Rangefinder photography legends.

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by harper_westwood, Jun 5, 2013.

  1. Henri-cartier bresson, friendlander, eggleston, winogrand, ghirri, nan goldin, robert frank...etc. If the legends of photography have taught
    us anything, it was to keep it simple. To stick with what you know techniqually/atmospherically and to study how we actually see the
    things we look at. With all this advice from the masters of photography why do you think some people still don't get it? Why do people
    care so much about new cameras, lenses, megapixels, paper, printers, the new hot whatever...
     
  2. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Why do people care so much about new cameras, lenses, megapixels, paper, printers, the new hot whatever...​

    Plenty of people don't, regardless of what they use. Rangefinder has nothing to do with it.

    However, many old school photographers cared a lot about their lenses, new films and papers, new processes, etc. etc. Not sure why you think they don't/didn't.
     
  3. Actually the people I mentioned, found what they needed and stuck with it. They cared a lot more about photography and
    seeing differently than technical data sheets or lens resolution.
     
  4. Jeff can be right from time to time and I would say he is right in this instance. The legends you have named used the best cameras and lenses of their time. They are not using my cheapskate old manual gear mounted on old DSLR or mirrorless bodies. They also had good printers if they didn't do it themselves. Once you get to know your equipment intimately you feel a little more free. Also, having some sort of expectation of the final result tends to make you veer towards that direction.
     
  5. You guys are missing the point entirely. No matter what camera they used, it wasn't about the equipment it was about
    seeing.
     
  6. When you are young or badly funded, the name of the game is bang for the buck. When you get older, if you are better
    funded you probably want what you are more comfortable with. Plus the gear is neat, why not appreciate it?
     
  7. Okay, I've woken up the tech heads, I'm out of this thread. You're changing the composition of this thread to a technical
    redundant one.. Before I leave here is a great quote.

    "The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them
    and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying
    with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that
    is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it."- Edward Weston
     
  8. You guys are missing the point entirely. No matter what camera they used, it wasn't about the equipment it was about seeing.​
    If so, why place this thread in the Leica and RF forum? Isn't your very thread title predicated on rangefinder photography and its legends a bit gear/technique bias already?
     
  9. I'm new to photo.net and I wasn't sure where to post. I suppose I posted in this rangefinder forum because the photographers I listed all take photos with rangefinders. And I figured I would have more in common with people In this thread. I supposed wrong.
     
  10. No worries, Harper. There's a leica/rf crowd here, if that's what you are looking for...
     
  11. It's because photography, unlike nearly all of the other arts, is dependent on the gear you use to make the images. You just can't get the same images from a Holga that you get from a Rolleiflex. Then there's the matter of different formats for different types of work. You don't want to bring your 'blad when you go shooting birds. The proper type of camera and format is needed for specific jobs. A lot of people try lots of different types of cameras because until you hold it in your hands and look at the negs later, how do you know? You don't, you have to try it to know. Once you find what works, and you'll know it when it happens, then it is good to stay w/ that. Why wouldn't you anyway?
     
  12. Choosing a rangefinder is itself an equipment choice-it was even back then. While equipment importance is often overstated, only a fool would say it was completely unimportant. Since this is what most of us can easily change and it is easiest to talk about (discussions of aesthetics are not all that useful much of the time) so people tend to talk about equipment more than anything else on these forums.
     
  13. There is also the philosophy of photography forum if you want to discuss matters that are devoid of equipment, although you may wonder, on occasion, if any of the participants have actually ever taken a photo...
    You could start a thread there called "Rangefinder seeing" or some such.
     
  14. Carl Mydans and David Douglas Duncan went directly to the Nikon factory to witness the manufacture and test of their lenses before buying them. David Douglas Duncan bought a Nikkor 5cm F1.5 for his Leica. Good enough for him, good enough for me. I will let people know how it does on the M Monochrom.
     
