Epatsellis To a point true, I guess, as long as you discount Adams, Weston, Karsh and thousands of other "artists".
This does nothing with artistical representation. They all are still short to H.C.Bresson, means format is of less importance, and to shoot at THE moment is more important. Things around us change fast.
The tool is less important than a clear interpretation of the concept,
So and format is of no importance
and with some concepts, technical quality counts.
counts for what. Techical quality counts where only that quality is present. Find some work of art and you will like it even not noticing how many details are in it.
One of the most valuable strengths of large format cameras is the ability to control the plane of focus, as well as control geometric accuracy (or inaccuracy, if desired)
true, but I skip the images I need this and nothing change in my life, I still have a lot of photographs on the walls
The relative quality is easily judged, even by non photographers, while a 35mm enlargement can show "most" of the important details, one thing to remember is that "most" to many artists isn't enough, and once detail is never recorded, it can't be created out of thin air.
Details that good 35 mm cannot record are of no importance to the history, interpretation, learning... At very end, going into small details we can say that 8x10 can not record details of the much larger format, and this one cannot come close to electronic microscope,... Even the most important work of art in the history cannot come close to details 35 mm can capture. So "overdetailing" is of absolutely no importance to say this is work of art. If you learn Pope Gregory's principle in art you will be very disappointed.
How about if we only let you use most of the colors of paint, but today, we'll skip the blues.
Does nothing with detailing of large format.
To many, myself included, the comparison is a valid one. Where LF has the upper hand is in the tonality range and smoothness thereof, no small format can replicate it, not with any super/hyper/whatsis latest and greatest filim.
It is only technicality and does nothing with artistical value, and only depend where one want to stop.
In a less artistic vein, the HABS/HAER program only accepts LF negatives, preferably 5x7, though 4x5 and 8x10 are acceptable.
????
As an archival/ documentary medium, LF excells, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
documenting mostly works with people's life, which require oortability. It is possible to do it with 8x10 but one picture neccesarily made with LF can be as a document much more succesfuly replaced with several 35 mm capturing smaller areas next to each other (scanning the scene). This way interconnection between details can be lost, but new interconnection between details on 35mm will be introduced, due to details isolation from the environment. Look at some famous painting and concentrate on detailing.
There was and are some movement in art where small details and their large number are not welcomed. It is actually not known to me that any work of art consist of so large number of details 8x10 can capture. It make viewer tired.
This all is also valid even for 4x5". I use it only in my studio for commercial photography.
it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy
I suppose I fit this description. I like to use longer lenses on 4x5 and on the periodic occasions I am overcome with lust for larger formats I reign in my enthusiasm with the brutal fact that my arms are simply too short for what i want to achieve.
Your position on art is subjective. While I like HCB, I personally hold Weston, and several others in higher regard. That doesn't make one of us wrong.
The form the print takes and how it gets there are an intrinsic part of the artists job. A print is the sum of all of the effort and time that has been put into it. Arguing detail and tone regarding LF is like arguing megapixels. It says nothing really. The arguments you make for 35mm are the same that can be made for a cell phone camera. Tools are tools. You use the appropriate tool for the job. 35mm has it's place and I enjoy using it. The postulation that 35mm trumps LF is that of a man who says a screwdriver is better than a spanner.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
Bruner
Art is not subjective, as medicine, engineering, … are not too. In art there are people responsible to carry on the matter, as curators, art historians, critics,… And I do not write what I think at the moment, but what I have learned over past from enough responsible people. In photography art photographer communicate a moment that coincides with photogs vision of the same. This has absolutely nothing with which camera size is used, or how many details are captured. When you open any serious history of art (e.g. Janson) you will find a plenty of photographs and below none of them is format of negative. Photogs in long past used large format because it was only available. Photographs made at that time (with large format) are much esthetically better than nearly any made in the “modern” time. That fact tells me review of art history. The quality of today good film and lenses in 35 mm yields far more details than that past photographs made with large view cameras. So from that technical side, no problem to make technically better photographs with 35 mm today than they are made with large format in the long past (say even 80 years ago).
My point is that what 8x10” camera (even 4x5”) can capture with good lens and film is sooooo far overkill over any technical requirement for a good art photograph. So what is enough? How we can figure it out? Look at photographs and paintings that are classified as work of art, it is so simple.
“A print is the sum of all of the effort and time that has been put into it.”
Not even close. To be with you I will just rephrase it with art photography in head (just because art photography is a main attribute for photography today and long future)
“A print is the sum of all of the artistical efforts and time that has been put into it.”
Again, large format is a technical matter and nothing more.
What you gain with 35 mm camera is a shot and a photograph as a work of art. What you can get with any large format is overdetailing, or might you can add something?
