Elliot Erwitt said this last night

[robert_haller]

...shame on all "manipulers" - either a shot is original and true or it is manipulated - just face it and be honest.

 

Disciplin and integrity comes in when you leave things as they are.

I am sorry for all who dont have the feeling for the composition when they press the shutter release - it�s like hunting with a gun - you cannot repeat your shot if it was not perfect - the target will jump and move ...

It�s definitely not for wimps ...

[terry_rory]

Yes Robert. When I use my D70 DSLR I just point it at randomly at absolutely anything. I dont even look through the viewfinder most of the time becaue I can rescue anything in photoshop afterwards...

 

[terry_rory]

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorhare/search/tags:bessa%2Ccontax%2Ccontaxt2%2Celmar%2Cleica%2Cm6%2Csummicron/tagmode:any/show/">with film</a> things are different obviously.

[paulmoore]

robert,

you can be the high priest of the leica orthodox sect..do you allow cropping?

after all, it is second guessing you know, and if there is a cig.butt on the pavement can you

spot it out of the print? I hope not it was there when you committed the sarcred act.

your post seems a tad dogmatic.

[fjords]

you dudes 'r just scratching flees and sniffing old farts.<p> crap students were

submitting... a reflection of their instructor?)<p> < I can rescue anything in photoshop

afterwards...> Funny;) That's what I was thinking:>)

[robert_haller]

...yes in a way - I�m just conservative and for me the M with those lenses and the best quality film is just a delight - I am proud that I am allowed to handle such harmonious equipment.

M�s are built with care and love to detail and they are here to stay. Beeing an IT-consultant - sitting in front of the PC most of the day, it relaxes me to go out with the M and a nice lens - it�s like a break from business - it�s like when you have a glas of wine at 7-8pm, it tells your brain that your home and you can relax now...

 

The big mistake many make is they permanently search for new stuff - digital can be like a disease - everything is digital today - but what does it mean - an analog signal can carry a lot of data - just like DSL is part analog technic etc... it�s closer to the human understanding.

[zapata_espinoza]

Overall I get the feel an old man is defending his work in face of the new. I may be wrong, but could it all be just fear to be buried in oblivion ?

[bobtodrick]

That Zapata, is the most ridiculous statement posted on this thread.

[lee_shively]

Given that Elliott Erwitt is 10 times the photographer of anyone who has posted here, it might behove you to pay attention to him. Given that Ralph Gibson's interview was in 2001 and he's still shooting film, I don't see a wholesale endorsement of digital from his quarters. Gibson, of course, is also 10 times the photographer of anyone here. I don't suppose what any of us says means jackshyt in the face of their accomplishments.

[paulmoore]

robert,

I think there is a big learning curve to digital.. at least a big one for those who desire

the quality that film offers.. and a techno curve as well which up to this last year or two was

lacking, not quite as good a film.. .it is now good enough for me and I have to do my part to

get the most out of it.

I have absolute respect for the traditionalists.. those are my conservative roots in

photography. I always thought of erwitt though as "popular" small camera photographer, a

good chardonnay but not a big serious red.

[charlie lemay]

I tell my students, that everything we have known about photography before digital is like the foyer of one of those palacial Newport, Rhode Island mansions. Now, suddenly we've been informed there are 300 other rooms to explore, and at this stage we can't even imagine the possibilities of some of them. Some are going to want to stay in the foyer, and that's OK, but others are curious to see what might be in the rest of the place. By the way, my first image was digital and I go about deliberately shooting specific images for a piece, which I previsualize before hand. The second image is uncropped Fuji Acros shot with a 65 Elmar on a Nikon N90s with a Cameraquest Viso to Nikon adapter.

[henry_a]

Sometimes the level of photo criticism here fails to rise to the level of all the backs of heads, signs, other people's artwork and mannequins we're treated to on a regular basis. This is one of those times.

 

Relating silly ideas about your digital camera and how good you or your friend who is a semi-pro photographer are with Photoshop really is a moot point. You don't have to like Erwitt but you could at least show some respect for a legend of photography. A guy who was making truly excellent pictures before most of you were born or even thought about calling yourselves photographers.

 

But I know it won't stop here so I'll leave you with a few new topics to discuss:

 

Andre Kertesz - why are some of his pictures so dark and dreary looking? Couldn't he have borrowed an Epson printer and maybe bought some color film?

 

Ansel Adams - Imagine if he'd had a Canon 1DsMk2 with a big zoom lens, he would have made lots and lots more pictures.

 

Robert Capa - Wouldn't it have been cool if he'd had the high frame rate setting turned on when that Spanish soldier got offed?

 

W. Eugene Smith - If he'd had digital camera he could have kept working after the Japanese goons beat him near to death. Its amazing what people with crippled hands can do on a Wacom tablet!

 

Aieeeeeeeee!