  15. "Good enough for him, good enough for me. I will let people know how it does on the M Monochrom"
     
    My mate Freddy Goldenstar uses a Bell and Stein lens on a Contax 11a with wonderful results.
     
    Freddy is a marvel of photography and the combination of simplicity of the Contax... and the Bell and Stein gives him the magic of vision which would be lost on one of those new fangled devices.
     
    Good enough for Freddy good enough for me.
     
    The Bell on the end of the Monochrom would be a masterpiece of magic simplicity.
    ;))
     
  16. Why do people care so much about new cameras, lenses, megapixels, paper, printers, the new hot whatever...​
    That's easy, Harper. Not everyone involved with the hobby of photography is interested , primarily, in making photographs. Some really just are interested in the gear from a design or engineering aspect. Some love optical design or new imaging technologies. Some are history buffs or collectors or are interested in repair issues. Some just want the latest gee-whiz gizmo, be it phone, computer or camera. They may shoot casually, but picture making is not the main focus. The photography hobby casts a wide net and there is room for all...including photographers who focus on the art of photography.
     
  17. SCL

    SCL

    Most successful artists, whatever the medium, at various points in their careers, recognized the benefit of having equipment which would allow them to achieve their objectives without worrying about the equipment itself as they moved along....Michaelangelo experimented and found the ideal marble from a particular quarry for his statues, Van Gogh experimented and found the right combinations of pigments, Ansel Adams experimented with darkroom chemicals and films, and most others try out new and exciting equipment to determine if it gives them an edge in accomplishing their goals. Me too....although I used Leica gear for over 47 years, I certainly avidly tried other equipment along the way...because some of it facilitated easier solutions to the issues I encountered. These days I rely on some current gee whiz gear as well as my 1950s era rangefinders....there's room for them all!
     
  18. My Leica M4 kit with five lenses is over 40 years old, but the 50mm Summicron has been used more than the other four lenses combined. However, occasionally having one of the other lenses is worthwhile. Even Cartier-Bresson sometimes used other than 50mm.
     
  19. Henri-cartier bresson, friendlander, eggleston, winogrand, ghirri, nan goldin, robert frank...etc. If the legends of photography have taught us anything, it was to keep it simple.​
    Eggleston has a collection of 'about 300' cameras, and Cartier-Bresson first bonded with Magnum co-founder Chim when they noticed each other's Leicas and had a geeky conversation about the Vidom accessory finder...
     
  20. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    They cared a lot more about photography and seeing differently than technical data sheets or lens resolution.​
    A lot more than who? People on web forums? Where are your photos? All of your posts have been about equipment or materials. Even this one.
    No matter what camera they used, it wasn't about the equipment it was about seeing.​
    Who said it wasn't? You are the one who brought up the equipment they were using. There are plenty of other photographers out there who don't bring up their equipment.
    And I figured I would have more in common with people In this thread. I supposed wrong.​
    A lot of people in this thread care more about photography than equipment. They have photos here and posted online in other places, and share with the other people here. It's you that seems to be hung up on this.
     
  21. I think Jeff Spirer may be having a bad day… Unless he is always this worked up over someone's opinion? I don't know,
    I'm new here, photo.net locals probably know him better.. In my initial post, I didn't know how to pose my wonderment for
    all these remarkable photographers and their advice in a question… so I ended my statement with, why would anyone
    basically overcomplicate things with all this equipment, when legends tell you to use less. I suppose I struck a nerve with
    him, who doesn't agree with that type of method? I'm not mad at you, Jeff. I personally don't care what you use, as long
    as you get what you're looking for creatively. I just think there is a lot of damn validity when several accomplished and
    awarded photographers have a very simple approach to taking photographs.
     
  22. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    There are plenty of other great photographers. Have you looked into what they use?
    It has nothing to do with a bad day, I simply pointed out the problems with what you said above. There doesn't seem to be much point to it. And where are your photos, if what it's about is photography and not equipment?
     
