Elliot Erwitt said this last night

[kent_tolley2]

after that you could hear a pin drop

[Allen Herbert]

I'm sure you're aware of the saying 'nothing hasn't been done before'. I applies to art as well as anything else.

 

Truly a sad little banal statement.Yes, we are all little machines sitting in rows waiting to follow/copy/influence each other.

 

Ha,speak for yourselves.

[kent_tolley2]

I say drinks all around. Tommorrow we'll have to face each other and the silly things we've said here will an embarrassment. Cut your losses. I'll have a glass of that Cabernet.

[robert_haller]

... all right - I give up for today ...

there is always someone older, bolder, rougher and told that dominates ... whatever ... I am out of focus ..ahhahhhh

the small paper print was just copied with a simple small digicam at 0.3mio pixel...

[nels]

It's perhaps one of the greatest jokes fobbed off by Leica on its M user base by convincing them to fork over serious money for its supreme fast glass that distinguishes itself from competition - by whatever thin margin - when used wide open, and then sell them a body to mount it on that can fire at no more than 1/1000 sec, as if saying that the rich dentist or lawyer using an M camera has a day job, and the collectors and fondlers will never use the darned things to find out, so WTF!

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<I>OK, the "crop factor" is no big deal as countless Canon and Nikon users will attest.

</I><P>Actually, the crop factor IS a big deal. Canon and Nikon users put up with it because

they have to put up with it. Cropping a 24mm lens to 35mm does not create a picture that is

exactly like a 35mm. You still have the depth of field of the 24mm. It looks different. It is not

the same. It's a bad compromise. The 1.33x with the digi M will be the same. In order to have

a 35mm crop it will require a 28mm. That will still not look like a 35mm. There is a

difference. Plus there's no f1.4 28mm for the M. My apologies for getting a wee bit OT. :->)

[boris c hann]

"the crop factor IS a big deal. Canon and Nikon users put up with it because they have to

put up with it"

 

Well, they don't have to put up with it if they find it an issue. There's nothing stopping

them putting their money where their mouth is and ponying up for a 1ds or 5d.

 

"Cropping a 24mm lens to 35mm does not create a picture that is exactly like a 35mm.

You still have the depth of field of the 24mm. It looks different. It is not the same. It's a

bad compromise."

 

It really doesn't look that different to a 35. For every person who dislikes the extra depth

of field I could find you someone who actually prefers it - the obsession with razor thin

focus is the preserve of a few portrait photographers and the local camera club. It may not

be "the same" but it doesn't automatically follow that it's a "bad compromise". It also turns

your 16-35 into a much more useful 28 (ish) to 55 (ish) - think of it as Canikons way of

gently reminding photographers that pretty much all interesting images are made in that

range.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

I agree with you Boris. I guess it's Nikon owners who have to put up with 1.5x. The Canon 5D

fullframe is turniing out to be pretty popular. And has to be a bit of throrn in the side to

Nikon. I think the 16-35 is TOO wide on full frame. I've never found much use for lenses

below 20mm. This coming from somebody who use to own a Leitz Hologon lens (15mm). I

agree with what you say about depth of field not being an issue to many. It just doesn't look

right to me. I find even with 200mm that converts to 320mm that it still "looks" like 200mm

even though it's cropped tighter. It's probably just me. Thanks for your note.

[EricM]

"I agree with you Boris. I guess it's Nikon owners who have to put up with 1.5x. The Canon 5D fullframe is turniing out to be pretty popular. And has to be a bit of throrn in the side to Nikon."

 

I'm so sick of hearing this crap. Look at how many millions of non-full-frame dslr's there are out there and how little you hear people complain. My ear's to the ground in the eos, digital darkroom, and nikon forums, and the only people that moan about it are film wankers. Ever shoot medium format and wish your 80 wasn't an 80 cuz your head is stuck in the sand with small format? I personally love it and hope the manufacturaes always offer a "crop factor" dslr as all my great primes just got greater...faster. Any idea how much a 105-300 f2.8 constant zoom would cost? Ever used a 85 prime wide open on a 1.5 dslr? I'm a sucker for a shallow depth of field, crop factors are my, and millions of others, nirvana. If you hear Nikonians bitch about not having ff it is usually for noise reasons.

 

"Actually, the crop factor IS a big deal. Canon and Nikon users put up with it because they have to put up with it."

