weston, Lange are just crappy snapshotters. :eek:

Steve

[lenicolas]

So you are saying that Adams, Weston, Lange are just crappy snapshotters. :eek:

Steve

Of those three, i'm sure at least weston has shot nyc, for adams and lange, it's worth checking it out but i dont own their books... I'll give it a shot next time i'm at the library.
Anyway, that doesn't make what was said any less true...


I also just realised : it's harder to shoot people with a LF camera.
There's some teaching to do to make sure they don't move after you've focused the camera... Maybe that's one of the reasons more LF photogs are not that interested in photographing human matters... ?

[Sevo]

I also just realised : it's harder to shoot people with a LF camera.
There's some teaching to do to make sure they don't move after you've focused the camera...

Well, that is why there are (or were) LF reflex cameras...

Sevo

[Sirius Glass]

Of those three, i'm sure at least weston has shot nyc, for adams and lange, it's worth checking it out but i dont own their books... I'll give it a shot next time i'm at the library.
Anyway, that doesn't make what was said any less true...


I also just realised : it's harder to shoot people with a LF camera.
There's some teaching to do to make sure they don't move after you've focused the camera... Maybe that's one of the reasons more LF photogs are not that interested in photographing human matters... ?

Ansel Adams took photographs of Stieglitz in New York.

Dorothea Lange concentrated on whom she photographed and their surroundings more than where she photographed.

Steve

[Brian C. Miller]

I also just realised : it's harder to shoot people with a LF camera.

Well, not really. Most press cameras have viewfinders and/or wire guides, and in public you can set the lens for f22 and hyperfocal distance. Low light is where photographing people with LF becomes a problem, due to relatively slow lenses.

I don't think that it is harder to photograph people unobstrusively, as you can just hold the camera at your waist, but it is really evident that you are carrying something unusual, so why not hold up the beastie?

It is harder to do spontaneous photography with an 8x10 or larger, though. There is the Hobo camera (http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/product.php?productid=680&cat=237&page=), but that is fixed focus.

[JamesFromSydney]

I've tried street photography with a crown graphic. It does work, but the problem is that the camera itself attracts a lot of attention. They were probably a common sight back in the days of Weegee, and I think you can carry it off better if you dress and act right (like Louis Mendes).

[Sirius Glass]

I've tried street photography with a crown graphic. It does work, but the problem is that the camera itself attracts a lot of attention. They were probably a common sight back in the days of Weegee, and I think you can carry it off better if you dress and act right (like Louis Mendes).

A fedora is required head gear for a Crown or Speed Graphic. Don't go out without one. I wear a fedora when I am packing my Speed. ;)

Steve

[roteague]

A fedora is required head gear for a Crown or Speed Graphic. Don't go out without one. I wear a fedora when I am packing my Speed. ;)

Steve

Or an Akubra for an Aussie ....

[Sirius Glass]

Or an Akubra for an Aussie ....

Bookmarked that for the next time I buy a hat. Thanx mate.

[Ole Tjugen]

A fedora is required head gear for a Crown or Speed Graphic. Don't go out without one. I wear a fedora when I am packing my Speed. ;)

Steve

That must be what I'm doing wrong - I wear a Trilby! Would perhaps a MPP work better with a Trilby, you think?

[Sirius Glass]

That must be what I'm doing wrong - I wear a Trilby! Would perhaps a MPP work better with a Trilby, you think?

A "Harold Adrian Russell 'Kim' Philby" hat! Isn't that what spies wear in the UK? :eek:

[rdenney]

That must be what I'm doing wrong - I wear a Trilby! Would perhaps a MPP work better with a Trilby, you think?

It's not the camera attracting attention, it's the hat.

Rick "who prefers something in the Indiana Jones line, which just provokes laughter" Denney

[roteague]

Bookmarked that for the next time I buy a hat. Thanx mate.

I have the Khaki Territory model (even though I'm American). :D

[Ed Kelsey]

Akurbras are great, I have a Territory too but it's tan.

[arca andy]

That must be what I'm doing wrong - I wear a Trilby! Would perhaps a MPP work better with a Trilby, you think?

Well Trilby is just the British verson of a fedora...but with a shorter brim...so with an MPP it should work. You could got straight for the bowler hat and avoid any problems;)
Trilby vs Fedora, MPP vs Speed Graphic?? May be that sums up the difference between the States and the UK in the 1960s?

[Brian Ellis]

I heard Ansel Adams was better than most photographers at marketing himself and creating a brand for himself. I wonder if that marketing/branding was more effective within U.S. than outside U.S.

...Mike

Adams actually wasn't particularly good at marketing himself and creating a brand for himself. To the extent that those things were accomplished, they weren't accomplished by Adams but rather by William Turnage after Turnage started managing Adams' career in the 1970s.

[Gary Tarbert]

G'day from down under , Hell we are Red,White & Blue as well , The reason i participate in this forum is LF photography is not big in Western Australia , And as a relitive newcomer to this format 5 years or so i have learnt a lot from the discussion and the helpful people on this forum which would not be possible here . Cheers Gary

[Steve Smith]

My apologies to the Scots, Irish and Welsh who may have found offense.

And the English who might take offence at your spelling of offence!


Steve.