The End is Near - Beckerman Goes Digital

[gary_woodard]

He's actually going to be seen with a Canon Rebel, are those the things with the wire security cord glued on the back at Wal-mart, I saw one of those, their cute, I think you get one free if you buy a memory card. Who is Dave Beckerman and why should I care if he buys a Canon Rebel, maybe he is afraid of having it stolen and has chosen a camera which crack addicts shy away from.

[gary_woodard]

Volker, somethings in focus here, give me a few minutes, I'm bound to find it.

[eliot_rosen]

A lot of people are going digital. So what? Why should we care what some guy named Beckerman is using.

[patricks]

i actually own a Beckerman print (which by the way was taken with a 4x5 as someone pointed out "should" be his tool - I personally don't understand that line of reasoning).

 

Dave Beckerman's site is actually one of the highest ranked/visited photo-related sites on the internet, I think a read a while back. Since he, once at least, was an avid Leica M user and don't see why the post is so far off topic (we've seen/are used to much worse), however, the fact that he went Digital Rebel is of little/no consequence what so ever.

 

Thanks for info Bill!

[vic_.]

I remember reading Dave Beckerman's article two years ago, and then the postscript where he eventually sold the Leica equipment. The same thing happened with Kirk Tuck, who wrote the Leica M6 review on this site. Commercial pressures are intense these days, and digital provides instant results.

 

At least these men put their experiential views on the web, which actually provides meaningful information to some, and don't waste time sniping at others! They're not trying to please everyone, as Beckerman clearly stated in his article. Also, these two gents are making a living via photography, which is more than can be said of their detractors.

[________1]

I didn't know there was a Russian firmware hack for the 300D! Thanks for steering me to the site.

[travis1]

I don't understand. Why is the end near?

[ray .]

<i>...more than can be said of their detractors.</i><p>Gee Vic, tell us how much you love Thomas Kincaid while you're at it.<p>

Bland bland bland... and more bland... not theatening or challenging in any way shape or form... trivial, provincial taste- that's what spells success to some people. Read his very "insightful" comments to the photos too. </p>No thanks.

[leslie_cheung]

>>>>i actually own a Beckerman print (which by the way was

taken with a 4x5 as someone pointed out "should" be his tool - I

personally don't understand that line of reasoning). <<<<

 

Whether one likes his photos is a matter of taste acourse but his

subject matter and style could be had using a larger format cam.

Why spend thousands of dollars on leicas when you could do

much better with a $300 speed graphic or some MF for much

less? Cameras doesn't matter much but some tools are better

than others for certain jobs....like trying to shoot sports with a

leica just makes me laugh.

[capocheny]

Bill,

 

Thanks for the link to Beckerman's website. I've not heard of him before, so obviously, I

wasn't familiar with his pics. After viewing his website... I must say that he does have some

nice pictures but is it the "street photography images" that's sustaining him financially... or

is it his fine art prints? I'd be interested in knowing the percentages of sales from each

style before declaring that he "...actually makes a living from B&W street photography."

Afterall, some of his images have absolutely nothing to do with street photography/

shooting.

 

"...Dave Beckerman, is the only person I know of who actually makes a living(?) from B&W

street photography."

 

Bill.... if Winogrand were still alive he would be reaping the rewards of all his photographs.

I understand that his widow won't have to work another day in her life.

 

And, what about Franks and Erwitt and Weegee... I wouldn't think they'd have much of a

problem in selling their images either.

 

The biggest challenge for photographers, in general, is that unless they're represented by

a well-known gallery, the majority are ignorant of "marketing." There are many, many

great images out there just awaiting the "right time to step into the limelight!"

 

As for Beckerman switching to digital... who gives a flying leap? At the end of the day (in

spite of all the purists here) the proof of the pudding has to be the final image. I really

don't care if the image is made via digital or film...as long as it's a decent/great/fabulous

image.

 

A D100, Digilux, Olympus E1, M6, F100, Canon, M7, Pentax, or the future Epson RD-1

will/can produce similarily great images. So, it's not entirely about whether one uses a

Canon Rebel or a Digilus or a Leica M7. In spite of what all the "experts" say about the

Digilux it's a marvellous camera and would work well for any street shooter (at least, for

those who understand hyperfocal distance and DoF tables.)

 

Again, who cares about which camera is being used... it's ALL about the final image and

whether or not, the photographer gets the image. This is all that counts at the end of the

day.

