Should digital users try film, and... vice versa?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by ray ., Apr 21, 2005.

  1. No doubt, digital users, as good photogs, ideally, those who
    haven't- should try shooting some film and get to the point where
    they can make a good silver print. Those hanging on to film
    should get some experience with a DSLR and find out what can
    be done in photoshop. Might make attitudes a little less
    dogmatic, at any rate...
  2. peace, love and understanding make for horribly dull internet, though.
  3. Why?

    Digital shooters would probably hate the process, epecially if they do the darkroom work themselves. Film shooters would need to spend a fortune for the equipment, materials, software and updated computer.

    Whatever floats your boat's okay by me.
  4. I'm still working on learning to shoot and print film. I've been doing it over thirty years and it's still a challenge to me. When I feel I know everything about shooting and printing film, and reach a point of perfection such that it's no longer challenging or interesting, then I might move on to digital... but don't hold your breath on that because it probably won't happen in my lifetime. ;>)

    Seriously, who has the time or can afford the investment in money to do what you suggest?

  5. Lots of people express very strong opinions around here...
    Getting down in the trenches with both would lend more
    legitimacy to whatever your viewpoint is. If you're not willing or
    able to then maybe you should temper your comments
  6. At this time most people shooting digital started with film. Why do they have to print? As HCB said regarding darkroom work: "I am a hunter, not a cook".
  7. Dennis, the investment isn't prohibitive..... this is the Leica forum.
  8. I'm not talking HCB, most people don't have the luxury of hiring a
    top notch printer. There's nothing like doing this stuff yourself to
    know what's possible with the technology. If you're going to lack
    knowledge in some areas of the medium, at least admit it.
  9. I don't think Ray's contending that people need to *own* a bunch of new gear.

    In many cases, friends have dslr's. Take back all the !!*&^GU%$!! terrible things you've said to your dslr-owning buddy, and spend an hour or two with him/her and the camera. Snap some shots, then go back to the house and put a few on screen and watch what happens.

    Same thing, in reverse, for those who've never really held/shot a film camera (or a rangefinder in particular), or if time permits, consider a darkroom visit.

    Neither will become expert in what the other does, but you might have some fun.

    Of course, one of my strongest positions in an argument might go right out the window: "Now don't confuse me with the facts ..." -:)
  10. Then there's the nettlesome problem of helping digital shooters spell the word F-I-L-M.

    Patience . . . patience.
  11. maybe people who enjoy film, should shoot film, and people who enjoy
    digital,should shoot digital.
  12. Reality once more struck at 10 AM today. I stopped by my friend Mike's portrait and wedding studio. He made another attempt to comvince me to buy his "old" DSLR "and I can send a LOT of work your way!" No offer of a cup of coffee like the old days. Worse, no suggestion to go down the block to get our coffee at the neighborhood donut shop. Nope. He was too busy squinting at the screen, tapping the keyboard, moving the mouse, extolling the virtues of...

    Then he got up to get some papers from his office (the computer stuff is in the camera room) and he couldn't straighten out his back. He hobbled out of the studio holding his back, hunched forward, knees still bent, a pained look on his face. Too many hours on an ill fitting too tall stool, bent over the keyboard, and he's the first to admit it! But he loves what he can do with photoshop. He loves that prints spit out dry from the printer, cropped just so, and RIGHT NOW!

    He's been the film route. He has a complete wet 1-Hour lab in house and another machine for wet printing 20x30 posters. He just loves playing on the computer. There's no getting away from that fact. The fortune in hardware and software? Not a consideration. How can you argue with that?
  13. Ray:

    I don't have to worry about working for a news agency or some other photographic enterprise where digital is mandatory; there is no compelling reason for me to learn digital. So the question I have to ask myself is whether digital will make me a better photographer? Here, we are rather often reminded by some that it's not the equipment that matters, it's the photographer. And I agree... although I think I now understand the concept sufficiently and don't need to be reminded anymore.

    There are some on PN who think my pictures are "boring", "cliched" and, basically, "suck". Wouldn't my time therefore be better spent learning to be a better photographer rather than learning digital? If I follow the prevailing argument on PN then different equipment won't make me a better photographer.

    Digital is ubiquitous... even I've played around with other people's digital cameras. I've seen enough of it to appreciate what they like about digital... and what needs of theirs digital may better serve. But, for me, I see no reason to learn digital.

    Ray, at one time you were a prolific and enthusiastic Leica shooter. Did you go digital? Did it make you a better photographer?

  14. Ray, the only people I know who shoot digital and have never shot film are rank newbies. After all, digital has only gotten good and affordable in the last few years. The people blasting film and extoling the superiority of digital seem to all be former film shooters.

    I've shot digital (20D). Being able to shoot color indoors at ISO 1600 without speed-robbing filtration, and then to get much less "noise" than ISO 1600 film's got grain, and to get the effect of a 1.6 teleconverter with no loss lens speed or image quality were great features. Someday I may shoot completely digital, but right now I'm in no hurry. As long as film is available I can wait and watch as digital technology evolves further and prices on equipment drops (well, other than Leica who raise their prices even when facing bankruptcy). Nobody's going to refuse to sell me a digital camera in 2010 just because I didn't jump on the bandwagon in 2005.
  15. : "I am a hunter, not a cook".

    Hmm,lets it it raw then. Or, maybe extra well done.

    Sorry H best to go from start to finish. Hope your listening up there..hey, what's it like....can you talk.....or is it not allowed by the great moderater up there in the sky.
  16. well, I can't read Ray's mind, but I think he was gently suggesting that a fair amount of advice gets handed out in this forum from people who are proud of their ignorance of much technology that has evolved in the past 50 years or so. I think he was suggesting that rather than dishing out opinions based on little more than stale prejudice, forum participants actually spend a few hours doing something other than sucking their collective thumbs. At least that's how I read it, though I certainly could be wrong.
  17. Any film shooter can get a very good taste of the digital world by scanning the film and editing it in Photoshop.
  18. I do digital photography with a $10 50 year-old-TLR and a $450 brand new Epson 4990 scanner. I also make silver prints but that is just for fun. Serious work is displayed in digital only.
  19. After a lifetime of film, I've spent five years in digital, and I prefer film. It's much more intuitive to me, and the learning curve is easier than the software required to post process digital images. Digital produces a fast image, but post processing takes all the fun out of it. The jargon connected with digital software and computers in general is just too much for me to bear. Buggy programs don't help one bit, either!
  20. I'm a 'shooter' and my tools are sometimes film and sometimes digital. I don't realy think any differently about the subject I'm pointing my 'tool' at when working with either. Scanned film or RAW digital files get roughly the same treatment in Photoshop and after spending yers in the darkroom I don't miss it at all. A traditional darkroom background of messing about with enlargers and trays of chemicals won't IMO give you any advantage over someone who has sat down and learnt Photoshop properly and it certainly won't change the way you look at or photograph your subjects or environment.
  21. Re: "Should digital users try film, and... vice versa?"

    Sure, why not? I did. Trying to figure out a digicam so I can shoot is like trying to program my newest TV so I can watch. No thanks. Too complicated---and by the time I figure it out there'll be 3 replacements of a new and improved model and broadcast TV will have gone to HD, but with a price. Let's leave digital to the children. They are the future, afterall. That's what I think. ;*)
  22. How? He watched the American election 4&1/2 years ago. ;*)
  23. Amarican elections are NOT stolen! They're bought and paid for.
  24. Ahhh..., right. I forgot. You are correct of course, Al. Now back to a little spin and spankin' the baby. ;*)
  25. Maybe those who can make a good silver print should have a serious attempt to learn digital rather than just coming out with the same old nonsense about how rubbish/time consuming/complicated/doughnut depriving/back aching it all is.

    "Let's leave digital to the children" yeh Frank digital is sooo new.

    I have been in IT since 1979 and I know people who have made a lifetimes career of computers/digital electronics since they were at college and they are now retired men in their 60s! Digital music (not just CD) is 1970s technology despite the fact that it has only been in the shops for 23 years it has been around in the studio longer than that. Digital SLRs celebrate their 15th year this year.

    Can we forget this idea that digital is some cheap 'here today gone tomorrow' plastic novelty item that the world will get tired of.

    What I get get tired of is people whingeing about all this so called 'new fangled' technology! (Technology that was actually around when Al Kaplan was a teenager.) In those days only the 'high priests' of computing working for governments, universities and the military and large companies were allowed to (or could afford to) use this technology because it was so expensive. Over the last 30 years hundreds of thousands of very clever people and some very enterprising companies have dragged the computer from the clutches of the 'establishment' and stuck it in your living rooms and it only costs a few hundred dollars. Yet you still whine. The same people have moved mountains to make it simple for you to use with swishy pictures and kindergarten pointy clickey operating systems. Yet you still whine. (Try a few real old fashioned operating system like MVS/XA or JES2 or VM or OS-400 or VTAM or CICS if you think your PC is complicated.)

    So the worlds biggest companies and finest technologists and scientists and nobel prize winners have bust their b*lls to democratise computing and enable you and I to perform what were dreams & miracles 50 years ago for a few hundred dollars and you say "it is a childs toy" or a 'gimmick' or the pointy clickey pictures are too complicated. Boo hoo.

    And now someone is seriously suggesting that I have to qualify to use a digital camera by making my own silver based prints first. WHAT!?
  26. Let me give you a different perspective... I seem to spend half my life tied to a computer. I've enjoyed film photography for a long time and I don't want to give up that aspect that keeps me off the computer. Film photography is more of a real life experience, for lack of a better description, than cyber world. I like the idea of having a negative that I can hold in my hand and look at rather than an image residing somewhere inside a computer. When I look at a negative, or even through the viewfinder, I'm imagining what a print will look like, not how an image may look on a computer screen. It's just a different mindset that works for me. But, as has been often repeated, everyone should stick to what they like and feel comfortable with. Photographers in the real world usually don't have debates or discussions like this... only on the internet.
  27. You're quite correct Trevor. The early forms of that technology go back to my teen years, when printed circuits were the wonder. By the late 60's one of my photography clients, Racal Milgo, was a Miami company that made "modems" that allowed computers to talk to one another over phone lines, amazing technology! "Beepers" were just becoming popular with attornies, doctors, and executives. You'd get beeped, find a phone, and call your answering service to get your message!

    A "portable phone" along with its battery pack filled an attache case and only worked in areas close to where the towers were. Some still had rotary dials but "touch tone" was still in the future. A few of my political clients had them. An assistant carried it around.

    Programming required learning computer "languges" like FORTRAN and/or COBAL and then putting your program on IBM punch cards. My wife was studying programming and our house was awash in punch cards.

    Now you don't need a degree to hook up a modem, you don't need to learn a "language" to load a program into your PC, and it should be possible to do a whole bunch of other things with the simplicity of sending and receiving emails, but so far it's not.
  28. Ray, those who have to make a living out of photography use digtal as well as film or are celebrities themselves and made their career a long time ago and don't mind what an editor wants.

    If you get your negative developed, scanned and sent to the magazin in less than 10 minutes you can compete against the digital shooters, otherwise they'll get the job.

    If you're on a model shoot for a mail order catalogue and get 300 printable shoots to choose from in one day, you've got the job.

    There is not much space left for people who insist on producing art and expect the world to wait for them :-(
  29. Al, it's COBOL - COmmon Buisiness Orientated Language - and it's quite easy. Compared to RPG or PL/1 it's a breaze!

    Today most programs are in C or C++, Basic (yes, realy!) and Java wins more ground every day.

    I realy think that every Computer user should have a solid training in a procedural language like Pascal or Java.
  30. Sorry! It's been 30+ years. It's a wonder that I remember as many details as I do, considering that it was the wife who was taking the courses! I bet there are still some chads in the cracks under the baseboards.
  31. I shoot both. I shoot digital for work. I shoot B&W film for myself. Hands down, I would shoot a film camera any day of the week over digital. That is just the way I shoot. For my work, digital is great, but for myself, I will take film and a wet darkroom any day. Maybe it is just me, but I find digital DSLR's annoying and if a camera is annoying, who in the hell wants to use it?
  32. Ray, at one time you were a prolific and enthusiastic Leica shooter.
    I remember Ray (sounds like an obituary) as a great photographer, knowledgeable about photography and art in general, and fun to shoot with. It was clear he had a leica (an M7, I think), but I don't remember it coming up in conversation, any more than a minute anyway. So "enthusiastic leica shooter' doesn't resonate with me. Just as I doubt people think of me as a Sony shooter.
    To answer Ray's question, I had a darkroom a long time ago - with an Opemus enlarger. Was a lot of fun then and it really felt like magic... Today, now that I'm much more serious about photography, I just don't have the time to deal with all the pix I shoot - I might shoot 300+ pix in a few hours. Digital makes that so much easier to get through - it's a time thing. It's not like I need MF quality for the type of photography I do.
    I have no negative feelings towards film. Before I went digi I used an Olympus XA for about a year - a fine pocketable camera. As soon as I went digital, my ability to capture interesting images skyrocketed dramatically. Probably because I could shoot lots of pix, experiment heavily, and not have to sweat the costs. It's freedom to let your mind wander and experiment...
  33. "I might shoot 300+ pix in a few hours."

