Vision 1 It is an anachronism in the purest sense of an activity out of it's time, but in this case aided by current technology (films, lenses, digital methods like negatives, record keeping, and metering) to heighten the anachronism. Like carbon fiber America's Cup sailboats. This observation can be extended ad infinitum (use of analog development methods to make film ranges work rather than adopting techniques which have inherent range, like digital; use of highly stylized metering rituals rather than more efficient light metering; tilts & swings vs digital rescaling....) In it's most zen like meaning, it is the pursuit, not the result. If I ever get a negative it's a pleasant bonus, and a well found one, nirvana. In this it's like fly fishing, where there are more productive ways to get fish (or negatives). I would have said like golf, but golf is too universally competitive so a low score is the goal, not the pursuit. See Herigel's Zen and the Art of Archery It's a good excuse to take a profoundly close look at the world around us as we compose pictures. I cant think of any other context we might do this in. It's a good excuse for a highly technical obsession (like we need another excuse?) G.T

Vision 2 The answer depends which part of the activity you are talking about. When I take a digital, or for that matter a small format picture, it hurry up and get it. Shoot 5 or 6 frames its only film. Or I can see it right away and decide to get rid of it until I find the one I like. Run home to the computer and if I don't like something just remove it or change it. Now true all this happens at the front end with the large camera. I have to slow down diliberatly setup the shoot. When looking at the ground glass upside down and reversed I have to take in the whole picture edit out the parts I don't want. (move camera, remove stuff, ect.) as I check the exposure, rechecking 3 or 4 times, I have to look at all the parts becoming more involved in the scene. Becoming attached to the way it looks, smells, feels, and .... After 45 minutes of meditating and relaxing I go back to the darkroom eagerly waiting to submerge the film in the developer. Which one? Do I need to compensate or can I developr it normally. Thankfully I shot 2 sheets. It's never asure thing with film. I can't just decide to remove a scratch or dust. Sometimes burning or dodging doesn't do it. Then my only hope is to go back and try it again. This time I'll get it right. My friends don't understand why I shoot with a 8x10. And some don't even see the difference from there $10 point and shoot and it. But that's okay I don't understand why they want to sit in a chair looking at a screen all day. Just some unedited ramblings. R.L

