I was playing around of course, but there is definitely a bias towards large format work. Agree that using multiple formats (playing with the medium) is great and some work very well this way. But there are very few notable for it, because the art world likes auteurs - people who do the same thing over and over in a way that makes us familiar with their work. Bresson (35mm), Strand (LF), Weston (LF), Ansel (LF), Robert Adams (MF), Stephen Shore (LF) - their approaches are tailored to their formats, and they've stuck to their single minded technical (and subjective) approach to great success. It shouldn't be forgotten that your camera format informs how you investigate photography and it takes a lot of investigation to get anywhere. As with painting, your choice of materials is your first artistic decision. 'Whatever' won't do. <subjective> Isn't that how we ended up with postmodern trash? </subjective>
Originally Posted by ajs77306
Technique, subject and aesthetics have a symbiotic relationship in the best art. I'd say the OP should use the Elan, but play to its strengths and weaknesses, rather than trying to work around them. There's always a better tool, but it always gets to a point of accepting your camera's and photography's limitations before you might as well take up painting. Large format is like the cut off point, which is why I think many of these photographers dabble in and take from painting - they're so close to it.
Last edited by batwister; 11-05-2012 at 10:28 AM. Click to view previous post history.