kent_tolley2 Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 We are the best proof against the assertion that, given an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of monkeys can write Hamlet. Or take an Erwitt snap for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nesrani Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Peter and (the other) Bob, obviously studio, product, fashion and so are quite different areas where total control of lighting is essential and difficult. I wouldn't have a clue how to handle them myself. But that isn't the type photography that Erwitt is famous for, nor what I do. Taking pictures in a documentary, photojournalistic or street mode does not require enormous technical skills, what it does require, is empathy, fast reactions, and understanding of the situation and how it is likely to evolve. Focus and exposure with natural lighting are really not that difficult. And of course, I agree that photoshop is not a substitute for getting it right in the camera - but it can be very useful for rescuing pictures which have minor exposure problems. To regard that as a bad thing as a matter of principle, is just a little rigid. And of course, you can do that with film itself - how often have you rescued a bad exposure by pushing a roll of film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Bob (another)...read a bit of both Erwitt and Gibson's history (gee, back to the original topic)...Erwitt studied under the likes of Edward Steichen and Robert Capa...Gibson under Robert Frank and Dorthea Lange. I guess this is what I'm getting at...an underlying attitude in much of todays society that 'study' and such are unnecessay...sometimes just wanting to do something doesn't mean you'll do it well. Sorry, but I see a lot of bland photography on this site and in general (and I've produced my fair share of it)...as one of my pro clients says...in the last 15 years we've lowered the (standard) bar to 'just good enough', in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 We are the best proof against the assertion that, given an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of monkeys can write Hamlet. There, we are living proof. Sort of agree. To practise a discipline and become competent, as in P/S or the Darkroom, is a necessity to achieve technical competence to be able to effectively express our Art. To understand the Art of the �greats� and appreciate their work is a gratuity but not necessarily a necessity for original thought. To slavishly follow their style, or a variation of the theme, is for the mindless�..many choose that path. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Allen...I don't think anybody here is recommending we slavishly follow Erwitt's (or anyones style). But not learning from the past and what others have done is counterproductive. Why spend half your life re-inventing the wheel for example. Here's an example. Twenty hears ago the pumped up color of Peter Turner was really popular http://www.eastmanhouse.org/inc/exhibitions/traveling-pete_turner.php I, like many I knew tried to achieve a bit of his look and usually failed (tried different films, cross processing, etc). Then I read an indepth interview...Kodachrome X (normally contrasty), which was then duplicated a number of times in a Beseler Dia-Duplicator which added more contrast with each dupe but not loosing resolution. Would've probably taken about 5 years to figure this out by trial and error. I'd hate to go to a doctor who hadn't studied what those before him have learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Actually,i did a codex of forum posts. Apart from reading the near complete works of Robert Burns, i also discovered the world is predicted to end at tea time tommorrow; the exact time was not forthcoming. Bob, the only reason why you think digital or P/S results in more sloppy work ,is because, it's just more accessible to more folk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Bob? Todd? Gerbils? Monkeys? Photoshop? They're all the same....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 I'd hate to go to a doctor who hadn't studied what those before him have learned. Bob, we are talking Art....individual creative expression! We are not talking about the building blocks of science or re-inventing the wheel.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 <I>But not learning from the past and what others have done is counterproductive.</I><P> Who said <i>anything</I> about not learning from the past? Smells like projection on your part. And even with that, why would you want to follow in Erwitt's footsteps, anyway? Kind of like someone out of drama school saying, yes, I want to be like, uh, Richard Gere... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 <i>Kind of like someone out of drama school saying, yes, I want to be like, uh, Richard Gere...