Less Panoramic Action.

User avatar
Maris
Posts: 882
Joined: 27 Jul 2012, 16:02
Location: Noosa

Less Panoramic Action.

Postby Maris » 29 Aug 2012, 09:56

I've been gazing at those wonderful panoramas in the previous post and wondering at the special vision needed to do them. I can't see the world that way. A quick look through my recent work shows a fair majority of landscapes are in the vertical "portrait" format. The classic parallel is the long tradition of Chinese hanging scroll landscapes that dispense with geometric perspective and merely arrange foreground to distance in a bottom to top sequence. It's a way of addressing from "here" to "there"; from where I'm standing to where I'm looking.

The movements of a well specified view camera allow for back tilt which exaggerates the foreground and makes it loom toward the viewer. Sometimes the toe-caps of my boots are just below the bottom edge of the frame. Here is an example:
Image
Moonrise, Sunshine Beach
Gelatin-silver photograph on Kodak Fine Art VC FB photographic paper, image size 24.5cm X 19.6cm, from an 8x10 Kodak Tmax 400 negative exposed in a Tachihara 810HD triple extension field view camera fitted with a 300mm f5.6 Fujinon-W lens and a #25 red filter.

mark l
Posts: 31
Joined: 30 Jul 2012, 09:20

Re: Less Panoramic Action.

Postby mark l » 29 Aug 2012, 10:09

Maris,
I know where you're coming from, I had thought for years of going panoramic, until a mate lent me an x-pan, and I just could not get on with the letter-box format, it always felt like I was taking a slice of a good photograph and missing out on the sky in particular. I was going to get a 6x12 back for the 4x5 and then realised if I just printed a slice of a 4x5 I could pick which part of the image to print, so I could for instance print the top half and get instant rising front, only thing was I found because I composed full frame I never printed any panoramas, so that was a good theory blown up, at least it saved me money. Then I thought instead of buying a 4x10 camera I would make a 4x10 back for my sinar, started the project and then rather decided I just like the full frame 8x10 and 4x5.
Some people just don't see in panoramic format.
In fact recently I've been using a Rolleiflex a lot and printing the square format full frame and discovered that suits my eye better, am considering masking my 8x10 to 8x8 and printing that way. Always learning, particularly about myself.
Like the photo by the way, always was a sucker for that looming foreground that;'s exclusive to large format.
all the best, Mark

Lachlan717
Posts: 505
Joined: 03 Aug 2012, 16:49

Re: Less Panoramic Action.

Postby Lachlan717 » 29 Aug 2012, 10:26

95%+ of my shooting is panoramic - ranging from an Xpan, through 6x17cm and finishing at 7x17", so I guess that I'm nearly the polar opposite.

But here's the weird thing: when I do shoot 4x5, it is exclusively in portrait orientation. I have never shot 4x5 in landscape. Just the thought of shooting in landscape turns my stomach somewhat. I just don't like the proportions. I have even thought about putting a gridline on the GG to mask off an inch to make it square format…

I do shoot mainly very wide to wide lenses. so maybe it's something to do with that?

I plan to buy a decent 8x10 sometime soon, and look forward to doing some beach shooting with Mark's "looming foregrounds".


Return to “Places”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests