Medium Format is worth it even for web sized prints

Jack MacD;1758 wrote: Very interesting essay in Luminous Landscape that discusses photography and also the value of medium format camera regardless of the size of the print. The author is an S shooter.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/understanding-series/everything_matters__it_is_all_about_the_small_details.shtml

Not sure if this link should be in Miscellaneous Gear, but I got tired of seeing my name associated with iPhones in this section, and there is no category for philisophical discussion elsewhere on this forum.

Michael Reichman is an idiot and I have informed him of this fact, personally (and so is Mark Dubovoy). His analysis of audio is quite thoroughly mistaken, as is his analysis of lens quality. Why anyone listens to him is beyond me.

It is true that good work demands attention to detail, but the converse is far from true. Merely being fastidious is no guarantee of fine work.

All these people that he mentions (Adams, Sexton, et al) would be hopeless in any situation that demands quick, decisive, reflexive, instantaneous composition, the kind of work the Leica is best at. Why would anyone even bring up large-format technique on a Leica forum anyway?

I find Ansel-Adams worship deeply offensive and perverse. Anybody can make a good composition in 4.5 hours. When you can do it in the blink of an eye, then you’re good!

I hate pretentious landscape photographers. Photography is about the fleeting moment.

I would love for one of these guys, with their tripods and slow composition, to confront a rugby match and come up with a near-perfect composition such as this:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5025/5580199653_17e364bff1_b.jpg

Here is an interesting rebuttal, with which I substantially agree:

http://daily.lenswork.com/2012/01/my-response-to-mark-dubovoy.html

The Leica was designed for hand-held use. Leica lenses are designed for brilliance and lovely tonal quality above all, rather than extremely high resolution. Why? It is because resolution of the finest details can be lost with very slight camera movement anyway (hand-held, remember?) but the brilliance and ‘glow’ for which Leica lenses are famous survives hand-holding unscathed.

It irks me to no end that those who are given teaching positions in American university photography departments are almost always ‘landscape’ techno-fetishists like Dubovoy.

It is a crime to permit these sick and perverse individuals to speak unchallenged about what is ‘important’ in photography, because they don’t know.

In fact, what they ‘know’ is just plain wrong!

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” – Mark Twain

It is likely because those in positions of authority are impressed by kitsch such as that produced by Adams or Sexton, because it matches their bourgeois aesthetic sense.

I find the notion that ‘serious’ photography can be done only with a large-format camera, or at least a camera on a tripod, of static subjects, profoundly offensive.

To elaborate:

The notion that the spontaneous or inadvertent has no part in great photography is a false one, one I find offensive, deceitful, mendacious, and repugnant.

And this needs to be said!

Why you are so angry? Why do you care? There are seven billion people on this planet and I could say I disagree with most of them. But we are only talking here about photography, not about world peace, so there is no reason to call anyone an idiot on a public platform.

Cheers,
Pete

Ornello, as someone who went through an excellent photography program at the Rochester Institute of Technology, I can say that none of my professors were “techno-files”, they were talented, working photographers in a wide variety of fields, from photojournalism to high-end commercial photography. From my experience, many photography professors are actually quite the opposite of a techno-file and focus their energy on encouraging students to be passionate about their craft.

Just my two cents.

Pete Walentin;2065 wrote: Why you are so angry? Why do you care? There are seven billion people on this planet and I could say I disagree with most of them. But we are only talking here about photography, not about world peace, so there is no reason to call anyone an idiot on a public platform.

Cheers,
Pete

Why am I angry? because I am sick of Ansel Adams and John Sexton types being held up as ‘great photographers’ and because the very essence of photography is capturing a moment. If it takes you 4.5 hours to work out a composition you need a psychiatrist. These people are mentally ill, and I’m not making a joke, I am dead serious.

I am as careful a worker as anyone (you have to be to do good 35mm work), but I have nothing in common with those psychotics who agonise for a month over a 1/16th of an inch crop!

This was taken with a 560mm telyt-R, a manual-focus lens, on a Leicaflex SL2, about 5 years ago. The scan is of a print (the scanner has some dust in it, and this was not an exhibition print, so it’s not the best print I could make), but it illustrates what I mean by the ‘spontaneous’ and ‘inadvertent’ as important elements. I did not know ahead of time, and no one could have known, exactly what would happen during the play.

You’ll note the focus is perfect (drops of sweat can be seen on the nose of the halfback). The timing of the shot is perfect (the ball is just leaving his hands), the rest is more or less good luck (note the diagonals formed by the bodies).

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5025/5580199653_17e364bff1_b.jpg

You will thus note photography of this kind has nothing in common with that of the psychotics so wildly praised by Mark Dubovoy.

Someone needs to speak up against this, and I’m doing it.

I’m sick of it. I’m sick of the perversion of photography into some sort of mystical thing that depends on arcane processes and methods. It’s not ‘art’.