Vision 3 This is basically what I feel about the medium. It is based upon some experience and insight, both of which I have just enough. Now the only question is: what is large format photography? The simple answer is very easy: 1.     Large negatives 2.     Camera movements 3.     A tripod So, that was indeed simple. But I hear cries from all quarters that my definition is either too strict, to complicated or doesn’t encompass the format at all. I’ll first quell the anger of those who find my interpretation too complicated. I understand that, technically, the camera movements and tripod are not needed for large format photography. Linhofs, Speed Graphics, Horsemans, a Cambo wide angle and even a Peter Gowland camera, among others, have viewfinders, and can be used by hand. This cancels the tripod. The Gowland didn’t have movements, yet it used 4x5 inch film, so that cancels the movement requirement. So why do I include the tripod and movement requirements. Let’s see. Large format photographers today chose movements and a tripod because of the effects that they have on the format. The quality of film being what it is today, medium format answers 90% of all the hand held larger negative problems. Those few cases where the answer requires a large format negative, the photographer can turn to one of those cameras mentioned above to solve that particular hand held problem. We arrive back at the conundrum. Why, oh why, if 35mm, medium format and the occasional large format can answer all the needs of the photographer, do we use those unwieldy large format cameras, The ones that only make our lives more difficult because we have to play with movements and we have to carry a tripod to slow us down and make the work even more difficult? In order to answer this I’ll stop writing about photography and start in a totally unrelated subject. Sound recording. Now that’s a kick in the butt. Why sound recording? Just try to stay with me as I delve into the mind of an audio engineer as he sets up a microphone to record a violin. He may have two microphones that are technically identical in the areas of frequency response, signal to noise ratio and pickup pattern to name a few examples. Why then, will he chose one over the other for this recording session? Because the one microphone colors the sound in a different manner than the other. It will have a warmer or colder color, or a richer color. This seems insane as microphones can’t see light waves, only audio waves. Just remember that the influence that the microphone gives to the audio waves is felt as coloration in the recorded sound. Back to photography. I can’t use the term color here as color is measurable in photography just as frequency response is in audio. Even the abstract terms warm and cold have a definite meaning in photographic colors. So what do I use here for a terminology. Hold on to your hats. Flavor. Yes, flavor. And not the normal flavor terms such as object specific taste. Apple flavor is a specific taste. Think about smooth, rich, tangy, bright, wrong and heavy to name a few. Then go one step further to include the misconceptions of young children as they confuse mouth feel with flavor. Think of flavors like crunchy, soft, gritty and tough and you’ll begin to be able to see how abstract this portion of flavor can be. At the beginning of this paragraph I wrote ‘Back to photography’, and now we are ready. Prints from negatives have different feels that can be described in flavors. Grain is either not there giving the print a smooth tasting feel, somewhat there, giving the print a crunchy flavored feel, or too much of an influence giving the print a gritty flavor feel. The moment that we change from one to the other is the same as in flavor; it’s an individually based feeling. My feeling about the gritty flavor comes sooner than by other people so I want as little grain as possible in my photos. Here is another flavor. 35 mm photography is also about taking pictures on the go. This sometimes results in blurred photos. On other occasions the blur is incorporated in the image as part of the statement. Blur is a type of smooth flavor. It reacts like the smoothness of chocolate or raw oysters. Some people like both, some none or only one. If you dislike one of the two or both, the flavor of the blurred photo’s reacts in the same way that something that tastes wrong will react. Lets look at some other flavors. Digital photos have a crunchy, bright flavor so long as the pixels are not intruding on the picture, or the different types of digital noise (JPEG compression artifacts, GIF color reduction effects) make their presence known. When they do, the flavor becomes metallic, and has a feeling of wood fiber. These two items are things that most people DON’T want in their mouths. Large format prints have a pleasantly crunchy, wonderfully smooth, favorite flavor feeling. They give people the start that they need to be able to enjoy the whole meal. That’s what large format negatives do. They give the viewer the chance to be able to see the subject of the photo, become involved in the scene that first caught the photographer’s eye, and find the statement that the photographer is trying to make. There were two other areas that were listed above. I’ll begin with the third item. The tripod is used because the photographer needs a stable platform for his camera while he or she is composing the picture, and during the exposure because the aperture of the large format lens is usually smaller than that of a 35 mm or middle format camera, necessitating longer shutter times. The audio engineer uses tripods and wire hangers to place his microphones. By using his experience and skill he can mike the instrument to make it sound correct. The engineer takes quite a lot into consideration when he makes these decisions. They are based upon the acoustics of the room and the amount of people that are to be present, to name a two of the variables. When he is done the engineer has a complete acoustic picture of the room where the recording will take place. What are these to the large format photographer? Movements. Movements allow the photographer to make use of the Scheimpflug rule in order to place the depth of field plain where he or she feels it to be correct, shift the lens minutely to obtain just the right relationship between the foreground and the background, and adjust the back in order to correct perspective problems or increase the repoussoir effect through visual distortion. This composition takes place on the ground glass, upside down and mirror reversed. The photographer uses this glass to compose the image; the world outside the black cloth has ceased to exist while this happens. Back to the audio engineer. He has used his skill based on technical knowledge, experience and feeling to be able to mike the instrument so that the music can be heard as interpreted by the musician and performed with that person’s unique style. Just as the audio engineer must make technical and aesthetic decisions in order to record music, the large format photographer must be able to use the skill and technical experience to build an image on the ground glass. Then, and only then can his or her personal feelings be put into the photo. In both cases the person creating the recording or photo must invest a large amount of time and experience into creating an audio or visual image so that the viewer or listener is only required to listen to or look at the image in order to enjoy hearing or seeing the result of all that work. There is only one difference between the audio engineer and the large format photographer. The engineer usually works together with a musician in order to make the recording, while the large format photographer must be both.   ©2002 R.C.B

Vision 4 Because Large Format Photography leads us in a new world, where our imagination and our creativity are the sole rules; where a great internal discipline establishes a new relationship with our subject, similar - in my opinion - to meditation. An unlimited control of the image allows us to create a new and unusual kind of reality. Then our images will be a translation of our inner world, an original and unrepeatable message. Then Photography become the creation of an image as fine art. M.V

Vision 5 John, great question. When I think of working in large format vs. medium, small... or, even digital cameras, I first think of reflection. Reflection is a meditative process of looking at my subject, the light, and determining what is transcendent and timeless in the image I am trying to create. How can I capture its essence and print it demonstrating these qualities in the finished image? Above all, it brings a painterly process to photography. Personally I enjoy participating in the rich provenance of creating photographic images in a large format and then working with the papers, the chemistry, and the controls. Lastly within the large format process there is always chance that plays a role in creating a great image. When everything comes together there are so many variables and choices that one makes, it is this process creates all images uniquely. K.G