Nothing is wrong to work with large view camera, as you said it matter of choice, but also it has no advantages over 35 mm, even opposite.
I think you should do some serious reading. Try Gerry, Badger, Peter Turner, Peter Bunnell, Nancy Newhall, Liz Wells etc etc they all write extremely well and are highly respected. You will find that they put a proper perspective on the historical issues of Large Format & Miniature format, as 35mm & 120 were once called, in an accurate and unbiased way.
Yes there was contempt in the 30's from many European photographers of note for what they perceived as American photographers like Adams and Weston taking pretty landscapes, but that was because of what they were seeing in happening in European cities. It has impacted modern photography where many European photographers /artist tend to focus more on issue based work, often with some socio-political statement or theme in their work.
Please don't try and force your views on us when quite clearly you haver little or no grasp of the subject. How on earth can you state that Art is not subjective.
By the way it is very impolite to call someone by their surnam like that "Bruner" especially misspelt. Either use his online name correctly as in "JBrunner" or use his first name or better still quote him.
Bruner
Art is not subjective, as medicine, engineering, … are not too.
Wow. There isn't even any way to counter the above statement.
I've been astounded by some statements I've read on the internet.... this ranks up there with the best (worst?) of them.
__________________ Nigel Tufnel: It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none.
None more black.
ian Grant I think you should do some serious reading.
When that comes, I still can call you my little pupil, even I do not know you.
Yes there was contempt in the 30's from many European photographers of note for what they perceived as American photographers like Adams and Weston taking pretty landscapes, but thta was because of what they were seing in European cities. It has impacted modern photography where many European photographers /artist tend to focus more on issue based work, often with some socio-political statement or theme in their work.
How about Eugen W. Smith? to mention only one. What A. Adams and like did has nothing to do with the topic, and you just cannot find proper words. Your tepmet at this moment will not get you anywhere. To "get pretty lanscape" you can and could even better with other means too, and for that matter photography is somehow short, but yes it can do it. For example, oil paintings is much better way to do it. But there are also things that photography can and painting cannot. That field is to explore a litlle more.
Please don't try and force your views on us when quite clearly you haver little or no grasp of the subject.
Are you sure?
How on earth can you state that Art is not subjective.
Are you taking about making work of art or reviewing potential work of art. And in either case word subjective is quit wrong. Also there is a big difference between Art and art, but I know what you think about. To avoid that in future someone make fun of you get at least Gombrich's story about art to find out that difference.
Are you sure his real name is Brunner? This is internet, virtual person to virtual person.
And the last, all you put above has nothing to do with large format cameras. So if you have something usefull you are welcome.
Daniel OB www.Leica-R.com
Here are some points why I use view camera even I see no artistical advantage over 35mm. I think that many other photographers will list the same.
1. It makes high commitment impression on of the customer.
2. The customers are not art curators, but they like to get involved and play that they understand work of art assuming it is suppose to be something very complicated requiring high intelligence to understand its message. All they can comment are technical things on the photograph. So I give it to them. This is enough for them to pay even and high price.
3. it works shot by shot and I can develop films right now.
4. it is very reliable photo system
Again, these points are technical and has nothing to do with art.
1. it is good for still life because of shift/tilt. This artistical fail of 35mm can be accommodated with painting or view camera, just to get out of the frame, or can be simple skiped.
No other advantages of large view camera over 35 mm. So what are advantages of 35 mm over view camera. Well I have to do and do something else today.
I use a view camera because, as a tool, it allows me to get the images I want to make onto paper. Recently I have also used a Diana camera to get another type of image onto paper. The relationship between image and tool is an important one...as is the relationship between the image and the process/form the image finally takes on so that others can see/react with it. It becomes a matter of personal opinion as to what is more important...the image (or concept), the final print, or the marriage of the image and process (tools and materials, and their use).
I agree with DanielOB in that there is no artisitical advantage of one format over another. It is just a matter of using the best tool (camera, format, film or pixels) to express what one wants to express.
I find LF to be spontanious. For me the spontinatity comes from realizing/finding the light I wish to work with, and making the immeadiate/spotanious decision to set up the 8x10 and work with that light. How long it takes me after that to capture that light is, to me, immaterial.
Vaughn
__________________
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can be a good day of exercise.
Again, large format is a technical matter and nothing more.
What you gain with 35 mm camera is a shot and a photograph as a work of art. What you can get with any large format is overdetailing, or might you can add something?
You either get it or you don't. That's about all she wrote. You can make art or Art with or out of anything. It doesn't restrict or limit, but the choices of process, format and otherwise, made by the artist have a direct affect on the artifact. To deny that is to deny the print as physical.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
Linear Mode