It is especially ironic in the context of Leica. Oskar Barnack invented the Leica specifically to get away from the bulky, heavy, tripod-bound camera. He was an asthmatic and wanted something convenient that he could carry around easily.

Ornello;2067 wrote: Why am I angry? because I am sick of Ansel Adams and John Sexton types being held up as ‘great photographers’ and because the very essence of photography is capturing a moment. If it takes you 4.5 hours to work out a composition you need a psychiatrist. These people are mentally ill, and I’m not making a joke, I am dead serious.

🙂

Ornello;2067 wrote: I’m sick of it. I’m sick of the perversion of photography into some sort of mystical thing that depends on arcane processes and methods. It’s not ‘art’.

It is especially ironic in the context of Leica. Oskar Barnack invented the Leica specifically to get away from the bulky, heavy, tripod-bound camera. He was an asthmatic and wanted something convenient that he could carry around easily.

But as asked, why do you care? Sometimes I like to spent time to create a photo, it is part of my journey. Do I think it is the only way to make a photo? Definitely not. Most times there isn’t that much time to do so. And you can continue this and continiue this and continue this… at the end I would say focus on your stuff and just dont care. Makes things easier unless you are on a mission. If the latter is true I wish you good luck. 😉

Pete Walentin;2068 wrote: 🙂

But as asked, why do you care? Sometimes I like to spent time to create a photo, it is part of my journey. Do I think it is the only way to make a photo? Definitely not. Most times there isn’t that much time to do so. And you can continue this and continiue this and continue this… at the end I would say focus on your stuff and just dont care. Makes things easier unless you are on a mission. If the latter is true I wish you good luck. 😉

Why do I care? Because the psychotics get all the attention. Undeservedly so. And I am serious. These people are mentally ill. Everywhere you turn, in photography magazines, at the book stores, they dominate. People getting into photography, either through photo courses or by looking at the published material, are exposed to this psychosis and the propaganda that ‘Ansel Adams was the greatest photographer; emulate him’.

Nonsense.

Bob Schwalberg’s remark on AA:

“It’s definitely not true to say that if you seen one Ansel Adams, you’ve seen them all.

But if you’ve seen two, you’ve seen them all.”

The Leica was invented specifically as a renunciation of all that belongs to the tripod and static subject style of photography.

I say: put down your crutches (tripods) and walk!

I am not advocating sloppy technique, by no means. But as a Leica forum, we should be concentrating on Barnak-style photography. We should not be paying any attention to the psychotics.

I should note that this is primarily an American phenomenon (it is not without significance that the OP is a resident of the American southwest). Those of you who live in Europe and elsewhere are perhaps somewhat isolated from this. But here it is ubiquitous, deeply entrenched, and oppressive. And now, not only are we being told to emulate their style, we are now being told by Mark Dubovoy to emulate their psychoses, masquerading as an obsession with ‘details’.

It’s time to throw down the gauntlet and state that we’ve had enough of this tyranny!

In this article, Mark Dubovoy mentions that HCB spent a lot of time practising with his cameras until every movement was precise and second nature (see quote below in red).* He also practised and worked on how to move in the street so as not to be noticed. In other words, he tried to take into consideration his own presence in the scene being photographed.

I don’t understand why Mark Dubovoy brings this up. Apparently he is quite easily impressed. Everybody who’s any good at anything does this sort of thing. It seems that Mark Dubovoy never played a sport seriously or mastered a musical instrument or played chess. This is nothing! He needs to read something like The Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. For a while in the 1980s I would spend one or two hours every evening practising my tennis serve. I wore out many sets of strings just from serving practise. A few years back I played a singles match in which I hit at least 24 first serves in a row without committing a fault (for those of you who don’t know about tennis, this is a real feat). Just three years ago I played a doubles match in which I lost just two points on my serve the whole match (one was a double fault; the other was an easy volley that my partner missed). I hardly missed any first serves, and one of our opponents did not return a single one of my serves. Practise pays off.

I honestly don’t understand Mark Dubovoy’s fascination with what is to me rather ordinary behaviour.

I once remember showing some of my photography to someone who said “I would give anything to be able to take photos like that.” The truth is that he wouldn’t, or else he would have already done it. Yes, it takes time, practise, thought, care. But these things are expected. I can remember, when I first got a camera, how much time I spent holding it, focussing, handling it, etc. I practised holding it behind my back and setting the aperture and shutter speed by touch, so that these things became instinctive. I didn’t think a thing of it. To me, this was a perfectly ordinary thing to do, and not worthy of special mention. Does doing this make anyone an extraordinary photographer? Of course not, but what it does is to enable any potential there to come out. HCB was not what he was (I’m not all that impressed by most of his work, for those who are curious) simply because of such practises; these sorts of things are things everyone who takes takes his craft seriously does or should be doing. They go without saying. Anyone who has ambitions to be a good tennis player or football player or archer needs to spend time, lots of time, practising. According to Gladwell, 10,000 hours are needed to become really good at anything.

