8x10 in the New York Times Magazine

[Helen B]

The Power of the 8-by-10 Film Camera - NYTimes.com

 

[amolitor]

Interesting that he talks about working under the dark cloth so much, but the moment of exposure comes later. For me, I think that's got to be one of the biggest factors in shooting people with large format, the actual moment of exposure is so subtle, so anti-climactic, that you're likely to get, if not a more interesting, at least a different perspective on the subject.

Rustling around under the dark cloth certainly sets the mood, I will grant. They have time to get comfortable with the scene, slightly, and take in some of the big beast, and get over their "ha ha, what a funny looking old camera" thing.

I do object to the art world's fetish for large format. The curators and journalists always seem to want to turn it into a gimmick.

 

[tirediron]

Thanks Helen! Great article.

Amolitor: Fetish????

 

[amolitor]

What I mean is that any coverage I see of large format always has a sort of fetishistic feel to it. Not like sexual, or particularly obsessive, but "worshipful of the object for its magical powers" type of fetishism. The reporter, the curators, whatever, act as if the large format camera and the process around it is soooo awesome. Partly I suppose it's a byproduct of conceptual art; they're elevating process over results. The process is certainly interesting, but personally don't feel that it's any "better" than using a cell phone camera (although they might get woozy over that too -- it's the mainstream ordinary camera that gets short shrift). It's just different.

 

[tirediron]

Have you ever worked with large-format film? It's not fetish-istic or obessesive; it really is that good, plain and simple.

 

[Derrel]

What I mean is that any coverage I see of large format always has a sort of fetishistic feel to it. Not like sexual, or particularly obsessive, but "worshipful of the object for its magical powers" type of fetishism. The reporter, the curators, whatever, act as if the large format camera and the process around it is soooo awesome. Partly I suppose it's a byproduct of conceptual art; they're elevating process over results. The process is certainly interesting, but personally don't feel that it's any "better" than using a cell phone camera (although they might get woozy over that too -- it's the mainstream ordinary camera that gets short shrift). It's just different.

I AM ALMOST POSITIVE you have never peered through a top-quality loupe at an 8x10 chrome atop a quality lightbox... if you think 8x10 is more about "proces" than results, you're sadly misinformed. The abilities that an 8x10 camera with full movements give to a skilled view camera photographer are amazing; and, in the hands of a skilled shooter, 8x10 sheet film and 8x10 cameras regularly produce results that are indeed "sooooo awesome" that they make people truly relish viewing images made using that process. Of course, if one has not flown...one's descripition of flying us pretty hollow...so I can understand why you write about 8x10 as if it's cell phone photography.

Next week, I am doing a blog entry on lunar walks, and how pedestrian they truly are...lunar walks are just like walking around on Earth--but you WEIGH a LOT LESS, is all.

 

[amolitor]

I have and I do.

I understand pretty thoroughly what it is and is not good at, and I am not talking about the kind of image quality that can be obtained from it. What I am talking about this the apparent artistic merit that working in LF supposedly brings. I am talking about the attitude art journalists and art curators seem to bring when they talk about it.

Yes, LF is interesting and different, yes it brings the effective pixels in spades. Yes, wiggles are great. Yes, the contact print looks and feels qualitatively different and more buttery than anything else. I truly get that.

None of this is really what I'm talking about, though.

I'm talking about the way the commentators elevate the process over the result. It bugs me, that's all.

EDIT: Derrel, you're a scholar and a gentleman, a fine fellow, but how on earth did you so badly misread me? I am not elevating process over results, I am complaining that OTHER people are, and I wish they would not!

 

[jake337]

What I mean is that any coverage I see of large format always has a sort of fetishistic feel to it. Not like sexual, or particularly obsessive, but "worshipful of the object for its magical powers" type of fetishism. The reporter, the curators, whatever, act as if the large format camera and the process around it is soooo awesome. Partly I suppose it's a byproduct of conceptual art; they're elevating process over results. The process is certainly interesting, but personally don't feel that it's any "better" than using a cell phone camera (although they might get woozy over that too -- it's the mainstream ordinary camera that gets short shrift). It's just different.

I AM ALMOST POSITIVE you have never peered through a top-quality loupe at an 8x10 chrome atop a quality lightbox... if you think 8x10 is more about "proces" than results, you're sadly misinformed. The abilities that an 8x10 camera with full movements produce results that are indeed "sooooo awesome" that they make people truly relish viewing images made using that process.

Nothing like a shoulders up portrait at nearly 1:1..

 

[jake337]

I have and I do.