    We have a saying New Orleans... if you go to enough parades, you're bound to catch SOME beads. ;>)
  34. Uh, well, OK then. Good luck to you on the beads.
  35. I'd say there's something to be said about the experimentation to which Brad refers.

    Having started photography relatively recently, *everything* I take is experimental. -:) But if I pop a 1 gig card (a fast one is now approx $85 - $95) into a camera and I'm taking my dig camera's fine jpegs, the 'counter' shows that I have over 270 photos to take, starting from scratch. And I've got a 512 mb card in my pocket for good measure, so I'm ready for 400 shots, give or take.

    I've never taken that many; I don't believe I've yet taken half that many in one outing. Of course I could go out with 10 rolls of film, 36 shots per roll, and have essentially the same capacity.

    But I know myself: I won't look at it that way. I will somehow conserve the film in ways in which I do not conserve the memory on the card. When I do use film -- and I still do -- a little voice says, "C'mon, you took 8 shots of x already. How many are you gonna need?"

    This is applicable to me, perhaps not to others. But it's a factor.
  36. There are some on PN who think my pictures are "boring", "cliched" and, basically, "suck". Wouldn't my time therefore be better spent learning to be a better photographer rather than learning digital?
    Yes, absolutely!!!! It's not the medium or camera. And why learn digital if it doesn't interest you?
    BTW, I liked your Reggie pic.
  37. Maybe I just need a motor drive...
  38. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    When I do use film -- and I still do -- a little voice says, "C'mon, you took 8 shots of x already. How many are you gonna need
    Michael, I've seen some Garry Winogrand contact sheets in which there were 36 shots that, for all practical purposes, looked identical. However, there were probably minor differences from frame to frame that made Winogrand want to see what they looked like with those differences.
    It's not about the technology you're using, but what you want to see. In Winogrand's case, he wanted to see those minor differences. You can see the same thing at the Arbus show - she would shoot a roll on a very simple subject. With only 12 shots on a roll, she obviously had fewer than Winogrand, but it was the same thing. Other people might have snapped exactly one in the same situation. It doesn't really matter, it's a personal style thing.
    Once you get into the professional arena, it's completely different. It's my experience that editors a) like very different shots than I do, and b) choose based on criteria that I don't care much about (like where the headline will fit.) In this case, the more you shoot, the better chance you have of getting a shot that's desirable to the editor. Interestingly enough, it really fine tunes the skill to have to shoot non-stop and produce good shots.
  39. if we all could just get some more mega-pixels in our cameras somehow this
    uneasy feeling would disapear and we could lay to rest this digital angst.
  40. Good point Jeff. I've worked with editors and art directors that just loved to put copy and headlines over the picture. They wanted large areas of very light or very dark with no important information and/or details, so the picture would still make sense but the headline and/or text could appear there also. If you're working with an art director you'll usually be supplied with a sketch of exactly what they want, but when shooting a story it pays to keep that in mind when framing some of your shots.
  41. There are certainly some people who could benefit from spending a day with a DSLR. Gary is typical of that type of person.

    I know I probably sound like I'm anti-film at times, but I'm not. I don't care what someone uses to make a photograph as long as it's a good photograph. And, yes, there's some film loaded MF equipment next to my 10D.

    But I do get tired of hearing/reading the "myths of digital".

    One myth is that lots of complex, difficult to learn post processing is involved. 99% of my digital shots involve nothing more than setting levels, minor color correction (if necessary), and a light USM. If it takes me 30s to get to printing I'm moving really slow for the day.

    Chosing and, for RAW, converting the shots that get this terribly complex treatment takes more time, but not nearly as much time as reviewing slides on a light table and scanning.

    If someone doesn't like computers and prefers a darkroom, fine. But when someone says that digital post processing is just too much to learn they leave me with the impression that they're not very intelligent (sorry). Either that or they're just too afraid of "new fangled technology". Get the shot right in the camera and the rest is cake.
  42. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "Should digital users try film, and... vice versa?"

    of course. but what about the hybrids?
  43. Okay. Listen up. Here's my final answer.


    I like what I'm doing. I get good results with the methods I use. I have no one else to please but me. I'm not interested in trying something else. I really don't need to justify myself.

    Neither do you.

    It's great if you're enthusiastic about your way of doing things. More power to you. Enjoy yourself. Live long and prosper.

    Give me the same consideration.
  44. In every one of these amorphous globs of dissonant digital discussions I usually manage to glean something to better understand that some aspects of digital shooting are completely compatible with film shooting... but sometimes something jumps out that punctuates some possible fundamental differences.

    I was honestly a little taken aback to read one person's comment that digital enables him to take over 300 shots in several hours and, as I understood his comments, to quickly edit those. I have no idea if that number of shots is unusually high, low or pretty standard for a DSLR street shooter. Compared to the kind of film based street shooting that I do it struck me as high, although other film based street shooters may use more film than I do. (FWIW, I know about Garry Winogrand... Winogrand was an aberration, a famous photographer, and IMO his blast away style did not always produce stunning results.)

    Years ago (pre-digital) I used to hang out with some newspaper photographers and watched them work up close. Armed usually with motor-drive Nikons they would literally blast away and chew up film like it was paper. Then it was up their photo editor to find something he liked out of the bunch. In some respects, it might be argued, some styles of DSLR shooting might be akin to newspaper shooting... shoot everything and then sort it out later. Maybe you caught something... maybe you didn't. But the greater number of shots increases the likelihood that you may have caught something. Apparently digital DSLR shooting enables you to take prodigious amounts of shots and process them quickly.

    Some people may use their digital cameras to take good pictures at office parties or family gatherings; others may take pictures of landscapes; others, more abstract compositions. Some may use auto-focus; some may not. Some may use auto-exposure; some may not. You can take the same kinds of pictures with a Leica M, with a point and shoot or with any other type of camera imaginable. In that respect, that type of digital photography is not much different from film photography. But what I'm curious about are the amateur DSLR street shooters.

    My question (and I don't mean this argumentatively, but simply out of curiosity) is how do amateur DSLR shooters work. I am sure there is diversity there. I am not talking about newspaper shooters who actually have to take tons of images to provide an editor a wide selection of shots. I'm talking about the amateur shooter who uses a DSLR. How many use auto-focus? How often? How many use auto-exposure? How often? How many use use a motor drive? (How many frames per second?) How often?

    Also, how do you edit your shots? If you take 300 shots in one outing, what percentage are keepers? What do you do with the rejects? How long do you keep rejects? (For example, I keep all my old negatives and go back and look at them from time to time. I look at my old mistakes quite often. It's a learning tool.)

    I'd be intersted in hearing some responses before commenting further. But it strikes me that, in some instances, the camera may be an important element in dictating the style and mind set of the photographer. I am not passing judgment or criticizing any photographers or types of photography... but the comments mentioned above piqued my curiosity.

  45. I shoot film and play with them in PS.heheh
  46. Some answers: 1) I wander around areas that feel interesting. Usually they're large cities. 2) AF 99% of the time (MF if I'm concentrating on something special) 3) AE all the time 4) My new Canon dSLR can supposedly shoot at 5 fps. I have that turned off. That's wasteful for what I do.
    How do you edit your shots: When I get back from shooting, I download my memory cards into a "project" (named by the date and city - for example 2005-4-20 SF) of an image management program (mine is iView Media Pro). From that I see all the thumbnails for the day's shooting. I quickly look at those (can click to make pix full size) in a first pass. If a shot looks interesting, I can click a button which opens it in photoshop for processing. Simple processing for the web usually takes about 30-60 seconds. Simple processing for a print (that's tons better than any minilab) takes about the same time - maybe a bit more. Something I really like and want to put the attention on it can take anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour (or so) depending on the work/edits needed.
    Percentage of "keepers" varies. When I was first starting out I paid attention to that. I don't anymore. Maybe it's a few percent. That doesn't mean the others are crap. It means they're not interesting and have no deeper meaning - ie boring. They may still be fine snapshots that someone else would say are nice. They may also be multiple shots of the same thing - with different angle, lighting, etc. I keep all the files and never throw anything out - storage (and backup) is cheap. Sometimes I go back a year and find something I missed earlier. Attitudes change.
    All of the shots I process go into an "edited" project file. iView let's me create an html presentation, which I upload to the web. Each presentation on the web (I probably have close to a hundred) represents a days shooting. For example, here are some edited pix from shooting in SF on 3/20/05. Looking at these again today, a month later, I'd probably toss half of them out, or reprocess some differently. When I have time, I'll do that.
    By the way, the 300 shots in a couple of hours is definitely an upper-bound. I was in Las Vegas until yesterday. On Tuesday, I shot 335 pix in 3h 16min. I wasn't timing this, it's just information that's recorded in the digital files and easy to see. I don't view that as any kind of metric (of goodness or badness). When I go out and shoot, many times I'll do multiple shots of the same thing, different angles, exposure compensation, a person approaching, a storefront, etc. It's rare when I go out shooting in SF for a couple of hours and don't come back with at least 200 shots. It's free.
  47. For example, here are some edited pix from shooting in SF on 3/20/05
    You shot these in one day? I've a good mind to scratch your eyes out :) - note the grin symbol. I was hoping to convey a sense of jealousy.
    Brad, thanks for the feedback on a day-in-the-life. That stuff is very useful.
  48. An article ran the in local rag a couple of weeks ago that hit on something I never thought of before. In the "old days" of family snapshots, all those pictures got stashed in boxes without regard to the quality of the photos. There were no rejects--people kept everything. I guess the idea was that you weren't wasting film as long as you kept all the pictures you made with it. Along came digital photography and every shot that's not considered perfect gets deleted. Shoot 'til you get it right.

    What's wrong with that? Nothing in the short term but in the long run, there might be an unforeseen consequence. People could lose their connection with their past.

    The theory is that those old snapshots that are poorly composed, poorly focused, poorly exposed and, in many cases, embarassing for the subjects, are really connections to moments and memories people later treasure. By deleting these photographic mistakes, our connection to the events photographed is severed. I know from experience that personal connections to photographs of loved ones who are no longer living are stronger than the aesthetics of the photographs themselves.

    As far as the statement that it is a poor argument for someone to say that they don't shoot digital because they don't like computers, they don't understand Photoshop, their photography is just a hobby and they prefer shooting film--I actually think that is the best argument there is. It's doing what you want to do with the tools and materials you feel comfortable using. The concept that I should embrace every possible aspect of every possible photographic nuance that exists escapes me. It's the equivalent of telling Cartier-Bresson he should use an 8x10 or telling Clyde Butcher to try sports photography.
  49. Along came digital photography and every shot that's not considered perfect gets deleted. Shoot 'til you get it right.
    Not true with me, Lee. As I said above: I keep all the files and never throw anything out - storage (and backup) is cheap. Sometimes I go back a year and find something I missed earlier. Attitudes change.
    I still have my first digital shots from 3 years ago.
  50. were formally "crippled" because they charge an extra $100 per camera to be able to use a de-crypting software program that de-codes the proprietary encrypting format that Nikon used on their RAW files, but now those dudes that wrote the "dcraw" software have reverse-engineered it so you can incorporate the Nikon RAW image conversion into your own software if you're a software programming company like Adobe for programs like photoshop for instance.

    Wow! I can't believe how much money these companies charge to allow you to use something that is supposed to be, without all of these little limitations, for practical purposes supposedly "free".

    They charge you for the camera. They charge you for the flash card(s). They charge you for the batteries. They charge you for the software. They charge you for the lenses. They charge you for the printer. They charge you for the computer. They charge you for the paper. They charge you for the ink. And you end up doing all the post producing work. My, what a bargain! No wonder Leica is supposedly "going under" they don't charge you for any of that kind of crap... past the lens and camera body.

    So, the point is, the pictures might be the same, practically speaking wise, but no matter which way you go, be it "digital" or "Leica / film" you're going to end up spending a butt load of money. It just depends where you want to spend it, realistically speaking. I mean, do you want a really good lens? Or do you want a crappy lens and the supposed "convenience" of being able to shoot 300 pictures in 3 hours. I mean, that's like 300 pictures you have to yawn... I mean, sort through and then you've got to open up photoshop and you've got to edit those pictures and then you've got to get your printer out and open up another box of premium photo glossy at $1 a pop... You get the picture.

    No matter which way you go: Leica or digital, you're going to be spending about the same amount of money. I mean, you don't really save any money on one hour photo "printing" costs because you're spending the same amount of money, or more, on paper, ink, electricity, time, labor... I mean, these companies are not stupid, they know how to make money off of you, be it by making you pay for the film processing costs, or buying all that digital accessory crap off of them. I mean, it seems like they're trying to pull business away from the mom and pop and the walmart one hour photo centers and rake it in for themselves without doing any of the labor that these one hour photo places do; by shunting the work off onto the "consumer" or should they say: extended unpaid employee / slave.

