Which is Ideal Format?
Jeff Spirer
Dell Elzey wrote:
>
> I recently visited a web site where the photographer stated he had
> abandoned using his 4x5 view camera and returned to the miniature
> negative. I can only suppose he never mastered the craftsmanship
> necessary to produce a quality 4x5 negative. Once one has seen the
> difference even between a 2 1/4 negative and a 4x5 negative it is
> difficult to understand how one could give up the large format. Of
> course I realize for sports and photo journalism the auto everything
> is a necessity. However if you look at the quality of the photographs
> of the old time users of 4x5 for sports and photo journalism there is
> no comparison. But quality is a non-issue nowadays.
> Any comments?
Sure. Why would someone work in black and white when they could work in
color? Or even more to the point, why would an artist work in charcoal
instead of airbrush?
The point is that there are many ways to create images, and many images
to create. Some of them are grainy and blurry, and 4x5 doesn't do much
here. Some of them are totally spontaneous and could never be made with
a 4x5.
Every time I hear a story like this, I figure there must be a reason to
try what that person tried. I saw some subminiature photos just
yesterday on the web (sorry, didn't bother saving the URL at the time)
that were just astounding. Beautiful photos. Who cares how they were
made? But it inspired me to think differently about what I was doing,
mostly working with 6x6 these days. Made me think I ought to do more in
35mm, especially with Tri-X pushed a couple of stops to get that Ellen
von Unwerth look.
So I say more power to him. If he can make make a decision that helps
him to express whatever he wants to express, that is great. That's what
art is about, not what format, or what camera, or what lens, but what
brings something to a photograph.
--
Jeff Spirer
http://www.hyperreal.org/axiom/
Axiom Records/Material Communications
Jeff Spirer
Dell Elzey wrote:
>
> Jeff Spirer <je...@hyperreal.org> wrote:
> >The point is that there are many ways to create images, and many images
> >to create. Some of them are grainy and blurry, and 4x5 doesn't do much
> >here. Some of them are totally spontaneous and could never be made with
> >a 4x5.
>
> Are you saying that Edward Weston's hand held 4x5 Speed Graphic
> portrait work was not spontaneous? I still contend when a photograph
> is all out of focus the dude screwed up and to save face says "Ooh I
> did that on purpose, its art".
Unfortunately, it looks like this is going to be one of those silly and
pointless Usenet "discussions." I wrote a fairly long response to your
posting and you picked out one point. I didn't say anything about
Edward Weston, but it is very difficult to do "spontaneous" work with
large format cameras. (Bravo did it also.)
However, your last sentence has absolutely nothing to do with my
response to your original posting. If you want a serious discussion,
post appropriately.
Peter Marshall
In article <5ujckb$f...@camel12.mindspring.com>, po...@mindspring.com (Dell
Elzey) wrote:
> Jeff Spirer <je...@hyperreal.org> wrote:
> >The point is that there are many ways to create images, and many images
> >to create. Some of them are grainy and blurry, and 4x5 doesn't do much
> >here. Some of them are totally spontaneous and could never be made wit
> h
> >a 4x5.
>
> Dear Jeff,
> Are you saying that Edward Weston's hand held 4x5 Speed Graphic
> portrait work was not spontaneous? I still contend when a photograph
> is all out of focus the dude screwed up and to save face says "Ooh I
> did that on purpose, its art".
>
> Dell
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083
>
I think the only sensible response to your attitude is to suggest that
your position is enviable in that there is just so much photography that
you have still to discover!
Give it a try and you will find it a journey worth making.
Peter Marshall
On Fixing Shadows and elsewhere:
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ds8s/
Family Pictures, German Indications, London demonstrations &
The Buildings of London etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/
Ben Weiner
po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) writes:
>I recently visited a web site where the photographer stated he had
>abandoned using his 4x5 view camera and returned to the miniature
>negative. I can only suppose he never mastered the craftsmanship
>necessary to produce a quality 4x5 negative. Once one has seen the
>difference even between a 2 1/4 negative and a 4x5 negative it is
>difficult to understand how one could give up the large format. Of
>course I realize for sports and photo journalism the auto everything
>is a necessity. However if you look at the quality of the photographs
>of the old time users of 4x5 for sports and photo journalism there is
>no comparison. But quality is a non-issue nowadays.
>Any comments?
So, the photographer had a web site. I'd expect there were
some photographs on it. How were they?
If you post the location we could all judge for ourselves.
"Quality," BTW, is one of those words that means whatever you
want it to mean.