 

Remember, a camera is no more than a well-designed box to hold a piece of film. In the

case of a digital camera...it's no more than a well-designed box to capture (in the form of

bits and bytes) an image and recorded in a digital language.

 

Cheers

[capocheny]

" I sorry that it roused so many retarded, mean spirited nazi's"

 

Nice!!!!

 

NOT.

[randy_skopar]

Gentlemen:

 

Please don't use the N-word (Nazi) on a site for German cameras!

 

:-)

[stewart_weir]

it will not be long before he drifts back to film... i know a lot of snappers who have missed film and re invested...

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I don't understand. Why is the end near? </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Just more hyperbole. But the more general, and rather obvious, point about the

decliuning future of 35mm film photography and Leica film photography is merely

reinforced. <p>

 

<i><blockquote> it will not be long before he drifts back to film...

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Yeah, like all the other pro photographers who did, huh.

[basil brush]

Surely no one really thinks you can adequately substitute b&w film for digital? Sure, you can play with the colour channels in Photoshop, but it just doesn't look the same.

[0_007]

beckerman is not the end of film.

 

when i switch from film to digital is the end for me.

[lachaine]

That's a shame, as Seinfeld would say. I've never heard of this photographer until I read this thread. Then, I checked out his website. I love the real B&W photographs he has on there.

 

I don't care what anyone says, there is more to the medium than the message. When it comes to art, how it's done DOES matter, the same way that, say, a beautiful building made with real bricks and mortar is better than an identical one made with brick veneer. No matter how nice it looks, a photo taken with a digital camera, photoshopped for a few minutes, and then printed on an inkjet means very little. It's just another of millions of snapshots taken every day, and it's to photography what CNN is to news - pablum for the masses.

 

Wherever this photographer and others go, if it's "I went digital", good luck to them. Their work will just be so much technological junk a decade from now, in a world filled with technological junk.

[socke]

<i><b>Gary Woodard , aug 11, 2004; 08:58 p.m.

Volker, somethings in focus here, give me a few minutes, I'm bound to find it.</i></b><br>

<br>

Yes, there is! It's the obligatory snap of a girfriend in a coffeeshop for Michael :-).<br>

<br>

I hope he'll excuse me using a Contax, the Leica is in an airtight glas case with a neutral atmosphere between CLAs :-)

[andrew_hull]

This whole forum is predicated on the idea that the equipment matters. It's all a bunch of hooey. The camera doesn't matter, the film doesn't matter. It certainly isn't necessary to include what model Leica and what lens one used in the subtitle of one's picture. Almost as much hooey as the "Decisive Moment" p.r. crap.

[nesrani]

"Wherever this photographer and others go, if it's "I went digital", good luck to them. Their work will just be so much technological junk a decade from now, in a world filled with technological junk."

 

What nonsense. How can their pictures be technological junk?

[stever]

To all BeckerBashers...

 

I know Dave Beckerman...

 

I've met Dave Beckerman...

 

Dave Beckerman is my friend...

 

.... and you're no Dave Beckerman!

 

 

Hey, really gang, don't take all this too seriously! Dave is a great guy and a wonderful photographer, irrespective of his choice of tools. Also, his is the Mother of All Photoblogs, and he's been brave enough to let us peek in at a rough draft of his life (via his blog) for several years now.

 

Regards to all,

SteveR<div></div>

[david_s4]

I've been reading Dave Beckerman's Weblog (<a href="http://davebeckerman.com/blog/">current</a> and

<a href="http://davebeckerman.com/general/Journal.html">archives</a>) on & off for a couple of years now. He's commented several times that he changes tools every few years to what works best for him at that time. I don't think he posts his reasons to convince, or request approval, but to inform readers about how he makes decisions as a (now) professional photographer. Read the 3 updates at his <a href="http://davebeckerman.com/general/Leica.html">Leica M6 Review</a> or his <a href="http://davebeckerman.com/general/About.html">About</a> page. It reads reasonable to me.

[larrybc]

<< The End is Near - Beckerman Goes Digital >>

 

<p>

<b>leslie cheung , aug 11, 2004; 06:35 p.m.</b><br>

<i>Why was he using a leica in the first place? He could of used a 4x5 for those b+w shots. Beckerman isn't very bright.</i>

</p>

<p>

And the vast majority of shots posted to this forum could be made with an SLR or a Rollei zone-focus camera, for that matter.

</p>

 

<p>

<b>feli , aug 11, 2004; 08:27 p.m.</b><br>

<i>What is there to admire about a street photographer who admits that he shoots from the hip, because he doesn't have the balls to take the chance that one of his subject may see him raising his camera to his eye?

</i>

</p>

<p>

He has posted plenty of photos that make it obvious that he does, in fact, shoot candid photos by bringing the camera up to his eye. The fact that he sometimes does not is no reason to deride him.

</p>

<p><i>

I'm sorry, but after reading the articles on his site I have to conclude that this chap is a dilettante.</i>

</p>

<p>dilettante:<br>

An amateur who engages in an activity without serious intentions and who pretends to have knowledge.<br>

Showing frivolous or superficial interest; amateurish.

</p>

<p>Considering that he is making a living from his photos, I would hardly call him a dilettante. He's staking his livelihood on his ability to produce and sell photographs. That demonstrates a seriousness in his approach to photography that goes beyond what most of the participants on these forums are doing.

</p>

 

<p><b>Michael Darnton , aug 11, 2004; 08:42 p.m.</b><br><i>

He's not a REAL Leica photographer--where are the bad pictures of his grandchildren, or snaps of his wife/girlfriend in coffeeshops throughout the world???</i>

</p>

<p>No kidding! My sentiments exactly. Gotta get a Noctilux to get a pic of the kid's face lit up by the birthday candles.

</p>

<p>While I don't like all of Dave's photos, I do admire many of them, and I certainly respect him as a photographer because he is putting his money where his mouth is and working to fulfilling the dream that many amateur photographers have. On top of all that, he is also giving us a candid insight into his life which is, for me at least, very entertaining.

</p>

 

<p><b>Gary Woodard , aug 11, 2004; 08:55 p.m.</b><br>

<i>He's actually going to be seen with a Canon Rebel, are those the things with the wire security cord glued on the back at Wal-mart, I saw one of those, their cute, I think you get one free if you buy a memory card.</i></p>

 

<p>I think that illustrates a key problem here: why do you care what camera you are seen with? Are we discussing personal image or photographic images?</p>

 

<p><b>Basil Brush , aug 12, 2004; 09:09 a.m.</b><br><i>

Surely no one really thinks you can adequately substitute b&w film for digital? Sure, you can play with the colour channels in Photoshop, but it just doesn't look the same.</i></p>

<p>It might not look the same, and it might not be a substitute, but it can be beautiful in its own right.</p>

 

<p><b>Pierre Lachaine , aug 12, 2004; 09:49 a.m.</b><br>

<i>Wherever this photographer and others go, if it's "I went digital", good luck to them. Their work will just be so much technological junk a decade from now, in a world filled with technological junk.</i></p>

<p>This really is so much like the pot calling the kettle black. Photography was looked down upon since its inception as not being a legitimate art medium. And now, because the process is different, you are saying it can't be art but traditional chemical photos are?

</p>

 

<p>Look, folks, Dave has posted on his site that his opinions on cameras, and his reasons for choosing one over the other are his alone. What works for him may not work for you or anyone else. This whole thread reminds me of the Life of Brian when Brian becomes the unlikely target of a mob of messiah-seeking groupies. Dave's doing his own thing. Leave him be.

</p>

<p>Larry</p>

[dean_g]

"No matter how nice it looks, a photo taken with a digital camera, photoshopped for a few minutes, and then printed on an inkjet means very little. "

 

Uh, how do you figure that? Even if it looks really, really, really, nice? I mean, if it looks nice, it looks nice.. or am I too simplistic? Perhaps I slipped through a worm hole and popped out into a different dimension? If a film photo(especially if it's a "Leica film" photo) looks nice, really nice, and the inkjet print next to it looks the same, are you saying the latter lacks meaning? To who? When did photography become performance art? Maybe if the digital photographer wears spats that could make up for some of the meaning deficit?

 

If someone shows you a photo, do you require knowledge of how it was made before you allow yourself to see it? This is absurd.

[larrybc]

<p><b>Pierre Lachaine , aug 12, 2004; 09:49 a.m.</b><br>

<i>No matter how nice it looks, a photo taken with a digital camera, photoshopped for a few minutes, and then printed on an inkjet means very little.</i></p>

<p>Are you objecting to perceived lack of work after exposure? If so, then a slide would be utter crap, I guess. Or are you objecting to manipulations after the exposure? If so, then the manipulation of film during development, dodging and burning during printing, and selenium toning must reek of mind numbed pop art.</p>

<p>I don't know about you, but I hate photos where the photographer used a meter to figure out the proper exposure. They're so banal.</p>

<p>Larry</p>