    HahHah! You know, I'm being facetious, don't you? Don't take it personally. It's all about making money for these companies. I mean, really, practically speaking, it doesn't really matter which one you use, just enjoy photography in general, I mean, this website is called ""

    link to story about reverse engineering Nikon's photo encryption.
  51. (Brad has a 150,000 gb drive;)

    Hmm, I don't think they're quite equivalent Lee, because we're
    talking about accomplishing some of the same things in a more
    efficient and productive matter lots of times with digital vs film
    cams. I see your point though. It's all photography, but I think
    some just close themselves needlessly to the options. I'm not
    ready to get rid of my rangefinder at this point, because I still
    think there are some things it does better, but getting a dslr has
    been like having a new toy. It's been fun for me to see how a
    different instrument can be used to the same basic end... I
    guess there's some legitimacy to your idea about snapshots
    being lost, but really, I think people tend to keep photos of loved
    ones whether they're perfectly composed or not. I'm sure lots of
    film based snaps have gotten tossed as well, when it might have
    been better to have saved them.

    In answer to your question Dennis, maybe at the core the quality
    of my work won't change, but I think using a good digital cam is a
    means of freeing things up for me. It does lend itself to
    experimentation, and also, a dslr, like a film SLR, is just a more
    versatile instrument than a rangefinder. Experimentation can
    lead to meaningful innovation...well, possibly. If you haven't, I'd
    recommend a look at the film about Nachtwey, 'War
    Photographer'. Aside from the essential content of the film, it's
    interesting to see how he approaches people and photography
    with an automated film SLR, which functions in many ways
    (motor drive etc) like a DSLR.
  52. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "Percentage of "keepers" varies. When I was first starting out I paid attention to that. I don't anymore."

    Yes, it's a practice from film shooting. Being bound by the cost and hassle. It took me a few months to drop the film practice of being hesitant of what I once shot. Hesitant on the subject, hesitant on bracketing, on angles on lens sizes. I have a freezer full of film I'm guilty I own and am trying to use up. Film is a pain. What am I supposed to do with a keeper? Get it scanned? Okay, at home on my Epson and get marginal results, or send it out for a proper expensive scan? What am i supposed to do with the box of unwanted ones? Put them with the rest of the slides that are the only copy and that are slowly degrading? I come home with my film cam half exposed. I want to see them and play with them but I can't until I've finished the roll. Another $25 roll.

    To return to Ray's original post. Most experienced film shooters and wet darkroom users take to digital like a duck to water. Most never return. The market shows this in both amateur and professional use. All those hours of experimenting in the darkroom, and making mistakes, are available with Photoshop. All the creative thoughts one had while dodging and burning and flashing and bleaching and multi-contrast printing, are available, under control and repeatable, with a computer. If film was invented today, it would never reach the market and take off.

    I was leaning on the counter of my pro lab last week chatting with the owner. I had an in interest in the amount that digital has effected his business. Four years ago he used to process over 500 rolls of film a day for Vancouver's pro photographers. Today he hardly reaches 100. My one roll of Velvia was one of them.

    In which manner, Ray, you speak of, and the level of shooter or photographer, to answer your question, depends. If one just loads film and has the local drug store develop and scan their film, then I can't see 'going digital' being much of a benefit, except cost. Two or three rolls a month? Who would really be interested in spending thousands to become adequately re-tooled in digital? Not many. If one is shooting hundreds of digital files a week, who would be interested in going to film? Not many. It's a grey mucky area for the time being. But an interesting question to ask again in five years, in ten years.
  53. Actually, "motor drive" is sort of a pejorative term, suggesting a
    maniacal annoying press/paparazzi photographer who shoots
    willy nilly in hopes of getting something to make a buck. I don't
    think too many people using DSLR's to do street photography
    are shooting in continuous mode. "Automatic film advance"
    might be a more useful term. It's just another distraction
    eliminated to allow you to focus on getting the shot you want.
  54. That said, I haven't really done any street shooting yet with my
    digital. The jury is still out on how I'll feel about using it for that,
    but it's definitely been useful for other stuff I wanted to use it for.
  55. What did you get Ray?
  56. You mean brand? It's not the cam, Brad. ;)

    D70... seems good.
  57. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    You mean brand? It's not the cam, Brad. ;)
    Maybe he just wanted to see if he could share lenses with you.
  58. Interesting use of the wide angle lens, Brad. Nice work.

    I enjoy using both film and just depends where i'm at in that moment in time.

    Just enjoy the choice.
  59. Actually, "motor drive" is sort of a pejorative term,...
    Yeah, and I ignored it further above knowing the implied negative connotation - that if you shoot enough, fast enough, you'll likely catch something worthwhile - like a a few dozen monkeys with typewriters eventually knocking out some Shakespeare in 1000 years...
    I view it as having an almost unlimited supply of free film (and processing), so if you see something interesting, you don't have to think too much on weighing the costs as to whether to snap it or not - or take multiple snaps from different positions.
    Eric raises some interesting real-world issues above on the notion of keepers and non- keepers and how you handle them in the film world. And I think his views on the thresholds for crossing the line to "go digital" make a lot of sense.
  60. "It's all photography, but I think some just close themselves needlessly to the options."

    Ray, this goes to the heart of some of these discussions... dinosaurs like Lee and I don't want the digital option. We're happy still trying to master what we do now. By saying that people "needlessly" close themselves to options you are passing a value judgment. It suggests we'd be better off taking options. Our choices aren't needless, thank you very much... we're perfectly happy doing what we do.

    As for the documentary of which you spoke and the use of an automated SLR you may be unaware that during the nineties all I used were two Nikon N70 cameras. I am extrememly familiar with the use of auto-focus, auto-exposure SLR cameras which, as you point out, are similar in operation to DSLR cameras.

    This is what I found: If you shoot on AE you and the camera may not be on the same wave length. So I would go to a spot metering mode and point at the part of the scene I wanted to meter off of and then lock the exposure. If I was shooting on AF and I wanted to place the subject off center I would point at the subject and lock into the focus. Then I would recompose and shoot. Not the fastest way to shoot street. Once you get the hang of it you can do it fairly quickly... but I found myself fiddling with dials a whole lot.

    That is one of the reasons I switched back to Leica in 2001 when I started concentrating primarily on street phtography again. The Leica was small, simple and mechanical... and for me much faster to use. I didn't have to mess with all those damn dials. I could concentrate more on what was in the finder.

    With the Nikons there was sometimes the temtptaion to just leave it on one of the AE modes and blast away with the motor drive. When you shoot that way though all you actually see is the first shot. I got off more shots that way... but I can't speak to the quality.

    Anyway, it still boils down to what Lee said... just use what you feel comfortable with what gives you the most satisfaction. I talked to a guy not too long ago who used to hang out on and now runs a film based internet site. He said "people there were always acting like there was something wrong with me because I didn't want to shoot digital." I said "I know the feeling." ;>)

  61. ...if you see something interesting, you don't have to think too much on weighing the costs as to whether to snap it or not - or take multiple snaps from different positions....
    I agree, this has definitely been my experience. On the other hand, there's something to be said for limitations, depends how you look at it or how you want to approach it. With film and without a film advance, maybe you concentrate on making the one shot count. I think it's definitely worked for me at times that way in the past. In the end, I think a good photographer can take advantage of either system.
    Dennis, I wasn't trying to impose anything on anyone.;)
  62. "...just use what you feel comfortable with (and) what gives you the most satisfaction."
    Unfortunately for some that's not enough. Everything needs to be turned into a competition.
    I'm pleasantly surprised to see this thread remain civil. It's actually informative and interesting to read the rational behind why some people have gone in one direction or another minus the normal dosage of bile.
  63. "Actually, "motor drive" is sort of a perjorative term, suggesting a maniacal annoying press/paparazzi photographer who shoots willy nilly in hopes of getting something to make a buck."

    Ray, why do you say "motor drive' is sort of a perjorative term? Do you think that DSLR-shooting photjournalists don't use motor-drive most of the time? I'll bet they do to capture moving subjects and other action. And since they might not know when the action will arise I'll bet many leave their cameras on continuous mode. As Jeff pointed out:

    "...the more you shoot, the better chance you have of getting a shot that's desirable to the editor."

    Motor-drive is just another tool. If I was a PJ I know I'd use it. And if you've bought a DSLR you've paid for those five frames per second.

  64. Ray, excellant idea. Teaching that heals! I'd have no qualms about trying a Dslr. In fact, I've been trying street shooting with a Hassy lately. If you want, we cold get toghether one day and bring the Hassey and the DSLR out and switch for a while. (check out my LA st folder) Mixed success but enough interest to keep me going.
  65. Al, you might suggest to your buddy to not be such a cheapskate and take a moment away from his mouse to go get an ergonomic chair. No need to suffer a bad back..there are solutions.
  66. Dennis, one stupid question. How do you focus your Leica? I do focus and recompose as often with rangefinders as I do it with manual or AF SLRs.

    Only exception is the scale focus Rollei 35TE. There its "f8 and be there".
  67. Barry, I've been meaning to email you, and I will, because I've
    been thinking on a couple occaisions it would be good to have a
    shooting companion... I've just been busy lately. Call me if you
    still have my number, or I'll get in touch with you.

    Volker, Leicas/rangefinders are meant for zone focusing, and in
    some respects, they still are the fastest thing going on the street.
    Can't get any faster than "click", but then you've got to advance
    the film unless you pick up an accessory motor drive.

    Brad, can I get an adaptor for my D70 to use with your
    10-22mm? ;)
  68. "Dennis, one stupid question. How do you focus your Leica?"

    Volker, there is no such thing as a stupid question; only stupid... uhh, nevermind. ;>)

    I like it when someone asks me how I do something but I hate how "know-it-all" it comes out when I answer... but anyway.

    To answer directly: a lot of zone focusing. Let me explain. More and more I'm finding my pictures are "one-shot" deals. I watch a situation developing and sometimes only manage to get off one shot. Sometimes I could meter and focus the shot but I'm reluctant to raise the camera until I'm ready to press the button because the subjects may see me doing it and become aware that I'm about to snap their picture. I have probabaly already checked out the lighting around me with my camera meter or a Gossen Luna Pro SBC with a Lunasphere incident attachment. I may adjust the exposure setting according to my eye. Normally I try to shoot around f5.6 or f8 because the lens is sharp at those apertures and because I know I will have significant depth of field. So I guesstimate the distance to the subject. When the moment arrives all I do is raise the camera to my eye and snap.

    Sometimes, walking around, I have a pretty good idea of the distance parameters of where I am most likely going to find a shot (It could be six to twelve feet for example.) and I pre-focus between those numbers and pre-set the exposure to allow enough depth of field. So I just walk around and I'm ready to "point and shoot".

    In other situations when I have enough time to check the meter and to focus, I do it conventionally. One little focusing trick I picked up years ago and which works for me is after a shot, to turn the focusing ring back to infinity. Unless I'm walking around pre-focused I always keep the lens on infinity so I always start focusing from the same spot. It seems to make focusing quicker and easier. I am so much in the habit of doing it that I automatically turn the focusing ring back to infinity after taking my shot(s).

    Preparation, preparation, preparation... :>)

    Thanks for asking...

  69. I just love the trix grain and tonal range. It's not really about the camera. If the D70 can give me that, I'll gladly switch. Is there a plugin in PS that can mimic that?

    Besides, working in the DR is fun.
  70. I'm thinkin', with the few days experience I have with the D70,
    then looking at Brad's pics and Grant's blog, that control of
    contrast- getting detail in highlights and shadows, is a little of a
    problem with digital. I've got the contrast setting on my digicam
    set at low. Then I looked at my site of pics shot with film, and
    there's maybe not that much difference between the two when
    the photo is made in bright sunlight. Maybe with that kind of light
    stuff just comes out looking like that, unless you print drab flat.
    This has probably been discussed endlessly, but anyone care to
    offer their thoughts on it?
  71. I dunno Ray... I process my pix in ps to get a high-contrast look - and letting the blacks
    and whites clip. Sometimes I add noise and jack up the contrast even more.

    Maybe someone else can weigh-in that's more into preserving tonal range.
  72. Besides, working in the DR is fun.
    You mean the part when you close the door and leave? ;)
    Off topic just a little, the particular photo print you've asked me for, Travis, is definitely lesser in inkjet form from a scanned neg and Epson 2200 compared to the darkroom print. Probably behind glass the difference doesn't show as much. I don't know what this means in terms of digicam output, but I imagine there's still at least a subtle difference. At any rate, I can't see ever going into the darkroom again unless I've got something very special that deserves the possible extra oomph... There's no denying silver and inkjet each have their own particular beauty.
  73. Ray, here's what I mean - a quick example....
    This recent pic is more or less a pretty straight conversion to B&W.
    This is kind of what I go for now.
  74. Ray, couldn't find your number. Yeah, go ahead and email me then, would enjoy gettin together.
  75. Dennis, I see.
    Your technique is close to mine. I have my cameras mostly on F8, too. With the focus set to 3m/9feet this gives me enough DoF on a 35 or 28mm lens to grab a snapshot fast.