Vision 6 The pleasure derived of the use of a large format camera is immensibly bigger than the digital working method. The actual placing, handling of the camera, mounting it on a tripod and adjusting all the levers, knobs and other tactile bits that this LF camera offers my hands and brain is a buzz compared to the rather aimless and reckless balancing and almost dropping a little box with a lens on it. The desired image appaers in a condensed little viewfinder with the digital camera, sometimes the LCD screen offers the photographer no information outside in bright sunlight. The LF camera offers no information either in bright sunlight outside, a black cloth over my head suddenly brings a beauty on my groundglass that stuns my eye and brain. To capture that image my way, with my hands, my adjustments and my selection of lenses. The thrill that I can make the image instead that an electronic interpolation makes my image visible is far more rewarding. I feel I am in control and I am the master of the image, not the battery power of the digital camera. R.v.d.V

Vision 7 For the past several years I've concentrated on photographs of the forests, farms, fields, flowers, seasides and towns of the southern NJ shore area. This comes directly from my love of this area and these subjects, and also from a feeling that the tradition of landscape photography in America has paid somewhat lopsided attention to the mountains and deserts of the west, at the expense of the subtler beauties to be found farther east. The deepest forests and estuaries of the east coast are not wilderness, they're preserves dependent on human intervention for their continued existence. I'm fascinated by the land and the sea. I'm drawn to simple subjects rather than to the spectacular or unusual or tourist vacation photos. The most ordinary empty field to some, can seem impossibly beautiful to me in the right weather. A man alone in a rowboat fishing in the fog engulfed marshes is practicing his "craft" as am I practicing mine by "catching" him on film or a digital flash card. Often it takes many return visits to a location before I find exactly the right conditions to make the photograph I'd hoped for. Sometimes it doesnt. I get it right the first and only time Im there. ("Kat, you were there before in a prior life, I can tell by the photos..") Other times I stumble on a perfect situation without warning and the challenge is to capture this "time" before it disappears. Sometimes its just a change in the light, a sudden rain, or a dusting of snow to make it special. Sometime its out of sheer boredom with nothing else to do except lug around tons of camera equipment in a knapsack, while riding a bicycle to take some photos. The challenge then is to craft a final print that conveys the sense of that particular moment. Many months before purchasing a LF camera, I "retrogressed" to thirty or forty favorite prints from my past, and, remembered the situation in which each picture was made, I imagined taking the picture as if I had to set up a tripod and a folding view camera. How many of my best pictures would I have been able to take? The percentage was high. I was undoubtedly justified in considering adding another format. I also did the same exercise with photographs I didnt take but which I admired and might desire to emulate. I was charmed by the quality of a friends large format field camera work and hell bent on returning to/progressing to.. a large format camera, for my own creativity, ever since looking through and touching his. (it was those little levels on the sides.... so virgo/libra perfect/balance.) ;) So...While thinking about "giving it a try", John, I remembered the first camera I looked through. It was my Dad's twin lens Rollicord, (that I still use on occasion.) I had to be about 4 or 5 years old, and the world was upside down and backwards. Still is. :) C.S