>Dell
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
>po...@mindspring.com
Dell Elzey
bwe...@muon.rutgers.edu.remove.kremvax.su (Ben Weiner) wrote:
>So, the photographer had a web site. I'd expect there were
>some photographs on it. How were they?
>If you post the location we could all judge for ourselves.
>"Quality," BTW, is one of those words that means whatever you
>want it to mean.
Ben, I am sorry but I cannot remember the URL of that site. As I
remember the work was adequate. I am an old man so I have the
priviledge of not remembering everything. ;-)
Dell
http:/www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Dell Elzey
Wonders of the Unseen World <afte...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Dell Elzey wrote:
>>
>> I recently visited a web site where the photographer stated he had
>> abandoned using his 4x5 view camera and returned to the miniature
>> negative. I can only suppose he never mastered the craftsmanship
>> necessary to produce a quality 4x5 negative. Once one has seen the
>> difference even between a 2 1/4 negative and a 4x5 negative it is
>> difficult to understand how one could give up the large format. Of
>> course I realize for sports and photo journalism the auto everything
>> is a necessity. However if you look at the quality of the photographs
>> of the old time users of 4x5 for sports and photo journalism there is
>> no comparison. But quality is a non-issue nowadays.
>> Any comments?
>>
>> Dell
>> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
>> po...@mindspring.com
>My reply is:
>"Quality" is meaningless without context, which is why it's a
>"non-issue." In particular, it's not an adjective that's used to
>describe art. Can one imagine anyone saying "Picassos are higher-quality
>paintings than Manets" or some such nonsense?
Why is it all the "self-proclaimed photographer artists" either do
nudes or painterly photographs? You seldom if ever see a photographer
who comprehends sensitometry and practices the craft of photography
proclaim him/herself an artist. They seem to be satisfied making
photographs that are in focus and properly exposed.
>For some photographers, quality comes down to getting the crispest,
>sharpest, most highly-detailed image you can get. Somehow little things
>like "composition" never seem to figure into "quality" when this sort of
>photographer has the floor. This is because the photographers for whom
>"quality" is an adjective are often (not always, of course) artless
>fellows whose only handle on photography is almost solely via the
>technical side, which anyone can learn and memorize. Composition, by
>contrast, requires talent.
"Composition". Do you recommend the rules of composition as practiced
by most "camera club" photographers? My humble opinion is that
"composition" is the way each of us "see". Wouldn't it be boring if
we all photographed the same subject matter the exact same way? I
think we all see a subject in our own individual way. Therefore we
should compose in our own individual way. Rules of composition are
for uninspired individuals to follow.
>And, of course, there's that male quantity thing: Somehow quality, when
>you examine what some photographers really mean, comes down to quantity.
>"The more information you can get on the negative the higher quality the
>negative" is the way this kind of photographer thinks.
Why would one want to leave out any information that is in a scene
or subject? Would you want to leave out one eye in a portrait?
Then you would be another Picasso.
>What you get in larger format images (other than the effect of tilts and
>swivels, etc., of course) is more information. In aerial reconnaissance
>photography, this is a big asset. In a photo that's going to be blown
>way, way up, this is an asset, too, naturally. However, the bigger the
>photo, the further back you should be standing from it. Photographers
>will sometimes get out their loupes and look at little tiny patches of
>the larger image, but that is not what the intended audience of "real
>people" are going to do. And, in a portrait, who wants to look at
>anyone's nose pores?
I suppose you don't care for photo realistic artists. Who by the way
in my humble opinion are real artists.
>I suggest you look at some of the photo annuals to see "quality" photos
>of all different sorts, taken with cameras in a wide variety of small
>and large formats, many of which wouldn't be "quality" images according
>to your criterion. For one thing, where would a pinhole camera fit on
>the quality scale?
I have no argument with anyone doing whatever they want in
photography. This is a free country (world). I only have a problem
with those who in my humble opinion have not exerted the effort to
learn the craft of photography and to overcome this shortcoming
proclaim their work "art" and themselves "artists".
>Larger format photos aren't better. Just different. If you like the
>difference, swell.
If you will look at my post I don't believe you will see anywhere that
I stated that large format photographs are better.
Dell Elzey
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
>--
>***************************************************************
>Afterglow Erotic Photogaphy | http://www.teleport.com/~afterglo
>Home of fine erotic photography and booklets for budding nude &
>erotic photographers. Feel free to call me at (503) 274-7131.
>Visit http://www.unseenworld.com/aglow/serasmps.html for pics.
Wonders of the Unseen World
Dell Elzey wrote:
>
> If you will look at my post I don't believe you will see anywhere that
> I stated that large format photographs are better.