    I rely on aperture priority AE and the film latitude for exposure, even with slide film my cameras haven't led me down.
    I haven't used program mode much on my Contax 167mt as I only have one lens which can make use of it. The older 139 and RTS don't have this feature. Same goes for the G2.
    Last year I added a Contax TVS to my arsenal, its a nice companion to the G2, and I use it in close ranges at its widest setting around f4 - 5.6 mostly in AP, too.

    I do focus and recompose with longer lenses at wider f-stops when I have time to do it, although I'm not the "third eyelash from the left in focus, everything else not" type of photographer. Then I mostly use AF with my Contax G2 and Canon D60 as they are in my experience faster and better than I am :)

    Anyways, I've got three rolls of Astia left from my hollidays, the weather is fine and there are pictures to be taken :)

    See you

  76. Brad, you lost me with that second picture. I cannot understand what you find attractive in the metallic tones and complete loss of shadow detail. And why do you want your pictures to look like everybody else's? I can look at w/mw threads on the forum where you post and entire threads sometimes look like they might have been taken by the same person. It's like everyone is copying each other with this wierd style. My advice to you is you should break away and develop your own style. You have a good eye but to be very blunt (and to borrow grant's terminolgy)... this "sucks".

    Sorry... but I'm sure you want a frank appraisal.

  77. Dennis, you and Brad are both good photogs and nice guys... Now, don't start a fight on my thread! ;)
  78. "Now, don't start a fight on my thread! ;)"

    Not sure if I understand your remark, Ray. You routinely give frank, critical evaluations of other people's photographs. I wasn't aware that I was not allowed... ;>)

    My point was that the original is a boring, "found" shot of two mannequins that does not demonstrate any particular talent or skill in either the seeing or the taking... then Brad tried to make the shot dramatic in Photoshop by ramping up the contrast and adding that weird metallic look. If this is what you meant by suggesting that film users learn to use Photoshop, then definitely no thanks.

  79. Dennis, you and Brad are both good photogs and nice guys... Now, don't start a fight on my thread! ;)

    I concur,Ray. Hey, what's wrong with a good banter...just hope they are not getting peed with each other.

    Both excellent photographers with a good sense of humour.
  80. what's wrong with the stinking DR? and what's so great about getting what u want in PS easily? Both gets the job done. It's the man/woman doing it that matters...and nothing else matters.
  81. Ray, why should Brad get mad about an honest critique? You don't give Brad enough credit for maturity.
  82. Dennis, the nice thing about photography, is that if one wants to, they can experiment with different techniques and develop a style they find interesting/ expressive/pleasing and might eventually call it their own. I'm always doing that. For example, earlier I took another approach of very highly saturated color SP. There are a handful of others here (few on this forum) that experiment as well - and in my view, they are some of the more creative photographers. If you don't understand why one would want to do that, or more likely, feel that it's a move away from the ethnic purity of leica photography you espouse, that is certainly your right. You've spoken many times in the past on the forum swaying from "traditional" leica photography.
    Which gets back to your original question: And why do you want your pictures to look like everybody else's?
    Well, don't yours with a straight B&W look, look similar to a few million other photographers. Where is your voice and expressive style?
    It really is a shame, Dennis, that you have this aggressive need to keep people and their photography/art in line to your rigid standards and view of the world. I suspect you might have similar views with respect to pre-1400 Medieval paintings - why the heck couldn't painters keep their art simple and liturgical... Someone's recent analogy with respect to yourself and Tom DeLay was apt.
    You're still playing the Gotcha! game. Time to grow up and stop being disingenuous - your recent several posts are a good example of that.
  83. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    this is were we start laughing at Dennis again?
  84. Jeeez, Brad... awfully touchy aren't you? If you want to believe it's a great shot... go ahead. I'm sure there are lots of your friends who'll tell you it's awesome. Is that what you want? I'm sorry you're not amenable to listening to an honest critique.

    IMO the shot enforces previous remarks I've made about this popular style emphasizing style over substance. And apparently it's not too hard to obtain in Photoshop... that's all I'm saying.

    You have a good eye and IMO you should more often emphasize substance over style. Forget about taking 300 medicore shots in one outing that can be Photoshopped into some cool style. Take fewer shots and concentrate more on improving the content of individual shots. If you are taking 300 shots in two or three hours, when so you have time to think about your shots?

    I'm sorry you are not receptive to criticism and constructive advice Brad.

  85. More disingenuous remarks by Dennis. Nowhere did I say it was a "great" shot. Please
    point out where I said that. You can't of course...

    Just more twisting on Dennis' part. And refusal to address the points.
  86. There's plenty of room to play around with composition, lighting, subject matter in more traditional B&W Leica photography. When it comes to people as subjects, unless you back off with a telephoto you're interacting with your subjects no matter how much you make the attempt to be strictly the observer. And of course all these things would apply to digital capture, or color film for that matter, as well. There's more to "style" just what you can manipulate with photoshop. A Minor White doesn't look like an Ansel Adams.

    W. Eugene Smith, H.C.B., Cornell Capa, all distinct.
  87. Brad, don't be angry and upset because I criticized your picture. It's a boring, very average picture and is not indicative of your level of talent. You attempted to cover up the lack of interesting content with a cool Photoshop style. Do you disagree with this?
    Jeez, man... other people have their pictures criticized. Are you special? The beat kind of critique is the honest, brutally frank kind like I've offered... unless you think you've already reached a point in your photography that it requires no improvement.

    There is nothing inappropriate about my remarks. You response is out of line...

  88. You really are losing it Dennis. The topic YOU brought up was my style (after I responded
    to Ray's question with two photos) . You made the claim my style is like everyone else's. I
    explained why I do what i do. You just keep doing the straw man thing....

    You're looking really silly and disingenuous not staying on-topic.
  89. And why are you trying so hard trying to drive Ray's thread into the ground?
  90. Brad, you are a good photographer. I am sorry that you are emotionally incapable of discussing your photography... unless the observer offers fawning, unbridled adulation.

    That's your problem, Brad... not mine.
  91. And now the insults...
  92. Ray: "possible extra oomph.."

    Ray, wanna share what that is? ;0
  93. "...Tom DeLay"??? ;>)

    Have a nice life , Brad...
  94. I think it is important to be accepting of differing styles and tastes. a photograph should exist on many levels, and the viewer processes through their own selective-filtering of what makes it through. this could change on a daily basis .. and is what makes reviewing an image a year later so exciting. perspectives change, life-experience alters the view. one important lesson in life, is that our personal view of the world (or imagery) is just one view among many, many possibilities.
  95. It really is a shame. This was one of the BETTER threads I've seen on he Leica Forum in a
    long time. Good questions and information exchange. And civil too.

    Then Dennis, feeling the need to railroad the discussion and get some attention, goes at
    it with his 8:21AM comments - which had nothing to do with the thread at all.

    Anyone know why that is?
  96. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    hmm, so we have Brad and others contributing thoughtfully and constructively to Ray's thread that was chugging along just fine amongst the adults. and without an invite, some twat comes along and starts badgering and making things up...again. Dennis, you've become so tiring. give it up.
  97. Daniel:

    I actually agree with you about keeping an open mind about other styles. It doesn't mean we have to like all other styles... and my opinions are just as valid as the next guy's.

    FWIW, in this particular style I think Edmo's work is very good. That's because Edmo's content and composition is interesting. I believe it's Edmo that a lot of wannabes copy. I still can't stand the bronze, metallic skin tones and high contrast, even in Edmo's work, but I still like some of his shots. I'm sure Edmo would disagree with me about his skin tones...

    As for a more traditional style have you seen much of Jung Yang's stuff? Consistently very good stuff.

  98. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "It doesn't mean we have to like all other styles... and my opinions are just as valid as the next guy's."

    since when was this thread about critiquing other styles? you're an ankle-biter-kick-me dog running out and taking any opportunity to have a go at Brad.
  99. Look, Eric... Brad posted pictures to demonstrate his style; and even showed before and after Photoshop examples. Brad wanted everyone to see his work; he wasn't asked to do it. Would it have been inappropriate for someone to say how much they LIKED his pictures and his style? Would you be whining right now if someone praised the photographs?

    In light of the entire thread, if you would care to read it, there was nothing wrong with my comments. Brad is just throwing a hissy fit because someone criticized his photography. In your case, Eric, hero-worship is not very becoming in an adult man.
  100. Dennis, c'mon man, have a go at Brad via email or criticize his
    pics on a critique or w/nw thread. This isn't the place for it, simply
    because you're screwing up a good discussion.

    Travis, the extra oomph is the whisper subtle tonal quality I've
    seen in some silver prints with some photographs. On the other
    hand, you can pick up a D70 now with a good zoom lens that
    covers the equivalent range of 27 to 105mm focal length, just
    about everything you need- for the price of an M6 body. I've never
    used a zoom, but I think I'm quickly getting addicted to it. And for
    some reason with this camera I just seem to feel like taking it
    everywhere- much larger than a Leica but not really heavier and
    so comfortable in the hand, and no film to load and unload...
  101. heh, should've said a new D70 kit for the price of a used M6 body...
  102. Brad posted pictures to demonstrate his style; and even showed before and after Photoshop examples. Brad wanted everyone to see his work; he wasn't asked to do it.
    Wrong again Dennis - we know your good at being disingenuous.
    Ray in his 10:52PM had some concerns about his D70 (more-so actually digital), and the pics grant and I post not having lots of detail and the shadows. He asked if anyone had any thoughts on the subject.
    I responded in my 10:59PM post that I'm not best to comment on that as I routinely go for a high contrast look - and someone who strives for large tonal range could better comment. And posted two prints to speak to that point.
    You just like stirring up trouble and acting out, as you did on this otherwise civil thread. Grow up and let people have their discussion without you railroading it.
    Sorry Ray, this was a pretty neat thread.
  103. Whatever, Brad, it's still a cheesy style in your hands and it's a terrible picture... which no one asked you to post.

    Brad, you set yourself up for these things by saying how dreadful everyone else's photographs are... and then you have the nerve to complain when someone honestly points out the deficiencies in yours.

    Deal with it, dude.
  104. And just to be clear, cuz I know Dennis is going to jump in with another purely "innocent"
    remark... those are not before and after photos.

    The "before" is a color digital file I picked at random. Photo 1 was to demonstrate what a
    more traditional digital B&W conversion might be - something I rarely do. Photo 2 is a
    digital conversion of the same color photo, but treated in a way that I resonate better with.
    The two photos were for the benefit of Ray's comments/concerns in his 10:52PM post.

    I don't think I can make this any clearer, but something tells me Dennis isn't through
    acting out yet.
  105. Jeez you guys... both of ya's.... well, hmm...................................
    Oh!, I got it! You both like dogs don'tcha??!!
    Dennis, you can have a go at this one...
  106. Not surprisingly, Dennis can't deal with the points put forward.
  107. I've always wanted to say this, but never could get the nerve in fear of being lamblasted. 'shadow detail' is the most-overrated and obsessed-on photographic parameter that is generally not paramount to expressiveness. to critique an image on its dynamic-range is a portend of photographic-immaturity.

    this, with the unneeded complexities of a zonal-metering system (Zone-System) are the two fundamental antiquities that tend to quench creative and unique expressions ... my generalized personal opinion.

    to remain true to Ray's post .. his suggestion of using a DSLR and Photoshop, represent two very useful tools to better help discover the essence of an image and bring out the personal connections and indirection/abstraction to the emotions felt or needing expression.
  108. I am also not saying that 'wet-darkroom magic' cannot also be an avenue towards expressivism and exploration. it would be hard to argue, however, that software-solutions are far more efficient.
  109. egad ... talk about expression. I meant to say that software-solutions are certainly more efficient and cost-effective.

    apologies ...
  110. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I've always wanted to say this, but never could get the nerve in fear of being lamblasted. 'shadow detail' is the most-overrated and obsessed-on photographic parameter that is generally not paramount to expressiveness. to critique an image on its dynamic-range is a portend of photographic-immaturity.
    Don't worry about being lambasted, I think this is an excellent statement that reflects how one can get hung up on certain technical parameters and lose complete sight of what matters in a photograph. Very well said, along with the rest of this post.
  111. 'shadow detail' is the most-overrated and obsessed-on photographic parameter that is generally not paramount to expressiveness
    Thanks Daniel, you got it! In fact, that was one of the many photo-tidbits Grant passed on to me in the past - don't sweat shadow detail and let it get in the way of what you're trying to express. Take a look at work by Daido, Klein, and Metzker to name just a few.
    As you point out, there's a huge world of expressive options available with digital and post-processing available - now more than ever. If someone wants to stay on the conservative path because that's what they've been doing for 30 years and feel comfortable, that's fine. But, don't criticize and impose personal dogma on others for wanting to express themselves in ways at odds with conservative views. With that kind of thinking, art never would have transitioned out of the Medieval period in the last half of the 15th century.
  112. one final thought ... before I unplug and go sailing. think about a hybrid-approach. exploration of expressive ideas, easily, in Photoshop, and implementation afterwards in the darkroom for those opposed to digital-printing. this, to me, is the perfect blend of pragmatism and old-world craftmanship for those interested in the art of traditional silver-based printmaking.

    just thoughts ... off sailing.
  113. ???????????????
  114. "I've always wanted to say this, but never could get the nerve in fear of being lamblasted. 'shadow detail' is the most-overrated and obsessed-on photographic parameter that is generally not paramount to expressiveness. to critique an image on its dynamic-range is a portend of photographic-immaturity."

