>>2594080>why use a complex medium if you don't adress its possibilities? Medium format differs from 35mm not only by the negative size, but by the overall camera experience. That would be more clear if I compared 35mm to LF, as the difference is greater, but you can imagine that the experience of shooting from a waist-level finder is not the same as shooting eye-level.
>I mean, a medium idealy is a loose connection of elements, that is receptive and does not resist the force of form. I couldn't say better than that.
>The more variables a medium brings with it, the more complex it becomes and the more visible it gets. A complex medium usually takes part in the form it communicates.A bit the contrary. Sometimes, the medium being more complex, the message travels easier. In my workshops, I talk about the differences in composition, image-wise, on 35mm, MF and LF, summarily, being 35mm more graphical and flat, and LF being less (necessairly) graphical and less flat - though it can be used in that way as well. But I digress: think of analogy, sometimes being clear to express eufory in music through a whole chamber quartet, than it is by only a oboe ounding. The medium as catalyzer, not a container.
>should one perfect those variables to a certain aesthetic end (for which, one could imply, this medium was intended to serve), or should one rather try and let the medium dissappear, dissolve behind a strong form, as some of the pictures ITT would suggest.It will vary. For one such as Brett Weston, the technically-technical perfection drove him to his aesthetic; while another one such as Yamamoto Masao, let the medium dissolve. I think this variation is what one could call, by excellence, artistic conception.