Vision 8 I'm glad you finally ask. I have been looking for an outlet for my thoughts on large format for some time. But first a disclaimer: I have great respect for digital imaging. I have observed - even created with a borrowed digital camera - some elegant pictures. I believe digital photography is in its very early developmental phase and will some day become the completely separate utilitarian medium it pretends today. When I wish to produce art, photographically, my personal preference is black and white images. This is very personal and deserves no argument. At 7 years, I began with my father's Kodak "Tourister" 6x9. At 17 years I worked part time for a local photographer learning the large format techniques. Following the trends of the day, bought my first 36mm Kodak Signet (still have it) primarily for color transparencies. At 22 years - a Ziess Ikon Contax, and when the shutter became economically unrepairable, a Nikon FM2 (still used). Somehow color print and even transparency work was not satisfying especially when referring to my very early work. Then it was back to the future and large format. I began to display and sell (limited) work locally. I now have total control of all aspects of the art except the production of film and paper. Working with digital cameras and software in my real profession of engineering, I gained a great respect for digital technology. I could not have done my work (submarine sea trials) without it. But when I got home I wanted to get as far from the crt and keyboard as possible. In November my brother-in-law brought his digital camera to visit. Together we made a few images around the house. We deemed one particularly attractive image of a group of roses (still hanging on in spite of the season) worthy of manipulation and printing. My "old" 486 computer (circ. 1998) could not handle the initial download. My wife had just purchased a new state-of-the-art Pentium-4, 128 Mb, scanner, color printer, bells and whistles machine. It did the work - sort of. Eventually it produced a gorgeous color print, but at a price. Her software, which came in the package, required an upgrade. The printer used about 1/4 of the ink in both cartridges. So after $20 ink, $5 paper, $200 upgrades, $2000 computer, $600 camera we got our image which may or not last 10 years. Will I be able to access the image on the CDR in ten years? Who can say? Will I need to continually upgrade computer hardware and software and back up the image onto future media? Most certainly! How much more will it cost? Probably a lot. Then it occurred to me: I can produce a new image with my $200 Speed Graphic on $.50 piece of film, print it on my $200 enlarger with a $100 lens on $1 sheet of paper, using maybe $.25 worth of chemicals, with only a little more time investment, and no upgrades required. I can also take a negative made in 1953 and in 30 minutes have a print with no upgrades in 49 years. Will my grandson be able to print the rose image in 2051? Couple the above with the satisfaction of handling fine mechanical devices and messing about with chemical formulae - that is the reason I prefer large format "wet" photography. But I also intend to employ Nina's computer soon to make masks and large format negatives for some alternative processes. I love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like...creativity! Dr bob.

Vision 9 Your question is very difficult in it's apparent simplicity. I took long to digest it and I am not sure the answer is equally thoroughly accomplished as the question was. Why does one use an old-fashioned camera and an old fashioned method of self expression such as chemicals-based photography? The first answer which comes to mind is because I am "old-fashioned" myself, I am not that old but I am 43 and formed myself as a photographer in the late seventies of last century. I mean, although I understand new methods I am fundamentally linked to the expectations and dreams I had back then. Photography has changed a lot but I still am on the path which I took at the time. It is amazing how progressive ideas become in different perspective almost conservative. So, I guess: if the path I undertook many years ago was projected, at the time, in the future; by staying on the same path I'll be, I am afraid to say, at some stage, stuck in the past. Is this bad or good? It depends on my attitude towards the new, if I let the new live alongside the old, whether I partake or not to bot processes, I am living the old keeping an open eye for the time I live in. This is good because we don't need to take part to everything to appreciate whatever this things are. It is also unavoidable to look at the past as a form of a Proustian Recherche. Some great people are able to renew themselves as the phoenix and be re-born from time to time into a new creative life, most of us are already happy to be able fulfill some aspirations , perfecting the movements, as if a Zen research, finding new reasons of doing what we do in streamlining and smoothening the old ways rather than exploring new ways every day. I realize this things I wrote sound confusing but I never pretended to have clarity among my goals here, I am just thinking aloud including you all in my thinking. I certainly know why I like large format. I like it because it is slow and gives me the time to think, I like it because it is difficult and calls for discipline which I wouldn't normally like in life but that I more than willingly accept as part of the process. I like it because I am a snob and I can't help that. I like it because the gear is beautiful and I like things of beauty. But if you really ask my: "Why do you do what you do ", I am afraid I really have to say : " I don't know! Do you? " A.M

Vision 10 LF is more intense. LF is clearer. LF is more deliberate. I don't take snapshots I make images (pompous I know but making images is what this is about). Every negative reflects a moment of communication between the subject and me, this is a personal form of expression, this is me exploring the place where I live. LF is clearer because the negative records more information than smaller formats and digital is not even in the same ball park. Digital is another media separate from analog because the end result is not light sensitive and is not as clear visually. The pixilated reproduction is incapable of the truly continuous tone negative. So you can kiss clarity good bye. I take time and spend time exploring the angles of my subject. I will return several times to see what else can be learned about that subject in different light and weather conditions. It's like rewriting and composing a theme. I have 600+ negatives from one project stored in three binders. I would never throw any of these negatives out but certainly do not have the storage necessary for digital images of this magnitude. Photography is personal and LF is hands on, I touch the film, the camera, the lens, the holders, the paper, the chemistry and the mounting of each print, this is personal from start to finish. Not a keyboard and monitor and in the end still only getting what a machine can duplicate. This old dog knows some of the new tricks and just is not interested. G.P