    Rich shadow detail is often the most beautifully expressive part of a fine silver print. It's like having more descriptive adjectives in a story. Many of us appreciate fine shadow detail and work purposefully to presrve it in our prints. Now I learn that some have such utter disdain for it that they intentionally obliterate it entirely with the click of a mouse. (See Brad's two photo examples.) Is this a difference between film and digital mindsets?

    This thread has been terribly enlightening and my conclusion may surprise you: digital makes you a better photographer. A better photographer in the sense that you are able to consistently and reliably produce more acceptable shots. Of course, one of the reasons is that you are taking more shots with digital cameras. Over three hundred shots in an outing may well assure, simply by the law of averages, more keepers.

    Further if your style is that which is produced in Photoshop you don't need a very good image to start with - a mediocre one will do just fine because it's the Photoshop-style that's more important than what's inside the image. Boring shot? No problem... ramp up that contrast and make that baby sing!

    So, yes, digital makes you a better photographer... I admit it. Likewise, though, equipment does matter. Your choice of equipment is, after all, an important element in your approach to photography. And there appear to be two entirely different, equipment-dictated mindsets... digital and film. One cranks out images by the hundreds... the other more deliberatively. One presrves shadow detail... the other obliterates it.

    I've learned a lot in this thread about the digital mindset. A camera is nothing more than a piece of equipment... I hold nothing against metal and plastic. But the digital mindset, the amateur digital mindset, to be clearer... keep it. This kind of progress I can do without.

  115. Soul stuff.
  116. "Grant passed on to me in the past - don't sweat shadow detail and let it get in the way of what you're trying to express."

    What unmitigated hogwash... absolute inanity. It takes a craftsman to bring out shadow detail in a negative and a print. You don't have to be a craftsman if you're cranking out almost two shots per minute and then Photoshopping them to ge that ultra-cool, extreme-contrast STYLE.

    LOL... You guys really are a joke.
  117. Allen, these digital clowns suck the soul right out of photography.
  118. Dennis, you never will get it - so why keep trying?

    Just about every point you make above is silly beyond belief - starting with your premise
    about me having "utter disdain" for shadow detail. And digital making you a better
    photographer is one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen. But how would you know,
    trying so hard keeping that mind of yours closed, so you can prop up and support your
    view of the world.

    Since you start with fallacious nonsense, how can you possibly open your eyes to accept
    something new?

    The nice thing is, you can keep going forward with your 30 years of traditional
    conservative photography and no one will care. Others can experiment, try out new ideas
    and learn and discover something new in the process and be better for it.

    Earlier, you called yourself a dinosaur. Well, there you go - carry on...
  119. Brad, you're a joke... buy yourself a Pentax K1000 and go learn about photography.
  120. More insults when points can't be addressed... We do feel sorry for you.
  121. The interesting thing here, is I've kept the discussion on-track, being about how one
    (myself) approaches digital-based photography - based on the theme of the thread and
    some questions earlier posed. How and where I shoot, how many are keepers, the fact
    that I take many shots of the same thing, my workflow, how long it takes to photoshop
    images, the kind of look I'm going for, etc, etc. I've been pretty open and transparent for
    all to see.

    Dennis, on the other hand, gets easily upset and flustered (needing a reason to condemn
    digital) and needs to resort to going off-topic and commenting on how bad my photos
    are, how bad a photographer I am, that I'm a joke, I should get a Pentax and learn
    photography, , etc, etc.

    And best yet, coming to really bad digital photography conclusions without having the
    benefit of any experience in the digital photography field.

    Why is it that he needs to so aggressively attack? Why does he insist on being so
    disruptive to what was a pretty nice thread?
  122. The clever monkey, which called itself humanity, wanted to find a greater vision and understanding which would lift it from its base state.

    So it created a deity, and the clever monkey conceived its thoughts.

    The deity it called God. It sought the path to God.

    The path it called religion.

    It then fell upon itself in the name of its religion...and in the name of its God.

    The tale of the clever monkey.
  123. I surrender... I want to join your club. Here's my obligatory "I am an artiste" shot... ;>)
  124. Time for the membership to weigh-in and vote...
    How many people prefer this shot by Dennis?
    Ok, how many prefer the 8:32 PM photo he just posted above?
    Everybody gets just 1 vote - that means you, Al. The polls are now open.
  125. Ooooh... how about this one?
  126. Naaaaa... how about this one instead? It's okay, I have 53 versions of the same boring shot... digital is cheap, man. ;>)
  127. You're on a roll Dennis - you've got my vote. Keep it up and we'll let you trade in your
    Tom DeLay cuff-links for a black beret.
  128. Brad... man, you're gonna hafta teach me that metallic skin tone dude.
  129. Man, I hadn't realized how bothersome all that shadow detail was...
  130. Even a blind man could see how much cooler this is...
  131. </I>...gonna hafta...</I><P>

    Gonna hafta???? Whoa... that's great you're even starting to loosen up some with your
    language. Are no caps next?<P>

    Honestly Dennis, no BS, this is some of your best stuff. The beret is yours - Monday I'll
    put your name up for nomination before the membership committee.
  132. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    dennis c, 08:32 p.m.

  133. Dennis - very nice. you see, the 'shadow detail' contained nothing of value. just visual noise. by scaling the image, subtracting the unnecessary and extraneous, you've created a more powerful image. no one is saying 'shadow detail' doesn't have its place. it just isn't 'holy' nor sacrosanct per someone else's mandate.
  134. r s

    r s

    Personally I think I've come to "accept" that high-end digital cameras fitted with good glass can take photos that equal - or even goes beyond - what one can get out of 35mm film.
    I don't sweat it. I just happen to like using older, well built cameras without batteries and automation - and it happens to be that they tend to use film so I'm a 'film user'.
    Personal preference really these days in what path one wants to take.<br> The final image is not all there is for me - I truly enjoy using classic cameras and if they happen to occasionally produce an image or two that I like then all the better. But I would never argue that they would be 'better' than photos taken with a digital.
    There are excellent film as well as digital photographers out there. Each to his own.
  135. Dennis, I prefer your story telling shots. You are a story man imo.
  136. "Dennis - very nice. you see, the 'shadow detail' contained nothing of value. just visual noise. by scaling the image, subtracting the unnecessary and extraneous, you've created a more powerful image. no one is saying 'shadow detail' doesn't have its place. it just isn't 'holy' nor sacrosanct per someone else's mandate."

    Uhhhh, Daniel... get a clue. Shadow detail equals "visual noise"?

    These shots range from mediocre to bad. I Photoshopped them to illustrate how easy it is to get this empty, high contrast, detail-less look and style. And I am terrible in Photoshop. Anybody can do this in Photoshop... probably better.

    Brad, let me make a prediction: I'll bet that in five years, except maybe for family and vacation snaps, you won't even be taking pictures anymore. You'll be racing mountain bikes and fund raising for the Republican Party. There's a reason you continuously "experiment" with different styles. It's not because you're so versatile... it's that you're unfocused and without anything to say in your pictures. They're all about "style".

    You just don't get it. Photography is not "workflow".

    Digital photography seems to lend itself to a mentality like yours... a mentality that says "Give me some instant gratification and a really cool look that has no soul." But it's not everybody who uses a digital camera... that's an unfair generalization. It's just the artiste pretenders like you.

    Maybe it was your mentor who screwed you up, Brad... and that's a shame because you have a good eye. If you are as serious about photography, as you say, here's some good advice: ditch your teacher and get one with a different point of view; then go back to basics and quit groping at different styles. Sometimes you have to take a step back before moving up to a higher lever.

  137. "Dennis, I prefer your story telling shots. You are a story man imo." Thank you, Travis. These shots were only my attempt at sarcasm... This is what some people do in Photoshop to a bad shot...
  138. 2005; 09:40 p.m.
    That's a seriously nice image IMHO... seriously;-)
    Likewise 08:32 p.m and 09:21 p.m.
    Cheers, A
  139. "That's a seriously nice image IMHO... seriously;-)"

    Andy, I don't know if you're being serious or not. If you are, at the risk of offending you, let me say that these shots are "fluff"... that's all. My point in posting them was to illustrate that you can take practically any bad to mediocre shot and Photoshop it into something that looks cool. It's so easy to do... and I'm bad at Photoshop.

    Why do you think there are so many shots in this style posted on PN, particularly on the other forum? Because it's easy to do. (Some guys like Edmo are good photographers though...) Do you realize how hard it would be to crank out very good pictures at the rate some people post these kinds of shots? My point is that these shots, in reality, usually aren't very good at all... it's just a cool, easily obtainable style that momentarily holds your interest.

    I admit, the style is sometimes cool to look at... but it's nothing more than a fluff style IMO. I could go to an exhibit of this stuff and really enjoy the pictures... seriously. But the next day I may not even remember anything about them... may not even remember the details of one picture.

    The reason for the nastiness, in a nutshell, is this this: Do you realize how annoying and insulting it has been to listen to someone pontificate about how "dreadful" everyone else's photographs are; how he's apparently the only one on PN who cares about crafting good images; that he doesn't even want his precious pictures seen with ours because ours are so bad; when in fact, all this guy has produced, IMO, are cool-looking fluff pictures?

    And to top it off, despite his pretense as a serious photographer, now I find out the guy is a blitz shooter who shoots on auto-focus and auto-exposure cranking out hundreds of images at a time... all ready for their appointment with Photoshop for that "special" look.
    Gimme a break... I'm just sick of the pretense.

    It might be tolerable at least if the guy wasn't such a sniper with little veiled snide remarks at every turn. If I'm going to insult you, at least you know I'm insulting you. I'm up-front about it. I'm not going to do it in a sly veiled way so I can claim innocence afterwards like this guy.

    Anyway... I hope some people better understand where I'm coming from.

    Good shooting... (seriously)

  140. "...take the antsiness out of the exchange(s) and it would be better."


    Antsiness... nastiness?

    Call it tough love. ;>)

  141. Dennis, calm down, that pulsating artery is going to burst one of these days...

    Again, you've managed to cause another fine thread to go down the drain with your
    nastiness. Why do you do that? It was a good thread with great discussions - until you
    started acting out again.

    Fortunately, you are not the final arbiter on what photography is about and where it might
    be going. You have your own very traditional and conservative style, which is fine. To
    lump anything that deviates from that as having no soul, or not serious, or crap, is myopic
    in the extreme. But that's kind of the way you operate, imposing your view as the only
    proper and correct view of the world.

    And then you delve into name calling when you're voice isn't being heard. I'm truly sorry
    you're frustrated, but please let others do their thing.

    What's interesting, I've never resorted to calling Dennis "a joke," "stupid," "dumb," "a bad
    phtographer," etc. Why is it that in your arguments need to resort to such behavior?
  142. Well, gentlemen, I think that this discussion has come full circle more than once in this thread alone. It's obvious that Dennis and Brad, and a few others, are never going to be in agreement on straight vs. manipulated photography, how much manipulation is acceptable, and what manipulation is truley creative and what is just a failed attempt to salvage a failed photograph. Whether film was the original medium or not isn't important since you can as easily scan and photoshop as work from a digital original. We all do some stuff others "don't get", sometimes even hate, and that's a reality we live with.

    The "silver gelatin print" output of conventional B&W film can now be easily accomplished from digital originals by several labs. Why don't we all agree to let people use the medium they prefer in the cameras they like. We're still either going to like their photos or dislike them.
  143. It's all about the journey..........
  144. 'Andy, I don't know if you're being serious or not. If you are, at the risk of offending you, let me say that these shots are "fluff"... that's all'
    It would take more than that to offend me. I was being genuine and serious that I like the images you just posted over some of the others that I see posted on this forum.
    I don't understand the "fluff" comment; what's the difference between enhancing an interesting image using PS and doing the same thing in the darkroom? Taking "9.40" as an example, do you not think it is a genuinely nice image? I don't understand.
    Isn't style the thing that makes one photographer differ from another, or is it somehow nobler to do a basic scan, no sharpening, and no contrast/brightness work? What about dodging and burning? I suspect that even HCB's printer did this to his images.
  145. Brad:

    You may be so closed-minded that you block out anything that is not in accordance with your superior knowledge... like your 20-year old plastic goods that are impervious to deterioration... but maybe someone with a real interst in growing as a photographer got something out of this.

