Artistic photography is probably the only type of art that could not exist without equipment that is extremely precise and technically sophisticated. It is also the only art form where artwork is created solely with an eye, as opposed to sculpture and painting where eye-to-hand coordination is essential. It is worth mentioning that whatever photographer sees through a viewfinder greatly depends upon camera features: format, viewfinder design and optics used.
Anybody who is familiar with fine art photography knows iconic images of Ansel Adams with a view camera of a scary size, Henry Cartier-Bresson hiding his face behind a tiny toy-like Leica, or Helmut Newton crouching over his two-eyed Rolleiflex TLR. Obviously, a professional for whom a camera is not just an expensive toy, but also an instrument of trade, consciously chooses his or her photographic system. So, why one photographer chooses a cumbersome and heavy accordion-like apparatus and dives under a black blanket to compose and focus a photograph, another one takes pictures with a strange SLR producing awkward square pictures, and the third fellow focuses like a gunner with an aid of a split-image rangefinder, and he could not care less about a tiny size of his negatives? Certainly, such a phenomenon as an almost sexual affection for the camera experienced by almost every photographer could not be ignored, but it is not the only explanation.
One may think that photographers choose their cameras in accordance with their personal style. Partially this is the case. What is interesting, however, that the same photographer using different camera systems produces very different results. The reason is that the photographer finds a camera that suits him the best then learns how to use its features that are most appropriate for his style and work around its shortcomings. If he picks up a camera of an unfamiliar design the difference in results will inevitably be quite dramatic. In order to understand how it all works, let's analyze distinct features of different camera designs and their possible influence upon photographer's behavior and style of his work.
FORMAT 
Perhaps, format (film and frame size) is the most influential factor in shaping the style. As a rule, the smaller is the frame size, the lighter and more mobile the camera is. Hence, the more flexible and spontaneous the photographer can be. It is the ability to move fast, to be discreet, to adapt to changing shooting conditions that make most photojournalists and candid photographers prefer 35mm systems. Spontaneity is the main sign of good 35mm photography. As Sergey Maximishin, a well-known journalist said, half of a frame belongs to a photographer, but another half belongs to God himself.
An example of spontaneous photography taken to the extreme is so-called 'lomography'. It is an international cult movement created by enthusiasts who shoot with notorious LOMO-LCA. This camera is ideally suited for spontaneous photography: it is always ready, it is practically invisible because of its minute size and toy-like appearance, and it has a fast high quality lens. Lomographers never part with their cameras and shoot absolutely everything that they see. Pictures taken by some of these people who also happen to be good photographers have a rather curious property: they are reminiscent of jazz music in their spontaneity and ease of improvisation.
Medium format (commonly abbreviated as MF) often used by professional studio photographers noticeably surpasses 35mm in image quality, but this is not the only thing.
Most photographers who switch from 35mm to medium format maintain that the new system makes them work in a slower and more thoughtful fashion. It happens not only because MF cameras are heavier and more cumbersome. In addition to that, financial cost per image is substantially higher than with 35mm systems. Again, according to Sergey Maximishin, photography is a lottery, where every frame is a ticket, and in MF tickets are just too expensive. Interestingly, most MF photographers maintain that slower pace that their equipment commands is not a bad thing. Thoughtfulness, meticulousness and thorough attention to detail are substituted for spontaneity and mobility. For some, these qualities of medium format photography are most appealing, but they cause aversion in others. A good photographer is capable of combining advantages of medium format with spontaneity and improvisation, but it requires some effort.
Not everybody, however, uses medium format because he or she feels like it. Once I spoke with a rather well compensated wedding photographer who shoots Mamiya RZ 6x7, which is a formidable rig of enormous size and weight. I asked him why to go for all this trouble considering that most photographs delivered to his clients are never larger than 8x10"? 
Would not be far more convenient to use a smaller MF system, for instance Mamiya 645, or even a digital SLR? He replied that after paying $5000 for shooting a wedding ceremony, clients should see him working like a dog. Naturally, a bigger and heavier the camera makes a better visual proof that the work is indeed hard. No wonder that professional activities of this distinguished businessman have nothing in common with artistic photography, and body of his work is spectacular evidence to it. Photo artist does not need to show off, and creative process is as important for him as a final result. That is why he uses whatever equipment that is convenient and joy to use. It is very important to realize that spontaneity and improvisation, or thoughtfulness and precision do not make a photo good or bad.