 

Sounds like a Kaplanism. At anyrate, which dslr do you use? Do you think you could actually distinguish a shot posted here and claim "that was shot with a 24mm on a 1.5 dslr."? Exactly.

[al_kaplan1]

Please don't put words in my mouth, Eric. I currently have no SLR's, film or digital, and I'm having fun shooting B&W film and wet printing silver gelatin. I'm not telling anybody else here what to choose.

[EricM]

"Please don't put words in my mouth, Eric."

 

I didn't mean too Al, sorry if offence was taken but it was from that other thread the other day that was humourous, and admitedly, you've been really good with holding in your "digital" points of view lately.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Hey Eric--sorry if I got you all excited. I have two 20D's and a 1DmkII. I deal with it. It's not a

big deal. My two favorite lenses on the 20D are the 24 f1.4 and the 85f1.2. Nice lenses.

Oddly, neither is a lens I'd use much on full frame. They're great at either 1.3x or 1.6x <I>for

me</I>. Same with the 14mmL Canon lens. I'd never use it on fullframe but it's great with

the crop factor. That said, my M6 is always with me with Tri-X. I may not have the dslrs with

me, but I always have the Leica. Thanks for your reply, and again, apologies if I offended you

in any way.

[nels]

Crop factor sensors complement full frame ones for the right situations, such as sports and wildlife work, and are really to be looked upon as an advantage in those circumstances. If that extra reach were to be attained with optics alone, it would be more expensive and cumbersome to the point of being impractical to use without a tripod in many cases.

 

Most people wouldn't be able to tell looking at a picture that it was shot with a cropped sensor, and the few that could most likely wouldn't care. Better and cleaner resolving power coupled with (supposedly) improved DR are the chief reasons many people prefer full frame sensors.

[EricM]

no John, you didn't offend me man, just reached a boiling point and should have made addressed it generally...and after my morning coffee :D I just hear it all the time from people that are thinking about getting into a dslr as if it's some kind of disadvantage yet once people are using it's like "heh, no big deal and i kind of like this extra reach..." & it's easier and cheaper to get a wide or two to compensate but man, you slap on 300mm 2.8 and get 450 f 2.8 it's kind of funky cheap and all the 1:1 frame guys with thier $8K MKII's sorta look over...drooling. thanks for your kind reply too John.

[khi]

Having used photoshop since the very first version, and worked as a re-touch artist, I think photoshop has it's place. I really don't think most photographers shoot carelessly with the idea of fixing it in photoshop though-thats drivel. IMHO most could get by with Photoshop Elements. Now I am not familiar with Mr. Erwitts work-I am sure he is a very very fine photographer-much better than I am, I'm sure. However, whatever talent he possesses obviously has not reached the part of his brain that controls the making of stupid comments. The egotstical blabbering of a man who may have been told he's great, one-to-many-times. What's the point? It is a crying shame that most of us cannot be such great photographers as Mr. Erwitt, but does that mean that no one-who meets "our" idea of good or great photgraphy should never take another photo? or post another photo if they choose to? Maybe Mr. Erwitt is just trying to save us all from that awful awful distaste and disgust we feel when forced to look upon such photographic trash that doesn't meet "our" standards. Call me a simpleton, but I can appreciate a good photo whether it was taken with a $5 Kodak throw-away or a $30k camera. Why should I tell someone else what camera to use? Why should I tell someone that they cannot use Photoshop? And, on the advise of my attorney I would just like to say that Mr. Erwitt is only 9.95 times better of a photographer than I am.

[________1]

Wrong, a million times.

[35mmdelux]

Gary, Thanks for the FYI.

 

Hey Jonathan,

 

Don't get me wrong - I like B&W and some photogs are tremendously great at it - see Michael Kenna. My all time favorite of course is Ansel Adams. The other guys all developed their art when color wasn't widely available ( or very little), or maybe didn't like color or came out of old school.

 

I like the platinotypes and fabric papers. In my library I have guessing 60/40 ratio of B&W to color. For me, the B&W is from a time removed though.

 

As far as don't expect to succeed.....well I'm sure that is a truism. Many of the greats either mentored w/ other greats or do photography for a living, gaining extensive experience over the years. I imagine its like anything else in the world - some have talent and are destined to be great. The rest of us write about it.

 

Regards, Paul

 

PS: Nice hat!

[john falkenstine]

After reading the first posting I went and checked out some Elliot Erwin images, and spent some time looking at them, recognized them as being very familiar. And I agree with ALL his remarks. No re-interpretation needed by anybody.