Vision 11 What I originally and rather obtusely was getting at is this: What could draw people to large format photography are probably the same things which attract people to other art creation methods. Study how the related arts get people involved in those crafts and see if they might not apply to Large Format work. My working assumption is that people who are used to instant gratification might not be attracted to LF work no matter how much you try to 'educate' them about the craft. Or, slow the culture down (ie: stop running from thing to thing) and you might have a chance to gain people's attention to deliver your 'message'. Related comment: Prior to around 1980 many Ferrari owners liked to work on their toys and were proficient mechanics. Around 1980 there was a huge transition to Ferrari owners who knew nothing of the mechanics and sought the 'image' and 'status' that those cars supposedly radiated. The local dealership loved to see mechanic/owners come in to place orders for parts because they could talk 'mano a mano', as it were. There was some perceived level of appreciation between all parties. The new breed of Ferrari owner had no such appreciation for the things they'd just paid huge sums of money for and would say stupid things like "It's broke. Fix it. I'll be by to pick it up later today..." This story was related to me when I lived in Hollywood in the early '80's. C.M.P

Vision 12 The choice of both words might just be appropriate as stated. I use the 8x10 because I want the best quality for a print that size I can afford. Nothing beats a contact print. In a time of "smaller, faster, cheaper", where is "best"? Additionally, I enjoy the esthetic of the fine wood of the camera, and the challenge of having to work carefully, both in the darkroom and in the field, to get the image that I want. Ansel Adams said in an interview that if photographers had to work as hard at making a print as a painter or sculptor, there might be a higher quality of work being done. The challenge of the medium is what can lead to better work. In this way it is like setting a basketball goal at 5 feet high so that everyone can dunk. There is something to be said for the old-fashioned work ethic leading to achievement. This is in no way intended to denigrate the difficulty of working with a digital camera or the challenges of Photoshop--both require effort and present a challenge. I just feel that for the images I want to make, the 8x10 contact print is the way to go. M.C.D

Vision 13 Interesting question, with some presuppositions that should be dealt with. First, to be clear, I'll define Large Format photography as *employing* sheet film, (generally having) front lens movements, and a medium at least 4" x 5" in size. This will include the greatest amount of equipment to suit the thoughts below. You used the phrase "in an age", which reveals a way of thinking. It's a common assumption of our modernity that newer is better; that all who don't adopt the newer methods are Luddites; that time determines both truth and value. In some aspects, certainly not in all aspects, Large Format photography provides a creative venue that its artistic predecessor, canvas painting, does not: An impression of reality is captured with amazing detail. In the same way, the single image, image size, and mechanism's movements available provide other significant advantages over its smaller-format counterparts. Shift, tilt, frame-by-frame exposure options, and so much more, allow gathering onto the medium more of exactly what the photographer desires. Certainly Large Format lacks in the convenience of its roll-film counterparts as well as the creativity of canvas painting. It remains in the middle niche, allowing for more some unique advantages that are unconquerable by either. In that it will remain. I intentionally used the term "medium" instead of "film". Even with a digital back, the mechanical and detail facilities remain, with their subsequent advantages. Lafge Format will certainly adjust (not evolve) with the changing medium technologies. It will remain Large Format, no matter what the medium. (As a parallel analogy: Just as with changes in the tool requirements for making a living, some Amish have telephones in the barn and use power tools in furniture construction. Yet their lifestyle is still distinctive--they are still Amish.) Is Large Format better than either of the other two? At what it can accomplish, there's no question. C.B

Vision 14 Yes, make me suffer.. Force me to get up before dawn and drive 2 hours, then freeze my butt setting up my Sinar to get the composition just so, and waiting for the light to get just so... And frantically makes three exposures during the two minutes the light is just right... Then force me to go into the darkroom and suffer the tortures of the damned pouring smelly chemicals all over myself... Then force me to endlessly wash fiber based prints, and dry them, and spot them... And maybe even have to reshoot the images becasue I'm not satisfied... You are really cruel, when I could just use PhotoShop, steal a few images off the internet, manipulate them in the computer, add a tree, fix the waistline, add a highlight here, some texture screen there, change the colors, and spit it out on the printer in 5 minutes flat... And some 15 year old with pimples could do it even faster... But, the cruelest thing of all would be to force me to hang that piece of photoshop garbage on my wall and have to look at it.. Hypo

