Where are "the goods"? Has anyone seen "the goods"?

I am more than a little mystified. I have been coming to this forum

and reading some interesting posts - questions and responses. It

seems that people here know all about film and cameras and lenses

and everything else under the sun (or strobe or tungsten).

 

My question is "Where are the photos?" I see some guy go on at

length discussing the difference between D76 at 1:29 and D76 at 1:30

and then when I click on his name to see his work there is nothing

there!

 

Why does someone pass along all this folklore and gossip

and "personal experience" and then not show any photos? I like

cameras and lenses and film too, but first of all, what's this whole

thing about if not the photographs?

 

How does one know if Joe Blow's evaluation of the merits of the

222.47mm Dagor - and its coverage, and its resolution, and its

contrast - is worth anything at all without seeing his work?

 

Do these guys actually take photos or are they just like the know-it-

all guys at the bar who talk about women all day but have never

actually dated one? I read a post about flash meters from some guy

who sounded pretty smart. He said the so-and-so meter was dead on

and gave him great results. Then I clicked over to his work and saw

that several of his shots were not properly exposed (to my eye,

anyway). I knew that I should take his opinion with a grain of

salt. His idea of "good" was not my idea of "good" (neither of us

being right or wrong).

 

I have been taking and developing and printing and selling and

exhibiting photos for well over 30 years, ten of those years as a

professional photog in NYC. I have owned and shot Canon, Nikon,

Leica, Hasselblad, Minolta, Olympus and various large format. As

much fun as it is to blab about the hardware, I believe it is all

about the photographs. Really, the photographs.

 

So, why do all these guys put up all this advice without giving us

an idea of what they produce and what they have to say in a photo?

Don't they want to communicate with their photographs? Don't they

want us to get any idea who they are and what they do so we can

properly evalute the value of their advice for ourselves? Where

are "the goods?"

Peter,

 

Good question, one that applies to most all of the reviews, advice, etc. that

you see on the web. However, in fairness to this forum specifically I think ytou

will find that the vast majority of regular posters have their work readily

available for you to see, either here on photo.net or on their own web sites.

 

I have been a regular cointributor to this forum for several years and find that,

far more than many similar web web forums, the members of this forum are

proficient photographers who are unstinting with their willingness to share

experiences and advice. If you follow this forum over a period of time you will

see many whose work is easy to view. Not to mention the number of industry

professionals (equipment manufacturers, publishers, retailers, etc.) who

regularly participate.

 

Another thought is that many are unsatisfied with the quality they can achieve

vi ascanned images. I do it and I post but there is frequently little

resemblance between the scan I obtain and that from a drum scan that I

would use for a presentation print.

 

As always, the web is a free good and as such you have to be discriminating

in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Peter, I am one of those guys who doesnt have any pics on pn, I remmoved them all, even though I had only like 3 or 4. The reason I removed them are personal but my main reason for not posting is that I am terrible at scanning and my scanned pt/pd look like sh**. I do not have the desire nor the time to learn PS so I can approximate the prints to look more or less decent in my monitor to have them look like crap in yours. So to save myself the hassle and aggravation it is simpler not to post any pictures.

But I do get what you say, early when I joined pn I realized it was a waste of time to post and critique pictures. OTOH there are some people here who have something like 13000 critiques and not a single picture posted...what is that?

This comes up occasionally. I do think that people who are active in photography forums online should post some work somewhere (I keep mine on my own website, which you can find if you click on my name, below), but it is important to recognize that not everyone has a scanner or wants to use one, and some people may not post because the technology just doesn't represent their work adequately. I have a better scanner for 35mm than for large format, so there is less LF work on my site than 35mm, for instance.

 

Some of us over at apug.org are assembling a revolving portfolio that will travel via post as a way to share work and see some real prints from other participants. Perhaps such a thing could work here on the LF forum as well.

As others have stated, you can't come close to replicating the quality of a fine print either silver or inkjet on a monitor. But if someone asks about a technical issue and I believe I have some applicable knowledge, I am assuming the person making the inquiry will be able to see what I am talking about in his own work.

 

There is a growing body of knowledge about how to produce images specifically for reproduction on a monitor. That doesn't mean the same image will look good as a physical print. I would rather have my work displayed in its best way which means on a wall rather on a dirty, poorly calibrated monitor.

Peter, you raise good points here. The problem is this is a virtual medium talking an we are discussing tangible goods - photographs. In my opinion the digital representations of prints that we can share on this forum are so degraded in quality from the original nuances of the prints as to be almost useless for discussion. By the time they are scanned, compressed and represented on monitors they look as much like the original prints as formica desktops to real wood. Maybe you are right that there is too much discussion of equipment versus output, but I don't trust that the scans that I see adequately represent the qualities of the photographs they portray. On the other hand, I trust that most people's opinions about products and processes usually represent the results of hard work and honest insight.

