ray . Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 heh, should've said a <i>new</i> D70 kit for the price of a <i>used</i> M6 body... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 <I>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. </i><P> Wrong again Dennis - we know your good at being disingenuous.<P> 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.<P> 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.<P> 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.<P> Sorry Ray, this was a pretty neat thread. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 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. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 Jeez you guys... both of ya's.... well, hmm................................... <p> <b>Oh!, I got it! You both like dogs don'tcha??!!</b><p>Dennis, you can have a go at this one...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Not surprisingly, Dennis can't deal with the points put forward. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 LOL...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 lol...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 egad ... talk about expression. I meant to say that software-solutions are certainly more efficient and cost-effective. apologies ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 <i>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.</i><p> 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. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 <I> 'shadow detail' is the most-overrated and obsessed-on photographic parameter that is generally not paramount to expressiveness</I><P> 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.<P> 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. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squareframe Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 ???????????????<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 "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. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Soul stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Allen, these digital clowns suck the soul right out of photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 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... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Brad, you're a joke... buy yourself a Pentax K1000 and go learn about photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 More insults when points can't be addressed... We do feel sorry for you. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 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? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now