eugene_scherba

<p><i>although it is discouraging to realize i will never be a "great" photographer unless i

use an 8x10 camera or a leica</i></p>

<p>correlation is not causation... you will never be a great photographer if you don't take

photography seriously... the fact that most people who take photography seriously use large

format is a different discussion matter.</p>

<p>This series is superb, and this is coming from someone who doesn't own a TV. You

can watch the entire first two episodes on YouTube. </p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsZO0gUghxA">Episode 1</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsxt3eN00FM">Episode 2</a></li>

</ul>

<p>Just click on the "this video is a response to..." link below when the video stops.</p>

<p>> <i>I've never heard anyone complain about it except on photo.net.</i></p>

<p>You've never been to a <a href="http://channel.walkerart.org/detail.wac?

id=3722">design talk</a> (video), have you?</p>

If you're interested in quality, any used old 2000 dpi or better scanner off eBay will beat any

4800+ dpi flatbed scanner you can buy off a store shelf for twice as much.

SpectraView II works much better with this monitor than any other calibration software on the

market.

<p>Some nice photography there. The "this guy was waiting for me to leave so he could

steal this bike" one is hilarious -- that is a nice vintage bike, BTW.</p>

<p>If I may leave any comment, your images take way too long to download. The "Upside

down flag" above, for example, is 428 KB large. An image with 600x600 px dimensions

should take up around 200 KB, while yours take up twice as much. This makes browsing

through your posts very slow and annoying. If you're interested in people viewing your

pages, don't go for 99% or 100% JPEG quality when exporting in Photoshop or whatever,

but stick with 90%, which is still reasonably free of artifacts yet results in a way more

efficient compression.</p>

Tethering is almost instantaneous from my 20D to my Mac Pro via USB. 5D files are slightly

bigger, but downloading them shouldn't take 30 seconds. (1) Make sure your Mac supports

USB 2.0. (2) Update your Canon EOS Utility.

<p>> <i>Why be so concerned about what other folk are doing or not doing. Do your own

thing.</i></p>

<p>Because I like this project.</p>

I thinkg everyone agrees here that photography is a very effective way of documenting things such as

architecture that is soon to be displaced. Looking at the works of <a

href="http://images.google.com/images?&q=Michael+Wolf">Michael Wolf</a>, especially his latest

project <a href="http://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/corner-houses-by-michael-

wolf/2094">Cornerhouses</a>, the slideshow of which <a

href="http://www.wallpaper.com/newgallery/17050245/1">can be seen here</a>, got me thinking of

doing some large-format documentary work in a similar vein. In his project, Wolf documented old corner

buildings in Hong Kong that are soon to be demolished (according to the article, every cornerhouse less

than 11 stories tall is to be replaced). I enjoy browsing through photos like these that uncover subtle facts

that work on a scale larger than everyday life. Like the geology of Earth, architecture of a city can

sometimes change slowly and subtly, yet the implications of this changes can be massive. At the same

time, Wolf's work creates its own typology of cornerhouses, something along the lines of what you find in

a botany textbook. Again, wishing work like that was more prevalent on this forum...

John, your website is broken (trying to view http://johnasavoia.com/dump55.htm, for

example, brings up broken links only)...

<p>> <i>With respect to "names" having or not having their own website, with strong

gallery representation there's no need to.</i></p>

<p>So, in your opinion, there are no second thoughts about exclusivity involved?</p>

Ray, in my turn, I'd like to ask, why do your posts from Feb 10, 2008; 04:10 a.m. and Feb

10, 2008; 06:37 p.m. suck so much?

Eric, I forgot to mention you in my short list of people who take their work seriously... Sorry

man.

