nels Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Bob - I recently sold my 24-70L after having it sit in the closet for about a year since getting the 24-105L IS. I miss f/2.8 but the extra reach and IS more than make up for it on a full frame body. <p>If you get the 24-105, try <a href="http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/">PTLens</a>, an inexpensive PS plugin that corrects distortions and vignetting in a pinch. I've been using it since it was a freeware, but $15 is still a small fee to pay for one click work on distortion from just about any digital camera and lens on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Nels, Thanks for posting those pics and very nice, too. Check your email... Regarding zooms, I've tried out the 24-105 and 24-70 and have a marked preference for the latter. I supsect the latter is sharper, has better AF and I like the extra stop. To each his or her own.. Boris, ZZ was very nice and incredibly pretty. My shoot was essentially a PR job and I didn't hit any creative highs with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Hey Andrew, Fancy meeting you here. Thanks for the postcard by the way. I bought a new 24-70 last month (the reason you were able to buy the 270mm lens by the way). It is a star performer and finds focus easily. Over on DWF there is a very strong bias towards this lens in preference to the 24-105 re speed vignetting, freezing the action..... This influenced me significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Hi Gary. What a small world! Looking forward to getting the lens. Think I may have to put up lots of posts on the web to find out more about it. I'm guessing it's from the '70s. Where did you buy it? Note to everyone else: I have bought a 5x4 270mm f6.3 lens in a Linhof panel from Gary on ebay. All it says on the front is anastigmat and portrait. Because it's a portrait lens I gather it gives a softish look. Have I described it right, Gary? Glad to you like the 24-70. I think it's terrific with the one quibble about it's performance at 24mm. Lots of bendy lines... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 "Where did you buy it?" Car boot sale. Only joking !! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Just to put Andrew's preference for the 24-70 into perspective, you should all be aware that he doesn't have to actually carry his own equipment. He has a team of three fulltime assistants: Carlos, Alfonso, and (my personal favorite) Clint. As well as being easy on the eye (my friend at Tatler tells me he bought them on ebay from Karl Lagerfeld, although she may be pulling my leg) they cater to his every need - bag carrying, film changing, downloading, backup, monocle polishing, cooking, cleaning, plus a few other things I probably shouldn't mention....They're also fiercely loyal and protective - at NY fashion week Alfonso overheard me being bitchy to Donatella and Elton about Andrew's provincial taste in sashimi (salmon ahead of yellowfin, swordfish ahead of sea urchin roe) and threatened to slap me senseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think it's only fair that I tell you that Clint has left my team. The official press release stated that it was down to artistic differences over my choice of floral print shirts. However, I don't mind telling you, in strictest confidence, that he and I were embroiled in an increasingly bitter dispute over skin care regimes. For all his good points, and let's be honest no one could iron a cravat like he could (amazing what they teach you in the Marines), I felt that Clint was too tied to the past. He was an out and out devotee of Creme de la Mer and as any self respecting metropolitan male will tell you Chanel's Sublimage is now the only was to go. I've emailed Guy about suitable candidates as a replacement but he has yet to reply. I suppose this means another trip to the Pink Flamingo. By the way, I won't have a bad word said about dear Elton. I have photographed the interiors at his White Tie and Tiara ball for the last two years and he's hilarious. Nothing he said is anywhere repeatable on such an august forum as this, however. Besides, he didn't say those things about me. It was just a rumour put around by a embittered DMR owner who probably still uses Creme de la Mer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Guy is currently busy massaging Creme de la Mer on his M8 sensor to see if he can come up with a novel method to cure the banding and color cast issues from his new favorite toy, and while he's at it, single handedly save a little company in Solms from world wide embarrassment. His last visit to Pink Flamingo is what made him realise there was something wrong with his M8. When he came back from the establishment and reviewed his files, he thought he'd just paid a visit to the Magenta Flamingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Nels, I LOVE THAT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 On a more serious note, do you think that the M8's novel approach to colour casts means that Guy won't have to put so many gels on his backgrounds lights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 <I>On a more serious note, do you think that the M8's novel approach to colour casts means that Guy won't have to put so many gels on his backgrounds lights?</I><P> I'm OK with that, as long as the Batman intro on his web site stays... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 "Only joking !! :-)" Please, Gary, this is a forum for purists, like Boris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 For some reason, Guy gets extremely emotional whenever the issue of putting gels comes up, especially in connection with "background". Andrew, please be sensitive to Guy's feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 "I think it's only fair that I tell you that Clint has left my team" .....and I think it's only fair to tell you that Clint is now second lens wrangler on Team Boris. And a fine and dignified job he's doing - well, well away from the degradation of Mr Lamb. His rehabilitation is also going very, very well. He even uttered his first words today - you may live to regret not enforcing a nondisclosure agreement.... As for the cheap jibes about Guy and his filters, he who laughs last laughs longest. The world is changing and you boys may well find yourselves left behind in your dull gel-free cul-de-sac. You've heard of The Bilderberg Group? Prepare to hear the mighty roar of The Raccoon Group (named after our inaugural meeting at Raccoon Ranch) - where fashion meets politics meets art. The founders are myself, Lagerfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Kylie, Hedi Slimane, and, of course, the BIG MAN himself. From now on what we say goes. On Monday Hedi launches his new Urban Cowboy range - I'll let you guess who the face of this radical new look is....Thin is out! Magenta skintones are in. The Kaiser has redoubled his bodyweight in the last six weeks. Before Christmas you'll all be gelling up and sporting snakeskin boots 'n' hats. And another thing Andrew, cancel your reservations for Milan, Paris, and NY. There's a new axis of fashion - Phoenix, Yuma, and Tucson. Yeeha......! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Shouldn't that be "tHeE raKooN cLUb"? Who's providing the music for this bold, but slightly over-weight, venture? I'm thinking MC Mancuso duetting with the Scissor Sisters re-mixed by Tiefschwarz. I know you've still got a bit of a thing for the '80s (you soppy old thing, you) so it would be no hardship to drag (sic) Boy George in. Gotta go now. I want to see how my stocks are doing in manufacturers of IR filters. Waiter! Another bottle of your finest if you please and Karla, go gentle on the massaging will you? There's no rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Boris, Before you start digging up your old copy of 'She's A Model' by Magenta, maybe you can suggest a decent agency in the UK that I could place some portraits with? My experiences with Retna have been almost as surreal as recent posts on this forum and I know about your unabiding love affair with Getty. Who else is there? By the way, you can tell Clint that if he thinks I haven't noticed my missing pair of Manolos then he's VERY much mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 "a decent agency in the UK" Oxymorons agogo... There's no decent UK agency right now. But then there never was a decent Brit agency. I've had contacts/friends/girlfriends at a few of the Brit agencies over the last 20 years and it's always been a total freakshow. The weirdest of them all was (is? can it still be limping along?) Impact, an agency of independently wealthy photographers owned by a bizarre three-feet-six Frenchman married to a real-life princess. I'm not making this up. Put him in a red mac and give him a meat cleaver and he could have cranked up the discomfort factor immeasurably in Don't Look Now. Then you had Network, a bunch of champagne socialists who, as soon as they caught sight of the corporate dollar, gave up on editorial completely and couldn't understand why their stock sales dried up. Last I heard they fired all their staff just before Christmas last year - although I understand that at least one of the Leica toting class warriors is doing very nicely with an annual retainer from Satan Inc to show the public the caring side of the devil.....Then there was the fetchingly chunky (perfect for Hedi's new Urban Cowboy look) Geoff Katz and his merry band of men. Geoff, from what I can work out, is a decent human being with appalling taste in photography. But, who else would have backed and made Parry a rich man? From what I can work out Geoff was too pure for the London snakepit - hence the move to NY (and the subsequent sellout/demise of Katz Pictures). You mention my contempt for Getty. Staggeringly this has grown over the last month - they managed to fire the one decent guy and asset that they had in NY (a Brit, and, I believe, former protege of G Katz). I totally understand the Getty operating model, I just don't understand the collusion of willing photographers - it really is like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving/Christmas. It's insane. Getty and Klein don't even hide their intentions.... Anyway, I could rant on endlessly....but I won't. To cut a long story short there are no ideal agencies. Magnum manage to stay afloat. Which is a good thing. VII have discovered that there's more money in giving workshops to dumb wannabe richkids than in photography itself. Which is an interesting thing. Vu have discovered that moving sideways into the gallery scene is an option. Which is a good and interesting thing. Meanwhile Getty and Corbis seem to be stumbling. Which is a wonderful thing. Finally, a few small new agencies have surfaced in the last couple of years who take photography seriously and have discovered that the big assigning magazines are starting to look for an alternative to Gorbis. Which is a really hopeful thing. Why not target and work direct with individual agencies in key territories rather than giving syndication rights to any single outfit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Thanks for your thoughtful, if somewhat depressing, reply. You may retain Clint's services for a little while longer but don't come sobbing to me when you discover that some of your more risque Lanvin frocks have gone missing. Retna contacted me about selling some of my older images. They have managed to do this on occasion but the little treasures omit to mention this to me. Having wearied of phoning them up about the trifling inconvenience of forgetting to pay me (I'll get 'em in the end), I've decided to look elsewhere. Looks like it won't be a barrel of laughs wherever I go. Now then, on the question of corporate photography, I have noticed that you have often criticised PJs who have taken money from this particular avenue. Is it possible you are being, perhaps, just a little too idealistic? You know how tough it is to make a living from photography (unless you're...Magenta Man! Groovy costume and cape, incidentally but perhaps just a shade too tight). You know how rubbish editorial rates are and the fact that they are proportionately getting worse. Is it so bad to take to the occasional corporate gig to keep the wolves from the door. Or, are you an independently wealthy, Leica touting, Jimmy Choo wearing, champagne socialist? Thought not. I really can't see what's wrong with doing a bit of corporate work providing, it's not for someone like the manufacturers of Agent Orange. I mean, how far do you take it? Do you stop certain publications from using your photos because of their political line or the fact that they take ads for SUVs? Do you sell your photos in galleries but only to those who fit the right profile? I think I appreciate how passionate you are about this and I don't wish to sound glib but it's not easy making an honest buck doing photography. Curious of Kentish Town Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Andrew, sorry about the delay in replying. In terms of my levels of idealism, I'm happy to fess up to the fact I went awol from this thread because I was entering the frantic last week of a six week commercial assignment. Hypocritical? Kind of... A lot depends on how you pitch yourself. What troubled me about Network was that they (at least in the early days) billed themselves as concerned right-on photographers, yet by the end they were producing PR images for the British Army. I really don't think that that sits comfortably with, for example, their earlier "Still War" project in N Ireland (even allowing for the fact that it involved different photographers) - it would be interesting to know what some of the Catholic families in Belfast and Derry who opened their homes to Abrahams and Sparham made of this development. Another problem with immersing yourself in the commercial world is that there's a strong possibility that your work will permanently lose its edge. You meet with an art director who positively gushes about your "vision", but you understand within the first 24 hours that if you're going to get any repeat work then you have to leave that vision behind. You're being paid that (admittedly pleasing) "creative fee" for not much more than tripping the shutter to order. I know a lot of photographers who'd like to dip back into editorial assignments who simply can't hack it in that world anymore - they've lost the ability to be the primary creative force. Editorial rates are now abusively bad. Most of the big players haven't (at least officially) increased their day rate for more than a decade. Plus, where once an assignment would have been fairly open-ended, they pin you down in advance to too few days. The net result is that there's little option but to take on corporate/advertising work if you want to live a reasonable lifestyle. The problem is retaining a credible balance that allows you both to survive and continue evolving as a photographer. I know a few people who manage this (I'm desperately trying myself), but the vast majority lose their balance right at the beginning and never regain the qualities that made them attractive to the commercial world in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Boris, There's nothing in your reply that I can take exception to. It's an entirely reasonable rationale. There is a moral/creative conundrum here. Period. You still haven't explained why you don't want an M8 but we'll let that pass. I've taken one photograph this year that I'm pleased with and that was on an unpaid job. How's your hit rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 My "hit rate" sometimes drops to the point where I have to look at previous work to convince myself that I'm the real deal. At other times I feel totally unstoppable. It ebbs and flows, but like any photographer with a sense of their own creative mortality I understand that there's the real possibility that, at any time, it might never flow again. If I ever reach that stage I'm moving to Arizona with my three M8s and the biggest box of gels you've ever seen. One thing that's really perked me up this week is the news that me and The Guy have placed joint first in the forthcoming World's Best Dressed Photographers issue of PDN. They've described us as the Outkast of modern photography - with him playing Big Boi to my Andre 3000. It's a better analogy than the usual Lennon (him) and McCartney cliche, but I still think think Sontag nailed it more accurately with her sombre post 9/11 appraisal: "More than anything else this tale is a love story. Two intertwined lives cascading through the exploitative freak and demon show that is modern photography. The parallels with Buffy The Vampire Slayer are simply shocking. Can this be happenstance? Of course not. Whedon clearly is using demonic metaphors in an attempt to rationalize the post-Corbis era. Spike (romantic, intense, cheek bones to-die-for, but with a reckless capacity for spilling blood) is Mr C Han. Buffy (petite, pretty, convincing in a plaid microskirt, but with a kick like a mule) is The Big Man. Will love conquer conflict? Will Getty be slayed using nothing more than an overengineered German camera and some lurid backround lights? We can do no more than hope". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Susan Sontag? Susan Sontag? Earlier this year I found myself yet again in one of those periodic creative slumps and decided to do something about it by attending one of the Big Guy's (to give him his proper name) workshops. There we all were, sitting under the cruel, unyielding Mexican sun, the usual mixture of wannabes and no hopers who had lost their way, Soth, Koudelka, Iturbide (at least she got to go home at night) etc. The BG was conducting a seminar on The Crop Factor and the Structured Absence when Andreas Gursky, who was sitting behind me, made a comment about Sontag. I can still hear the sound of the sombrero as it flew past my ears and made a six inch cut down Gursky's cheek. "Sontag?" The Big Guy bellowed. "Nobody mentions Sontag!" The BG has got this thing about always going to the original source: Althusser, Lacan and, before we knew what happened, he barked out a huge chunk of Roland Barthes from Camera Lucida in the original French. It was hilarious watching all these so called masters of contemporary photography all blubbing into their laptops as they frantically translated what the BG had just said. I don't think Martin Parr even knew how to turn his power book on. All of them were panicking except Luc Delahaye, of course, who just sat them looking smug but the BG took him down with a machine burst of Walter Benjamin and his essay on Mechanical Reproduction. With the Big Guy it's all about keeping your gels and your vision as unsullied as possible. "Purity of essence", he kept muttering to himself. "Purity of essence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I went on a Mexicano Foto Safari myself, but, unlike you and the crew, came away deeply unsatisfied. It was no fault of the organizers, just a simple misunderstanding - I took the word safari to imply that we'd be doing some killing along with all the photo stuff. It had been a lifelong ambition of mine to harpoon a Gila Monster and I thought that this would be the perfect opportunity. Sadly, The Guy took a nasty flesh wound as he hurled himself between the monster and my javelin. I learned a number of things from this incident: firstly, that the Gila Monster is a much misunderstood and unfairly maligned creature; secondly that the monster is a protected species in, that most civilized of states, Arizona; thirdly, and perhaps most intriguingly, I learned (after inspecting my super-sharp M8 image files) that, contrary to popular belief, human blood is in fact magenta rather than red. Incidentally Andrew, Sontag took the Buffy analogy further. She went on state that Willow was clearly based on you (that mix of magic, mayhem, and long flowing skirts), that Xander represented Another Bob (straightforward, trustworthy, but with plodding taste in Billingham bags), and that the blunt stick used to slay the Flamboyance Demon in series three was in fact Trevor "Bumpkin" Hare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I heard from an attendee of the Mexican safari that the bean and cheese burritos served for dinner, and prepared by The Guy, were yummy. Although, quite to his dismay, the toilets were fully occupied following the dinner, and because of that, The Guy had no steady partner to show off his Fandango moves with on the dance floor. I heard he does a mean Macarena. To his credit, and to ensure 100% customer satisfaction, The Guy understandably provided free targeted gel massages to anyone who may have had to spend too much time sitting on the porcelain chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Boris, It was more than a little misunderstanding! I think you are, yet again, guilty of not keeping pace with the Big Guy's utterly irresistible and mischievious sense of humour. That wasn't a Gila Monster. That was Al Kaplan's Monkey! You bleeding heart liberals just don't get it, sometimes, do you? According to Money's blog, on KreemUBoyz.com, Big Al was receiving an lifetime achievement award at the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame (something to do with the most sat on Leica) and little M had spare some time to spend down Mexico way. Naturally, when he turned up, the Big Guy's limitless of fun went into overdrive. A simliar thing happened to us at a lecture entitled "Environmental Portraiture and The Purple Gel". The BG had his assistant, Wanda, on stage and was telling us how you should really woo a lady before capturing her soul on a DMR. I must confess it was quite a sensual experience but our reverie was abruptly destroyed when the BG stood up, on his Manolos, to his full height and announced "But if you really want to shoot them, use this". Before we knew what had happended BG had pulled back his Louis Vuitton poncho to reveal a low slung holster. There were cries of shock as BG whipped out his revolver and fired three shots into Wanda. Imagine the uproar! Not one single war vetran reached for his camera. Instead, the big sissies were all running for the door. It was only when we heard the Big Guy's manic bellows of laughter that we realised that he'd done it again! Two of the bullets were blanks and Wanda was patched up quickly enough to join us for beers and Gila burgers on the deck. Gee, I hope it was Gila. I kinda wondered what happened to Monkey. I'd show you the photos but they came out a funny colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now