  23. Honestly, Jeff… I'm not uploading anything to this site. My work is not very good. And from my experiences while on this
    forum, within this community of photographers, I've found a lot of negativity. It's just not a very comfortable place to be
    creative or upload my work.
     
  24. If you do it right, know equipment, know how to work on it, know what you are doing when buying it-it pays for the Hobby. My M9 and M Monochrome were 1/2 paid for by selling 1930s Sonnars converted to Leica mount, other 30% by selling equipment- most for over 2x what was paid for it. Subsidized 2/3rds of the total cost of the cameras. So for me, the M9 and M Monochrom cost a total of $5K "out of pocket" for the pair. The first lens I used on it was free, a German made 5cm F1.5 Jupiter-3 from 1950. A Trade for doing repair work. The optical fixture was too short, the focal length was wrong, the lens was unusable- and consequently had perfect glass because it had never been used. I fixed it.
     
  25. Harper, the reason you're experiencing so much "negativity" is that you're making claims that simply aren't supported by the evidence. Man Ray constantly experimented with different techniques. Atget was shooting dry plates on large-format cameras that were relatively "cutting edge" at the time. Avedon used backdrops, props, extensive retouching, and more to produce his images. If the legends of photography have taught us anything, it's not "to keep it simple," it's that a huge variety of methods and equipment can be used to produce great photography.
     
  26. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Mike brings up a good point when he comments on Avedon. Avedon mostly used one camera and one lens, especially in the field. But his work was hardly simple, a shot would take several days to set up. It's equipment fetishism that drives the original post - it is hardly what one chooses for equipment, whether simple or complex, that drives the results.

    I have never known what Nan Goldin used for a camera or any other equipment. It seems completely irrelevant, I've never even thought about it. Goldin's work has always appeared to me to be about the interaction between Goldin and the subject. She could be totally involved with the latest of everything, but that wouldn't matter, her photos have nothing to do with that. The original post brings that up, but it seems completely misplaced. Anyone that thinks Goldin's photos are about the equipment has seriously missed the point of her work.
    I've shot with rangefinders, SLRs, dSLRs, point and shoots, pinhole cameras, 35mm, medium format. None of that ever matters as much as the lighting, how I feel about the subject, how I interact with the subject. If you want to say that the equipment doesn't matter, then talk about something other than the equipment. This is an equipment fetish post from the start, not about photography.
    This is typical of the portraits I shoot. The light mattered, both ambient and what I created, my interaction with the subject mattered, the under-the-street location mattered, the extreme activity the subject had just been through mattered. The equipment was solely what happened to be in my hand and was completely irrelevant once I set everything. I could be a minimalist or a total equipment acquisition nut and it wouldn't matter one bit. Photography isn't about this fetishism about what someone does or doesn't use, it's about photographs.
    [​IMG]
     
  27. "If the legends of photography have taught us anything, it's not "to keep it simple." So....keep it complicated.. I'll look into
    that. Thank you for that, Mike. Anyway, I realize I was generalizing too much, however thats another reason I posted in a
    rangefinder forum because thats the type of photographers I was implying toward. Sorry if any of you took it too seriously.
    I'm really just trying to have friendly conversations about photography/ art.
     
  28. Jeff, as far as I know, from what I've read about her in her books. She used a leica most her career because she liked the
    durability for her shooting style.. She tried using an slr but didn't like it. And... Nice photo, I guess you're right whatever it
    takes to get a good photo....
     
  29. So....keep it complicated.
    No, as I very clearly stated, "a huge variety of methods and equipment can be used to produce great photography." It possible to make great photos by keeping it simple; it's possible to make great photos using very complicated methods.
    If you want to have a friendly conversation, don't intentionally distort what other people have said or act as if they are at fault for taking things too seriously. You made statements that can't be backed up, you put the focus on the equipment used, and you have been the one who's combative and insulting.
     