Simply, one photographer is better at careful staging, but another one excels when shooting spontaneously. That is why comparing styles that 35mm and MF systems dictate is like trying to decide whether oranges are tastier than apples.
Among all types of photographic systems large format has its own special place. Cameras of this breed have unique features that make them absolutely unusable for any task that requires mobility (for instance, child portraiture or candid street photography), but ideal for fine art, landscapes and still life. Large format images have a special look due to unbelievable amount of detail and practically unlimited camera flexibility in perspective and depth of field control. Ability to measure exposure separately in different points of the film plane and to develop each image individually provides for level of shadow/highlight control impossible with any other format. Shallow depth of field inherent to large format commands very small working apertures and, consequently, slow shutter speeds, or very powerful light sources.
On the one hand, DOF limitations and precise perspective control make shooting without a tripod impossible (and I mean impossible), but on the other hand, lighting and content can be easily changed during long exposure. Do not jump into a conclusion that spontaneity if foreign to large format photography. It is indeed unfeasible to instantly compose a shot on a ground glass, or freeze a candid real-life moment, but it is possible to catch a minute change in lighting while shooting a landscape, or radically alter reality with multiple exposures. I would like to point out again that qualities of large format photography are not sufficient for creation of an artistic masterpiece. Bellows and 4x5" film are merely tools at artists' disposal, and, if used improperly, they result in very large and totally uninteresting negatives or transparencies.
VIEWFINDER DESIGN
It may seem strange at first, but such a small detail as viewfinder design has a huge influence on how the photographer composes a photograph. There are three major designs of optical viewfinders: ground glass, mirror-prism and rangefinder.
Ground glass is used mainly in large format, but also in waist-level finders of MF systems. Despite its substantial shortcomings (image is either turned upside-down, or mirrored, it requires a hood or a black cover for focusing) it is only ground glass that enables to see exactly what will be on a photograph. The photographer sees true DOF, framing and perspective, which gives him full control over these parameters. Strangely, flipped image actually helps in composing a picture. It is the case because we perceive only harmony of composition, but not the substance of the photograph-to-be.
Mirror-prism viewfinder, which is actually a technical improvement of the ground glass, opens new possibilities for photographers. First, reversed in a pentaprism, image becomes unmirrored. Second, viewfinder design incorporates a magnifier that makes it easier to see details of the image. This is especially important in 35mm photography, as the frame size there is substantially smaller than in case of large and medium format. Non-inverted image is more natural for human perception, which makes it easier to assess linear distortions and compose a picture with ones in mind. It is not always good, however, because a temptation to substitute visual effect for content may be great. Quite a few beginning photojournalists have a tendency to shoot everything with an ultra-wide lens exploiting mercilessly its property to make any composition very dynamic. The problem here is that most photos shot this way look remarkably similar. It can also be said about use of long optics for perspective compression and background blurring. One should remember that overuse of some artistic trick turns it into a cliché, or a feature that makes the style recognizable, but ugly.
All TTL (through-the-lens) viewfinders have a major shortcoming: brightness of the image and, consequently, performance of manual and auto focusing depends greatly upon the lens maximum aperture. Professional fast primes take care of the problem, but cheap zoom lenses with variable maximum aperture, which is low to begin with, make low-light shooting very problematic.
As opposed to TTL viewfinders, so-called rangefinder design is free of disadvantages described above. It was invented for military use, but shortly after Ernst Leitz of Wetzlar realized how valuable such an invention can be in photography. He incorporated the prism rangefinder in one of the first cameras of Leica brand and effectively spawned a cult that is alive and well even today. Aside from constant viewfinder brightness, rangefinder design has several interesting features. Firstly, it does not show DOF and perspective distortion of the lens used. It may seem inconvenient, but most rangefinder users do not see it as a disadvantage. Moreover, they maintain that not being distracted by optical effects of a particular optics they can concentrate on compositional harmony and freezing the telltale decisive moment. Certainly, an experienced shooter understands what effect wide or small aperture will have on DOF, or how the lens will affect perspective, but he subconsciously builds the image based upon content and visual harmony. Secondly, without a flapping mirror rangefinder cameras are much more stable during long exposures, which allows photographers to avoid motion blur due to camera shake on much slower shutter speeds that it is possible with SLR cameras. Finally, rangefinder cameras are in general very quiet, light and compact.