    BTW, if you are serious about your compliments of these photographs I posted, you prove my point. These photos I posted are a joke... I could crank them out in my sleep. All I did was take bad to mediocre shots and Photoshop them. I've got tons of bad shots... wanna see more of them after the cool Photoshop "treatment"? ;>)

    For a long time I could have, like you, taken a very safe route on PN and only posted photos like this... and have everybody say "AWESOME". But it's more challenging to try to make interesting photos without resorting to gimmicky styles. I'm not saying I'm successful at making intersting photos... in fact, I'm not. But I'm not afraid to take risks. You just stick to safe stuff so people will say "AWESOME". I'll bet that's very comforting to you... but what does that say about your willingness to grow as a serious photography as you suggest you are?

    You keep focusing on me rather than what I'm trying to tell you... you still don't get it.

  146. Dennis, honestly, no BS, like others, I like your 8:32, 9:21, and 9:40 shots. They are
    expressive with mystery, ambiguity. I prefer the composition of the 6:57 shot over the 9:
    21 shot because she's not looking out of the frame - but there are some technical gripes
    with it which makes me prefer the 9:21 version.

    The light is nice in the three I picked out, which is always a HUGE plus. The Ray Charles
    bus shot might have a little too much sharpening.

    So there you go, an honest assessment - again, no BS.

    Let's contrast with your recent w/nw Rangefinder Style pic. First, what does it convey. Is
    there a
    story? Does it pose any questions? Is there some ambiguity or mystery. Is there even a
    subject? To my eyes, no. And in the end, the light is super-harsh, maybe taken mid-day
    sun. That kills it immediately.

    So there you go. No name calling, no stirring up the pot.

    Why not do the same?
  147. But I'm not afraid to take risks.
    What risks have you taken?
  148. You just stick to safe stuff so people will say "AWESOME".
    Can you share some examples to back up your claim?
  149. Dennis, most (90%+) of the photos I take are of people, usually pretty close range (within a few feet), with a 10-22mm lens.
    Here's one that a few people said was pretty nice - I don't think the word AWESOME has ever been used, but I know you like to exaggerate. Please explain to me how it is "safe," and how bad it sucks
  150. "I don't understand the "fluff" comment; what's the difference between enhancing an interesting image using PS and doing the same thing in the darkroom? Taking "9.40" as an example, do you not think it is a genuinely nice image? I don't understand.

    Isn't style the thing that makes one photographer differ from another, or is it somehow nobler to do a basic scan, no sharpening, and no contrast/brightness work? What about dodging and burning? I suspect that even HCB's printer did this to his images."



    The 9:40 image demonstrates nothing but a cool style... that's it.

    Yes, style indeed separates photographers, but what I'm talking about are photos that are just about the style, which is technically very easy to do, rather than photos with some intersting statement or point of view. A photograph with intersting content can be enhanced by style... but these photos I posted are just examples of the style I was talking about, nothing else. The photos are basically my rejects that I Photoshopped.

    I may have posted some of these same photos before without manipulation... and they weren't good. If it takes a lot of manipulation to make it work then IMO it's not a good shot.

    As for manipulation, yes you can do some of the same manipulation in the darkroom... and I don't like darkroom manipulation either if it is just to impose a style rather than enhance an otherwise good shot. But this thread was about the whole digital process, specifically including Photoshop... and IMO Photoshop makes the manipulation process easier. And IMO it is merely an extension of a digital mentality that I outlined above... of taking the easy way.

    Some people, in my observation, just want to be internet photographers... internet legends. They post easy stuff, full of STYLE and other people just eat it up. I could easily pull out hundreds of slides and negatives and Photoshop them in this style if all I wanted were "AWESOME" comments.

    I just don't like the pretense that the style is really something more than what it actually is... a cover-up for weak photography. Believe it or not, my point is not to be gratuitously critical. But if people are going to represent themselves as being serious about photography then let's elevate the level of discussion here and get past the pretense.

  151. Dennis, is it safe to say you don't like Richard Avedon's work, as he's a manipulator? After
    all, in a typical print (from the darkroom), he might have dozens of manipulations in order
    to achieve the result he's looking for.
  152. I went out of town briefly and have returned to this thread in time to make a startling discovery: good photographers on this Forum disagree sharply on what constitutes a good photograph.

    Such is the gulf between opinions that even "controlling" for bias and self-interest, they don't agree on the quality or the impact of photos they themselves or their sometime "rivals" have taken.

    That's not a bad thing.

    Is it?
  153. Dennis, about those risks you've taken - I'd really like to know what they are - honest.
  154. That's not a bad thing. Is it?
    Absolutely not. It's when someone imposes a dictatorial view and hurls personal insults when things get bad.
  155. You may be so closed-minded that you block out anything that is not in accordance with your superior knowledge...
    Please show me where I've demonstrated being close-minded on this thread.
    Can you honestly say you've approached this thread with an open mind?
  156. "What risks have you taken?"

    For example, see the "rangefinder style" shot you referred to. It's a questionable shot compostionally and the meaning is vague. It's just a simple shot that attempted to capture a common, but intersting, peculiarity of people... sneaking a peak at strangers. Call it human curiosity. That's it... no big deal.

    But I'm not afraid to risk scorn or criticism by posting something like this... particularly knowing that I could easily get favorable commnets just by posting a high contrast "style" shot instead. That's what I meant by taking risks.

    I don't shoot and post here just so I can read "AWESOME" comments... I want to know whether the meaning of the photo is getting through. And usually it doesn't... but sometimes it does. Travis said my photos usually tell stories... greatest compliment I've gotten in a long, long time... so maybe SOMETIMES people GET my stuff.

    I think you have a good eye... but I think you're selling yourself short because it seems to me you are taking an easy route that GREATLY emphasizes style. And, honestly, I think it's pretentious for you talk about how serious you take your photography (and criticize others) if you don't extend yourself. You bring a lot of this on yourself...

  157. You bring a lot of this on yourself...
    What exactly am I bringing on myself - other than your personal insults?
  158. Posting that rangefinder style shot wasn't taking a risk - it's just bad editing - it was a bad
    photo. Leaving aesthetic considerations aside, the harsh light killed it.
  159. But I'm not afraid to risk scorn or criticism by posting something like this...
    But you are. After a half-dozen people weighed in on that photo (wanting to know how it was a range-finder style pic) , you went on a search and destroy mission to get even - and it's still going on today.
  160. <img src=" duotone.jpg" />
    Dennis, don't be so harsh here. the photos you submitted did not seem to gain anything by adjusting the tonal range to highlight detail in the shadows. clearly, this is subjective, and I have been overly sensitive to this to always include the glaring fact that it is my own personal and subjective assessment.<br><br>

    I looked through my portfolio for an image that I thought clearly gains something by subtracting elements that detract from the overall theme I wanted to express. I captured this kitchen scene with my Canon G2 after I noticed the threatening aspect of the light reflecting off the knife blades. the movie 'Psycho' came to mind, so I underexposed and in Photoshop scaled the image to juxtapose light against darkness. I like the image, my wife does not. my own sense is that I had no desire to capture the image as I saw it with my eyes, a literal representation. photography allows you to transcend the literal and allow the photographer to express something deeper, perhaps, than what we see.<br><br>

    I suspect you will not agree, and hope you will at least see what I was after. a tension, a threatening mood, a feeling of unease from something common in our lives. I like it, I had fun printing it, and I learned something from the process that will surely help me evolve into a better photographer. I wish others the same.
  161. Brad:

    Apparently I'm not making myself clear. The problem I have with you and some other people is how dismissive and disrespectful of what other photographer's post. I don't think you've reached a level that entitles you to do that. As offensive as my posts are, that's what I am trying to point out.

    It is a fact, or at least my opinion, that the photos you and your friens post on the S&D Forum are technically superior to what's posted here... although a lot of it is pretty "safe" stuff. But for you to say that the stuff here is so "dreadful" that you don't want to post your photos here is wrong. I respect photographers who post photos that ALMOST make it if I can see what the photographer was trying to do or what he was trying to convey. I like looking at people's snapshots.

    To make these remarks topical to this thread, IMO your selection of a dslr as your weapon and your expansive use of Photoshop makes you a better photographer... but only in the sense that it enables you to post what I consider to be "safe" shots, heavy on style and Photoshop.
    If you are really serious about photography as you've sometimes said, IMO your selection of equipment is holding you back. In that respect, I think that choice of equipment plays a much greater part in one's approach to photography than some people say.

    Yes, it's the photographer and not the camera that matters most... but the equipment still matters greatly.

  162. Apparently I'm not making myself clear. The problem I have with you and some other people is how dismissive and disrespectful of what other photographer's post.
    And these feelings you have entitle you to slam down Ray's thread? I don't understand that.
  163. the image I posted was taken with my Hasselblad, not my Canon G2 as I thought.
  164. Dennis, for example, daniel and I have gotten into in the past here. Should I keep that
    going, many threads later and say bad stuff about him? By the way, that's a fine
    photograph, daniel - well executed.
  165. "you went on a search and destroy mission to get even - and it's still going on today."

    Brad, that is absolute BS... Unless it's some mean, gratuitous remark (a la Grant) I don't worry about what people say. I may want to know if people are looking at the things I thought was important in a photograph. But, as I've said before, I don't come to the internet for affirmation. (I believe to an extent that maybe you do.) But if someone's mindset is so focused only on making cool "style" shots I doubt seriously if they are going to spot the little things that I may think are important in my photos. Why? Because they're hung up on their cool style instead... That's why I've learned not to put too much weight on what some people say.

  166. Dennis - I think the semi-bronzed, high contrast, low (or no) shadow detail image is actually just *one* processed look, by no means the only look.

    At this moment, that look has become more popular on the Street/Doc Forum here on, but even there, where it's prevalent, it's by no means uniform. I believe it enhances some of the pictures posted, particularly some of the dark impressionistic ones, where the struggle is to make something meaningful and human out of thin slice of light (or in some cases, virtual darkness). I also believe that it doesn't enhance every photo to which it's applied (and probably has diminished a few), and if overused, that look risks becoming a cliche -- employed to make a not-so-strong photo serviceable (or post-able). Time ... and more pics will tell the story for me.

    I think that Ed, Steve West, Tom Sullivan, Kent, Eric, Jeff, Balaji, Takaaki, Tom Santosusso, Kipling Phillips, Pete, and Brad ... and Grant (!) (to name just a few -- there are more) have all posted many strong photos that exhibit the potential strength of the approach. I have left out Jung Yang and Beau on purpose, because their pictures, nearly always among my favorites, typically appear differently to me in style.

    So -- to get back to the questions Ray, and later you, raised in this thread -- I think it would be risky to assume that such images (let's call them "mo/mo" -- more darkness/more contrast) inescapably result from a photographer's experimentation with digital capture and photoshop post-processing.

    Jazz enthusiasts remember those who listened only to, or listened first to, Miles Davis album "Bitches Brew" and said in effect: "Why all the excitement about this guy? He can't seem to get a clear tone out of his horn and he has no real sense of what the 'song' is all about." Little did they know ...

    I'm meandering, I know, but I guess it takes me back to Allen's comment above about the journey. Mo/mo might be just one stop along the way, and perhaps not a stop at which some of us will choose to hop off the train and explore.
  167. Michael, it's refreshing to hear someone speak with an open mind. It is about
    experimentation and exploration. Just a small detail, maybe a third to a half of those you
    mentioned shoot film.
  168. Bottom line... and then I've gotta run.

    Brad, do you want me to not comment on your photographs anymore? I'll try very hard not to if you back off of your dismissive comments about the "dreadful" photography here? Then you go do your thing and take whatever photographic journey you want.

    But if in a calmer moment you come back to this thread and re-read my observations and suggestions about your photography you may find I am not as off-base as you think now. Sometimes the best advice is the most brutal...

  169. Brad, do you want me to not comment on your photographs anymore?
    No, I want you to be civil.
    But if in a calmer moment you come back to this thread and re-read my observations
    Please point out the specific instances on this thread (Ray's) where I have not been calm. Thank you.
  170. "And these feelings you have entitle you to slam down Ray's thread?"

    One last thing, Brad... Considering the number of times you and your buddies, including Grant, engaged in your tag-team attacks on people ruined threads and created dissension with your mischief, you've got a lot of nerve accusing me of slamming Ray's thread.

