The View Camera !

Morrisseeee

After a conversation with a 'Film' amateur photographer today, he was amazed I didn't know more about Ansel Adams. Now Adams has become my new favourite photographer/icon !! (after Valentia & Borderfox that is.. ).
Anyway I was reading up on the camera he once used, it was the View Camera, see here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/sfeature/sf_camera_flash.html

So I'm just wondering if anybody, professionally or otherwise, use these or similar type cameras, or is it all a bit painstaking ?

ThOnda

Well, Fajitas does show off with his LARGE format camera, like here at Charleville Castle. But I will always repeat - the size does not matter!

Rojo

Size so does matter!



Mmmmm large format...

DaireQuinlan

I've built a medium format one which takes 120 in kiev backs and a mamiya c330 lens stuck on the front. Full movements. Never finished the bellows for it. With a normal bellows I got no movements and I never managed to source material for a bag bellows. The one I built was a monorail camera. Normally landscape photogs that use these would use a trail camera which folds up a little more neatly. At the moment I'm in the middle of building an 8x10. Hopefully at some point I'll get that finished. I plan to shoot straight onto 8x10 paper. Economy reasons, 8x10 film is ludicrously expensive (though not as expensive as fajita's 4x5 type 55 it has to be said :eek: )

Fajitas!

I've the press camera in the pic linked above and a 4x5 pinhole camera aswell, and access to a 4x5 view camera with full movements & a digital back...

That said, I really don't understand people's fascination with Adams, that's a different story though.

DaireQuinlan

Fajitas! wrote: »

That said, I really don't understand people's fascination with Adams, that's a different story though.

Oh C'mon ! He was the quintessential B&W landscape photographer. If his stuff looks a bit conventional and stuffy nowadays its because he's been damned by his own popularity. He was probably the first photographer to actually get up and trek into the wilds dragging a camera along with him, back when cameras weighed god knows how much.

Well, the first to do it and then publicise it, I'm aware that there's a large element of self-promotion in Adams' background aswell. I remember reading about another photographer who was doing much the same thing as adams at the time, but adams successfully managed to practically destroy his reputation and block him from exhibiting, because he saw him as a threat. That could be overblown though, I'll have to look that up ...

In addition to that he formalised the whole process of taking a picture, all the way from metering, to making the exposure, through to development of the negative and then the print, in a way that no one had done before either, and then wrote all that accumulated knowledge down so everyone could take advantage of it. Thats probably why he's respected so much amongst photographers as well as the general public.

Phototoxin

That said, I really don't understand people's fascination with Adams, that's a different story though.

I dunno his zone method doenst seem too profound and seems like a lot of effort. Ok they are good photographs but so are lots of other ones.

In addition to that he formalised the whole process of taking a picture, all the way from metering, to making the exposure, through to development of the negative and then the print, in a way that no one had done before either, and then wrote all that accumulated knowledge down so everyone could take advantage of it. Thats probably why he's respected so much amongst photographers as well as the general public.

So he wrote down what everyone did first.. it makes him a clever author as opposed to a photographer.

*is unimpressed*

Fajitas!

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Oh C'mon ! He was the quintessential B&W landscape photographer. If his stuff looks a bit conventional and stuffy nowadays its because he's been damned by his own popularity. He was probably the first photographer to actually get up and trek into the wilds dragging a camera along with him, back when cameras weighed god knows how much.

Well, the first to do it and then publicise it, I'm aware that there's a large element of self-promotion in Adams' background aswell. I remember reading about another photographer who was doing much the same thing as adams at the time, but adams successfully managed to practically destroy his reputation and block him from exhibiting, because he saw him as a threat. That could be overblown though, I'll have to look that up ...

In addition to that he formalised the whole process of taking a picture, all the way from metering, to making the exposure, through to development of the negative and then the print, in a way that no one had done before either, and then wrote all that accumulated knowledge down so everyone could take advantage of it. Thats probably why he's respected so much amongst photographers as well as the general public.

But... he was just plain boring...

As far as I know, there were plenty of photographers up the wilds, I think they just resisted the dark red filter a lot more than adams. Technically, he is a fantastic photographer, but you've got to admit... hella boring :pac:

DaireQuinlan

Phototoxin wrote: »

So he wrote down what everyone did first.. it makes him a clever author as opposed to a photographer.
*is unimpressed*

Well, it makes him good author AND a good photographer. He didn't just write down 'what everyone did first', he documented extensively his own enormous experience with the process of taking pictures, down to the minutaie of selecting particular prints and going through step by step how he'd shot it, what he'd done to bring out particular details from the negative to achieve precisely the effect he wanted in the darkroom etc etc. I mean, sure, be unimpressed, but he was enormously influential in developing the process as we know it today.

DaireQuinlan

Fajitas! wrote: »

But... he was just plain boring...

As far as I know, there were plenty of photographers up the wilds, I think they just resisted the dark red filter a lot more than adams. Technically, he is a fantastic photographer, but you've got to admit... hella boring :pac:

I think he's overrated to an extent, partly because of the status to which he's been elevated. It depends on what your thing is though. I find some of his B&W landscapes astonishing. I find some of his more intimate pueblo shots quite interesting. If you're into candid portraiture or spontaneous street shots then yeah you're not going to find anything in his work, but horses for courses as they say ...

Fajitas!

but horses for courses as they say ...

Definitely

No, being honest, I can see how his level of technical profession and perfection is wholly appealing, I just think it's that success that's also so unappealing. Avoiding my like for photographs of people, whether that be candid or posed, I've never been able to like his work.

ThOnda

Well, he was good photographer and master of post-processing. I like lots of his images. But I wouldn't buy them.

The good thing about large format for portraits is that you can charge horribly huge amount of money for laaarge prints - because you have fully manual, biiig, ancient camera. Well, if you know how to sell it to rich and stupid customers, who like only what is very expensive. And yes, we have at least one in the Czech Republic. His last project was going to Moscow to make portraits of their millionaires. Price of one portrait is estimated $15,000.00. But that information has NOT been confirmed.

But still, it is a PHOTOGRAPHY with large format. I wish I could give it a go at least once.

And no, size does NOT matter!

DaireQuinlan

Fajitas! wrote: »

No, being honest, I can see how his level of technical profession and perfection is wholly appealing,

Heyyyyy, I see what you did there ! I also happen to like the actual pictures you know :pac: