Some amazing pics. He uses some of what we southerners would call "them there funny cameras." I forget what they call the lenses, but they're a weird surve on them to make everything in focus. It also gives a weird look to the deoth perception on some of them.
It sounds like you're describing a "view camera"...the kind with a bellows for a body. Right? If so, it can indeed be adjusted to give great depth to a photo. However, my understanding is that George Steinmetz uses digital cameras for (at least) most of his work. There are lens available...called tilt/shift lenses...that approximate the view camera's adjustability. I want one or two for myself. Bad.
You're on to something there...
I learned photography on a 4x5 view camera at photo school. The best advantage to using a 4x5 negative (or larger) is the incredible detail that can be captured. Ah... the 4x5 or 8x10 is absolutely amazing for landscapes and portraits (the reason why guys like Ansel Adams (landscapes) and Richard Avedon (portraits) used that particular format... well Adams was expert in Zone system [simply put... exposing the photo with the final print in mind, that is, taking into account the negative being used, development method, and photo paper being used to achieve maximum range (in stops) for the final print].
This is a fantastic picture but certainly wasn't taken with a view camera. It's an aerial shot and there's no way to stabilize a view camera to the degree needed to allow for a 'shake free' shot. If shot with a view camera this picture would be blur, blur, blur and would completely change the feeling from editorial to something more akin to abstract.
Regardless of the camera used, the most important lesson I ever learned after a bunch of years shooting pictures is;
"It's not the arrow, it's the Indian."
You either have an eye or you don't. That simple. No amount of expensive gear can fix someone who just can't shoot. Hell... I use my plastic, yes... 100% plastic, Holga camera all the time and get some cool shots. That camera cost me $18 and with the modifications I made I'm probably in it for $50. I prefer that camera to my Contax 645, among others, that were infinitely more expensive.
Anyway... just my .02
Great shot... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Camels
grammar edit (and it's probably still not rihgt)