  30. Mike, you're taking things too seriously again. I was really considering that method. So don't keep it simple or complicated.
    Keep it somewhere In the middle? Or what. Please explain further so I can understand. You have some great photographes. And I'm just trying to understand your point of view.
     
  31. It seems rather pointless to offer further explanation since you clearly haven't paid attention to what I've already said.
     
  32. Mmm... I read about large and medium format photographers equipment you mentioned and about keeping it not
    simple... But you never really explained how that method is creating great photographes? And if that's something you
    practice, maybe I'm missing something. And I'd like to get some insight to this style.
     
  33. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    She used a leica most her career because she liked the durability for her shooting style.. She tried using an slr but didn't like it​

    But that doesn't matter unless you don't care about her photos. It has nothing to do with the photos.
     
  34. Oh, I must of read it wrong I thought you were wondering what she shot with because you liked the relationship. Ahah
    wow I read your post so fast, it was so long. Sorry, Jeff. Absolutely, you're right.
     
  35. it

    it

    I think many photographers and other creative types go through a very complicated process to end up with something simple. As Coltrane said, the reason you practice scales so hard is so you don't think about them when you are playing.
     
  36. There are some who post to PN forums as if they are lecturers. Its rife in the Nikon forum. Its so annoying. The big debate there atm is DX longevity. Who cares!
    I have shot film all my life and now its some digital but not a lot. I have one goal and that is to buy a good Leica III and try to produce images a good as I can with my F4. I figure that I will have learned a lot if I can. And I am 62 and not afraid to learn new things.
     
  37. Some people make it a point of pride to be artists who care little about the tools because it's all about artistic vision. In fact
    they have to at least choose the right tool for the job or at least "a right tool" but they will say it's not about the tool. In the
    old days, they might have to work hard to find a camera that did what they needed, whatever supported that vision.


    Others love the cameras but are quite good photographers. There's no mutual exclusion principle to being a good
    photographer and enjoying the gear too. At least I don't see one. These days there are so many cameras which all do a
    great job of getting an image that you can afford to be a bit sloppy in your choices -- or you can pick one that suits you the
    best.


    Back when some of these people were using Leicas they were the state of the art and they were remarkable for their
    reduced size and weight relative to their image quality. These days, Leicas are called out for their high quality results
    more than their tiny size, there are smaller cameras these days.


    You probably aren't going to create great art without a great artistic vision, but you need a camera too, and it should be
    chosen to suit that purpose and chosen to suit the photographer. I've never seen why people think being a gear head
    means you're somehow less a photographer. Maybe you should turn it on its head. If you lack confidence in your camera it will affect your photography, so it pays to choose a camera you trust and that is worth a little effort in the choice.
     
  38. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Why are there so many styles and shapes of "hammers" in the tool section of a typical hardware store?
     
  39. Ian, I think you're right. There is a huge learning curve people tend to go through to get photographically what they want.
    Curt cobain (musician) used to say, "practice makes perfect, but no one is perfect, so why practice." That always hit me
    because it was like people will put so much effort into a précieved perfection but whats perfect. You're stressing out on
    perfection and your photo masterpiece is happening outside and your're missing it.

    Francisco, aha! Yeah, I feel like everyone is mad at everyone in here because they aren't cookie-cut-outs of each other.
    I'm about half your age and shoot film, too! I love it. I started with digital and it just didnt look right to me. Can't explain it
    just wasn't what I was looking for. I think you have a great attitude toward it all, I hope I can keep an open mind as I get
    older.

    David, I've found the best thing is what you said it to basically find what suits you. And for me, I've found that less is more.
    And every photographer ive studied has essentially said the same thing. However, if some people find their way
    differently, thats okay, too. You're absolutely right though, artistic vision is a must!
     
  40. I have a lot of thoughts on this and sympathize with virtually every opinion posited. However, I would like to adress the
    notion that the Leica/Rangefinder group on Photo.net is not friendly.


