>> |
ac
>>41586 No, I meant 20x24. People did, in fact, take pictures on 20x24 glass plates at one time. Not, you know, a *lot*, since it required you to have a strapping young lad just to carry around your "film"--not to mention all of the developing supplies to let you use a wet plate in the field--but people still did it.
>It's just too easy for some kid at the mall to take a photo and think he's the next gary winogrand. Put some work into your work. So said the 8x10 users when upstarts shooting on little 4x5 negatives started showing up. So said the 4x5 users when upstarts shooting on little 6x6cm negatives started showing up. So said the 6x6 users when upstarts shooting on little 35mm negatives started showing up. So said the people who always manually metered and focused their 35mm cameras when autoexposure, autofocus cameras started appearing.
I'm not sure what's going to come along and make photography easier than digital, but when it does, I'm sure there will be some luddites saying that you're not a real photographer unless you're shooting on an honest-to-goodness CMOS chip rather than those newfangled whatever-comes-nexts.
Yes, most artists doing landscapes and whatnot are using at least medium format, if not view cameras. But street photographers and journalists and documentary photographers have all gone digital. You can bet your ass that if Winogrand were alive today, he'd have been first in line to get a Leica M8. The way he shot, it would have started saving him money the second day.
|