I think the original premise was not meant in seriousness but as for the
argument
itself I think it is flawed. For a start, it restricts 'contemplative'
photography
to those with the means to support LF and a darkroom. Can you say manure.
Just as an example take a look at Tomoko's work - I would call that
contemplative.
35mm and no darkroom, my goodness how does she do it?
I have many times thought how nice it would be to have a darkroom and do my own
printing but every time I do I ask myself how many large hand-prints could I
get a
lab to do for the same outlay and I always come to the conclusion that it is
more
than I have stuff worth printing to that quality.
Just yesterday I lugged my modest set of gear and a tripod to the top of a
smallish hill and afterwards thought to myself, apropos of Denton and George's
upcoming trips, are they going to lug the big gear to the top of hill if need
be or
are they going to reserve contemplative type photography for what can be shot
from
the roadside? I think if they were to decide to take a 35mm to the top of the
hill
they might still manage to be contemplative. If I were either of them I think
I
would add a Lama to the list of equipment.
I think you have a point John - with LF gear you have almost no choice but to
be
contemplative due to the nature of the beast but with 35mm one is often not
contemplative because the equipment does not require you to be but then neither
does
is preclude you.
With 35mm you have options and flexibility but you do not have the ultimate
image
quality of LF either.
Giles
John A. Lind wrote:
> For you, the answer may be different.
< 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 >
|