    In the 1.5 years of posting here I have found this group to be exceptionally friendly and helpful. During this time the most
    unpleasant behavior I witnessed was when someone WRONGLY stated that a photo of a Chinese man's armpit was
    racist. The person making this ridiculous claim was promptly heaped upon and that was that. One lone exception out of
    thousands of posts.


    In all, this is a pretty friendly group. Certainly more friendly than other groups.
     
  41. Yes, everybody was taller, better looking and had perfect hair in the "good old days." You are wrong. I was there. Many of the top and bottom photographers worked endlessly to get the right combination of camera, film, lens, angle, light and on and on to get first class photos. And the "right" thing was a moving target. Film was lousy. I worked for a firm that helped pioneer 35mm news photography and we could not use tri-x for ordinary situations because it was too grainy. We used Super Double X (for still cameras) or Plus-X for most things and Tri-X for available light despite grain the size of baseballs. Ever used a Leica 3f with a 135mm lens? I had one. A nightmare. But better'n nothing at the time.
    Sure some folks are a pain in the neck with their (sometimes imaginary) high Megapixel count but the PITN photographers have always been with us. There were those Polariod snapshooters who claimed our Leicas and Rollies were worthless because we had to wait so long to see a print. Our photos are in the history books, not theirs.
    I think perhaps you need to stop letting "cool" photogs or alleged photogs bully you. You are playing their game.
     
  42. Henri-cartier bresson, friendlander, eggleston, winogrand, ghirri, nan goldin, robert frank...etc. If the legends of photography have taught us anything, it was to keep it simple.
    I think Harper is saying that the people he mentions provide impressive evidence that people working in a photojournalistic style with a technically simple camera and a highly-developed visual sense could achieve impressive results, much more so than other people today who have much more sophisticated equipment but not the vision. I do not find this an unreasonable thing to say and would not criticise him for doing so. Obviously other genres of classic photography, such as studio portraiture, were anything but simple – for example, the “Hollywood” portrait style needed a truckload of lighting equipment and numerous camera and wardrobe assistants, stylists and possibly set-builders as well.
    Just one aside – the camera market today is dominated by the Japanese, and Japanese home-market consumers are very interested in bells and whistles. I feel this is a major reason why photo enthusiasts today, encouraged by advertising, are fixated on technical features.
     
  43. David, the ONLY cristisim I have about your comment is that I'm not a boy, I'm a girl! Haha. It's okay. :). I'm glad someone understands my point of view and gets where I was coming from.
     
  44. … I’m a girl …
    No problem, Harper, here in the UK we’re pretty broad-minded, and the idea that a female can pick up and use a camera unaided does not disturb us :) .
    "The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it."- Edward Weston
    This seems to suggest that you have access to Weston’s Daybooks, at least in excerpt form. Good move - in Weston we have the rare combination of a cutting-edge creative talent and a highly articulate writer. I’m a veteran media pro, and I readily acknowledge the vast amount I learned from Weston about the creative process in photography (and also from Andreas Feininger).
    I'm really just trying to have friendly conversations about photography/ art.
    ,,, from my experiences while on this forum, within this community of photographers, I've found a lot of negativity. It's just not a very comfortable place to be creative or upload my work.
    Some people have responded with a measure of positivity to this thread, others most definitely haven’t. I would really invite the latter group to re-think their attitude. Harper perhaps did not express her viewpoint with 100% clarity, but as someone who has extensive experience of mentoring younger practitioners (in photography and other media), I really did not have a problem understanding what she was trying to say.
     
  45. "I think Harper is saying that the people he mentions provide impressive evidence that people working in a photojournalistic style with a technically simple camera and a highly-developed visual sense could achieve impressive results, much more so than other people today who have much more sophisticated equipment but not the vision."

     
    Well, the gear does not make the Photographer. Neither does the gear unmake the Photographer.