Some people choose not to use photo.net as a warehouse for their images. I keep a few here only because for the reason you mention... that I want people to know if I'm responding to a post that I have actually taken a photograph or two. But the main body of my work is housed at my website: <a href="http://www.grantheffernan.com" target="_blank">www.grantheffernan.com</a><br><br>

Don't be too quick to discount people's information simply because they don't have any work on photo.net.<br><br>

<center><i>Boston Garden in Flight</i><br>

<img src="http://www.photoslave.com/pics/main/img4.jpg">

</center>

Hey David Godfarb,

 

Nice site. I see you've been in Krakow. I'd love to see more of

your work from there, if you have more.

 

What's APUG.ORG?

 

dgh<div></div>

well peter - in any area of science or art, there are those who work for specific results, and there are those who simply love finely made equipment, and there are those who love process. photography is no different. at this forum, you will find a smattering of folks who are outrageously fanatical about the technical aspects of photography, and know all types of details about various film resolution, developer accutance, print surfaces and toning, and historic techniques. others know the specifications of 1000 cameras, the history of graflex, and are glowing afficiandos of the magnificent hand-made cameras by certain manufacturers. still others are working LF photographers, who enjoy reading and learning from the others and occasionally sharing a tip or two from our own experineces. even though i make my living as a HABS/HAER photographer (yes, i have 3 of my architectural photos posted here as examples of what i do), i am not near the expert on some of the highly technical aspects of photography as some of the other members of this forum, and i am always learning something new from them. it does not matter to me whether i might personally like their actual photographic work or not. it takes all kinds to build a community, and this one is great. take care.

I wonder if Edward Weston was alive if he would post photos at this site? I'm with Jorge. My scans look like s**t but that doesn't mean my photos do. It just means I'm at a different place in computer technology than I am with REAL PICTURES! You can't tell anything about anything from a 480X640 pixel facsimile on a crt. A few feeble attempts are <a href="http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com">here</a> FWIW. Mostly out of date. I've decided to spend my time doing actual pictures, not virtual ones. I do think there are some armchair photgs out there though but a lack of pics on the crt doesn't have much to do with proving that.

David Hall--

 

Thanks for visiting the site. I do have more photographs from Krakow, but haven't had time to scan them. I'll probably put up an online portfolio of them next summer. Most are from 1989, when many political changes were happening.

 

Go to http://apug.org to find out more about apug.org. It is a discussion forum for film and chemistry based photography.

I don't think there'd be much difference between D76 at 1:29 and D76 at 1:30.

Peter,

 

You make am interesting point. It prompted me to just now upload an image to photo.net. Have a look. However, I agree with Jorge, this Pd/Pt print (or any other fine print) really is inadequately represented as a small JPEG on-line. Be that as it is, at least the viewer gets some idea of what I'm up to and if I'm a total hack or not.

I don't see that much relevance between actual work and quality of advice one can deliver. At this stage I don't post anything here partly because I've read some critique on a number of different pictures and found it rather worthless (I prefer a simple point system, and with the exception for comments on some major compositional flaws, the rest should come from the photographer and only him/her). I look at my own work as being personal and not ready for display (by ready I mean easily defendable against any critique, which I believe one should be able to do as long as he/she cares for his work). Most of us don't know each other. Do I want to hear from whoever that he'd rather put that spot light 5 inches higher and 2 inches more north? No way, sorry. It's too bad really, because I know there is a number of contributors here who would help develop many innocent photographic minds.

 

If I can make any sense out of advice given here, I try it. Not once have I wanted to see the pics supporting specific comment/advice etc. (partly for reasons already given by others above). Even if an advice happened to be purely theoretical, so what? If it seems possible give it a try, maybe others are up to something in spite of their work not being displayed here, there, or anywhere.

 

There is people in this field that are top notch technically, yet have trouble coming up with pleasing work. So they devoted their time to that part of photography, what's wrong with that? Should we go ahead on bashing some of those great photographers who opted to outsource their developing and printing? They got better at evaluating their own work as printed by others. Those OTHERS never made it behind the camera, yet they have contributed immensly to the progress of photography as we know it now. Do I want to hear from them? You bet.

Thhere are also plenty on here, if you want to see there work, go to Barnes & Noble or Chapters and either look for their books or check the newstands for the magazines.

Some good points made here. IMHO... I agree that the resultant image in PN is not going to match the results that us LFers are used to but are an item/image in themselves. I'm only new to LF so my own pictures are not reaching dizzy heights (yet) but when I look at other photos on PN I'm not looking at technical quality (even though some are very impressive) but I'm looking for a portfolio to tell me more about the photographers psychy and methods. As a landscaper I also look for a bit of inspiration and location ideas. And I'm always keen to compliment images I like. This applies to all formats. There are some amazing images on here by photographers using only 35mm or only digital cameras and I enjoy them all whatever format. When I put an image on PN I hope it contributes to saying a bit more about me as a photographer so others can understand where I'm coming from photographically, taking as read and understood the limitations of electronic sharing of images on the web. Pictures on PN don't have to be top quality fine art to do that. And I also feel its help the community feeling to see what other people are doing, images from their part of the world, what they like, etc. So, yes, I'd like to see more of what everone is doing. Not a huge portfolio of all your best work, just a small number of images to tell us about you. Its part of what makes PN so interesting.

