Large Format Landscapes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barrister

For view camera work - unless depth of field is severely limited (8x10 with a long lens) it's always best to minimize the use of movements. It can get very confusing initially. Of course for architecture you (usually) need to lines to be straight. I know you know this (all of you do). Only weak pictures need perfection. Good ones can withstand plenty of flaws. Atget's work is riddled with flaws - so what? They're magnificent. And I can mention some photographers with flawless technique - and very dead looking prints, but I won't. Ja? If the camera points down, and the trees bow out a bit - so what if the picture is interesting? And not everything always needs to be "tack sharp" - sometimes that's very dull.

Go take pictures that are interesting. Avoid taking pictures that are "about photography" because you have a view camera.

Having said that, view cameras are marvelous to work with and you'll enjoy yourself immensely. (Make sure you have a good tripod!)

---

Well said!

Pliew Waterfall, Chantaburi
45F-2 150mm F5.6 Sinaron-S f22 15 Sec.
FP4+ 125 DDX 1:4 20c 10min.

Quote Originally Posted by Barrister View Post
For view camera work - unless depth of field is severely limited (8x10 with a long lens) it's always best to minimize the use of movements. It can get very confusing initially. Of course for architecture you (usually) need to lines to be straight. I know you know this (all of you do). Only weak pictures need perfection. Good ones can withstand plenty of flaws. Atget's work is riddled with flaws - so what? They're magnificent. And I can mention some photographers with flawless technique - and very dead looking prints, but I won't. Ja? If the camera points down, and the trees bow out a bit - so what if the picture is interesting? And not everything always needs to be "tack sharp" - sometimes that's very dull.

Go take pictures that are interesting. Avoid taking pictures that are "about photography" because you have a view camera.

Having said that, view cameras are marvelous to work with and you'll enjoy yourself immensely. (Make sure you have a good tripod!)



Barrister:

Respectfully dissent (but of course you do have standing to present (:)), focusing on this image Creation Bear has pointed out. To achieve max DOF, I used front tilt and aperture of F45. Though F64 would have been ideal, a 4 Minute + exposure was not feasible due to low and declining light and unfamiliarity with reciprocity beyond 2 minutes.

The front tilt was used to create a diagonal of sharpness which allowed complete DOF in the foreground and all salient points mid-depth (maximum visual impact), with some loss of DOF in boulders in the background, tree leaves in the background being mostly in focus, from the front tilt. My objective would been impossible at F64 sans movements, not achieving what I have with F 45 and front tilt. Would the image have improved at F64 and complete DOF? Probably not. Would not using front tilt and F32 created a better image, IMO, no.

There is a certain pleasure (and something special) in being able to "step into" an image with complete (or as close as possible) DOF, fine detail throughout. I see no reason to avoid using movements if they achieve this objective given my own vision.

For landscape work, I find front swing, tilt, rear rise and occasional shift necessary to avoid apertures of F64. Since I like images with close detail that recedes into infinity with touchpoints along the way, all in focus as possible, movements are pretty necessary. Am I emulating Porter, Hyde, Dykinga, Adams, O'Hara, Meunch? Yes. Am I at fault for a lacking a vision without movements, absolutely. I would like to think that I could break this mold and "see" without movements, but I have allowed historic inculcation. Sorry for being boring.

Lake Attilan and Volcano Guatemala

Very sweet, Bill!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by viboons

Pliew Waterfall, Chantaburi
45F-2 150mm F5.6 Sinaron-S f22 15 Sec.
FP4+ 125 DDX 1:4 20c 10min.

---

Lovely!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdmoylan

Porter

---

Nice discussion (I'm going to say I have "standing" since I roam about in the Appalachias, albeit a few hundred miles south of you.):)

I'm glad you mentioned Porter. A couple of things I picked up on in his compositions (e.g. in In the Realm of Nature was 1.) just how tightly he frames his "lithic" subjects, and 2.) how his arborscapes float patches of color against a backlit, almost monochrome background. Along those lines, I think the Porter-esque action is happening in the upper right quarter of the frame...I could imagine you taking a few steps to your right and shooting "through" the catkins and flowers at what ever aperture seemed reasonable. You very well might have use movements and lots of 'em, but the framing that works for the other, more pastoral, images you shared might need to give way to a more aggressive approach the further you get from civilization.

pdmoylan - -

Look man, if you use film and a view camera and concentrate happily in lovely spaces, God bless you. However you wish to work is fine - and none of my business. There aren't any rules for creative thinking, or working methods. Like David Vestal said, anything goes if the picture works.

The fellow starting the post was just beginning to use a view camera, and it's just been my experience that movements should be minimized initially - for beginners - to avoid confusion. Initially . . . not permanently. He'll get the hang of it, and probably become an expert pretty quickly - like you are. And for me - I've never really used a great deal of camera movements for some reason. A "realistic rendering" can be awfully dull - for me. But that's just me. I'm only an expert in my own opinion. I firmly believe that someone like Fred Picker did a great deal of damage trying to formulate rules for how people should "see" and work creatively. I'd never want to do that. It's one thing to have rules for getting dust out of holders before you load them - it's quite another to dictate rules for where to stand and how to organize a photograph - very dangerous.

If I see something a certain way, that's up to me. If you see something differently, that's your business. And you wouldn't have to agree with me at all. Years ago I knew photographers whose working methods astounded me - they seemed so haphazard and random. But they made beautiful pictures. One fellow hand-held a Bronica 6x6, sometimes he'd take a picture with one hand! - while I assiduously set up my 4x5, leveled and squared it, following classic "rules." And his pictures were much better than mine. They had life and energy - mine were dead looking.

I'll bet your pictures are nice too, eh?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the person starting the post did so in 2008, and hasn't posted here since 2012. (You can see this by clicking his/her username and then looking at "View Forum Posts.") The thread is now up to 1531 pages, and it's just about posting landscape images now, not how to use the view camera. Your suggestions might be better posted in the Style & Technique forum.

Note also (everyone) that "Critiques should only be offered if requested by the original poster." In my mind "I would have done this or that" is a critique.

With regard to all this, I find I keep myself fresh by changing my vision every few years. Sometimes I use small apertures and movements to get everything more or less in focus. At other times, I use larger apertures and get out of focus backgrounds. One thing I like about large format is the number of options.