     
    Obvious stuff to my mind...what were we talking about? Oh to be a better Photographer use simple gear.

     
    Best get some simple gear so as to be a better Photographer.

    Got it.
     
  46. So, my IPhone which is really simple enhances my vision better than my M8 or D7000.
    Hmm, the troubling thought is that they all express my vision in a equal way...so have I have found. Hey, I did have to spend some time working out how to use my D7000 but in did give me options I never thought about.
    Some thoughts to ponder on.
     
  47. "Van Gogh experimented and found the right combinations of pigments, Ansel Adams experimented with darkroom chemicals and films, and most others try out new and exciting equipment to determine if it gives them an edge in accomplishing their goal"
     
    "If the legends of photography have taught us anything, it was to keep it simple. To stick with what you know techniqually/atmospherically"
    I don't think the legends said any such thing. Indeed, in their time they were very innovative seeking and finding new horizons to explore. The opposite of what you are claiming.
    Indeed one on the Legends of Photography (HCB) did not want anyone to copy him but to move on and create their own vision. He also used the most advanced camera available in his time and the most skilled backroom technicians.
     
  48. That argument that "they used the most advanced camera during their time" is a misconception. They were using very
    nice cameras but camera companies don't seize camera advancements. People act like these masters of photography
    lived in a frozen block of ice. By 1952 Henri cartier bresson would have published "the decisive moment." There were
    several camera companies with "progressive" SLR cameras with better metering, and with more accurate focusing. In
    1976 William eggleston would of got his big break and would have his show at the MOMA. Meanwhile auto focus camera
    were appearing and still the rangefinder masters still stuck with what they knew...
     
  49. HCB also chased a lot of fast primes and new systems, especially from the mid-60s on.
     
  50. " Meanwhile auto focus camera were appearing and still the rangefinder masters still stuck with what they knew"
    Habit, nothing else....and the kind Leica folk. Bottom line he used the most advanced cam of the day.
    Among the last photos taken of Henri was him using an auto focus minilux.
    He embraced technology.
     
  51. Looking at the 2 fine Lustrum darkroom books, you can learn how hard some very fine photographers worked at the technical issues of their time; same with W Eugene Smith. This is what makes photography fun, but the whole point of technique is to control it so well that it disguises itself. No different in painting or sculpture.
    To the original issue, I have always felt that there is a big difference between RF and SLR photography, especially in 35mm-RF embraces the world, let's it flow to the camera; SLR literally targets it.
     
  52. "Van Gogh experimented and found the right combinations of pigments, Ansel Adams experimented with darkroom chemicals and films, and most others try out new and exciting equipment to determine if it gives them an edge in accomplishing their goal"
    As already been posted
    True great Artist do not limit themselves to anything... the opposite.. that includes simplicity.
    Understand and read the history of Art.
    A rangefinder cam made by Leica is nice. The end.
     
  53. " big difference between RF and SLR photography, especially in 35mm-RF embraces the world, let's it flow to the camera; SLR literally targets it."
    Really. Show me. And I use both.
    A cam does what you want it to do. You are the master.
    It is not alive...hello.
     
  54. Some photos.....
     
  55. So, my IPhone which is really simple enhances my vision better than my M8 or D7000 …
    Best get some simple gear so as to be a better Photographer …
    There’s a measure of wilful misunderstanding and misinterpretation here, but …
    1) None of the cameras you mention ENHANCES your vision better than any other. However, a simpler camera means the opportunity to be more spontaneous. Preserving spontaneity while taking the time to hone technical skills to a high level is something that all professional artists (in all disciplines) have to learn. But of all the millions of pictures I have seen in my life, I have to say that the AVERAGE simple camera user gets more spontaneity and energy into his/her pictures than the AVERAGE owner of high-end gear (and I’m not talking about the extreme but not so rare example of guys walking aroung with 2 high-end DSLR bodies and 15 lenses who’ve never produced a single interesting picture).
    2) The second statement is easier to deal with – it’s broadly true! As an frequent teacher/mentor, my #1 recommendation for anyone suffering from creative block or complaining that their pictures lack creative impact is simple – choose one camera body and one lens (probably but not necessarily a standard FL), and go and take pictures, not thinking about the camera but concentrating on seeing. This invariably works!
     