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<I>Some of his remarks quoted above are great and hold real truths. Others show a narrow

minded dogmatism that I would just chalk up to his being "old school"</I><P>Frederick--

read Ellis V.'s post. What do you disagree with? What's old school?

[john_elder1]

Erwitt and Gibson have a hell of alot in common, for those who don't know. They both shoot Leica M bodies and shoot film, not digital. Gibson only scans prints. He only shoots film because he "likes the grain".

Gibson uses the Computer and photoshop to help publish his own books through his own publishing company. NEITHER are digital photographers and both are great photgraphers having different styles.

[boris c hann]

"with film it's called 'forethought'...focus properly (eliminates the need for sharpening), be

aware of your surroundings (eliminates the need to remove objects) and know how your F-

stops work and adjust your DOF while shooting. That's what most people IMO have against

'digital'.."

 

Leaving aside the fact that sharpening is not actually about rendering out of focus images

sharp, it's one of the great conceits of this forum that there's anything remotely tricky

about setting focus, aperture, and shutter speed. Recent tests have shown the concept of

focus and correct exposure to be well within the grasp of an educationally subnormal

chimp, a moderately intelligent llama, and a fairly smart gerbil (though I concede that the

llama and gerbil have a tendency to bouts of frustration due to their

lack of manual dexterity). Scientists have so far been unable to explain why these things

prove such a challenge to the typical Leica toting dentist/doctor/ad man. Anyway, isn't

this all a bit off topic - last I heard the old goat

Erwit was wandering round with a Contax G2......

[Brad_]

Agree with Boris' astute observation regarding B Todrick's comment on the purpose of

sharpening. You'd think someone who makes such broad generalizations about digital in

general, especially the comment on *making* you sloppy, would actually have some direct

experience in the medium. Talk is cheap...

[nesrani]

Brad and Boris are right, of course. Taking good pictures is not a technical issue.

[boris c hann]

"You'd think someone who makes such broad generalizations about digital in

general...would actually have some direct experience in the medium."

 

Generalization? Brad, you're behind the times. The correct term is "kaplanization". This is

from the 2006 edition of The Oxford English Dictionary: "kaplanize - to

make sweeping and irrelevant proclamation from position of utter and complete

ignorance".

[andrewlamb]

The OED is, typically, a little behind the times and perhaps a tad vague. I Googled "kaplanize"

and it said "verb: to make a broad statement while photographing yourself with a wide angle

lens".

[travis1]

I never think of PS when I shoot digital..particularly not trying to "fix" things later. Do you think of what you're gonna "fix" in the darkroom when you shoot b/w film, at every click? Guess not huh?

[steve_unsworth1]

There seems a lot of common sense in what Erwitt says, some things you might disagree with but that would be the case with anyone talking about photography.

 

To suggest, ironically or not, that Erwitt has gone gaga probably says more about the poster than it does about Erwitt.

 

As someone who has seen this exhibition in Bradford all I can say is that if you have the chance then go, it's magnificent and a great retrospective. The size makes a difference.

[bobtodrick]

Brad (the one from the San Fancisco Bay area of course), check this link http://www.lonestardigital.com/usm_fade.htm if this isn't about sharpneing a soft image I don't know what is. Anyhoo, in regards to the technical aspects of photography that Boris and Another Bob wish to downplay, please let me relate this little story. I have a very well know image that hangs in my office, a portrait by Karsh. A classic example of Rembrandt lighting. I recently had this same sort of stupid discussion with someone ('It's the image that counts'...'I don't need to learn the rules because arts not about rules'...all the usual crap). I pointed out the triangle of light below the eye on the shadow side of the face and asked the gent if he knew how to achieve it, to which he spouted 'I've never heard of Rembrandt lighting but I could do that in Photoshop'...give me a break. And Boris...please don't bore us with the ridiculous gerbil stories. A computer whiz at MIT recently did a simulation (it was in the news about a year ago), concerning the old 'a bunch of monkeys in a room could eventully right a Shakespeare play'. Well turns out a thousand monkeys in a room full of word processors would finish the first page of Macbeth, with proper puctuation about the same time the universe collapses upon itself. So the theory that photography (whether film based or digital) doesn't require study of the medium (and many beginners do find DOF a difficult study) is bogus.

[boris c hann]

Todd man, show some respect to the gerbils. What have they ever done to you?

[boris c hann]

My apologies to Todd who's just contacted me off-forum. He doesn't want to go into the

details here, but apparently he was involved in a very nasty gerbil related incident some

years ago. I stand corrected. Gerbils, far from being the friendly, furry little fellas of

fotography are actually the absolute f#@^ing filth of the rodent world......Again, my

apologies.

[nels]

I don't know about a bunch of monkeys writing Shakespeare, but I do know that we have a few here in this forum writing gibberish on a regular basis.

 

Just because a few fools mistakenly think they can fix anything in PS doesn't imply that you should attribute the same level of stupidity upon everyone who likes and uses PS to get the job done (and done well), admittedly far quicker and easier than anyone could in a wet darkroom.