Large Format: Technology of the Soul

[Bruce Watson]

For me it is a trade-off between speed and convenience with 35mm/digital and greater enlargement potential and movements with LF...

For me as well. Unfortunately I found that if I had both available that I ended up using the smaller format more simply because it was more convenient. But the end results always frustrated me. Lacking the self control that many here seem to have, my solution was to mothball the 35mm (I couldn't even give it away to any of my family or friends -- not digital and all). I tell everyone (and myself) that the only camera I have is the 5x4.

So I don't make as many photographs as I used to. But the photographs I do make are much more satisfying.

And it's gotten me out of photographer duties at my niece's wedding! As I told her mother: I don't have the equipment for people photography ;-)

[Brian Ellis]

I've been using a digital camera more and more lately because of its many advantages. But I've always recognized that I don't enjoy the "process" of making a photograph with a digital camera nearly as much as I do LF without being able to satisfactorily explain the reason to myself. I think Mr. Moore has nailed it. But I don't think it's a question of "digital vs film," modern 35mm cameras involve massive amounts of technology. To me it's just "LF vs everything else."

[Kirk Gittings]

Don,
As you know I have moved largely to digital for my commercial work but continue with the 4x5 for all my personal work. At 58 this year, after using view cameras exclusively for 30 years, It is very invigorating and freeing to do the commercial work largely with a DSLR. I am more productive, more profitable and more importantly I enjoy the work more and am more creative. There is no penalty (film costs etc.) for trying new things. I am more enthused about commercial work than I have been in many years and it shows in my work.

AS per my personal work.....there is still nothing like the satisfaction of being able, after all that effort, to be there and just get that great image from my minds eye on 4x5 and have all that rich tonality and tactile detail for a fine print.

Its like the difference between a fine orderve (a great image on digital) and the best steak (4x5) you ever ate (Smith and Wollensky, Chicago oh my god.....).

[jetcode]

I enjoy both formats. Given enough time with a great subject I prefer LF but for something more spontaneous and playful or documentary in nature I'll use the DSLR

[Ron Marshall]

For me as well. Unfortunately I found that if I had both available that I ended up using the smaller format more simply because it was more convenient. But the end results always frustrated me. Lacking the self control that many here seem to have, my solution was to mothball the 35mm (I couldn't even give it away to any of my family or friends -- not digital and all). I tell everyone (and myself) that the only camera I have is the 5x4.

So I don't make as many photographs as I used to. But the photographs I do make are much more satisfying.

And it's gotten me out of photographer duties at my niece's wedding! As I told her mother: I don't have the equipment for people photography ;-)

The compromise I have adopted is a Mamiya 7, faster than LF, compact and good image quality.

I tend to use it more like LF than 35mm: on a tripod, with much contemplation of composition.

But, whenever I think I will have enough time, LF is what I choose.

[Don Boyd]

I vaguely recall hearing more than a decade ago about a small town in Canada that was about to receive cable television for the first time. Because the town was situated in a valley, they had no TV reception previously. Knowing this, some brain researchers tested some of the town's children both before and at some point after the cable installation. To no ones' surprise, the researchers discovered that the children's brains had rewired themselves. That's as much as I can recall. But, to me it suggests that electronic media influences (strongly I suspect) how our brains develop.

"Nature deficit disorder", a term coined by one therapist to describe the impact of urban-only life experiences and the consequent disregard for the "natural" world, seems to be to some significant degree a consequence of living in a "wired world." I share a house with my 15 year old niece and she even sleeps with the TV on. As someone who has spent some time in silent meditation, or "noble silence", I suggested that maybe she would find silence stimulating in some unusal ways. Her response was that she would go crazy without music or noise. (Sorry folks, I'm not in a parenting role here.)

