Intersting post on Paul Butzi's blog
http://photomusings.wordpress.com/20...e-photography/
watcha think - slowpoke fumbly LF types or contemplative LF types...?
Printable View
Intersting post on Paul Butzi's blog
http://photomusings.wordpress.com/20...e-photography/
watcha think - slowpoke fumbly LF types or contemplative LF types...?
I think I am a fumbly contemplative photograher..... :)
He missed my category.
Fumbly inconsequential photographer.
Who cares and why does it matter? Just go out and shoot your chosen subject.
I'm definitly fumbly, but I look contemplative.:D
Frustrating article. The author seems to be right on and pretty open minded, and then goes super judgemental...back to reasonableness, then back to judgemental.
I suppose if someone pointed a gun at my head and said I had two minutes to set up my 8x10 and take a photo, I could. Without the gun, I see no reason to rush and I enjoy the whole experience of carrying the camera, looking at the light, setting up the camera and studying the image on the ground glass. Sometimes I even wait many minutes for the light to shift or change before taking the photo. For me the whole process is contemplative -- not a speed contest.
But I suppose that if he wishes to judge my 25 years of experience using and teaching LF based on how long I am under the darkcloth, that's cool. It just means that I can't place a whole lot of trust and value on his ability to judge.
Vaughn
Hey! Some of those subjects shoot back! (There's a few times when I've been the subject of some street photographer.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane Maher
Seriously, I don't do much with small formats because then I'm left with a big reel of shots to make. Yes, I think that half-frame is neat, but filling up 72 good exposures takes some time. I do agree with Paul, you should be able to set up your camera and make the exposure quickly. I can make a shot with my Pentax 6x7 or Graflex Super Graphic in about the same amount of time. The 8x10 is slower because it weighs a lot!
I don't get it. Much wasted verbiage. I'm never sure why Butzi thinks that what goes on in his head is of any broad interest.
In all fairness, this could be said for most of us too, and he is at least doing it on his own site and on his own dime. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
I do agree about not getting his point, though. If speed is of any importance, there are other formats/capture methods that would be much better suited to the task.
I think the biggest pitfall is that everything is dealt with in broad generalizations. The key is being able to respond to the situation at hand in the best possible manner. In other words, judgment and experience come into play. There is a time to slow down, look, adjust, and simply respond. There is also a time to set up and have the film exposed in a minute or two.
I do agree that there is some degree of romanticism attached to the notion of "contemplative" large format photography, but I also think that how he defines what that even is, is short sighted. Just my $0.02.
I guess I'm your opposite: I'm a contemplative fumbly photographer!Quote:
Originally Posted by stevebeyer
I thought I was the same way, then I realized that a better word for what I do is "screwed-up" :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Davenport
Setting up a 8x10 camera and exposing a sheet of film inside two minutes is not that hard. The key is to do all the time consuming stuff before the camera comes out of the bag.
Finding the subject and where to stand to see it best is easy if one uses a framing card first. My card has a 4x5 hole and it hangs around my neck on a string that pulls out to 150mm. This corresponds remarkably accurately to the field of view of my standard 300mm lens. String length is adjusted appropriately for other focal lengths.
I take light meter reading often even when just looking. If the light does not change I already know the shutter speed and aperture.
My focussing loupe is actually a pair of 3.5D reading glasses in the shirt pocket ready to hand and accurate enough.
The tripod does not have to be unpacked. I carry it in one hand and when that hand gets tired I swap hands.
The lens is in the bag with the shutter and aperture wide open for immediate viewing. The shutter speed set is the one I expect to be using until the light changes. To get to the lens I have to take out of the bag first the focussing cloth then the camera and only then the lens. The right component in the right sequence speeds work flow.
The camera, of course, is fitted with a quick change plate for the tripod head. Trying to lead a 3/8" screw into a socket on the under side of a heavy view camera where you can't see is no way to get a fast secure result.
Unless one is chasing sunsets, moonrises, or jumpy portrait subjects view camera shooting in under two minutes is unnecessary. And everyone who does shoot that stuff finds that sometimes two minutes is no way fast enough.
In practice most of my subject matter doesn't die, deteriorate, or run away inside ten minutes and I will always work slower, more contemplatively, and more painstakingly, given the option.
I'm still thinking....
I started doing LF because it seemed a little more deliberate. It caused me to think a lot more about lighting, time of day, camera location compared to subject, lots of technique things that I just wasn't spending a lot of time with with my 20D. I think that deliberateness has helped my digital shooting a lot. At the same time I need a lot of practice with both 4x5 and 8x10 process. Hopefully I'll get good at the mechanicals one day.
Stew
I started LF because one day I want to make BIG prints like the ones I saw of Dykingas at mountain light gallery. That's why I use large format and not some pipsqueak digital camera. I'm not saying my images are good because I use large format, I'm just saying my bad images are going to be freaking BIG (someday).
I'm glad Butzi has his contemplativeness with a Canon 5D. More power to him. There's no reason he shouldn't be able to take some very nice images with it. Leave everybody else alone, dude. Someone wants to take 20 minutes under a cloth, who the hell is he to judge what they enjoy? Maybe they're just learning. I agree with him, LF != better. Nice of him to state the obvious.
I am not sure why Butzi wrote what he did, nor do I care. He does not set the gold standard for me in any way. I was kind of surprised he added the Sexton section. Like many on this forum, I have taken workshops with John, even a two week one, and never recall John saying or teaching this. Not saying he didn't say it to Butzi, just that when he was teaching me LF he never said anyting close the the "60 second rule".
I agree with some things Paul said in that a small camera can be just as contemplative as a large one. I think a "contemplative" photographer has more to do with personality than it does with equipment anyway. I don't think he is correct on other things such as a person spending a long time under the cloth doesn't know what he/she is doing. I enjoy looking at the image and take as much, or as little, time as I like.
All in all, I think he came across as sort of trying to make himself feel better about his decision. All cameras, large and small, digital and analog are capable of making great images as long as the person using it has the vision, ability and love for the craft.
I just like his (Paul Butzi's) LF pictures better than his 5D pictures somehow.