</i><BR> Bulls eye. Or act like Brando if you want someone with impact...or sing like Lady Day...or paint like Vincent. It's just not possible. Even if you wanted to and put all your effort into it you could never do it. And if you came close what would you have accomplished beyond imitation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_haller Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 hmmm.... this all makes me wonder ... compared with cars, DIGITAL is a super-super-charged, gazzz injected Toyota-Supra - where the Porsche 911 air-cooles is close to the Leica-M - the 911 is a very flexible sporty car - it was never the fastest or lowest or or or ... on the street - it did not really sell based on superlatives - it simply was a highly respectable and harmonious construction against the trend of placing engines in the front or in the middle of a car. The M-Series with its rubber-cloth shutter and the range-finder is not the best for macro, nor tele nor nor ... it simply is a excellent companion for the average but this on the highest quality level - just as the 911 ... Many don�t understand this fact and run around with specs and numbers and compare technology. In this case - and especially for me its def. not about comparing film with a sensor - its about something higher - a ritual about photography and the style behind it - the easy klick klick view it here and now etc... makes me sick - I use digital also but only for fun stuff - real photograpy is a process - something to enjoy with passion - its not about "crop-factors" or photoshop etc... its about something higher that only a small fraction of all users will understand. I only post in 1 forum on this planet - and I do it here because I find the highest ratio of users in this leica forum that stick to the most classic suit in photograpy, the rangefinders ... it�s just warms up my heart when I see Al with his 15mm in the supermarket or the barber ... or someone shooting dead birds with the M becaus he cannot catch them close up when flying ...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 "Leica-M....the highest quality level - just as the 911 ...its not about "crop-factors" or photoshop etc... its about something higher that only a small fraction of all users will understand" It's strange that many of the most interesting reportage photographers (Eugene Richards, Peress, Delahaye....) haven't understood the unique allure of the M in recent times. I guess they just don't "understand" that "higher" state.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_haller Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 ... sure they did - and many do - but when I watch this forum, users drift away ... why await the MD and accept a crop factor and a loud standard shutter ... tell me why ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Brad, I'm sure you're aware of the saying 'nothing hasn't been done before'. I applies to art as well as anything else. Again I'll use a simple example as that is all a few here seem to understand. Gibson. Studied under Dorthea Lange and Robert Frank. Both of their influences are evident in his work. Does that mean he's not original. Most people familiar with his work can recognize it as a Gibson quite easily. What makes 'originality' is learning from the past, adding your own spin and viewpoint to things and then hopefully coming up with something that looks fresh and 'new'. Take even Salvador Dali...someone who many would say was completely original...yet even he admits in his writings how his early work was influenced by Luis Bunel and the Surrealists. Anyone who claims they are making great (or even good) art with no influence at all from the past is stringing you along my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 its about something higher that only a small fraction of all users will understand. Okay,get the picture. Unfortunately yours is out of focus.So to help you,being a nice sort of bloke........<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 <i>tell me why ...</i><BR> do fools fall in love Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Anyone who claims they are making great (or even good) art with no influence at all from the past is stringing you along my friend. Who claimed that? Even the TV influences you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 "why await the MD and accept a crop factor and a loud standard shutter ... tell me why ..." OK, the "crop factor" is no big deal as countless Canon and Nikon users will attest. As for the shutter, just because it won't be cloth it doesn't follow it'll go off like a fire cracker - anybody who's used a Hexar or Contax G2 will know that. Unlike for the R there's still a realistically big market for a digital rangefinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 is there a central argument to this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Barkeep. Send Boris a drink. (and put it on Kaplan's tab) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_haller Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 pure brainstorming "rubber-cloth-shutter" ... - why is it possible to shoot 1sec shots free hand and still quite sharp ... I was never able to do this with any different camera ... this below 100asa fuji MP, 24asph (2.8) in elevator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 you sure you don't mean "pure barnstorming?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Thanks for the thought Kent, but I'm sitting in a Mayfair (London) hotel room and I suspect even a beer is out of Al's league judging by the room service menu I'm contemplating. Robert, I think you're getting into the area of voodoo. Or maybe you've just not used a Hexar or a modern SLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 - why is it possible to shoot 1sec shots free hand and still quite sharp It's not. That's why your photo is out of focus.Jeez, you are posting just pure crap.No wonder Leica users are considered just rich( i'm a great photographer cause i've got a Leica el cart) fondlers. Sad or what. 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