Sure, just click on my name over in the left-hand column and click "view gallery uploads," and most of the images I've posted are large format.
Originally Posted by fastw
You can also check my flickr stream.
These are all 8x10-- http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/tags/8x10/
These are all 4x5-- http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/tags/4x5/
Or parsed another way, these are all albumen prints (one is MF, the rest LF)-- http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidag.../tags/albumen/
But don't you think becoming a slave to technical perfection can be a hindrance to creating a work of art? I'm not really disagreeing with you, Ken (competence in use of materials IS important), but sometimes it's best just to let go, and do...
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
I think this is sort of a chicken/egg question. One needs the technical proficiency to create art, and one also needs the artistic vision to fully utilize the technical proficiency. I don't think either successfully works in a vacuum.
Just started with 4x5. To me it is has been fun so far. I am a big fan of 35mm and personally I think if I am to give up the benefits of 35mm it must give me something much better to offset. Medium format is only marginal for me.
I got into 5x4 because the shooting experience is different. Not only is it slower, but the camera itself works in a very different way (compared to 35mm or medium format) with the groundglass and bellows focusing and so on. It also seems like a much more "streamlined" or "pure" way of photography, reading about large format has made me understand some of the aspects and techniques of photography that I didn't before.
I'm pretty sure there's very little that *can* *be* done in one format and not another, except for things directly tied to the size of the image on film (you can't make an 8x10" contact print from a 35mm negative), but that doesn't mean different formats don't have different strengths. You *could* set up a 35mm camera with a very, very fine lens in a tilt-shift arrangement, use an extremely high-resolution film, and carefully calibrate the position of the film so that you could cut the frames apart in the dark and process them all individually with different development. You could...but you wouldn't, because it would be a ridiculous mismatch between the tool and the job.
I solarize negatives occasionally and I contact print, so LF has obvious attractions. For me, the movements aren't a huge deal most of the time, but when you need them you need them, and obviously for many LF shooters they're a critical working tool.
Back in college, I worked in the rare books and collections area of the UGA library. One of their holdings was an 8x10 contact print of an Ansel Adams winter snow scene in Yosemite. It was the single most beautiful print I had ever seen, and I've never seen anything that surpassed it in terms of physical beauty. It was like looking through a window into another dimension.
I got seriously choked up! Large format haas never quite worked for what I want to do as a photographer, but it's always been a dream to work that way. I particularly admire Paul Strand's jewel like portraits, contact printed at 5"x6".
Yes, I do.
Originally Posted by eddie
But that's not the context in which Clive chose to frame his question. He chose to explicitly limit the possibilities to either "art" OR "just photographic technical perfection." With the "just" seemingly tipping his personal preference.
I simply logically extended his question into converse equivilency in a bid for confirming clarity.
I see, Ken. I responded to your response to John's post, not Clive's post. "Just" does have a bias, and I see why you would seek some clarity.
My response to John was the same as it would have been to Clive, had Clive also confirmed my sense of his original question.
If the answer is "Yes" then no art which may rely on the "pursuit of technical perfection" is possible. If the answer is "No" then the presence or absence of "technical perfection" factors out of the equation, and the work's assertion as "art" must be assessed using other criteria.
It's not just a case of splitting semantic hairs. If the answer is "Yes" then an entire class of potential art is summarily dismissed. And dismissed based on one person's singular opinion. And of course, if that can happen within this particular discussion, then... well...
Photography is a big tent. It needs to remain open and accessible to all interested parties, regardless of their choices of styles or approaches. Or even talent levels.
Ken- Technical perfection and Art are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a degree of both are required. Whether it's 50/50, 75/25, etc., varies.
I've seen technically perfect photos that have left me cold. I've seen great concepts ruined by a lack of competence. I think the danger lies in an over- reliance of one over the other. I think the trick is in knowing which area one is weaker, and working to improve that aspect of the work.