Galen Rowel Huge Prints with 35mm ?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Folks made 48x72" prints from 35mm before Galen got into photography. Folks also landed on uncontrolled airports on a dark moonless nights too before Galens fatal accident. Neither event has much margin of safety as more conventional ways. The pilot's total logged experience in the accident airplane was 52 hours, of which only 1.6 hours were at night; only two nighttime landings within the preceding 90 days. Getting tack sharp hand held 48x72prints is possible; but not with as high a success-ratio as using a tripod. One can best case things with photography, weddings, flying, sailing, parachuting but at some point one needs to consider some safety margins. The world is not forgiving with some mistakes; things happen.

[ekovisions]

On that last post: WHAT?! Are you serious? I can't imagine how that analogy of incredibly poor taste is in any way a reasonable contribution to this discussion.

[justinblack]

No kidding, Kelly O!

 

Kelly F, what exactly is your point?

[jay_huse]

Hey, thanks for the answers. We as photographers tend to over think things. YOU guys

cleared some things up . This was not as much about other formats but what would work

for me.

 

I have been have some confidence lacking moments with film vs my digital. As I have

mentioned in other forums I want to simplify my photography as much as possible. I also

want to lower my cost in certain way.

 

 

Case in point I have some of the Leading DSLR gear and it no doubt is better than 35mm

film in alot of areas. But my problem is It is Heavy compared to my FM10 35mm and I am

getting sick of having to baby the camera.

 

Now I know my DSLR gear can take punishment but I really really hate having to clean my

sensors, or worry about dropping them or dropping them in a lake. To me carrying a

1500 digital electronic camera outside into rain, snow just seems kind of asking for

something to go wrong.

 

I will do it but for other reasons it just seems like the shooting process is more of a

hassled than a 35mm camera. That said LF cameras are a pain as well setting up a tripod

meter extra film and bags. That just seems to bog down the process and makes it a chore

hiking 3 to 5 miles up and down hills with it.

 

SO as long as I know I can get excellent salable results STill and nothing has changed in

the film processing to get large blow ups that make me more comfortable.

 

Lastly, as you know I been chasing the Latest and greatest DLSrs. The improvements over

the last 4 years has been crazy. It seem when I look at what the next version of DSLR out

is I want to try it. I feel I need a system in place that is a little more grounded in the art

versus marketing. Again if it is proven to work and the road has already been done then

why not use that method ?

 

Thanks again for your insight

 

jay

[justinblack]

I work with both film and digital, and it is possible to make great photographs with either. The modern digital cameras (I'm a huge fan of the new Nikon D3, by the way), encourage experimentation, produce high quality images, and make life easier in some important respects for photographers who have to come home with a usable shot. That said, I personally seem to make somewhat stronger photographs when using film, but a lot of this has to do with the operational differences between using an SLR and the view camera that I usually use. I also enjoy the functional simplicity of manual film cameras, and I'm sure I always will.

 

FWIW, I imagine that Galen would be shooting with digital cameras now (partly in response to demand from editorial clients), and in fact a lot of visitors to the gallery, many of whom don't realize Galen is deceased, assume the images are from digital cameras and ask what kind he uses. One thing that is for certain is that he would have had us (the staff) do as much of the computer-side stuff as possible. It would have been too time consuming for him to want to keep up with, and just wouldn't have been something that he would have been personally interested in at all. He had too many other priorities, and already felt that he spent too much time in front of the computer writing, though he loved writing. Of course, very few people have the benefit of a staff to handle the image processing and archiving.

 

For some photographers, it's perfectly satisfying and practical to shoot with a twenty-year-old film camera, send off a roll of film for processing, edit and file the selects, and either store the box or toss out the rest. You're still making high-quality photographs, and you can still get great scans and make beautiful prints from your best work. There's nothing wrong with that, and it can be a lot less expensive and time consuming than getting into the digital arms race.

[wieslaw1]

Please see this:

Practical sharpness test of a Zeiss Tele Tessar T* 200/3,5

 

 

http://users.nac.net/wieslaw/zeisstessar/tessar.html

[wieslaw1]

Galen Rowell - never heard about this guy, but I am glad I checked the links provided. This is a FIRST CLASS KITSCH! Artificial and unnatural colors , excellent for people who love pixtures of PINK POODLES and the like!

 

Really bad taste, someting, if I can compare, with food stuff offered in supermarkets, where you have any natural product ruined, like for instance ordinary nuts, or other fruits, aritificially colored for an "avareage" consumer to attract his or her eye and his credit card for purchase!

