[JohnR]

As much as I admire the work of nathanm, I don't think it's something I can even try to emulate, at least not at this point in my photographic development. I actually have a couple large-format lenses, bought a while back with ambitions to get into LF, but... well, they've not been used. I've had a 6x9 Century Graphic for a while too (think of it as a small LF camera...) and that hasn't been used either.

I don't quite understand it, to be honest. I'm not averse to tripods, I've used mine for portraits and for macro. But somehow LF implies something I'm not ready for.

I think I just need to focus (hah!) on getting my 35mm gear and technique to where I want it to be.

I'm not sure what the point of this post is, but I thought I might get it off my chest anyway. Thanks

J

[navi]

jR

I HEAR YA!!!! I don't touch large format as well-- but I have to admit the image quality is amazing- if I did architecture work and clients were willing to put it in their budgets i'd use it.

I haven't used it since photography school days. I'd rather go med. format...... WITH A DIGITAL BACK!!!

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hasselblad 6x6 and the look of analog film! I absolutely love it.

[nathanm]

I know what you mean John, it's not for everyone.  I sometimes question why I am shooting it myself, hiking around in the snow with 40lbs. of equipment to take four shots.  Ha!  (It's kind of like hunting perhaps, except I was carrying a tripod instead of a rifle)  Of course you can still go out with 35mm and get great shots if that's what you want to do.  Large format doesn't have any inherent superiority over other formats, it just forces you to slow down is all.  It may have technical quality, but it doesn't make you a good photographer.  I'm sure there's plenty of beautiful scenery you can point your 35mm at and still get cool results.  You could use a cell phone camera and do the same thing.  It's all in your mind.  Actually there's probably a thousand more picturesque scenes in Australia than there are in the flat, boring midwest, USA where I live!

[drphoto]

I so miss LF. There's something very serene about it. It's not really an arguement about quality, so much as process.

 I read an article in PDN several years ago that talked about the difference between 'reactive' and 'proactive' photographer. Reactive types, well.....'react' to what they see and just shoot it, and proactives plan the shot, and create it. I'm definitely in the proactive camp. I'm always a second behind the decisive  moment.

[SET Man]

Hey!

   I love large format 4X5 and I do miss it so much. Especially with B&W.

 Like drphoto said, there is something about the whole process of LF photography.... I remembered seeing my first 8X0 B&W print from 4X5 neg, it was magical.

  The only thing that kept me from LF is time. I no longer have time to really go out, shoot and do darkroom work right now. And not to mention that I will likely to get stop by cops if I go setting up LF to shoot around NYC these days. 

  The last time my Sinar F1 saw action was in 2005  But maybe someday I will have more time to use it more.

Take care,
Buddy

 

 

[JeffB]

I know very little about cameras.
I just figured by the name large format, that the film is bigger, which would ultimately result in being able to achieve higher quality than 35mm when blowing up to larger print sizes.

In Las Vegas, at Ceasar's there is a shop called the Peter Lik gallery.  What a name!
The photos for sale are by far the best I have ever seen.
They are of landscapes and are very wide, maybe 6ft by 2ft.
They are priced around $3000 and up.

I asked what kind of camera was used, but unfortunately forgot the exact name.
The brand was Linhof.  He said something about it being the same camera that shots of the moon were taken with.

The thought of being able to take pictures and sell them for $3k kind of intrigues me.
I also wonder about the printing process used.
http://www.peterlik.com/home.html

[nathanm]

Linhof does make really high end view cameras but I think a medium format Hasselblad was used on the moon.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx

Pretty impressive Peter Lik stuff.  I do wonder though, if anyone has ever taken a BAD picture inside Antelope Canyon. Is it even possible?     Work like that seems to come out of sheer dedication and time put into it.  You have to wait and wait and wait until those dramatic moments where the light is just perfect and all the elements come together.  Lots of camping and hiking too I'm sure.  Ken Rockwell says on his site that you have to be out there shooting when the rest of the world is sleeping or inside eating dinner.  That's pretty much true.  Nature gives us these narrow windows of the most dramatic beauty and light, making it that much more challenging to be there with a camera when it happens.

[JohnR]

Thanks for the thoughts. Perhaps for me there's an element of too many new things to deal with at once. Need to get a focusing cloth, a loupe, really should develop my own film (or else get it done outside but each shot costs as much as a whole roll of medium format!), etc...

Those Peter Lik photos were probably taken with a Linhof Technorama, which is technically medium format I guess. Personally I find the 3:1 landscape genre a little overdone these days, every shopping mall has someone selling them. Not to say they aren't nice photos of course, I wish I could take some like that A more affordable alternative to the Linhofs is fotoman (http://www.fotomancamera.com/). I'm wondering if their 6x12 might not work well for my style of shooting.

[brj]

I do wonder though, if anyone has ever taken a BAD picture inside Antelope Canyon. Is it even possible? 

Yes - trying shooting there handheld!

Every photo makes it look bright and vibrant, but that is all due to long exposures.  It can really be rather dim in the canyon, and it is really crowded.  The Navajo run buses out there continuously, and it feels a bit like a tourist trap, to be honest.  There are actually two canyons, and the North canyon is supposed to be a bit less crowded, but I've only seen the South Canyon.  I did get some decent handheld shots, but I was braced up hard against the canyon wall and couldn't leave the shutter open as long as I wanted, and even then they wouldn't hold up if I blew them up to any reasonable size.



This was my best result, and even ignoring the other issues, I blew out the highlights.  I plan to pick up a tripod at some point and want to go back and shoot some more slot canyons, but I think I'll look for lesser trod paths when I do it.  I also stick to my SLR for now... medium or large format would be fun if I didn't have to hump it very far, but hauling that much gear over longer distances would probably turn the otherwise enjoyable hiking part of the experience into an ordeal!

[drphoto]

SET. you need a permit to shoot in NYC if you use a tripod. The good news is they are free these days and can be obtained online. Be aware that if you shoot in any parks you need a separate permit from the parks dept.

I found all this out the hard way when I did a shoot up there this past June! We did a shot in a park in Queens and found out we'd brought the wrong park permit. Luckily the ranger took pity on a poor fool from KY and let it slide.