Why is Mark Dubovoy so easily impressed?

*”While some people seem to believe that good street shooting means taking tons of images and periodically getting lucky, at least in the case of Cartier-Bresson, nothing could be farther from the truth. Cartier-Bresson was an incredible perfectionist. Everything from the lighting to the composition to the exposures, to the smallest details in each and every image had to be as perfect as possible. And each and every print had to be superb and as close to identical as humanly possible to all other prints of the same image. This is a man that used to incessantly practice things like how to best grip the camera and how to best press the shutter release. Even the way the camera strap was held was a detail that had to be mastered to ultimate perfection. He was meticulous about weather, lighting and wind patterns before he went out shooting. He was even meticulous and constantly concerned about his own presence in the street. His images did not happen by lucky accidents while shooting tons of images hoping that one would work. He did not shoot like a crazy speed demon and he did not carry much equipment. Every move and every step in the process of making a street photograph had been carefully rehearsed and choreographed to perfection ahead of time, and he made sure his reflexes were lightning fast. All of this allowed him to make each release of the shutter really count. His images are the result of incredible amounts of practice, dedication and amazing attention to the smallest details.”

thanks for the heads up

Well, Jack opened it up for a “philosophical discussion”, so we got one. Finally.

While Ornello may be overtly passionate in his opinion, and most certainly wildly personal in his delivery … I say … so what? Why get angry? Why not? Why not slice and dice where photography has been, where it is, and where it is heading? If not us, then who?

I just posted a response on Get Dpi regarding a similar topic … yet another forum dominated by Landscape shooters who are absolutely sure the world of MFD photography revolves around post-card art. It isn’t that I don’t get why people do that sort of work … there is a place for the R&R and solitude it affords many people … or just to prove that “Kilroy was Here” … or whatever may ring your bell doing that type work.

However, there is a whole other world that languishes in neglect. So much so that it seems in danger of fading … yet still has a powerful relevance.

Fortunately there are some alternative places one can turn to for humanistic inspiration … like Burn magazine that another S2 and Leica M user turned me on to.

Unfortunately, I cannot view Ansel Adam’s prints to closely for fear of staining them with tears of boredom. However, I did like his books on processing and printing which has nothing to do with subject matter, just a good lesson in craft.

Personally, I subscribe the philosophy summed up in the humanistic French photographer Robert Doisneau’s book “Three Seconds of Eternity”. (The title is a reference to a sum total of a life’s work adding up to 3 seconds @ 1/1000 or 1/200 of a second each).

I have signed prints from these type “great souls” of photography including Doisneau’s “Picasso and the loaves.” a whimsical image which is actually a wonderful tribute to the artist who was known for his hands on, tactile approach to art and sculpture. Look up the image and you’ll get it right away.

I also search out unknowns languishing in the shadows and buy their work. Some are freaking masterpieces of observation, and the capture of light. The only thing missing is a longer term consistency of such images, a body of work … but without exposure, without appreciation, without recognition they have a rough row to hoe.

So, it is quite understandable when someone finally has had enough of images that look as if all of humanity has been exterminated by a Neutron Bomb … an endlessly repetitive array of images that hog the limelight.

Photographs have to be experienced, have to be seen and felt. It is sustenance to those making the images. As Picasso once quipped … “A painting kept in the closet, may as well be kept in the head”.

It is getting really close to the fact that the general public is outdoing the so called dedicated enthusiasts when it comes to spontaneous and involving “of the moment” photography … unfortunately the good ones are buried in a monumental pile of clutter.

I have an S2 and CS lenses because, in addition to spontaneous hand-held of the moment work, I also use lighting. However, the way I use lighting is born from shooting with a Leica M. I go for the moment, and use a mobile lighting assistant off away from the things that people are deeply involved in doing, and that I’m interested in. Damned fine camera for both endeavors.

Your thoughts?

– Marc

Oh, BTW, schools may differ in how they teach and who does the teaching, yet in general there’s no direct connection to that and great creativity, including photography. I was the Advertising portfolio prep professor at one “Up There” art school … where no one could graduate unless I said they could. I was “invited” by the school because their own bloated academia had lowered the output of viable talents flowing into the advertising industry. They used working professionals also … which doesn’t mean squat when it comes to extracting individualistic talents … I was also a working professional, but my professional job was doing exactly that … as Executive Creative Director of one of the largest Ad agencies in the world.

Great thoughts. More resolution shouldn’t hurt. A lens and camera that support a sometimes spontaneous shooting style is my favorite. I’ve belonged to several clubs that identified as photo clubs (as compared to camera clubs), the last one a really big regional club, but everyone always went out to the shoots with camera and big tripod. So far I’ve never seen a Leica in these clubs. I saw a Leica M8 once about 5 years ago – a visitor to the Akron Ohio Art Institute was carrying one and let me hold it. It felt like an iron brick. Having the MM now, I’m reliving that moment each day.