Since candid photography demands ability to anticipate, street photographers develop a special skill: they look with one eye through the viewfinder, but simultaneously use another to survey the surroundings. In most rangefinder cameras magnification factor is near 0.75x-1x, and it does not change when a different lens is attached. No wonder that most candid photographers convert to rangefinders even if they started out with much more popular and frequently more affordable SLR. Interestingly, even portraits and landscapes shot with rangefinders have a very characteristic and recognizable nuance of fugacity and spontaneity inherent to impressionism.
Since most rangefinder photographers shoot on the street, they rarely have a luxury to place their cameras on a twenty-pound tripod, and their shooting conditions are far from ideal. Therefore they are forced to use high-speed film and special developing process, which gives their images very recognizable grainy and contrasty look and certain softness. Naturally, ISO3200 film was invented not only for rangefinder cameras, and push-process is used not just for images shot in a dark café, but in no other type of photography it is a necessity.
Use of certain film or technology of image capture affects the final image so profoundly that even not-so-experienced photographers can determine, which film or even which digital camera was used.
IMAGE-CAPTURING TECHNOLOGIES
Until recently main technology used in photography was based upon light-sensitive properties of silver-halide emulsion. In the so-called traditional photo process, latent image is created on film during exposure. Later film is subjected to special sequence of chemical reactions that make the image visible and stable. Time that passes between releasing a shutter and obtaining a print or a transparency most of the time makes it rather difficult to recreate exactly the same shooting conditions. It used to be uncontested property of photography for many decades until recently, when it was changed with advent of digital photography.
First functional digital camera was built by Sony in 1981. Even though image quality was not its strongest feature, photographers instantly realized potential of digital image capture. Unlike film rigs of the past, digital cameras let us immediately see the results, analyze them, make necessary corrections and, quickly re-shoot the picture, if required. These advantages are hard to overestimate, but everything comes at a price. I am not even talking about the fact that quality of images coming from most digital cameras is inferior to that of film, as it is simply a matter of technological advancement. What is more important, abuse of these new capabilities can be detrimental to quality of picture taking. Many beginners develop a habit to review every picture right after it was shot. While it is perfectly acceptable in shooting still life in a studio, it has no place in candid photography. Distracted by the picture on the LCD one can easily miss something way more interesting. Also, freedom of no-cost photography corrupts, and the photographer shoots carelessly knowing that he can simply delete bad images. Gradually it leads to decrease in percentage of successful photos. Finally, the photographer shoots with a hope that any mistake can be corrected easily with some imaging software. As a result, he spends more time processing images in a computer than actually shooting.
On the other hand, digital camera is a great way to experiment and unleash creative potential. In turn, it makes it easier to shoot spontaneously, to improvise. Indeed, many photographers who have an extensive previous experience with film shoot digitally with ease and spontaneity never seen in their work before.
* * *
It would be a mistake to think that a photographer completely changes his shooting style and forgets old skills after converting from one camera system to another. Conversely, starting with the new system he carries over all his former experience and skill. For example, MF photographers who start shooting digitally do not became more prolific, even though now cost of film and processing is not an issue. Their work does not become less thoughtful and meticulous. Experienced 35mm photographers preserve their agility and spontaneity even when working with medium format camera. Another words, a good photographer learns advantages and drawbacks of the new system, but at the same time does not lose skills developed with his former equipment. A photo artist acquires his gear in accordance with his habits and shooting style. Camera and optics, in turn, impose certain restrictions, which make the photographer act and shoot in a certain fashion. I.e., the photographer and his gear create an interdependent system, harmony of which plays a crucial role in his ability to create images that deserve attention and even admiration.
Copyright © Irakly Shanidze 2005
Photography:
Copyright © Irakly Shanidze 2005
Copyright © Irina Abramzon 2004
Copyright © marc Williams 2003
Copyright © Pavel Kiselev 1997, 2002
International Academy of Photographic Arts