I understand pretty thoroughly what it is and is not good at, and I am not talking about the kind of image quality that can be obtained from it. What I am talking about this the apparent artistic merit that working in LF supposedly brings. I am talking about the attitude art journalists and art curators seem to bring when they talk about it.

Yes, LF is interesting and different, yes it brings the effective pixels in spades. Yes, wiggles are great. Yes, the contact print looks and feels qualitatively different and more buttery than anything else. I truly get that.

None of this is really what I'm talking about, though.

I'm talking about the way the commentators elevate the process over the result. It bugs me, that's all.

EDIT: Derrel, you're a scholar and a gentleman, a fine fellow, but how on earth did you so badly misread me? I am not elevating process over results, I am complaining that OTHER people are, and I wish they would not!

I get what you are trying to convey. I just love the final images produced from them.

 

[Derrel]

What I mean is that any coverage I see of large format always has a sort of fetishistic feel to it. Not like sexual, or particularly obsessive, but "worshipful of the object for its magical powers" type of fetishism. The reporter, the curators, whatever, act as if the large format camera and the process around it is soooo awesome. Partly I suppose it's a byproduct of conceptual art; they're elevating process over results. The process is certainly interesting, but personally don't feel that it's any "better" than using a cell phone camera (although they might get woozy over that too -- it's the mainstream ordinary camera that gets short shrift). It's just different.

Uhhhh, so "I misread you", eh???? You say that you, " personally don't feel that it's any "better" than using a cell phone camera (although they might get woozy over that too -- it's the mainstream ordinary camera that gets short shrift). It's just different.[/QUOTE]

Dude...you are trying to blame ME for mis-reading you? Perhaps you might go back and re-read what you wrote and ponder possible meaning(s) your readers might take away from your flippant dismissals and casual,broad, pejorative statements equating 8x10 work with cell phone snappies. Perhaps????

Me, having misread YOU??? Sorry..I think the onus is on you...

 

[amolitor]

Gah, I refuse to get into a game of laboriously trying to explain what I meant every word.

I'm sorry I am not communicating clearly with you, Derrel, but what I meant was pretty much the exact opposite of what you (seem to) think I meant. Possibly I am failing to understand you as well, though.

 

[Derrel]

I am flying to New York next month to see Clyde Butcher's latest exhibit entitled "Florida's Unknown Everglades Treasures-- the iPhone 4 Murals." I can hardly wait to see what Clyde has managed to capture and to reveal to us all, after eleven months of wading through the 'glades in chest waders and packing that beast of an iPhone camera. I'm sure his chit's gonna be AWESOME!!!! Maybe we could meet up there in NYC and down a fifth of tequila together, say at some bar near the gallery!

[ Clyde Butcher - Black and White Fine Art Photographer ]

 

[amolitor]

Ho ho ho, good one, Derrel.

In the sentence:

"The process is certainly interesting, but personally don't feel that it's any "better" than using a cell phone camera"

which you carefully edited when you quoted it, what does the word "better" refer to? Hint, it's in the bit you edited out. Does it refer to image quality? Does it refer to the images at all?

 

[jamesbjenkins]

What I mean is that any coverage I see of large format always has a sort of fetishistic feel to it. Not like sexual, or particularly obsessive, but "worshipful of the object for its magical powers" type of fetishism. The reporter, the curators, whatever, act as if the large format camera and the process around it is soooo awesome. Partly I suppose it's a byproduct of conceptual art; they're elevating process over results. The process is certainly interesting, but personally don't feel that it's any "better" than using a cell phone camera (although they might get woozy over that too -- it's the mainstream ordinary camera that gets short shrift). It's just different.

Uhhhh, so "I misread you", eh???? You say that you, " personally don't feel that it's any "better" than using a cell phone camera (although they might get woozy over that too -- it's the mainstream ordinary camera that gets short shrift). It's just different.

Dude...you are trying to blame ME for mis-reading you? Perhaps you might go back and re-read what you wrote and ponder possible meaning(s) your readers might take away from your flippant dismissals and casual,broad, pejorative statements equating 8x10 work with cell phone snappies. Perhaps????

Me, having misread YOU??? Sorry..I think the onus is on you...

blah blah blah, he said, he said, chest-puffing, "I'm right", "no, you're not"...

Good Lord, some people need to get over themselves and the value of their own opinion! I'm sure there are plenty of other forums where you can both argue pointless semantics all you like.

And back to the 8x10...

 

[amolitor]

You're right. I get testy when I try to make some simple point and people jump all over me for some imagined claim I did not make. Which, oddly enough, only seems to happen on TPF.

I will attempt to ignore it more often.