My reply is:
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted "Once one has seen the difference even
between a 2 1/4 negative and a 4x5 negative it is difficult to
understand how one could give up the large format."
--
Wonders of the Unseen World
Dell Elzey wrote:
>
> Why is it all the "self-proclaimed photographer artists" either do
> nudes or painterly photographs? You seldom if ever see a photographer
> who comprehends sensitometry and practices the craft of photography
> proclaim him/herself an artist. They seem to be satisfied making
> photographs that are in focus and properly exposed.
My reply is:
"Proper exposure" is any exposure that gives you a pleasing result. That
could be an image which is drastically under- or (more often)
overexposed according the directions "on the box." And what is mutually
exclusive about doing art photography and craft photography?
You wrote:
>
> "Composition". Do you recommend the rules of composition as practiced
> by most "camera club" photographers? My humble opinion is that
> "composition" is the way each of us "see". Wouldn't it be boring if
> we all photographed the same subject matter the exact same way? I
> think we all see a subject in our own individual way. Therefore we
> should compose in our own individual way. Rules of composition are
> for uninspired individuals to follow.
My reply is:
I would no more belong to a photo club than I would belong to a "Greek"
fraternity. Your definition of "composition" as "the way each of us
sees" is a non-starter. That is accidental composition since we all see
what we see, not what we want to show, which is what real composition
involves. Composition is best learnt by studying painting instead of
photography, because to most photographers, composition is apparently
(if you read between the lines of what they write) the arrangement of
physical objects in three-dimensional space, whereas a painter realizes
that visual art is primarily two-dimensional, not three-dimensional, so
that composition involves the arrangement of relatively light and dark
regions in a two-dimensional matrix. Color (in the case of color
photography) and texture figure in there, too, but they are way behind
the light and dark thing. As one of my art instructors taught me, "If
you want to see the composition of a painting, squint at it to eliminate
detail, and that arrangement of light and dark that's left over is the
composition of the painting."
You wrote:
>
> Why would one want to leave out any information that is in a scene
> or subject? Would you want to leave out one eye in a portrait?
> Then you would be another Picasso.
My reply is:
Okay, well, why would you want to see a pretty girl's nose hairs or
blackheads?
You wrote:
>
> I suppose you don't care for photo realistic artists. Who by the way
> in my humble opinion are real artists.
My reply is:
I'm a realist myself. I start from something like a snapshot approach.
In most cases, I don't even use a stylist. I haven't written anything
that's contrary to the realist approach. If I have, enlighten me.
You wrote:
>
> I have no argument with anyone doing whatever they want in
> photography. This is a free country (world). I only have a problem
> with those who in my humble opinion have not exerted the effort to
> learn the craft of photography and to overcome this shortcoming
> proclaim their work "art" and themselves "artists".
My reply is:
Whatever happened to the "If it's good it's good" standard. You would
apparently decide based on some sort of written exam. What if Picasso
flunked the painting exam? Would his paintings therefore be bad? (Or,
substitute a more realistic painter, if you wish, and look at the same
question.)
inisglas
>I recently visited a web site where the photographer stated he had
>abandoned using his 4x5 view camera and returned to the miniature
>negative. I can only suppose he never mastered the craftsmanship
>necessary to produce a quality 4x5 negative. Once one has seen the
>difference even between a 2 1/4 negative and a 4x5 negative it is
>difficult to understand how one could give up the large format. Of
>course I realize for sports and photo journalism the auto everything
>is a necessity. However if you look at the quality of the photographs
>of the old time users of 4x5 for sports and photo journalism there is
>no comparison. But quality is a non-issue nowadays.
>Any comments?
I do not accept the notion that there is or can be a single "ideal" format.
Weegee shot Hollywood and street scenes with a Speed Graphic, Ansel Adams used
a view camera (4x5) or a Hasselblad (6x6 cm), other excellent
photographers used 35mm. I am certain that somewhere out there is a respected
Minox artist who has a gallery and has gotten favorable reviews.
I use a Rolleicord, and find 6x6 cm to be the ideal format for who I am
and what I photograph. I am not concerned about the loss of detail vs. an 8x10
view camera, which I couldn't use or manipulate, nor do I care that folks with
a motorized Nikon can shoot an entire roll of film in the time it takes me to
compose a shot.
Find what is ideal for yourself, get out there and re-present the world for
the rest of us in terms of your artistic vision.
Gordon Cooper
Seattle, WA
pbrlab
>
Dell,
This has to be one of the most frustrating arguments that I have read.
