| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. Does your format determine your photo?
Asked by Mark
(K=248) on 3/13/1999
|
I have noticed that when I carry my 35mm camera, I take a totally different type of photo than if I carry my medium-format camera. It seems to be a "state of mind" that almost determines what style of photography I will attempt. Some of this I can attribute to the type of viewfinder. The eye-level 35mm camera enables a different perspective than with the slower, more deliberate ground-glass of most medium format cameras. To me, the 35mm, 36 exposure way of life almost "cheapens" my outlook. Should 1 out of 12 get more attention than 1 out of 36? Has anyone else suffered from this illness?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marv
(K=216) - Comment Date 3/13/1999
|
Some might consider it less an "illness" than a sign of "maturity".
I find it completely normal; with the 8X10 I take a LOT less pictures than with my Sony Mavica (I am afraid I disdain 35 mm, sorry), but get a hell of a lot higher kill ratio when shooting large format.
If all of the formats lead to the same response, there would little need for more than one format, IMHO. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist, or in other words SIJCR.)
|
|
|
|
Phil Stiles
(K=143) - Comment Date 3/13/1999
|
Yes, of course. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. Robert Frank's "The Americans" is a 35mm approach. Paul Strand, a view camera approach. The characteristics of the various formats find their expressions in particular applications. If I'm photographing my kid playing soccer, I'll use a 35mm auto-focus, zoom. If I'm photographing a stone barn in the Scottish heath, I'll put the biggest format I've got on a tripod, and revel in the detail and textures. The format doesn't necessarily determine the photo, but it makes sense to go with the strengths of the format you're using.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 3/13/1999
|
For me, it's the film size rather than camera limitations from the film size. If I shoot 35mm, which I rarely do any more, I expect that at a reasonable print size, it will be grainy and unsharp. So I take photos that I want to have grainy and unsharp. I don't use a tripod, and I work in low light. With 6x6 and 6x7, I shoot much more to take advantage of the larger negative. However, I have recently found ways to make my medium format photographs look more like my 35mm ones, which is probably why I don't use 35mm much.
|
|
|
|
ray tai
(K=310) - Comment Date 3/14/1999
|
For me, the photos I want to take determines which camera format I want to take with me, not the other way around. I have one simple rule: handheld = 35mm; tripod = MF or larger. (The Mamiya 7 is going to change all that but that is another forum.)
I don't understand how 35mm "cheapens" your outlook. It is really a matter of discipline how you approach photography and not so much the negative size. Perhaps it is because 35mm film is cheaper? If 35mm film costs the same per frame as 120 or sheet film I am sure I would think very hard before pressing that shutter.
|
|
|
|
John MacPherson
(K=1342) - Comment Date 3/14/1999
|
One way in which I feel that formats can make a significant difference is when approaching people. Most folks are familiar with 35mm, and the cameras are generally smaller and less imposing. However try doing candid shots with a Pentax 6x7 and things change dramatically. In fact even doing landscapes in a public place with a Pentax 6x7 elicits a different response from the passersby than does a 35mm or APS camera. Turning up to do "professional" photography for clients I occasionally find it better to use a Pentax 6x7 or Fuji 69 because the client can then see what they are paying you for. This after a client's employee once came out wielding an F4 when I had decided to use an FM2 for the job, and looked disdainfully at my "lesser" camera. Of course the bit they were paying me for lies 6 inches behind the camera, but not ALL folks realise that. When I first started using the Pentax 67 I was afraid that it might be a bad move, that the heavy lump and tripod would be a hindrance. It was a revelatory experience to discover that the whole deliberate process of using this large camera made me more careful, and fundamentally altered the way I approached subjects. It turned out to be quite the opposite of a limiting experience and I found to my great delight that it actually opened up more areas of photography to me than ever before. My vision changed too when I realised that freeing me from the chore of holding the camera, by using a sturdy tripod, allowed a vast increase in the range of hours during which I could make photographs. Now I find I am applying the lessons learned from the use of these larger formats, to my use of 35mm and am able to extract the very last ounce of quality and versatility from the much smaller negative. And editors often comment on the "quality" of my 35mm pix, (this "quality" being a combination of sharpness and usefulness for their purposes). What I've gone a long way around to realise is that this "quality" is to a certain extent independent of format, and more closely related to your approach to the subject and technique. JOHN
|
|
|
|
Lot
(K=1558) - Comment Date 3/14/1999
|
I can follow your feeling of the cheapness of 36 exposures, mark. I can remember having had that feeling before I began to use larger formats. However, when I developed my MF and LF-photography I began to appreciate the 35mm again. And the two formats began to differentiate for me further. My 35mm photography became more spontaneous, less sharpness-preoccupied and this added to the artistic value. In LF other aesthetic values are working.