  171. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Dennis, i must ask you to post some of your favorites now, the ones you're pleased with. they need to be here compared against your so called crappy cranked out photoshop images. lets see them.
  172. Dennis, you're not going to address my 11:05 AM question?
  173. you've got a lot of nerve accusing me of slamming Ray's thread.
    Are you saying you weren't disruptive here, taking down a pretty interesting tread, into the gutter, with name calling and all?
    Or that you have, but it's OK because you have special license to take your gripes to other threads because you don't like me?
  174. with the exception of a few spit-balls, this has actually been a good thread. thank you Ray for your indulgence. what can be learned? that photographers have different points-of-view, differing objectives, can see the same image and find a unique interpretation. that digital-processing from DSLR or scanned-negative, can be used to explore expressive possibilities, easily and inexpensively.

    I am not sure I understand the resistance to taking an image that lacks somehow, and exploring opportunites to brings something out of it that serves the image better. it seems to me, the photo either 'works' or doesn't. why it does 'work', shouldn't be held hostage by the methods used.
  175. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "it seems to me, the photo either 'works' or doesn't. why it does 'work', shouldn't be held hostage by the methods used."

  176. "I've always wanted to say this, but never could get the nerve in fear of being lamblasted. 'shadow detail' is the most-overrated and obsessed-on photographic parameter that is generally not paramount to expressiveness. to critique an image on its dynamic-range is a portend of photographic-immaturity."

    Daniel, I agree that some particular photgraphs may be enhanced, and important elements accentuated, by removing shadow detail. But that's not what you said above. I still think your statemnt that "'shadow detail' is the most-overrated and obsessed-on photographic parameter..." is absurd. And in the photographic style that I criticized "shadow detail" is not just selectively under-emphasized... it is mostly entirely obliterated.

    I like your shot of the knives...

  177. Brad:

    If you are so concerned about maintaining the integrity of Ray's thread, why do you persist...?

    Bottom line is that you still think the photography here is "dreadful" and that yours is much better. I disagree. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. However, you seem to be operating under some illusion that you are entitled to espress your opinions, regardless how offensive they might be, and I am not entitled to express mine. It appears to be that you can dish out criticism pretty good... you just don't take it very well.
  178. Yes, thank you Ray. As atonement for the way this thread has gone, I'll let you borrow my
    10-22mm lens for a month. :=)

    One thing I'd like to point out, is Dennis' notion that any sort of high-contrast post-
    processing done is an attempt to rescue an otherwise bad photo. There is nothing further
    from the truth. When I go out and shoot, I have a pretty clear idea of what I want to
    capture, and how I want it to look - before I release the shutter. The 95% bad photos I
    don't even open in photoshop.

    His claim that all those that post on the S&D forum do the same sort of safe thing, is of
    course ridiculous and denies that those photographers have any sort of vision beyond
    rescuing failed photos. That is amazing and myopic beyond belief.
  179. If you are so concerned about maintaining the integrity of Ray's thread, why do you persist...?
    Persist at what? Explaining why I shoot the way I do? That was the title of the thread. You're the only one needing to resort to insults.
  180. "When I go out and shoot, I have a pretty clear idea of what I want to capture, and how I want it to look - before I release the shutter."

    You're actually imagining metallic bronze skin in a black and white photo? LOL...

    "The 95% bad photos I don't even open in photoshop."

    95% of what? 3,000,000? ;>)

    Pretentious BS... LOL...

    Brad, don't post this drivel if you don't want anyone to call you on it...
  181. However, you seem to be operating under some illusion that you are entitled to espress your opinions, regardless how offensive they might be
    Have I been offensive at all on this thread?
  182. Gosh dang! This is still going on? Amazing!

    It ahould be perfectly obvious to anyone who's looked at photos on this forum over the past month or so that the only really creative great images here are those self portraits I did with my 15mm lens on the Bessa L. It has nothing at all to do with shadow detail or post processing. Not with film or digital. It's a matter of being a great photographer and feeling completely at ease with your subject matter ;-)
  183. "Have I been offensive at all on this thread?"

    Brad, since you hold us and our photographs in such low regard, and have said so before, your very presence on this forum is offensive to me. Just being honest... ;>)
  184. Dennis, again, this thread isn't about you and what you like - take your battles elsewhere.
  186. Dennis, you'll have to picture me sitting in the cockpit of my sailboat, getting bounced around by wind, the ferry wake, and boats docking nearby. I tend to type rather fast and not always in sync with my brain! that wasn't the most well-crafted sentence, however what I wanted to say is that too many times on, there is an obsession, an overbearing importance placed on exposure-metering and printmaking to preserve shadow-detail at all costs. I think it is more important to place more emphasis on the mood, the story, a sense of drama, juxtaposition, contrasts, metaphor, etc. shadow detail may, or may not, serve those objectives. my personal photographic objectives tend toward minimalism and subtraction-methods of removing data that diffuses from more important elements. I also favour, in contrast to most everyone here, almost zero depth-of-field. it is another subtractive process that helps remove what I am not interested in. I love large-aperture lenses, and I love the Noctilux for this very reason.

    these heated-philosophical discussions can be uncomfortable at times, but strong opinions are valued, and I think I would be more aligned with photography made by those with expressive temperments than those hiding in the 'shadows' and playing it safe. sorry about that. and thanks to everyone for their contributions.
  187. "The 95% bad photos I don't even open in photoshop." 95% of what? 3,000,000? ;>) Pretentious BS... LOL... Brad, don't post this drivel if you don't want anyone to call you on it...
    Dennis, what is there to call. That's the way I shoot. Probably more like 30,000 than 3M. Please explain what is drivel and why it is pretentious BS?
  188. <<< ... Have I been offensive at all on this thread? ...>>>

    Not chuckling solely at your expense, Brad, but that reminds me of a case I worked on many, many years ago against a trusted person who'd taken money from an employer.

    As I recall it, of his answers to one of my questions, when read back, came out about like this: "Well, I didn't take any money that wasn't mine .... that week."

    Nearly all of us have made remarks on the internet that we might not make -- and hopefully would not make -- face to face when introduced to a person who shares enthusiasm for one of our favorite hobbies. What's the old biblical phrase: Let he who is without sin .....
  189. Daniel - Picture of the knives is very good. Suits the thread and my post, to some extent, I'm afraid -:)
  190. I dunno. I think I've been pretty civil and transparent here. Talking about how I shoot, my
    workflow, the look I'm going for. I've answered a lot of questions. I haven't resorted to
    insults, or called Dennis a joke, his work crap, etc. From his knowledge-base, the way I
    shoot probably doesn't make a lot of sense to him, but he should be still rather than
    condemn it.

    I think he's still steaming from the past - and wrecking a thread in the process.
  191. Oh - please don't stop now guys, I 've found all of this very entertaining, then again I like jock itch too.

    I actually feel a little stupid for actually reading this entire thing.
    But I couldn't look away. Just think if you all took all that time and energy in crafting these responses and did something creative an productive. You might have actually accomplished something.

    Thanks again- please continue.
  192. jtk


    There are some fine photos on this particular Leica thread, but if you browse you will find that 75% of what's posted in the Leica Forum is marginal snap-shooting, accompanied by angst about Russian lenses or bokeh or simple preening by poofteurs etc.

    In other words, there seems to be no valid argument for film or for digital on aesthetic basis. The people who argue the loudest either way seem to be mediocre photographers.
  193. Brad, I guess you don't want to back away from your opinion that the stuff here is "dreadful". You are entilted to your opinion.

    Brad, as I am entitled to do, when I see one of your pics here I may comment on it (Then, I may not.). People comment on mine... no big deal. You may have my assurance, though, that I will, as I always do, give an HONEST appraisal of your work. If you don't want people giving you an honest appraisal of your work then you may re-consider whether you want to post here. All I'm trying to do, Brad, is to ensure the improvement of the "dreadful" quality of photos here. And we can only do that by giving brutally honest assessments of each other's work. ;>)

    I have heard of another forum where the opinions rendered about each other's photos is much less critical. Have you tried that forum? ;>)

  194. <<<... poofteurs ... >>>

    Great sound to this word. Say it a few times -- you'll see what I mean.

    On behalf of all of us poofteurs [-:)] may I ask: What's the formal definition, John?
  195. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    i guess Dennis would rather carry on arguing than post a pic or two images he's made that uphold his standard.
  196. Dennis, you are really losing it. As you know, I don't post here. The two pics I posted
    above were to answer Ray's questions. You can comment all you want - that's never been
    an issue. Some of the statements you make about my workflow, motivations, processing,
    etc are false, which I've responded to.

    But you keep going with the personal insults. A sign of loosing it, I think.
  197. Eric, I can't win.. I posted stuff (above) that I think is crap... and some people think it's GOOD! Go figure... ;>)

    Thanks all the same for your invitation for me to post more but I think I'll just hold off posting for a while and just wait to see Brad's. ;>)
  198. "As you know, I don't post here."

    Uhhh, Brad, please help me out here... I think I've forgotten WHY you don't post here. Why don't you tell us all again why you don't post here? ;>)
  199. I guess he prefers posting on a forum where he gets praised and just comes over here with his digital camera to snipe at the Leica folks.
  200. Al, can't you be nice? After I hleped you with your Dylan pic - which you emailed me and
    said was fantastic.

    Read the title of this thread.
  201. Al:

    I just remembered... Brad doesn't post here because our photography is so "dreadful" that he doesn't want his pictures seen next to ours. He's said so.

    Nvertheless, that doesn't stop Brad from coming here, like in this thread, and posting shots so he can show us how the real shooters do it. That's called SLUMMING. Got it? ;>)

  202. "Eric, I can't win.. I posted stuff (above) that I think is crap... and some people think it's GOOD! Go figure..." ;>
    Maybe it would be interesting to post (say) the 9.40 PM image and (for example) the "human curiosity" image on the "critique" forum. That way we would get opinions from a reasonable cross section of people.
    But I suppose at the end of the day I suppose it is all about personal vision etc.
  203. what we need is a shootout between these 2 fine photographers. I wanna see how each of their visions is translated into great final results, either through sheer post processing or sheer good eyes pre-post-processing.

    I proposed each do a series of pix around a central theme. Both can use either film or digital(wtfc?), b/w or colour(wtfc?) but most importantly, any camera of their choice.

    if nothing else, we could get to see some nice pix from both of them.

    I propose the theme "Man and Woman"..
  204. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    c'mon chicken, post a photo or two or three of yours that pleases you and back's up your standards of what you call photography. We've seen and heard enough of what you call 'not' photography.

    Travis, Dennis won't participate. He won't even have a gentlemanly beer and a handshake with Brad when someone's in his neighbourhood.
  205. Now, Eric, fans must refrain from throwing plastic cups, half-eaten pizza slices, or other projectiles of any sort onto the playing field.

    Incidentally, my sense of the non-meeting in New Orleans was far more "no fault" than "no dice." But no matter.

    Sure hope these rivalries don't "go rapper" on us. These guys and their posses will end up on "A Current Affair."

    But on the other hand if they have a shoot-out, or more accurately a "post out," we'd have our own sort of "Eight Mile," which come to think of it was a lot like "Saturday Night Fever" but with more swear words.
  206. Mr. Kaplan,
    A rather amusing series of photographs though barely what I would deem creative by any means. Your pictures remind me of the old college days and the 3 day long fraternity soiree's where we would shoot pictures of ourselves in a drunken state at arms length with simple disposable cameras.
    Thanks for the memories and laughs,<br>
  207. Travis: Nope, no photo competition for me... just don't believe in that sort of thing.

    Eric: Why do you keep saying I wouldn't have a beer with Brad? That's not true...
  208. ...logorrhea...
    don't ya just love that word??
  209. Well...

    Strangely, Dennis QUIT the forum (he actually deleted his account from photonet) not long
    after he begrudgingly agreed, with a ton of member prodding, to meet me - but still
    wouldn't go out and shoot photos with me. It wasn't pretty. Why wouldn't he shoot with
    me? Heck, anyone coming through SF I go out of my way, take time off from work to meet
    them and shoot for a few hours - I've done that a couple times.

    I'm guessing that if he actually met me, he'd find it difficult to hurl insults at me
    afterwards - which now gives him so much joy in life.
  210. Touche', Earl... you're right. ;>)
  211. Jeez, Brad... give it up, man. I'll fly out to San Francisco if you'll just shut up. ;>)
  212. You're on.

    How's next Saturday? Shooting then beer. We can do Travis contest - I like the
    theme. I can probably shoot a dozen bad pix and fluff em up in ps.

    Saturday works for you?
  213. Okay... what are you wearing? Cuz I don't want to dress alike like you and Jeff do... ;>)
  214. Eric, you want to come down too? Maybe Dennis can give us both some lessons on "good"
  215. Oooops... Saturday is bad for me. I have to change the film in my camera Saturday. ;>)
  216. Cuz I don't want to dress alike like you and Jeff do...
    Don't worry - I'm not into Sansabelt slacks, white shoes and white belt.
  217. Brad, why don't we both just give it up... okay? Nobody wants to keep reading this stuff. I think you're a good photographer and maybe one day you and I will be able to be civil to each other and have that beer.

