William Bragg

There’s been a recent theme buzzing around many of the photographer’s blogs that I frequent, and it concerns the question of format - Large Format, medium format, film, digital, etc. (Great stuff by Liz Kuball, here, Ben Huff, and especially Zoe Strauss.) And no doubt there seems to be a hierachy implied with Large Format lording from above at the top, Second: Medium Format, Third: film, and a distant 4th: digital.

(Sidenote: This isn’t new, per se. This discussion pops every so often, it’s just occurred recently once again.)

I never understood it outside of using the tool that best fits your process. I used to use film long ago, and now I use digital. It allows me to interact with the people in my area, and the area itself in a way that allows me to realize my goals. Zoe’s post is great as she provides examples of photos taken with each of the cameras she’s used over the last few years. There’s no way that I could ever imagine thinking, “Wow, I wish she had used a ’so and so’ camera. That would have been so much better.”

I did just get my hands on an older used medium format camera for a particular project I have in mind. But the use of a medium format camera does not automatically give this project any special weight, but will prove to be a better fit for my goals. Of course if the project turns out to suck, it won’t be a result of the camera - just me. So while I’m excited, it’s not wholly due to the camera, but the fact that I now have the tool necessary to hopefully realize this particular project.

But most of the time, I will continue to use my Nikon dSLR. I enjoy the immediacy and the spontaneity the dSLR affords me. I’m a pretty visceral guy. I love meeting and interacting with people, and the camera allows me an extension of that experience and joy. That Koni-Omega isn’t going to be as effective in the low-light live music venues that I frequent. But for the project I have in mind, it’s going to be perfect.

Enough talking, I want to go out and test this sucka.