Vision 15 The 100+ year old view camera is still state-of-the-art. In this age of electronic gadgetry, there is still no other camera that provides the control of focus plane and perspective that the view camera does. The film plane may be replaced with CCD or scanner, but the view camera will still be used when the control is needed. G.F

Vision 16 When I take up my LF Camera, I change into an inner man, I am the sole creator I have a tool that will give me the freedom of expression I will dictate each and every decision and control the tool to do my bidding I am like the painter, the camera is my brush, the negative is my canvas, my eye will see and I will compose, I am visualising an image that I am creating in my mind I challenge and stimulate my brain to analyse the components to acquire the exposure, the limits of focus, I am painting with my mind. I am in total control of the negatives destiny. Then the joy as I illuminate the processed negative and see the small nuances of tone and detail that I have created my knowledge of light and chemistry have given me an image that will go on to give me more joy when I see the negative turn to a positive image of what I first saw, it gives a feeling of achievement that can not be obtained by modern cameras that do what some one in Japan thinks is correct nor by any automated digital transfer of dots. K.N

Vision 17 Why LF? Well for my self its the handcraft. Its a feeling you make something with your hands and brain. Its also a reason to get out there, maybe places you would not have gone to with out camera. Its also a mader off relaxing like fishing, trying to catch something without ruch. The feeling when taking up your newly developed film and have the first look at it, try that with a digital camera! For me its a feeling off summer and spring. During winter its more darkroom. Also its a mather off technical posebileties raising,tilting and so on. Well I think you got my point. B.N

Vision 18 Large format is a fine spiritual discipline, a way of living. No matter how you "see" it, it sees and seize's you. It is like fine wine - mature, sweet and lovable . Also profoundly satisfying to him whom has practiced it. ( Nevertheless I do believe newcomers will be scarce, Photoshop can wreck havoc on scanned -usually- unparralel vanishing lines). Its a question of the "instant gratification" society. Fast and more or less..., or a sense of being alive. A poster cmyk repro or a fine print- it's all in the touch. Then again I play around with Platinum... over 120 years old... besides lugging around batteries is not my way of "peace of mind". Digital LF, fine, but it is not instant, at least between a couple of seconds and fractions... maybe the future will have it's strongholds... it is a choice. Vision, that all important inside word, will be impared, and to those few that this will not be a handicap will still be using LF techniques,and ways of doing, no doubt, but you will have to master still another craft- and lug around with it. I for one enjoy new tools and new opportunities, still high quality- very high quality is the domain of LF whether in silver or pixels, and only in LF. " Let the world shout said the Alchemist, listen to your heart.... but do not forget you are in the desert" G.B

Vision 19 I am not sure that I can agree with your statement ablot large format photography being retrogressive. Sometime during the '60s, after being out of photography for a few years, I got "hooked" again. I commenced the 35 mm journey with some medium format thrown in for variety. All this time I kept a 2 1/4 darkroom and a B22 enlarger. This "camara collecting" lasted to the early '90s. All this time, I was remembering my Crown Graphic days. Finally, I bit the bullet and went back to a 4x5 cameras and darkroom. Why bother? Well, simply put, it is what photography is all about. Now I can get lost in the picture and not the equipment. Fussing with a cranky bellows, trying to remember whether or nt I put the dark slide in correctly or not, and in general all the things that must be done to get an exposure. These are the things that work for me. I could ramble on for hours but I am sure that not whet you wanted. I'll cut this short as my eyes are not too good and it bothers me to type a lot. J.A

Vision 20 Why? I must admit that the technique of LF photography looks obsolete if you compare it to the speed and ease of, say, digital photography. But it only looks like that, and only to uncustomed eye... When I show my prints, people very rarely ask me about my camera or other technical aspects. When they look at my photographs they are so taken by the subject that they usually forget that it is only a two dimensional image they are looking at (if I have succeeded)! Large format slows me down, gives a chance to check and recheck everything there is at the groundglass. I can observe the groundglass image with both eyes at the same time while keeping my hands behing my back, or sitting comfortably. It is so slow to rig the camera that when I'm finally ready to expose, I can have a luxurious moment of discipline and help my model to relax more, or I can wait for better light if I'm outdoors. Time works with me, not against me. Isn't that something? One drawback I have to mention - the LF images have such a quality that whatever you do, the next step always degrades some of that quality, be it scanning, printing, or any other means of translating those unbearably beautiful tonal values to another media. T.R

Get your hands dirty"

© 2002 John D. esq