<p>> <i>Why post out of focus uninteresting poloroids and beginner paintings on this

forum while criticizing the general quality of what others post here?</i></p>

<p>Only one Polaroid I posted was out of focus, and I can take it down if it hurts your eyes

that bad...</p>

<p>Regarding Jeff Wall, Barry, I don't care if you like him or not. No one cares. A hundred

years from now, people who will be reading history of photography will be reading about

Jeff Wall, and not about Barry Fisher or Eugene Scherba. It is truly completely irrelevant

what your or mine opinions of Jeff Wall are.</p>

<p>So let's come back to the original question I asked (and which you declined to

address, instead deciding to start a fight about whether Wall is an artist or not). So where,

where in the blue blue sky are the websites of Jeff Wall, Rodney Graham, Rineke Dijkstra,

Andreas Gursky, Thomas Struth, Thomas Ruff, and Wolfgang Tillmans?</p>

<p>> <i>but there's people here that are much more connected to the fine art gallery world

than you might expect and have a knowledge of the history and current developement in

photo...</i></p>

<p>Like?</p>

<p>Peter, I understand I am probably spoiling the fun for many forumers here and am

opening up the Pandora's box of sorts by bluntly discussing "what, in the end, is all this

worth?" Yours is a good point in that regard.</p>

<p>However, people have a tendency to grow out of fun things as they age. In some

sense, I have outgrown this forum, and coming back here sometimes makes me feel pity

for the few poor souls who stayed and kept contributing. I could of course have given it up

by not coming back, but, since I used to see in this forum people whose minds worked in

a certain way similar to my own, I have nevertheless decided to post my actual thoughts

and feelings on the subject.</p>

<p>True, one of the primary reasons why people here take photos is to be able to show

them -- not to the whole world -- but, as you say, to a like-minded crowd who will

appreciate them. It is not true, however, that all of them are doing this just for fun. There

are photographers here who try to push their work into other spaces as well

(gallery/web/print). These include Orville Robertson (whose site I somewhat imprudently

and overly harshly criticized), Jeff Spirer, Brad Evans, and Ray Haack. That's already four

photographers. There is also Andy Kochanowski whose street color work happens to be

quite good and who, like myself, is constantly put off by the low quality of the "fun"

postings here. So there is a genuine group of people who take their work seriously (for

better or worse), and who therefore are concerned about what I say in this and other

threads. I also have noticed that only people who take their work seriously bother to reply

to my comments, as if I were touching their Achilles' heel of sorts.</p>

<p>I also understand that art is not the easiest field to make money in, and that is exactly

why I majored in science and not in art in college. (Not that science is the easiest way to

make money either...) However, there is more than money involved (and more than fame

too). It is extremely rewarding to (a) have your own show; (b) publish a book; © sell your

work. That something is called prestige. In science, they say, "publish or perish." In the art

field the equivalent is "exhibit or perish."</p>

<p>With that in mind, I don't see a reason why people on this forum would be

uninterested in exhibiting their work. I bet that a number of them must be looking at this

very time at ways or means to do just that. I am a result-oriented person, and I would

have found nothing wrong in that.</p>

<p>However, I also noticed a huge rift between the art world and the world of amateur

photography. It is very different from the rift you find between people who go to art school

and those who are accomplished artists. Although art students often are not confident

about their own work, they, in general, aspire to become serious artists and exhibit in the

most prestigious art spaces in the world. Forumers here, on the other hand, seem to be

caught in a perpetual state of denial and alienation. Their perception of the art world is

that of a small and corrupt group of people where everyone knows everybody, and where

everything is made for money and as favors. Although this stereotype has some true sides

to it, the art world is way larger and way more open than people here realize.</p>

<p>I can only conclude that either (a) everyone here suffers from the stereotypical

conspiracy theory syndrome regarding the art world and artists, or (b) people here take

criticism of their work from the art world very bitterly, and secretly wish the art world

didn't exist at all, so that their own work would shine better.</p>

<p>This is a very sad situation. I suspect that too many people here have bought to the

idea that "everyone can be an artist," and respond childishly to anything that suggests the

opposite. This probably fits well with the fact that all of us here are photographers -- and

who, if not photographers, would be the most likely proponents of that idea? After all, all

you need is a camera... Or not.</p>

<p>Here is my final thought: this forum is called "Street and Documentary." I see too

much Street and too little Documentary here. And, I think, I just discovered why. Taking

Street pictures is easy. Just go out into the street and make sure there is at least one

woman in the viewfinder at all times. Don't listen to those who say it took years for

Winogrand to master his technique. It didn't. He was just a trigger-happy shooter. Making

Documentary pictures, however, is hard. This requires you to make a project, draw a

budget, perhaps even ask for grant money, go to a location, meet real people in-person,

talk to them, and finally take the picture. Not fun at all. Yet there is no doubt in my mind

what type of photography is more valuable...</p>