Why do you shoot LF?

[EASmithV]

I'm not so sure.
The last time I tried existing light photos in a barroom with my Deardorff V8 it was a dismal failure...

I pulled it off with a Graflex once

http://www.flickr.com/photos/easmith...7622743683050/

[johnielvis]

ahhh yes...haters be hatin'

people don't like the truth and that's also a fact

all these control-positive people here brings to mind pee wee herman crashing his bike and then getting up and saying "i meant to do that"

[BradS]

ahhh yes...haters be hatin'

people don't like the truth and that's also a fact

look in the mirror. people react negatively to you because you're being offensive, abrasive and abusive. We're mostly just trying to have some fun...play nice or go away.

[johnielvis]

more hater's doin' what they do....

state a fact that people don't like and suddenly it's deemed "offensive" by some self-appointed spokesperson for all.....when was the election that appointed a spokesman?

[markbarendt]

apples and oranges, dude--wishful thinking...all of the posts on this and all the other photographic websites are a testament to the unpredictability of the "process".

honestly...no happy accidents in industry...every great innovation in history has pretty much been through some accidental discovery...microwave, light bulb...

You are mixing up the distinctions between deliberate creative work (art/science), our inexperience/ignorance, and professional/craft work (industry). Three very different things.

The craft of photography is a mature industrial process. While individually we may have a lot to learn about this craft, there is truly very little that is unknown by the collective. This is especially true of "off the shelf products".

There is no question in "Kodak's" mind about how TX or TXP or Portra react to given inputs, none.

I actually spent 8-years in underground mining. Got to see first hand the unpredictability. The "wild cards" there are two fold.

First is that we craftspersons/miners could not see through the rock so we were occasionally surprised by what we found, the engineers weren't. The exploration had been done years before, the properties of the rocks and the general position in the world were all knowns. These were minor variations and there were established ways to deal with the changes, basically just an "ask your boss" situation.

Second, and by far the more dangerous, are the people around us. Sure the guy sitting in the powder magazine having his "last cigarette" because his wife just dumped him, or the guy that isn't at his best because of his hangover and lack of sleep, were definitely problems, but respectively rare and minor ones. The bigger issue is management pushing the known technical limits to meet the contract/profit requirements regardless of the risks.

Not a happy industrial accident here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crandall_Canyon_Mine

Different industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

The happy accidents scientists and engineers have, when they find something unexpected because of research along a different line, are more interesting and benefits may ensue and as with the light bulb can be pretty benign, but happy isn't the rule.

Dying as Marie Curie did wasn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

When photography was "newer" there was much true experimentation and the side effect of the chemicals involved weren't known. Today we use "Pyro's" pretty safely, but "we" killed and sickend a fair numbers of people to learn those lessons.

Even "your" Russian camera, like my Holga and shutterless Petzval can be learned and even mastered for effect as we build experience with the tool.

[johnielvis]

markbarendt--true, all of it--and it was the main point--it was some other poster who confused photography with nuts and bolts industrial processes....the other posts just were to show that there IS a difference, as you pointed out

The artistic "process" of creative photography is very different from industrial photography like they used to do in the printing industry...industrial photography is very controlled and CAN be pre-visualized (not 100% but very close)...however "never done before" artistic photography is, by it's very nature, unpredictable and cannot be previsualized with anywhere near the same accuracy in general.

even the pros use polaroids to proof shots to make sure they "got it right".

people don't like that idea for some reason.

It would be interesting to know how many people who say they have mastered "previsualization" have ever described some of their more "experimental" "work" as socalled "test shots"....puh leeze...you can't have it both ways

[polyglot]

Hey guys, quit feedin' the troll. We have ignore-lists for the express purpose of keeping your blood-pressure down and my life is far the happier for making judicious use thereof.

As to the question at hand: movements* are the primary reason that I got into LF.

More detail could be a nice theoretical bonus but 4x5 isn't a huge improvement over 6x7 in that department and it's swamped by differences in film technology. For example, 6x7 Acros is about 35c/frame, 4x5 Fomapan (Arista) is 70c/frame and 4x5 TMX/Acros is $1.80/frame. Going to LF approximately doubles the film cost for no increase in resolution, or you can increase $$ by 6x for about one extra stop of detail. Similar price ratio (4x) for shooting E6 and about 7x if you want to shoot C41, still for just that one extra stop of detail.

I'm also a recovering technophile so I enjoy the challenge of using (and getting the most out of) complex toys and while that's a bad reason to choose a particular artistic approach/technology, I'm pretty sure it applies to a lot of LF users. It probably doesn't matter though as long as the technology isn't actively holding you back - I make a point of using more-appropriate toys when taking more-spontaneous photos like candid portraits in poor light, or travelling around the world.


* movements are not happy accidents. Movements are the result of a plan to achieve a specific (pre-visualised, even) outcome in terms of perspective and focal plane.

[markbarendt]

Polyglot, I personally think that the cost/benefit comparison to roll film is a false economy for at least some of us.

One of the biggest problems I have is not finishing a roll when I shoot.

I'm to a point where when I see a shot that I want, 2-4 frames are normally more than plenty for a given subject. I roll 20-shot rolls for 35mm to minimize this, but I am finding that getting even 10 shots in a row, with the old RB, is becoming a real streatch most of the time.

With roll film I end up with from 8 to 34 more shots to go before I can move on, unless I'm willing to waste the rest of the roll, which is becoming a more regular occurrence.

With sheet film that systemic conundrum doesn't exist. Shoot one frame of 4x5 and I can go straight to developing, no waiting, no wasting.

The other thing I find is that roughly double the data (in moving from 6x7cm to 4x5") does make a significant difference visually in a print.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I like the look of a contact print.

[E. von Hoegh]

I dunno about that barroom comment. Seem like a big Dorf and maple tripod would be a lot more
useful in a brawl than bonking heads with a little Nikon ...

A Nikon F makes a great bolo.