William Albert Allard, Leica photographer

[robert_clark]

Oh Preston, you do not see; they care, they care.

[cd thacker]

Damn. Just put up that Pinkhassov link and already it's broken. Here's <a href=http://www.notodo.com/phedigital/html/phe99/en_textos99/pinobra01.html>another</a>. I have to say, as much as I like Allard's work (and Webb's, as well as several others), Pinkhassov has become far and away my favorite. He shoots the way I should be shooting, if you know what I mean.

[felix_erazo]

Andrew, to answer your question?

 

Yes! On reception day, the featured artist is present for book signings and chat with the people.

[jolyon]

Doug

 

Thanks for the pointer to Pinkhassov. I had been aware of him before but 'not really', if you know what I mean. His pictures are most unusual and compelling, for reasons that one struggles to express coherently. That picture of the girl turning round to look back in the driverless metro train is both beautiful and disturbing.

 

It's funny how one's tastes change. I used to think Elliott Erwitt was the top, but now many of his images look a little contrived and even a little cutesy or sentimental (though this does not apply to his earlier stuff - see his lovely pictures of his first wife pregnant and then with the baby - not sentimental at all). I think, too, that there is a danger of overkill in his endless "Dogs" products.

 

But Haas I never tire of.

 

Just my two pence worth (I'm a Brit!)

[cd thacker]

Thanks, Jolyon. "Pointers to Pinkhassov" - has a nice ring to it. that should be

the title of his autobiography if he ever writes one.<p>

 

It is interesting how our tastes change. I prefer to think they develop. That

seems to be the case.<p>

 

When Pinkhassov's book, <i>Sightwalk</i>, came out, I remember liking two,

three, maybe four images in it. The rest I was dismissive of, as I was of what I

saw as an overly elaborate, even decadent cover material. (These must have

been the last dying gasps of my own latent philistinism.) <p>

 

The book is out of print now but I managed to locate a new copy at a really

good price and I'm glad I have it. (And I adore the cover now, along with the

rest of it.) Have you seen his <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/

FramerT_MAG.aspx?V=CDocT&E=2TYRYDWIZIZI&Page=1&Total=28&DT=

ALB&Pass=">corporate portfolio</a> on the Magnum website? Virtually

every image there is first rate.<p>

 

I share your evaluation of Erwitt almost to a "t". Haas I haven't yet paid much

attention to (though, so far, I prefer his b&w work - but maybe that's because

the color plates seem to have faded in most of his books I've seen.) <p>

 

(I'm writing this from an Apple store at the local mall. Came in here to check

out the G5. this 23 inch cinema screen sucks for forum use - can barely see

the words. - But i guess it would, at this resolution.)

[cd thacker]

Eek, I feel naked with my HTML showing. Apple Cinema display wasn't my cup of tea. Here's the message above with a proper link and no code indecency.<p>

 

Thanks, Jolyon. "Pointers to Pinkhassov" - has a nice ring to it. that should be the title of his autobiography if he ever writes one.<p>

 

It is interesting how our tastes change. I prefer to think they develop. That seems to be the case.<p>

 

 

When Pinkhassov's book, <i>Sightwalk</i>, came out, I remember liking two, three, maybe four images in it. The rest I was dismissive of, as I was of what I saw as an overly elaborate, even decadent cover material. (These must have been the last dying gasps of my own latent philistinism.) <p>

 

 

The book is out of print now but I managed to locate a new copy at a really good price and I'm glad I have it. (And I adore the cover now, along with the rest of it.) Have you seen his <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/Pa_MAG.aspx?E=2TYRYDWIZIZI">corporate portfolio</a> on the Magnum website? Virtually every image there is first rate.<p>

 

 

I share your evaluation of Erwitt almost to a "t". Haas I haven't yet paid much attention to (though, so far, I prefer his b&w work - but maybe that's because the color plates seem to have faded in most of his books I've seen.) <p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>I like Allard's work, but that list of equipment he claims to carry would require a

pack mule. He needs 6 cameras? Why does he think anyone would care?

</I><P> Most of it is back up gear and stays put away. And yes it requires a pack

mule AKA an assistant. <P>When you are on an extended assignment for a client you

tend to take a lot of equipment. After all there is a lot of money on line, time being

expended and other people's jobs (editors, art directors) jobs on the line. The bottom

line is: you have to deliver great images, not excuses. <P>As to whether Allard

particularly cares? No I don't think he does care what you think of hios working

methods, as opposed to what you think of the finished images. The book was a

profile

of a working photographer and WAA wasn't really out to impress or prove anything to

anybody.

[DB_Gallery]

This is when Photo.net is really cool. After much serching, I found a near new copy of this

book in hardcover, cost me a good chunk, $70.00, but well worth it.

 

Thanks!

[david_shepherd]

<p>Leica M gear and slide film... the combination that proves you're a real pro! The M camera means all of the the decisions were made by you. And the finished slide proves that all of those decisions were the right ones! And at that point, no one can deny your skill.</p>

[markko]

<p>"And the finished slide proves that all of those decisions were the right ones!"<br>

So I guess Kodak or Fuji had no input into how their film would render the photo? Or the lab? The old myth that manual cameras and slide film somehow is more "pure" drives me nuts. I'm thankful that with digital technology I can make the final image look the way I want it to. I don't need some engineer in Rochester or worse, a boardroom in Tokyo telling me how green or red in the Yukon should look.</p>

[david_shepherd]

<p>Mark O... If the lab processes the film wrong (which i've never had happen) then that's one thing... but as far as slide film goes, the lab has no control over the outcome of the pictures. As far as Fuji or Kodak goes, every film has a "look" to it... even digital cameras have different looks or pallets built into them. Some take pictures that look warmer or colder, more or less saturated, depending on the camera. Kodak, historically, has always been known for making "warmer" films. Fuji, colder. So how does a film maker in Tokyo know how the light in the Yukon should look, you may ask? The film is balanced to "daylight" which is 5000 kelvin or something like that... it's what's known as an industry standard... i don't know exactly what it is because i don't own a film factory. But it works! The reason why photographers talk about slide film as being more pure is because there is no way to "fix" bad exposures... so when using it, one must remain more aware. If you want to see what i mean, do this... put tape over your camera's screen so you can't use it... just use the viewfinder... then when you get home and download all the pics you took onto your computer, don't correct them in any way, just click on "print" and see what you have! You'll have fun!</p>

[david_shepherd]

<p>Check out this article: <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm</a></p>