Hi Norm ... I disagree completely. Numerous photogs have used large format cameras in similar situations, their point being to obtain an entirely different type of photo that could be obtained with a smaller, hand-held camera used more discretely. A different relationship exists between the photographer and the subjects. I also think your analogy is way off the mark.
Years ago, 1968-69 to be precise, I was a member of a photo co-op in San Francisco. we had a studio and darkroom facilities in the neighborhood where I'd been photographing the kids you've been seeing. One of the members of our group was Ray Belcher, who was a mentor to a few of us, and who used only large format cameras at the time. His smallest camera was an 8 x 10. We'd often go into certain areas of San Francisco to photograph. My girlfriend at the time, who was also a co-op member, had Nikon gear, I was, of course, a Pentax shooter ... Carol and i would burn lots of film during the course of one of these photo safaris, Ray would make one or two exposures, sometimes three. Apart from the technical qualities of his prints, the way he was able to capture the people we were photographing was substantially different. In general, there was more direct contact between ray and his subjects, as if they were connected by an invisible conduit. There was, to an extent, more formality in Ray's "street portraits," but after a while, when he became known in an area, the people loosened up, but there was still that invisible connection that showed more in ray's work than ours. It's a different kind of photography, perhaps formal environmental portraiture might be a good term for it. 35mm and medium format all have their place, as does large format, yet it's nice to see the results when a particular setup is used outside its usual arena of expectation. Shel Belinkoff > [Original Message] > From: Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I just think it's kind of bizarre to use an 8x10 in that setting, kinda > like using a howitzer to go deer hunting. > Norm