To summarize, you believe that composition is not important and is the
sign of "camera club photographers" (who I take it are not artists) but
you have to strictly adhere to the principles of perfect exposure and
focus. It's good to experiment with composition (that's artistic) but
anyone who wavers from the path of the f64 manifesto is not only
incompetent but also a liar if they admit to anything otherwise -
especially that it's art.
To negate the immense contribution of the few simple compositional
guidelines to photography is to ignore the vast majority of the most
critically acclaimed and influential work of this century, most of which
relies on composition and not technical perfection - that's why most
'artists' rely on professional printers. I looked at your work and it
is full of 'thirds, diagonals and triangles' and since most people will
be viewing it on small, low-res monitors technical perfection is totally
lost, yet your work survives and is very good, as many people have
commented. Come on Dell give yourself some credit, your just as 'artsy'
as the best of them. Quit fighting it man, "join the winning team".
Whoops...perhaps asking artists to join anything is a bad idea but you
know what I mean.
Andy Laycock
pbr...@unixg.ubc.ca
Dell Elzey
pbrlab <pbr...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>
>Dell,
>Andy Laycock
>pbr...@unixg.ubc.ca
Dear Andy,
Ok, I give up. ;-) Seriously though, I have always been a little
embarrased if someone called me an artist or my photography art. I
have worked hard to learn photography but have had no formal training
in photography. I just read and studied everything I could get my
hands on. And burned a lot of film and print paper. I was always
satisfied to be regarded as a competent craftsman.
You have to admit that this discussion has been interesting and
brought out many different points of view. I think it is fantastic
that the WWW and internet gives the whole world the opportunity to
discuss photography and show our work.
Dell
Dell Elzey
Wonders of the Unseen World <afte...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Dell Elzey wrote:
>>
>> If you will look at my post I don't believe you will see anywhere that
>> I stated that large format photographs are better.
>My reply is:
>I'm sorry if I misinterpreted "Once one has seen the difference even
>between a 2 1/4 negative and a 4x5 negative it is difficult to
>understand how one could give up the large format."
>--
>***************************************************************
>Afterglow Erotic Photogaphy | http://www.teleport.com/~afterglo
>Home of fine erotic photography and booklets for budding nude &
>erotic photographers. Feel free to call me at (503) 274-7131.
>Visit http://www.unseenworld.com/aglow/serasmps.html for pics.
I cannot find your e-mail address on your site so will ask you here.
Have you had much training in studio lighting?
Dell
Wonders of the Unseen World
My reply is:
You won't find my e-mail address on my site (epithet describing you as a
person of subnormal intelligence deleted) because there are little
mailbox icons ALL OVER THE PLACE. This only proves you didn't really
look at the site at all. Either that, or you haven't a CLUE what a
mailbox icon might indicate.
Next, what in the world does my "training" in studio lighting have to do
with this topic (ideal format)? Studio lighting isn't rocket science. In
fact, it's fairly obvious to anyone who wants to do it and has four or
five brain cells.
However, I will not play dumb. If you are saying that my lighting is
deficient as studio lighting, you are absolutely correct. I
intentionally do not want my photos to look like they were taken in a
studio. To that end, you won't find any goofy painted muslin backdrops
in my photography, either. Get this through your head: THERE ARE MANY
DIFFERENT KINDS OF PHOTOGRAPHY, and not all of them are "studio
photography." Not everyone thinks "a studio shot" is the be-all and
end-all of photography. In fact, some of us think it's artificial and
laughable.
If you go to the Museum of Modern Art and check out their collection of
photography, I guarantee you, you'll find very little studio lighting
and no painted muslin backdrops. That is commercial photography, not art
photography. Got it?
Have as nice a day as someone like you can have.
Dell Elzey
Wonders of the Unseen World <afte...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> I cannot find your e-mail address on your site so will ask you here.
>> Have you had much training in studio lighting?
>>
>> Dell
>My reply is:
>You won't find my e-mail address on my site (epithet describing you as a
>person of subnormal intelligence deleted) because there are little
>mailbox icons ALL OVER THE PLACE. This only proves you didn't really
>look at the site at all. Either that, or you haven't a CLUE what a
>mailbox icon might indicate.
My, my, my. You are so defensive. But I suppose that is due to your
age. Really, I have been to your site many times but only to look at
the neeked girls. Now that I have read your bio and artist's
statement I understand where you are coming from. And I did find the
mailbox icons. But I won't use e-mail until we become better friends.
>Next, what in the world does my "training" in studio lighting have to do
>with this topic (ideal format)? Studio lighting isn't rocket science. In
>fact, it's fairly obvious to anyone who wants to do it and has four or
>five brain cells.
