Large Format Landscapes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

I like pictures that challenge me and make me uncomfortable. But I suspect that many "landscapists" are unaware that their coldly perfect pictures have that effect. It's kind of a Pagan thing to worship the dirt quite so reverently....

---

I have no problem if my Pagan imagery makes viewers uncomfortable. But its mostly the trees, the streams, and the ladies that I worship.

--Thebes, who often thinks Frank's photos of the ladies make it look like he is uncomfortable with sexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

You know, there are a few good ones in this thread. But don't you guys ever get freaking bored of empty rocky places devoid of life? It's kind of creepy and apocalyptic, all these lonely B&Ws look like the end of the world... scenes from Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" or a MadMax movie.

---

Do the world a favor and stay were you are. We do not need you and your kind of thinking here. :D You will be happier and we will be happier.

Steve

Frank:

They are only empty of what you fail to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnmsanderson

Frank:

They are only empty of what you fail to see.

---

:confused:

Sandy King

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mandoman7

IMO the problem with the landscapes that seem too complacent is the marginal commitment on the part of the photographer. The replication of someone else's idea, or equipment, and hoping it works without going through any real process of self expression. Going through the motions, so to speak.

---

This is an important point. It is a problem with the creation of any type of art, but certain things like landscape photography, with its established idioms and heroes, makes it even harder to find a personal statement of one's own. I'd say this is also true with other completely mature art forms that have reached their zenith in years past... traditional bebop jazz comes to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

I agree with Vaughn, with or without the sarcasm symbol. Frankly when I go out to shoot landscapes the last thing in the world I want to see is a person. Part of the joy of this type of photography is that one often does not have to deal with people, other than those who might have accompanied us with the same intention.

On the other hand, next time I go out to do landscape work maybe I will pick up a nude mannequin to place at a strategic point in the composition to make my work more meaningful to folks like Frank, to combine cliches so to speak.

Sandy

---

I agree, in part with you, Sandy.

When I go out to shoot landscape (actually, I shoot usually seascapes) I want to be alone, that's why I prefer to shoot in stormy days. I want complete silence (I mean no human voices around), just me, my camera, wind sound, waves sound, seagulls sound. The human voice, in a setup like this would ruin all the session...
Whenever someone shows up, always ruin it...I have to stop shooting, they come and start asking questions about that wooden camera (can you still get rollfilm for it?) or ( My father had one like that, is that a Polaroid?) or (Are you shooting a movie?) or they just stand in front of camera, or they finally leave, after offering me footprints all over the beach...

Dan Lin; thanks for the snow scene; I like that!

I like this banter a bit too. I like landscape photography and I like people photography, but I know photographers who have a serious aversion to one or the other and don't figure it out or resolve it. Not just photographers here!

The only time I've found landscapes to work well with people photos is a nice environmental portrait. However, the landscape plays 2nd to the portrait subject. It's no longer a landscape with a person being the primary subject.

I like the solitude of doing stuff outside. I also like a little socializing and teamwork for the people photos. I rarely mix them. Sorta like I like coffee and [some] beer, but I don't mix them together in the same glass. I would if I could make it real nice, but it doesn't work out that way.

The comment about photography being so focused on the earth being Pagan isn't a jab so much as an honest interpretation. Pagan is usually associated with people who worked the land for a living and the various superstitions, magic, and festivities associated with pagan character focused on them suceeding in making use of the land. Other people might be less worshipful of the land, but more reverent, as a product of their creator. This slight sounding difference is a real big one. You could tell one person he is worshiping nature, and that makes them a pagan, but tell one person they are reverent of the land and that's a wise comment rather than a religious jab or misidentification, as revering something is both non-religious and religious.

Here's an attempt to combine landscape and people. Nice shadows, but the scale of the kids in the lower left, they are far too small compared to the trees and snow. It's tough. I'm not greatly pleased by the photo, but it illustrates the difficulties I have of combining landscape and people with mixed success.

http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/lff/img296c.jpg

One person who is successfully combining people and landscape in my area is Charles Dufour www.du4photo.com
The images are beautiful, but of limited scope in terms of subject matter.

Yellowstone

5X7 (cropped) - 180 Nikkor W

Efke Pl 100 - Pyrocat HD
JandC Nuance - MAS Amidol

Hi. :D
this one I took yesterday to test my 4x5 home made camera, ERA @ 80 ISO, 1s @ f22
Polarizer + Yellow. Schneider 58mm XL. image cropped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by briand

Hi. :D
this one I took yesterday to test my 4x5 home made camera, ERA @ 80 ISO, 1s @ f22
Polarizer + Yellow. Schneider 58mm XL. image cropped.

---

Looks like the camera is working fine :-)
How about some photos of the camera?

-Leon