Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Let me preface this response by saying that I am unfamiliar wih Eggleston's work, but here is my modest contribution: >My guess is that if E******* had shot his pix on a larger format the >argument might have been somewhat different. I don't suppose he would have >won any new converts BUT I think perhaps people would have had to spend a >little longer looking at the pictures trying to work out what he (and >others) saw in them. I agree. Format has a lot to do with an audience's perception when they are aware of the size of the negative (though it is usually glaringly obvious to the sophisticated viewer). >The kicker is, of course the format is irrelevant in the end, and its the >picture that matters... I disagree. The format cooperates with the subject in many successful pictures. Think of how different a landscape by Adams, or a cityscape by George Tice would be in 35mm! Think of Edward Weston's pepper! The fact is that LF is capable of the highest level of raw photographic description. This allows sometimes banal subject matter to become sublime. The format informs the content. The opposite of this is when the subject matter is so powerful, so compelling as to allow us to overlook technical shortcomings in a photograph. These are the "decisive moment" shots. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com