View Camera Magazine

I still subscribe to View Camera magazine even though I don't
use my view camera anymore. I switched to 6x7 a few years ago
when the hassle of getting through airports got to be too much.
In addition since I now print digitally the quality difference
at the max 13x19" prints that I make is not apparent.

Anyway, as I said, I still read View Camera magazine, mostly
because of the variety of photographers that are featured.
My problem is that the range of styles seems to be fairly limited.
It is not just the choice of subject matter, but the formalistic
approach to both composition and display.
Perhaps it is time to do away with the concept of large format
photography except for real technical issues and replace it with
an aesthetic-based concept. The magazine could then become something
like "Formal Photography" or "Traditional Photography" or some such.

Artists are not categorized by whether they use a #2 or #3 pencil
why should the choice of equipment be a factor when viewing a person's
work?
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

"Robert Feinman" wrote

Artists are not categorized by whether they use a #2 or #3 pencil

Well, yes and no. There's watercolor, oils, acrylics, lithography,
pastels, colored pencils, pencil, charcoal, colored charcoal, woodcut,
collage ... and graphite pencil

How about newgrouping:

rec.photo.darkroom.d-76.fs
rec.photo.darkroom.d-76.1:1

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

"Robert Feinman" wrote in message
...
[...]
Anyway, as I said, I still read View Camera magazine, mostly
because of the variety of photographers that are featured.
My problem is that the range of styles seems to be fairly limited.
It is not just the choice of subject matter, but the formalistic
approach to both composition and display.

VC does have, for the very most part, a narrow esthetic scope. That is not a
bad thing. Publications, like individuals, have their own personalities.

Perhaps it is time to do away with the concept of large format
photography except for real technical issues and replace it with
an aesthetic-based concept. The magazine could then become something
like "Formal Photography" or "Traditional Photography" or some such.

If you wish for a different esthetic, look elsewhere rather than wasting
time and effort trying to change someone else's book, magazine.

Artists are not categorized by whether they use a #2 or #3 pencil
why should the choice of equipment be a factor when viewing a person's
work?

Because for View Camera, equipment is their specific interest, and that's
that. Each person is free to call it what he wishes, Formal or Traditional,
and that will suffice.

Perhaps one should look to other magazines for what pleases him, or to no
magazine.

Robert Feinman wrote:
I still subscribe to View Camera magazine even though I don't
use my view camera anymore. I switched to 6x7 a few years ago
when the hassle of getting through airports got to be too much.
In addition since I now print digitally the quality difference
at the max 13x19" prints that I make is not apparent.

Anyway, as I said, I still read View Camera magazine, mostly
because of the variety of photographers that are featured.
My problem is that the range of styles seems to be fairly limited.
It is not just the choice of subject matter, but the formalistic
approach to both composition and display.
Perhaps it is time to do away with the concept of large format
photography except for real technical issues and replace it with
an aesthetic-based concept. The magazine could then become something
like "Formal Photography" or "Traditional Photography" or some such.

Artists are not categorized by whether they use a #2 or #3 pencil
why should the choice of equipment be a factor when viewing a person's
work?

Well, there is Camera Arts. I think Steve sold that one off, though he
use to do that magazine and View Camera. While Camera Arts sometimes
features large format photographers, it seems much more open to other
approaches.

Leica World, and Leica Fotographie International (LFI) also have some
really nice images in them most of the time. While they are obviously
based on the work of photographers using Leica cameras, they have shown
work from medium format on occasion. Despite the Leica fixation, there
are some nice images . . . I guess this would be the other example. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

In article ,
Robert Feinman wrote:

I still subscribe to View Camera magazine even though I don't
use my view camera anymore. I switched to 6x7 a few years ago
when the hassle of getting through airports got to be too much.
In addition since I now print digitally the quality difference
at the max 13x19" prints that I make is not apparent.

Anyway, as I said, I still read View Camera magazine, mostly
because of the variety of photographers that are featured.
My problem is that the range of styles seems to be fairly limited.
It is not just the choice of subject matter, but the formalistic
approach to both composition and display.
Perhaps it is time to do away with the concept of large format
photography except for real technical issues and replace it with
an aesthetic-based concept. The magazine could then become something
like "Formal Photography" or "Traditional Photography" or some such.

Artists are not categorized by whether they use a #2 or #3 pencil
why should the choice of equipment be a factor when viewing a person's
work?

You miss the big picture in a lot of ways.

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

Robert Feinman wrote:

I still subscribe to View Camera magazine even though I don't
use my view camera anymore. I switched to 6x7 a few years ago
when the hassle of getting through airports got to be too much.
In addition since I now print digitally the quality difference
at the max 13x19" prints that I make is not apparent.

Anyway, as I said, I still read View Camera magazine, mostly
because of the variety of photographers that are featured.
My problem is that the range of styles seems to be fairly limited.
It is not just the choice of subject matter, but the formalistic
approach to both composition and display.
Perhaps it is time to do away with the concept of large format
photography except for real technical issues and replace it with
an aesthetic-based concept. The magazine could then become something
like "Formal Photography" or "Traditional Photography" or some such.

Guess I'd disagree. The fact that you are printing
digitally and notice no (subjective) difference
belies the fact that I sometimes make 40x50 inch
prints from my 4x5, something I would rarely
do from smaller formats, for both for technical
and aesthetic reasons.

View cameras are inherently a more formal style of
photography with their own aesthetic. You can often
treat smaller formats as if you were shooting LF but
both the technical and aesthetic differences are
usually apparent. Conversely it's hard to treat LF
with the spontaneity of hand held (exception perhaps
for the old Speed Graphics.) What I'm saying is the
technical aspects aren't just technical, since both
the formality and techncality of the format create the
LF aesthetic.

Artists are not categorized by whether they use a #2 or #3 pencil
why should the choice of equipment be a factor when viewing a person's
work?

Pencils aren't cameras though. The format one works
in can make a significant difference in the resulting
image. Plus a different set of skills and knowledge is
required for LF. OTOH I've often seem medium format
work in View Camera, but if the truth be told LF is
what tends to really separate the digital point and
shoot crowds from the big boys.

Gordon Moat wrote:

Robert Feinman wrote:
I still subscribe to View Camera magazine even though I don't
use my view camera anymore. I switched to 6x7 a few years ago
when the hassle of getting through airports got to be too much.
In addition since I now print digitally the quality difference
at the max 13x19" prints that I make is not apparent.

Anyway, as I said, I still read View Camera magazine, mostly
because of the variety of photographers that are featured.
My problem is that the range of styles seems to be fairly limited.
It is not just the choice of subject matter, but the formalistic
approach to both composition and display.
Perhaps it is time to do away with the concept of large format
photography except for real technical issues and replace it with
an aesthetic-based concept. The magazine could then become something
like "Formal Photography" or "Traditional Photography" or some such.

Artists are not categorized by whether they use a #2 or #3 pencil
why should the choice of equipment be a factor when viewing a person's
work?

Well, there is Camera Arts. I think Steve sold that one off, though he
use to do that magazine and View Camera. While Camera Arts sometimes
features large format photographers, it seems much more open to other
approaches.

Leica World, and Leica Fotographie International (LFI) also have some
really nice images in them most of the time. While they are obviously
based on the work of photographers using Leica cameras, they have shown
work from medium format on occasion. Despite the Leica fixation, there
are some nice images . . . I guess this would be the other example. ;-)

There is also LensWork.

With common 4x5 lenses I might agree to a great extent. (My first, a
Symmar 135/235 convertible on 4x5 produced worse results than my son's
Rolleiflex 2.8C/Xenotar! He had more contrast and almost as much
detail in 6cmx6cm as I had on 4x5! Embarrasing, to say the least. So
I got a couple of better lenses. Not a lot better. But enough to
justify doing 4x5. Old Symmars are good to learn with, though.)

But every time I get a better lens and see the real difference my
disagreement grows.
Large format has always included the subset of fine art, just like the
better side of oil painting.

There's an edge to the larger negs that can't be had with even the best
medium format -- the perspective change when enlarging.

Every time I look at an 8x10 (or larger) contact print, the lack of
influence of another lens brings a nearer and clearer perception of
reality at that moment.

It's that accurate capture which fascinates me in the larger negs.
Yes, those Blad/RB/RZ/6/7/6x7 can do wonderful stuff. But it's just
not the same. And never will be.

After shooting with even modest lenses on 4x5 (right now I'm using 90mm
Ilex, 135mm Ysarex, and an old Fujinon-W 210/5.6) I do chuckle a bit
when Leica true believers show off their stuff. Imagine what might
have been produced with a Super Symmar XL in many of the same shots.
And probably for LESS $$$. (though not the prestige.)

Now I'm looking into a 115mm Grandagon-N. And will part with the
Ysarex & Ilex to help cover the cost. Can't wait!

My 2 cents,

Collin

Robert Feinman wrote:
I still subscribe to View Camera magazine even though I don't
use my view camera anymore. I switched to 6x7 a few years ago
when the hassle of getting through airports got to be too much.
In addition since I now print digitally the quality difference
at the max 13x19" prints that I make is not apparent.

The question, it would seem, is whether you use a view camera or a
conventional medium format camera.

Esthetic questions are certainly important, but they may be answered in
entirely different ways depending on the medium. I think view cameras
are enough different from other cameras that they merit separate
magazines, newsgroups, forums, etc.


Anyway, as I said, I still read View Camera magazine, mostly
because of the variety of photographers that are featured.
My problem is that the range of styles seems to be fairly limited.
It is not just the choice of subject matter, but the formalistic
approach to both composition and display.
Perhaps it is time to do away with the concept of large format
photography except for real technical issues and replace it with
an aesthetic-based concept. The magazine could then become something
like "Formal Photography" or "Traditional Photography" or some such.

Artists are not categorized by whether they use a #2 or #3 pencil
why should the choice of equipment be a factor when viewing a person's
work?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:29:11 -0800, Cheesehead wrote:

With common 4x5 lenses I might agree to a great extent. (My first, a
Symmar 135/235 convertible on 4x5 produced worse results than my son's
Rolleiflex 2.8C/Xenotar! He had more contrast and almost as much
detail in 6cmx6cm as I had on 4x5! Embarrasing, to say the least. So
I got a couple of better lenses. Not a lot better. But enough to
justify doing 4x5. Old Symmars are good to learn with, though.)


My 150mm Symmar seems pretty sharp to me. Are the original Symmar lenses
that bad?