|
|
|
|
Mark
(K=248) - Comment Date 3/14/1999
|
You guys have really got me thinking....about why I regard 35mm as "cheaper" and "inferior" to larger formats. We all admit that the technical quality of 35mm is less than larger formats (sorry Gene). BUT - we can learn to utilize the advantages of each format. I personally get hung-up on the technical aspects, sometimes missing opportunities that are more important than "fine grain" or "tonality". I am planning to work on this, attempting to rediscover 35mm. It will never replace the quality of medium/large format, but my nikon will be on my shoulder hoping to catch those photos that would be gone before I even got the bigger camera out.
|
|
|
|
Doremus Scudder
(K=197) - Comment Date 3/15/1999
|
Another aspect of this discussion which has nothing to do with size (although "Size does matter!"), concerns the actual dimensional proportions of the format you are using. In other words, long and skinny vs. square vs merely rectangular. Does seeing the world through the 35mm viewfinder, which is approx 1.6x1, somehow change our idea of what shape we want the final image to be, and, conversely, does your Hasselblad make you into a "square shooter"? Or, as I struggle to accomplish, does the subject matter itself speak to you and suggest (or determine) the final shape of the image? Or are you one of the artsy types who is certain that uncropped negatives of whatever format is the most asthetic approach? Sometimes we forget that lenses, film and cameras have their limitations, not to mention arbitrary format decisions made by manufacturers, and that the world isn't made up of two-inch squares or 4x5 inch rectangles! The subtle influence of the format shape of the camera you are working with is not to be ignored, and at times should be actively opposed. Working more with one's eye not glued to a viewfinder of ground-glass can open an entire new "dimension"! Regards, ;^D
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
" The subtle influence of the format shape of the camera you are working with is not to be ignored, and at times should be actively opposed. "
I suppose I do this in two ways. 1) I don't carry a camera at all, or 2) pick up an different camera.
I am seriously into scrambling my brain to see differently (through mechanics, not alien chemistry) by peering through different sized holes at the world. I use totally mechanical cameras, so I'm not messing with gizmos, and tend to adlib more with the new window. I find the work settles into a type and style and mindset that is specific to the camera. Fun.
As a consequence I have portfolios that do not resemble each other, at all. It's not just the shape of the window, though. Each has it's rhythm,too. The size, it's weight, what it takes to make the hole open, how easy it is to see through...sound like a gearhead, huh?..I bought a Canonet Q something today, for relief from the "new" blad, cost me less than a beater lens shade for the 80mm. more Fun...t
|
|
|
|
Kenny Chiu
(K=164) - Comment Date 3/18/1999
|
Yes. Funny you ask. In order to improve my 35 mm fromat photos I have downgraded my 6x6 and 645 to be 'my 35 mm format' and hence the Stylus Epic to be 'my APS'.
|
|
|
|
Arthur Gottschalk
(K=141) - Comment Date 3/30/1999
|
It's not just the format. I find that I take completely different pictures with my 35 mm Lieca than I do with my Nikon, and using my point and shoot Contax TVS leads to different kinds of pictures as well. I've sort of decided that each camera demands a degree of submission to it; my Lieca work, for example, demands more thought and consideration than my auto-focus cameras. Even the feel of the Leica ( a big part of its charm) results in "Leica photos." I recently bought a Hasselblad 903 SWC, which really requires submission to its demands. The result, however , can be some amazing photos.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/30/1999
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Blowey
(K=15) - Comment Date 4/14/1999
|
I do see your point. However my approach to the subject matter is not much at all different. I tripod both of them, except for 35mm and 6X6 candids(some of them). I let my eye and lens control all of that composure, perspective etc. Whichever camera I might be holding is a reflection of that time and place, whether I used more camera features or not is kinda irrelevant (I like to think). The results will definitely be different, but not so much if you take care to only push the shutter button at the right time. With Large formats your bells and whistles on the camera, and lack of certain ones, will affect the way you view the scene's perspective entirely(like upside down:) and I agree they can put you in the mindset or help you get to that higher level of thinking about your outcome. Perhaps if medium format gets you greater shots, then when you want good shots with your 35, try imagining your 35 as a smaller version of the medium format. Therefore, in respect to the design of the 35mm, one should be more careful with the smaller filmsize.
Best Regards, Eddy
|
|
|
|
Charles Kleesattel
(K=60) - Comment Date 5/29/1999
|
Another aspect of this is where you will be taking the pictures. I often go to 'bad' neighborhoods for urban landscapes. I'm not a physically intimating person and i find that with a 35mm, I'm often hassled by passersby. But with an 8x10 I'm given respect, mothers keep children away, people ask to pose for me, and I'm never without a interesting conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