  56. "AVERAGE simple camera user gets more spontaneity and energy into his/her pictures than the AVERAGE owner of high-end gear"
    "But of all the millions of pictures I have seen in my life, I have to say that the AVERAGE simple camera user gets more spontaneity and energy into his/her pictures than the AVERAGE owner of high-end gear (and I’m not talking about the extreme but not so rare example of guys walking aroung with 2 high-end DSLR bodies and 15 lenses who’ve never produced a single interesting picture)."
    Sermon on the mount.
    Have you taken any pictures?
    00bio3-540657384.jpg
     
  57. Nothing wrong with a little experimentation. It's when people start talking about getting rid of what you like to use that people get nervous. Generally the people making these sage pronouncements are ... well... to put it technically, dumbasses. We should probably ignore them more.
     
  58. Show me Harper.
    I'm simple I like the photos.
    Then perhaps I'll understand.
    Show me the magic of simplicity. Please.
     
  59. "Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not a major concern." -Henri Carrier-Bresson
     
  60. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    "Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not a major concern." -Henri Carrier-Bresson​

    What's the point? You seem obsessed with issues about equipment. He's saying he's not.

    But he's just one photographer. That's all.
     
  61. Photograph by William Eggleston. On my blog has over 50,000 Reblogs.
    Photo from : http://www.egglestontrust.com
    This is simplicity. This is a color photograph taken with a simple film camera. No gimmicks.
    Allen, This is the art of a photography. If you don't understand this, then I can't help you understand it.
    Moderator's note: Image removed. As per photo.net's Terms of Use, please do not post photos that are not your own.
     
  62. Technical aspects.
    That is why he used the cutting technology of his time.
    To get the photo and to create his vision. Wheels on a wagon, Harper.
     
  63. Allen, How is a rangefinger cutting edge technology in the mid 1970's??? Anyway, I really do think you're oblivious. I aspire to take a photograph that beautiful.
    And it looks as if the photo has been taken down. I guess Photo.net does not let you reference photos from artist? This website is so weird.
     
  64. Boring.
    And out of focus.
    I don't do arse licking.
     
  65. Try your own photos.
     
  66. This is simplicity. This is a color photograph taken with a simple film camera. No gimmicks. Allen, This is the art of a photography. If you don't understand this, then I can't help you understand it.
    No one has said that you can't make artful photos with simple equipment. The points the various people have made, repeatedly, in various ways, are that photos are not artful because they were made with simple equipment, using simple equipment doesn't make your photos artful, and artful photos can also be made not using simple equipment. In other words, it's not about the equipment.
    It's not other people who are having trouble understanding.
     
  67. haha, alright Allen. Whatever you say, dude. You let us know when MOMA contacts you for a show. I'll shake your hand in person.
     
  68. Any Photographer/Artist call them what you want...
    Does not care about anyone else's vision.
    They do their own thing.
    And if they think crap is crap good for them.
     
  69. Okay, man. We get it. I'm tired of your verbal diarrhea.
     
  70. "You let us know when MOMA contacts you for a show. I'll shake your hand in person.
    I do my thing, for myself,....I do not care a monkey about Moma or Dada.
    But I have an interest in challenging BS.
     
  71. Well at least we know you're good at something.
     
  72. Thanks.
    BS remover. Cool.
     
  73. Yup. Janitor bound. Which I appreciate. And will shake your hand. granted you wash them.
     
  74. You are Troll. Thanks for fun.
    "Yup. Janitor bound"
    Tough job but somebody got to do it. Underpaid.
     
  75. Okay, recess is over.
     

Share This Page