There were a number of postings I could have quoted in this thread, but
this one seems more appropriate:
At 02:50 8/21/99 , John Petrush wrote:
>Hehehehe, George, you just *know* folks are gonna bite on this one :)
<snip>
>Yes, 4x5 by virtue of its bulk and cost tends to be more contemplative and
>methodical. At a couple bucks a "click" one should be. There are a whole
>lot of steps that must be done correctly or the exposure is junk. Ever
<snip>
>image. The great drawback of 4x5 is it *requires* the photographer to
>absolutely control every aspect of the image.
>
>Our dear Olys, on the other hand, are light, nimble and much easier to use.
>It's pretty hard to lose your dark slide with one <g>. I've yet to see a
>motor drive for 4x5. They are a different class of tool. I'd never
>consider taking my 4x5 to shoot a motor race just as I would not use an OM
>for serious architectural work. Sure, there's plenty of subjects where
>either format is suitable, they also have their unique attributes.
<snip>
>pound sledge. As with hammers, the thinking photographer selects the right
>camera, film and accessories to achieve the desired final image visualized
>in his/her mind's eye.
<snip>
It *is* worth biting on. This cuts to the "Weltansicht" which is formed
more by induction than deduction (Euclid's induced Postulates of Geometry
versus the deduced theorems that follow). I will accept accusations of
abstraction with what follows; it is *deliberate.*
Format used and photographer behavior (photographs that result) begs the
long-standing and oft-heated feud within Social and Behavioral Biology:
"Nature versus Nurture." Its best and most compact comprehensive
discussion I have read: "Paradigms Lost;" Chapter 3, "I'ts in the Genes;"
by John L. Casti (1989, William L. Morrow and Co., New York).
Hypothesis: Photographic hardware (including film format size, emulsion
and base) is the genetic code which constrains photographer behavior (very
general subject, composition and photographic style).
Consider very early photography and look at the work that resulted. There
wasn't much to choose from in hardware which constrained (sometimes
severely) what *could* be done with the communication medium (art *is* a
form of communication, albeit quite abstract at times). The bulk of the
work is static and posed. In this respect hardware (including film
emulsion and base) is the genetic code and photographers could create
photographs only within its limitations. Contrast this with the
photojournalism starting in the 1930's and continuing through today. But
what drove it? Was it the hardware genetic code or did desired "behavior"
drive the hardware genetic code with a Darwinian effect on its evolution?
I would posit today the general relationship between behavior and hardware
is each drives the other. Unintended side effects (end users finding uses
for hardware developments the developers did not envision) and new behavior
desires (making do with a camel when one would like a horse) fuels the engine.
OTOH relationship between the specific hardware and behavior for a specific
end user will always produce exceptions. Within my repertoire of Rollei
35S, OM-4 (with lenses), Contax IIIa and Mamiya 645 I have found my
photography differs with each. The question becomes does the camera drive
the photography or does the photography drive camera selection. For me the
answer is both depending on what I have with me, the film in each body and
what I am trying to do. For you, the answer may be different.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|