  218. I have to change the film in my camera Saturday.
    But didn't you recently say you already changed film about a month ago? I'm not buying that excuse.
  219. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I'm still planning in June; been building a GTI up on my last six weekends for fast road trips at resonable gas milage. Does 90 mph at 4 grand on the tach now, lowered via H&R with 17" BBS on Yoki's. But really depends on this show that i'm working on and the one that might roll into the next...

    thought you'd be up here by now anyway?
  220. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    i guess i'll never get see an example of Dennis's photography...
  221. Are photos on this forum dreadful? Take a look at the photo of
    the week thread right now (not your pic Dennis) or Al's
    self--portrait thread a few days ago. If you don't want to call them
    dreadful, these photos are certainly not as advanced or
    sophisticated as they once were here, and seem to show little
    hint of future promise or potential. We all show bad work at
    times, but it's getting to be the norm for Leica forum lately.
  222. Eric, let me know when you have more info about June and I'll plan to hook up with you. I
    was hoping to get a company trip up to Vancouver, but that didn't work out. Maybe I'll do
    it later on on my own nickel...

    Ray: Uh-oh...
  223. Just a late two cents since I sort of been checking in and out of this thread for the last week it seems:) Dennis, it seems a real oversimplification to look at many of the "dark" photographs and say its a simple photoshop trick, many are very dark, many are taken in extremely low light where just a bit is lit. I'm not sure that I'm seeing the kind of shiny skin you have in your shots above, which is usually the effect of over everything in photoshop particuarly removing noise and stripping out too much info from the digital "neg". I really like many of these guys shots, there's something very moody, impressionistic, and evocative of deep sense of being there in these photos. Not all of them are good and I even don't like everything the "pundants" of this style do, some do look a little rote in their style, but no matter what anyone's style is, there will be some photos that work and others that don't. I myself, am probably more of shooter like you. A little more traditional, documentary style. But I really like the other style too and whenever I have a photo I think works that way, I give it a try. Part of the problem I have with it for me, is that I live in Orange County, CA I tend to shoot in the day time, and we have lots of light. Unless I can get up to L.A. there's no "downtown" with lots of tall buildings and that whole urban feel. A lot of the stuff coming from New York is dependant on the light in New York, shadows, darker, subteranean, stuff going on 24 hours etc. and the main point is, for me at least, its about the light and best using the light you have. I think many of the shots you see processed that way, were actually shot that way. I'd actually like to hear from Edmo and Steve, Balaji, etc etc. If that's the case. Now maybe Ray has some thoughts on this, because he's phtographed a lot more extensively than I including some wonderful photos from New York, But also lives in my general area. But I realized that except those rare occasions where the light and scene support it, I'm not going to get that gritty dark style that you seem to eschew as part of an easy digital "cop out". Or at least that's how I'm interpreting what you're saying. I'm thinking about some really great photographers that shot film and developed prints in that style, such as Klein, Gibson even Friedlander, in fact even some of Ansel Adams prints have huge area's of black, believe it or not. Now Ralph Gibson is one who's tonality I'm seeing in a lot of in these folks work. Its not the fact of just dark shadows, there's also intense detail and texture, w/ high contrast right where its wanted in much of Gibson's work and a shooting style of exposing for the highlights and letting shadows go black. I even saw it in a lot Friedlander's work when I saw his exhibit in LA. Alot of area's he would allow to go black in the prints. So now I'm rambling, but I just think this discussion that has sort of polarized between Brad and Dennis could really be positive because the topic is much more complex than simply "liking" this or that style, its about what you want to say in your photographs and how to achieve it.
  224. "I think many of the shots you see processed that way, were actually shot that way."


    What prompted some my remarks was the disaprity in how Brad's shot was taken and how it appeared after Photoshop. The scene of the two mannequins was fairly well lit, and it was exposed conventionally. You can see much detail in the clothing. In the darker version all detail in the clothing has been obliterated. It wasn't "shot" dark... it was "made" dark in Photoshop. And my point was that it is easy to take any shot conventionally exposed shot and give it a dark and sometimes metallic look in Photoshop to artificially create a dramamtic mood.

    Like loss of shadow detail, nuance is many times lost in our posts because of the limiting character of the written word in a venue such as this. A two hour, face-to-face discussion would be more informative. I understand some of your points and may agree with some of what you say to an extent. But it would take me too long, and people I am sure are tired of reading this. Nevertheless it is an interesting subject. Why don't you start a thread?

  225. It's harder to imitate Ralph Gibson's darkroom routine than to just slide my PS curves. Although on the web, you won't see much difference. I guess what Dennis is trying to get at is that, it's easier to do it in PS, and many people can do it, but it's harder to look for "real" light and create as close a mood of the scene onto paper. Nothing wrong with sliding the curve in PS, I do it all the time. Good light is not always there, but PS is...and so is the DR, which nobody enters these days..

    anyway that's how I read it.
  226. But yes, it's the results that should move you, not how you did it, according to Daniel.

    personally I think PS has given the opportunity for people to create work resembling many others, especially on the local forums here where we get to see each others' results. PS is easy and convenient. It's easy for me to say, dodge and burn in 2 secs to create the mood I want. To actually see the actual scene with that kind of light/mood?? Hardly, though not impossible.

    So I have a stinking DR where I need to sweat to get
    what I want in PS which uses 10 secs max for web posting.

    Or I can go wait in the scene for the actual lighting to come by.
  227. Are u a better photographer if you'd waited for actual light instead of "adding" or "minusing" light in PS? DOn't know. It just shows you can create the mood you want, and PS is convenient and tidy. I don't walk around with lots of high contrasty scenes. I NEED to adjust my negatives to get what I want. Is that a sin? Don't know, don't care either. That's the way life is. Why is coffee black and not yellow like I wanted?

    I wish I can just call on the light to every scene in my imagination, to the moods I want, but it's not gonna happen.

    I'd say do what you need and don't look bad(back). Use whatever you need to get it. If you wanna be different, don't look at stuffs on the net. Stay in you room 24/7 and see what you can come up with.
  228. Travis:

    Some good points you made...

    While some people say Photoshop is no different than using darkroom techniques such as dodging and burning, I agree with you that Photoshop is easier. Taking it a step further I also think it's a different dynamic as well.

    In the darkroom you may guess at what a photo would look like with dodging and burning and you have to play with the negative a while to see the results. It's time consuming and expensive to experiment with wet printing that way. In Photoshop, with a mouse click you can "try on" whatever permutations you want and see it in an instant. You can experiment with many and whatever "looks" you want until you hit upon something that you like. But my point was that this process minimizes the seeing and taking of the original image... it maximizes the conceptualiztion AFTER the image is taken, and often the content of the image becomes secondary to obtaining a dramatic "look".

    My other point was that digital photography, both in the taking and the processing of images, may lend itself better to the style of photographs that I was discussing. In that respect, if someone wants to achieve the dark, stylistic look then digital photography may be more suitable to that style... although, yes, you can make dark, dramatic images with film too. It's just easier with digital... and, as I pointed out, if you have many multiple images of the same subject (as digital shooting seems to encourage the taking of more images) you may have more different options to play with in Photoshop. It's faster and easier than doing it with film.

  229. Dennis: "But my point was that this process minimizes the seeing and taking of the original image... it maximizes the conceptualiztion AFTER the image is taken, and often the content of the image becomes secondary to obtaining a dramatic "look". "

    Dennis, I agree with you on the above. I have a forum friend who used to tell me(he's a PS guy btw) that he makes pictures look nice, not take nice pictures. And his results are mostly "unreal" although the impact is there. I can't argue with that. That's the way he sees it.

    At the end of the day, well, I believe content should stand above whatever dramatic shades you put in the picture. Something like coffee with OMMPH and not just black. But if u prefer coffee that everyone drinks, that's fine too.;)

    We are mostly talking about different forms of expressions and I believe each of us have one time or the other done the conservatives and the liberal/imaginative stuffs. It's not a big secret. Some find their path and are happy with it. Im happy for them too, as I get to see them.

    Im sorry about the shootout thing Dennis, I should have known you enough that you won't want it.;)

    I think Dennis, you, is a traditional photographer at heart. Your style and humanistic seeing is evident from your many previous postings. I think you should carry one what you do best.

    As for Brad, I believe he's found his path too and he shows he knows what he wants and is doing very well too.

    2 of you are just opposite ends of a spectrum waiting to meet each other halfway...;)

    Let it friends.
  230. 2 of you are just opposite ends of a spectrum waiting to meet each other halfway...;)
    Travis, where have I EVER said people must practice their photography according to my view of the world? I have NEVER said darkroom photography, or not-so-processed photography is bad, sucks, is somehow lesser, etc. I think some of the best darkroom stuff going on here is incredibly good - from photogs like Beau, Rich, Ray, Grant (to name a few) - and up there with what you see published.
    Now, take a look at Dennis' comments above, directed at me, about MY photography and the fact that I like to experiment/explore - he's called me everything in the book from a liar to a joke.
  231. Brad, I never said you said that(darkroom ,film etc is bad). What I meant was you 2 guys have different approaches to photography and that perhaps a common point of interest could be found. Or perhaps not.
  232. Brad, you've hurled more than your share of insults and disparaging remarks about me... some direct, many in a smarmy, underhanded way which were easily readable. You've also engaged in baiting at times as well on matters about Leica that you had no knowledge or expertise whatsoever... and no business commenting on as well. What you didn't expect was that I would give it back to you better. I'm more direct, though... another way we differ.

    Why we we just give it up and let this go? Nobody wants to read any more cat fights...
  233. people must practice their photography according to my view of the world?

    I never said that either ;)
  234. Travis, I think you misunderstood. I wasn't accusing you of that. It was the halfway
    comment I thought amusing. Like i need to adjust my views and be accepting of traditional
    darkroom photography. I have never criticized that in the LEAST.

    Look at this thread. Nowhere have I called Dennis a bad photographer, a joke, a liar, full of
    BS, and on and on. Nowhere have I told him he needs to relearn photography and do it
    the way I do. Dennis has this need to control.
  235. Barry, your comments are right-on about the light and shooting in urban areas. But even
    the buildings in San Francisco are not so high that you're guaranteed to have decent light
    - and the unusually good weather most of the time isn't so great for shooting - the light
    being pretty harsh. At least that's my excuse - and I'm sticking with it.
  236. I think I'll just run another roll of Tri-X through my Bessa L today, more pix of myself with the 15mm Heliar. That way there's always perfect concordance between photographer and subject. I don't much care what anybody else here thinks of them ;-)
  237. Ok I got it now. Brad, I see you are gliding on the spectrum all this while. I really was meaning that you guys approach photography differently and in that respect, I suspected you're more into digital shooting and processing and that Dennis was a film and DR guy, hence my comment, that maybe at the end of the day, we could all get back to talking about pictures(read halfway).

    The thought of you(Brad) critisizing film, DR never crossed my mind. AS for adjusting your views, that never crossed my mind too.
  238. <br>
    stranger: 'Ralph, why you drinking that awful dark-beer?'<br>
    R.Gibson: 'because it tastes damn good!'<br>
    stranger: 'but light beer is better'<br>
    R.Gibson: 'says who?'<br>
    stranger: 'it just does, and besides, your images suck. no midtones nor shadow detail'<br>
    R.Gibson: 'yeah .. bartender, pour me another'<br>
  239. Daniel:

    Ralph Gibson ain't posting his pictures on the Leica Forum or the S&D Forum... ;>)

  240. > Ralph Gibson ain't posting his pictures on the Leica Forum or the S&D Forum...

    for good reason - he'd be blasted, ridiculed, and berated for not taking Photography 101!
  241. Daniel:

    LOL! Yea, but Ralph really is a REAL SHOOTER... ;>)
  242. photos in the photo of the week thread look like photography 101
  243. "photos in the photo of the week thread look like photography 101"

    YIKES! I just posted one there last night. Do I sux? But in fairness, I have to agree with Ray. Though its no reason for me to be discouraged or to discourage anyone else, but since the last big vetting and diaspora from this forum, the images with many exceptions, have generally been very mediocre. That doesn't mean anyone should stop posting, It never stops me. But I do think its the case.
  244. I like using both. Bad scanner so you won't see any film shots here for awhile, but I think ultimately it's the final product that matters. Post-processing is often a matter of personal taste and style and can achieved in the darkroom or PS. I know what I like to look at, and it runs the gamut from very traditional straight darkroom prints to heavily post-processed work performed on a computer or in the darkroom. I think one's vision matters more than their equipment, but since I don't have a Leica and probably won't ever be able to afford one so that may be a biased opinion ;-)

    BTW I think a lot of Leica photogs here are awesome. A great tool in the right hands. A few I wonder why they even waste money on such an expensive camera. Status symbol I guess.

Share This Page