I agree with you Ian. Some photographers do look down their noses a bit at formats that are not similar to their own. I guess there are many here guilty of doing the same to digital photographers. Before the eggs are thrown ... I'm Not one by the way (digi photographer or snob that is).
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
It's quite a challenge to produce images that are different/noticeable/good, and stand apart from the work of other photographers. So film (or lack of it!) format is another string in the bow.
And if the camera is very big, very expensive or rare, the materials equally so, the methods employed difficult and 'pure', then that might give some the feeling of exclusivity they are seeking.
I think it's up to the other Artists (without using the term lightly) to show the value of their type of work. Step up to the mark, talk about it develop it and get a following!
Last edited by John McCallum; 10-13-2004 at 03:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.
LOL Yes we will give you a confirmed sighting on that one
Originally Posted by Sjixxxy
I have a whole pile of big negs that serve as conclusive proof that bigger isn't automatically better!
I decided to go LF as a hobby - my job has me sitting in front of a computer, often running DP software. I wanted to go low-tech with my photography, which for me meant building an 8xi10 camera and contact printing. I had no delusions that a bigger neg automatically made my photos better.
I've since added a baby to the household (well, I guess my wife did the heavy lifting there), and so, addicted to the big neg, I recently picked up a 4x5 SLR.
Even though it lets you see what's going on right up to the instant of exposure, it's still not the ideal camera for capturing fast kid action. I'll get faster with it, and enjoy the heck out of it, but it's not necessarily ideal for some shooting situations.
Case in point - yesterday I was taking pictures of the baby. I had the back rotated to "portrait," and she started crawling. One of the dogs (who both usually make a hasty exit once she's on the move) came over to see what she was up to. I got the shot, but it would have been better with the back rotated to "landscape." With 35mm, I could have just rotated the camera in the blink an eye.
Still, I'm having fun with 4xi5 kid shots, and will get better with it. But it's not for every situation.
[SIZE=1](edited to correct a typo.)[/SIZE]
Last edited by Max; 10-13-2004 at 02:23 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I think it would be kindof difficult to track a flying bird on a gimble head with a 4x5 mounted with a lens long enough. 35mm +600mm lens works just fine for that.
I also don't see many tripods used by the pros at pro sporting events. Monopods instead, and balancing a 4x5 would be tough except maybe a press style camera.