I don't intend this to be a rant about modern times - I'm probably preaching to the choir in this forum - but am attempting to understand how low-and-slow image making serves as my personal antidote to the background noise of my contemporary world. Maybe it will improve my image making, and my life. I'm also questioning, and expressing my own fear about the digitalization of life. Lest you think I'm anti-technology I want to acknowledge that one of my meditation teachers thinks that historic meditation teaching practices and models need revision and scientifically supported strategies to meet changing conditions and human attributes. And it has certainly made our communicating this way possible. But, I do believe that we are responsible for our choices and that the more consciousness and attention we bring to whatever we are doing, the more "soul" will show up. To the degree that the wired-world aids that I'm all for it, to the degree that it begins to homogenize our way of seeing, thinking, feeling and being, I'm quite concerned.

I really do have more questions than answers, and am posting so that I can learn from the rest of you. Using large format for less than 5 years, I knew from the beginning that I wouldn't be able to tolerate the chemicals used in the traditional darkroom, so I have digitized my film from the beginning and, though I struggle with it mightily, am gaining some familiarity with Photoshop and my Epson printer. I too suffer from the contradictions allowed by technology.

[jetcode]

The compromise I have adopted is a Mamiya 7, faster than LF, compact and good image quality.

I tend to use it more like LF than 35mm: on a tripod, with much contemplation of composition.

But, whenever I think I will have enough time, LF is what I choose.

Since purchasing a decent scanner I've been going through my catalog of images and the sharpest cleanest images are derived from an old Fuji 6x45 rangefinder, a Mamiya 645 and a Pentax 35mm. My LF work from that era is not sharp and I attribute that to poor technique, failing eyesight, and the loupe I was using.

[Daniel Grenier]

....I would be interested in hearing from others who have added or even transitioned entirely to electronic media about how it has worked for you.

Don. This reminds me of a certain publisher's blog where he discussed a two-day outing to photograph a certain area. This person has transitioned entirely to digital a long time ago so all shots were digital captures. Out of this shoot, he had a 12-image "portfolio" in mind. To me, the troubling thing with this endeavour was that he had shot well over 800 images that weekend ! That is a whopping amount of images and is akin to going rabbit hunting with a sub-machine gun. Spray the hell out of everything and surely you're bound to hit "something". I don't know about you but knowing this makes the resulting portfolio much less appealing as a result (to me, that is).

[audioexcels]

I've been using a digital camera more and more lately because of its many advantages. But I've always recognized that I don't enjoy the "process" of making a photograph with a digital camera nearly as much as I do LF without being able to satisfactorily explain the reason to myself. I think Mr. Moore has nailed it. But I don't think it's a question of "digital vs film," modern 35mm cameras involve massive amounts of technology. To me it's just "LF vs everything else."

Well...some lenses for 35mm, folding MF cams, and etc. others have some movement potential.

There's a place and time for everything, though I struggle a lot seeing that I can easily get a nicely exposed film based 35mm-MF image requiring no PS vs. having to deal with processing RAW files that can take a bit of time and still not get me the end results I was hoping for.

Digital can be an entire art in itself given it all becomes post process work and trying to find a proper workflow that can both give a print that met the eye when taken as well as doing more creative stuff without burning too much of the file to still be able to get a nice sized print with it.

[jetcode]

Don. This reminds me of a certain publisher's blog where he discussed a two-day outing to photograph a certain area. This person has transitioned entirely to digital a long time ago so all shots were digital captures. Out of this shoot, he had a 12-image "portfolio" in mind. To me, the troubling thing with this endeavour was that he had shot well over 800 images that weekend ! That is a whopping amount of images and is akin to going rabbit hunting with a sub-machine gun. Spray the hell out of everything and surely you're bound to hit "something". I don't know about you but knowing this makes the resulting portfolio much less appealing as a result (to me, that is).

Why? When I studied with Galen Rowell for a weekend he mentioned that he had shot over 1 million images and out of the 1000 top sellers had 15-20 favorites. He was as pro as they come. Most certainly taking the time to dial in an image is worth it but have you ever been in a situation where you would like to have 30-50 images of a particularly arresting subject only to have the time for 1 or 2?