>However, I will not play dumb. If you are saying that my lighting is
>deficient as studio lighting, you are absolutely correct. I
>intentionally do not want my photos to look like they were taken in a
>studio. To that end, you won't find any goofy painted muslin backdrops
>in my photography, either. Get this through your head: THERE ARE MANY
>DIFFERENT KINDS OF PHOTOGRAPHY, and not all of them are "studio
>photography." Not everyone thinks "a studio shot" is the be-all and
>end-all of photography. In fact, some of us think it's artificial and
>laughable.
>If you go to the Museum of Modern Art and check out their collection of
>photography, I guarantee you, you'll find very little studio lighting
>and no painted muslin backdrops. That is commercial photography, not art
>photography. Got it?
Well these topics go off in all different directions. Seems difficult
to keep them on track. I just wanted to give you a little jab on your
lighting technique. And it is fine with me that this is the effect
you desire.
I think you will find I am in total agreement with you about the
"studio shot". I never ever use artificial or strobe lighting. All
of my work is done with natural or existing light. I have been to
your web site many times, perhaps you would visit my photography site
once. The URL is: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
>Have as nice a day as someone like you can have.
Well dude, some days are a little tough at my age but so far I have
survived for 70 years. I realize you are a learned man with all of
your education and work background. Ad agency work, yuck. I worked
with you people all of my working life. And I can garontee you there
are some strange folks in the agency business. I am just a pore ole
country boy with little formal education and no formal training in
photography or art. And I am sure it shows in my work.
Your photographic friend, I hope,
Dell Elzey
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Dell Elzey
>Peter Marshall
This quote is pretty much in line with my feelings.
Quote-
BERENICE ABBOTT
IT HAS TO WALK ALONE
Infinity, Vol.7, No.11, 1951, pp.6-7, 14.
The greatest influence obscuring the entire field of photography has,
in my opinion, been
pictorialism. But first let me define it: pictorialism means chiefly
the making of pleasant, pretty,
artificial pictures in the superficial spirit of certain minor
painters. What is more, the imitators of
these superficial qualities are not aware of the true values for which
painting strives. Photography
can never grow up if it imitates some other medium. It has to walk
alone; it has to be itself.
If a medium is representational by nature of the realistic image
formed by a lens, I see no reason
why we should stand on our heads to distort that function. On the
contrary, we should take hold of
that very quality, make use of it, and explore it to the fullest. It
is possible that the subject matter
best suited to that characteristic quality be the one dictated by it.
-Unquote.
Dell
Tomas Nygren
Dell Elzey wrote:
>
> I recently visited a web site where the photographer stated he had
> abandoned using his 4x5 view camera and returned to the miniature
> negative. I can only suppose he never mastered the craftsmanship
> difference even between a 2 1/4 negative and a 4x5 negative it is
> course I realize for sports and photo journalism the auto everything
> is a necessity. However if you look at the quality of the photographs
> of the old time users of 4x5 for sports and photo journalism there is
> no comparison. But quality is a non-issue nowadays.
> Any comments?
My reply:
Everyone has some sort of ideal. Without it, nothing is produced. So if the ideal is more
information (in theese days) like a bigger format, it愀 up to the artist to fill all the
information with good stuff, therefore is the fenomena that good artists work with
larger formats (refer to famous painters) to get the challenge they wanted of it (and
they got famous of it too) the 'poor ones' that use smalller stuff don愒 get the same
attention (exeptions is not included here).
Another reason for larger formats is that they can be blown up at the galleries and
museums with no particular lost of 'quality of handcraft' which means that they could
be sold for higher prices and be qualified as 'fine art photography'.
The reason is that not everything in this photographic world is suited to be a 'fine art
photography' print so this discussion is nonsense.
Tomas Nygren,
a-large-format-contemporay-postmodern-artist-with-no-convetions-but with some-
personal-ideals!
I give you a scetch of a 4x5" sheet here, it愀 yours:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx x xxx
x xxxxxxx x xx x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
;-D
John Pham
In article <341EFC...@students.su.se>,
Tomas Nygren <tomas....@writeme.com> wrote:
>Dell Elzey wrote:
>>
>> I recently visited a web site where the photographer stated he had
>> abandoned using his 4x5 view camera and returned to the miniature
>> negative. I can only suppose he never mastered the craftsmanship
Actually, it has to do with the cost of films processing.
I would rather shoot using my medium format camera anyday, but the cost
of processing for a hobby doesnt justify it. And only when I need
to get an ultra sharp/clear landscape at 8x12, then I want to use
my Medium format...otherwise 35mm will do just fine.
John