Yeah, I was hoping to open a dialogue. And thanks for your
contribution.
I find much of what I quoted to be true, in the general sense, as there
are lots of exceptions.
Everyone I know who uses LF has a darkroom and is more or less
'retentive' about the prints they produce. We tend to use the Zone
System and try to 'previsualize' the final print while making the
photograph. And this applies to color transparency, albeit at a lesser
level of control, as well as to B&W.
Each (successful) photograph (and the success/failure ratio is much
higher in 4x5 because of the work that goes into it at the front end)
is subjected to every darkroom technique available to get the most out
of it. The attempt is to put your 'vision' of the scene onto paper for
others to see. Hopefully it will be unique and compelling in some way.
There is oftentimes cropping on the easel, more so than 35, because of
the inability to compose tightly in the camera and the desire to present
the 'perfect' interpretation. There are LF photographers who insist
that they print everything full frame. Christopher Burkett is one.
All of this could apply to 35mm, and does in many cases, it's just a lot
more difficult to control the exposure and to get a great 16x20 from a
1x1.5 inch original. I used 35 in this way as best I could til I moved
to 4x5 for much of my landscape work. I still occasionally will use 35
this way, when 4x5 isn't available or will take too much time to set up
to capture a changing scene. If I use a great lens I'll still get an
original capable of 16x20 (and most of my Zuikos fit this bill.) but
20x24 ...
But, as they say in the USAF, "Use the right tool for the right job". So
35, for me, excels in 'walk-about' photography, birds and other
wildlife, anything where a long lens is needed, (relatively) easy macros
both in the field and at home, people, portraits, candids, etc, etc.
You can see that these uses are more about 'presenting reality' than
they are about artistic interpretation. When I use 35 is these ways, I
am still concerned about the quality of the original and of the final
print, which in most cases is what I'm working towards. This is why I
try to always get the best, fastest lens I can. Case in point: the
35-80/2.8 I was just lucky enuf to get. If I wanna carry less wight on
a photo expedition, I'll eat less cake!
I think one of Mike's points was that the type of photographer you are
or want to be will eventually draw you to the right format for your
needs. I know this happened in my case.
George
John Petrush wrote:
>
> Hehehehe, George, you just *know* folks are gonna bite on this one :)
>
> I will agree with the premise there are two types of photographers. Those
> who think and those who don't. Film format is secondary. I realize it is
> far easier to take lots of exposures very quickly in 35mm compared to 4x5.
> But there are some very serious and interpretive images made in 35mm. I've
> also seen my share of 4x5 images that are just 35mm shots on real big pieces
> of film.
>
> Yes, 4x5 by virtue of its bulk and cost tends to be more contemplative and
> methodical. At a couple bucks a "click" one should be. There are a whole
> lot of steps that must be done correctly or the exposure is junk. Ever
> forget to first close the lens diaphragm before removing the dark slide? Or
> put the dark slide back in the holder white side out, only to later place a
> second image firmly on top of the first? Hmmmm. The great advantage of 4x5
> is it affords the photographer absolute control over every aspect of the
> image. The great drawback of 4x5 is it *requires* the photographer to
> absolutely control every aspect of the image.
>
> Our dear Olys, on the other hand, are light, nimble and much easier to use.
> It's pretty hard to lose your dark slide with one <g>. I've yet to see a
> motor drive for 4x5. They are a different class of tool. I'd never
> consider taking my 4x5 to shoot a motor race just as I would not use an OM
> for serious architectural work. Sure, there's plenty of subjects where
> either format is suitable, they also have their unique attributes.
>
> I suspect there are very few 35mm shooters who also do all their own
> darkroom work. This facet of photography does not appeal to many people.
> It's smelly, meticulous and generally solitary. It's also kind of expensive
> and very time consuming. It is easier to just send the stuff out and have
> someone else do it. "Interpretive" photography is all about control to
> one's personal vision. 4x5 fully satisfies that need to control. It can be
> done in roll formats, but it involves making compromises along the way. And
> I won't even open the Pandora's box about image quality, nope....not going
> there...... As for the retentive remark, I suppose any activity pursued to
> an extremely high level of accomplishment can be so catagorized. So be it.
>
> My workshop has many hammers, from a tiny 4 ounce ball peen to a mighty 20
> pound sledge. As with hammers, the thinking photographer selects the right
> camera, film and accessories to achieve the desired final image visualized
> in his/her mind's eye.
>
> John P
> ______________________________________
> there is no "never" - just long periods of "not yet".
> there is no "always" - just long periods of "so far".
>
> George M. Anderson <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > First is an article all the way at the back of the magazine. It attempts
> > to compare the 'essence' the 'je ne c'est quois' the 'philosophy', yea,
> > the 'Gestalt' of
> > two types of photography and photographers: 35mm shooters and 4x5
> > photographers. The article, by Michael Johnston, makes some interesting
> > points to ponder. For example, and paraphrasing: large format
> > photography is really about
> > printing. IOW rare is the large format user who doesn't also have a
> > darkroom and agonize over getting the 'perfect interpretive print' from
> > his original. Whereas 35mm folks are not so concerned about artistic
> > interpretation, but rather they're about presenting the reality of the
> > world to the viewer.
> > Any thoughts?
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|