Peter, sometimes I ask myself the same question. I'm sitting here in the bedroom that serves as my office. My computer is on the desk where I am now sitting, and the walls of the room are lined with many of the mounted and framed 16X20 prints that I have created. The bathroom connected to this room was designed to be used as a darkroom. When we built the house two years ago, we had the builder eliminate the windows. I do not have a scanner. I have access to one, but it does not handle 16X20 prints. I don't want to make smaller prints just to show them on the internet. Perhaps if I were selling my prints or my photo services, I would have my own website and find a way to scan them onto the screen. Looking at large toned B&W prints on a computer screen does not do them justice.

 

I lurked on the LF websites for two years before realizing that I also had something to contribute. When I see someone struggling to solve the same problem that I experienced with a piece of equipment, or trying to handle a film or paper processing procedure that I have mastered, I try to help them. I only chime in when I have actual hands-on experience with the subject. By doing so, I also learn. I have discovered that I learn something new about photography from this forum every day.

 

If you want to see my prints, I would be pleased to have you come to my house to look at them.

that is, see "their" work...

I would also add, that many of us who make our living from photography (and others who don't) disagree with photo.nets terms for placing images on this site. They are unfriendly to photographers and unnecessarily broad.

 

Therefore we don't post our images here.

I do have some photos posted, but as many others have stated, a computer image is pretty poor compared to an actual print. Another thing thats always brothered me is the fact that not all monitors see the same image I want them to see....either to light or to dark. I really have mixed feelings about posting, but at least one may get an idea of what type of work you do.

As Tim said, in my case my pictures are disseminated in books, magazines and who knows where as I shoot for stock agencies more than for myself. But sincerely, if I want to know about what is the coverage of the Dagor 222.47mm I couldn't give a damn if the guy who knows it and answers me takes wonderful pics with it or not. All that is important to me is if I can take good pics with it. Also, the time to scan and to publish it here would be a wasted time for me (especially if all I need to know is just the coverage of the 222.47mm Dagor...) Why bother?

[A] I have access to a computer, but no scanner, and haven't seen fit to "go digital". I have a hard enough time developing my negs properly and cleanly. I have no time (or real desire) to learn Photoshop, etc.

 

To me PN is a resource. I want to know HOW to do something and come here to get the answer. Some questions might benefit from a photo to demonstrate something, but most, especially on the large format forum, do not.

 

[C] I have never gotten "bum" information from anyone on the forum. If you're doing LF you probably already know more than the basics and have seen enough photos to know what someone is talking about for most situations. If someone is grossly in error on a subject, it stands out (and usually draws comments as such). I'll agree I find some of the material esoteric, but being an engineer I can see how people can get carried away with what others consider minutia.

 

I've gotten more out of this forum than any book, class or photos. And there's always more than enough sarcasm (Chad) to entertain.

It occured to me that another reason not to post photos on PN or other public places is because it invites all kinds of fun email from wackos. Following my initial post, I received this friendly note (not verbatim):<br><br>

 

<center><i>That's because you've only taken a handful of large format photos in your life you pretentious ass. Get a life.</i></center><br><br>

 

I don't refute that. In fact, I'm very much new to LF. But I don't think my post had anything to do with LF in particular. People like this are one reason I would consider limiting my online presence (and I'm sure the anonymous sender will send me another lovely note asking that I please do so). Such is online life...

OTOH there are some people here who have something like 13000 critiques and not a single picture posted...what is that?....................That is their right, not having photos on Photonet isn't the same as saying they don't exist, as some folks suggest about individuals who don't post images here.

 

I have shared examples of my work with several Photographers who post here and on the MF digest, many of which will be on my website which I was inspired to create from checking out the various websites of other contributers of these forums. I won't post images here under the photonet terms, which isn't the same as suggesting they don't exist, posting photos isn't a requirement for participating in this forum, and to confer 'wannabe' status on somebody because an individual hasn't personally seen their work is foolish.

 

The wealth of knowledge dispensed on this forum, and the ability to use that knowledge to execute can be different things, I watched a fight where a truly great boxer lost and they were interviewing him after the fight, he admitted right then and there that he was ready to retire because he could see the punches coming and knew what he needed to do to get out of the way, but his body just wouldn't respond.

 

There are a couple of morons on this forum who go around calling folks 'wannabes' based on nothing more than sheer ignorance, and their willingness to do that is more a comment on them than the folks they are talking about.

 

Anybody who loves photography, wants to learn, improve, is inspired and appreciative of good work by others, is a brother photographer of mine, regardless of his/her skill level. If I have better skills, I will pull them up to where I am, if they are better skilled than me, they will pull me up to where they are.

 

I will tell all I know to anybody that asks, and will ask a question of anyone in quest of the need to know, that's what the forum is for, whether me or anyone else exhibiits images here is up to them without penalty.

I have been doing photograhy for over 30 years and own both hasselblad and sinar 8 x 10. the reason I don't post is because I have yet to make a photograph good enough to post.

 

Kevin