 

There must be some merits, however, to his work, judging by the fact that the guy has worked for the National Geographic, but unfortunately, rather by continuing to develop his talents and ideas, he has chosen to go an easy route and accepted easy commersialism.

 

His portfolio "Antarctica", for example! no mach with Herbert Ponting B&W originals of the 1920-ties. Who cares if he shoots with a 35 or with a million35mm box! Sorry.

 

waz

[justinblack]

Read up on Galen a bit. You're going to feel sorry you said that.

[wieslaw1]

Color photography is not easy, primarily, because everybody is

doing it. It takes much more than just to photograph sunsets in

beautiful settings to be an -artist-.

And I see sunsets on his site at Mountain Light. I will try,

however, to find some of his books in a bookstore. Wonder why

I have never seen any book by R.G. I routinly look at photo books

in Barnes and Nobel and other bookstores, and often purchase

selected works. They must be stocked under other keyword than

-art photography-.

[justinblack]

Wieslaw,

 

Find a copy of "Galen Rowell: A Retrospective," available at many Borders and B&N stores.

Among the numerous essays by notable figures in a variety of fields, it contains a very

favorable critical essay on his work by Andy Grundberg, former NY Times photography

critic, and current Chair of the Photography Dept. at the Corcoran College of Art and

Design. You'll be surprised to find the the word "kitsch" isn't present in the essay.

 

The bottom line is that Galen worked very hard to capture dramatic and evocative color

nature and adventure images in-camera, and the resulting photographs have touched and

inspired a lot of intelligent, thoughtful people in a very meaningful way. He applied his

work with good effect to various humanitarian and environmental causes. Since his death

in 2002 Galen's signed prints are valued in the thousands and tens of thousands of

dollars. I'm not sure what more one needs to know.

[dave_s]

This is interesting. Wieslaw's post is deeply offensive, and Rowell tied tragically and too young, but that doesn't mean anybody has to like his photography. Honestly, it does nothing for me, although I know many people like that style of color work.

<p>

<i>Since his death in 2002 Galen's signed prints are valued in the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars. I'm not sure what more one needs to know.</i>

<p>

This is an odd assertion, even for photo.net. This could be said of Thomas Kincade, Robert Bateman, or similar artists. People pay a lot for their work, but that doesn't make it good.

[justinblack]

My asserstion, "I'm not sure what more one needs to know," applied to the entire post, not

only to my reference to current signed print values. Of course no one has to like Galen's

work, and there is no such thing as art that is absolutely "good." The Thomas Kinkade

comparison isn't fair at all, however. Kinkade invents fanciful scenes, whereas Galen

sought out and photographed real exceptional moments in the world. I know some like to

lump all sublime nature imagery in with kitsch, the difference is night and day.

 

He also photographed the things that he cared about most deeply, and effectively applied

his work to the benefit of various important causes. Galen was the hardest working person

I have ever known, he made a difference, and through his photographs inspired a lot of

people to do the same. Personally, I think for someone to write him off as a kitschy crowd

pleaser simply indicates ignorance of who he was and what he accomplised, as well as

envy of his success.

[jtdnyc]

Whether you like Rowell's work may be a matter of taste, but anyone familiar with his writings can only marvel at how generous he was in his detailed descriptions of his philosophy and technique.

 

I personally like his work, but even if I didn't, I would still regret that I never had the opporunity to meet him.

[wieslaw1]

Hallo,

to-day I had an opportunity to visit BORDERS where I found RG's

book - The Art of Adventure Photography-. His work is good and I

liked it, though many photographer-climbers publish nowdays

breathtaking photographs. I see them in almost every

publication related to mountains.

My original judgement was based on some pictures displayed

on the internet, which were uninspiring, and I take it back. Sorry.

Will try to look up more of his work.

[justinblack]

Glad to hear that you liked Galen's work. I should point out that those "many

photographer-climbers" are all following in Galen's footsteps. He created the genre.

[wieslaw1]

I have reflected a bit about mountain climbing photography, and

concluded that I have seen no more than 2 photographs which

were in theirs own class. There was a picture published in a

book (could the title be associated with PATAGONIA?) of a

climber reaching the top of a rock, facing an abyss behind him.

The gesture, the strained muscles of his hand grabbing the

hold, and particularily, the expression on his face, have told

everything about climbing, and its physical and mental

requirements.

 

Do not remeber the photographer nor the climber, except that

the name sounded Polish. Could it be S. Glowacz?, who is

German anyway, I think. The other photo was of the same class,

but such photographs are indeed rare.