thomas_k.

<p>Just wanted to add that Vivaldi died in poverty, as his music went out of style and wealthy patrons disappeared during his lifetime. Popularity, or lack of it, is not an absolute measure of artistry.</p>

<p>I have included Thomas Kinkade in to this conversation because I feel that there are some similarities between his work and landscape photos OP started discussion with. I get similar impression of shallowness, falsehood and drive to please the widest audience possible for commercial gain. I'm not passing any judgment on the man or people who buy his work. My dentist has one of Kinkade's gardens hanging in front of patients chair - very thoughtful idea. </p>

<p>On vacation in town ?????? on a rainy day we went with my wife to the local Thomas Kinkade gallery. The paintings made us laugh so hard that we had to run out of the store under managers suspicious eyes. There is value in bad art.</p>

<p>There in nothing there to recover. Only original negative could help. I'm assuming it was taken in US, you mentioned it's 1995 - and hairstyle the man in this photo is sporting falls well in that time. Visible "7" can be month of July - hot summer month hence no shirt. It seems to be dark outside, in July in means late evening and the boy is still up, so perhaps next day is not a school day, which would make it Friday or Saturday. Man's jeans bear marks of paint, perhaps it is Friday evening after work. There were only 3 Fridays in July 1995: 14, 21 and 28 - pick your date.</p>

<p>@1- You can get Pentax 67 (not II) with a lens for well under $1000. <br> @2 - I started with one film (Ilford Delta100) one developer and one fixer all from Ilford. Ilford site has a great tutorials about developing B&W film and using their products.<br> @3 - Epson flatbed scanner (like v700, I'm using older model Perfection 4990 with satisfactory results).<br> @4 - Current APC and Full Frame sensors can give great results. From my experience scanned B&W film gives different look. One thing to consider is time factor. Using medium format film takes a lot more time (processing and scanning at home) than straight digital capture. If you have a busy life, digital might be a better way - this is what I choose nowadays.<br> Good luck!</p>

<p>Over the summer of last year I created a series of double exposure photos, link: http://thomasakiss.zenfolio.com/p371303201<br> I noticed that majority of viewers reacted with quick question about how my images were made apparently having difficulty absorbing them and asking for additional information. I do not know if I failed to produce uniform, if ambiguous, images or the viewers felt simply confused by them. My hope for these images was to trigger reactions without need for dissemination of processes which led to their creation. Maybe if a viewer feels immediate need for interpretation of unknowns is a sign of image failing to captivate, to charm rational mind?</p>

<p>I guess you are asking about feedback on photos, not text but I will go for it anyway. You might tone down some patronizing and belittling language like:<br> " Philosophy sets up a system of thought which in most cases bears little relationship to life.",<br> " It is impossible for human logic to find the truths of Christianity."<br> "So people who don’t know God don’t know anything at all, and this spiritual darkness can be eternal!"</p>

<blockquote> <p>get the shot,</p> </blockquote> <p>This rule applies to commercial/news photography - photographer has to bring something back from an assigment. In private life, how many of those must have shots: stop here/look there/ hold it!, end up in a dumpster? </p>

<p>"Profound regret" seams like a very dramatic and non-creative feeling. With situation you describe I would count it as a subject and location scouting experience. Cherish the memory of this encounter and try to come back prepared for photography.</p>

<p>It is not. Photographer is only a technician with a recording device. He, most often, produces images of things which are not of his/her creation (ex: portraits of people, landscapes, images of buildings). Furthermore photograph can at most be a representation of art not art itself. ;)</p>

<p>It does not work with non-fuji adapted lenses, but thanks to focus magnifier in EVL I find fuji the most manual focus friendly camera I've ever used.</p>

<p>At my local art museum: <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artic.edu%2F&ei=jet7VJa2AvTGsQTTmoDwCA&usg=AFQjCNF4MkueC-wUwVe8n5afCzIbMZ5oyg&bvm=bv.80642063,d.cWc">The Art Institute of Chicago</a> photography is displayed regularly, both classic and contemporary. It is treated there with as much attention as other graphic arts.</p>

<p>Mamiya RB's back and rotating plate have a ton if light seals, you have at least one gone bad. I replaced all seals on mine, it took me 2-4 hours (I'm not skilled) including scraping off old ones.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Levels of sophistication and knowledge have indeed gone down quite a bit.</p> </blockquote> <p>(A wonder if people in China would agree with you?)<br> But, do you think it applies to photography or arts in general (it is a photography forum after all :))?</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>…we didn't need to know anything. Just show we were able to look it all up.</p> </blockquote> <p>People who operate very complex tools or machines (ex: nuclear submarine) constantly refer to printed or electronic manuals. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something and having the will and ability to look it up on Wikipedia.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Levels of sophistication and knowledge have gone down considerably.</p> </blockquote> <p>I will disagree with that. Literacy around the globe has grown since 1940’s and access to information too. How many people had access to Encyclopedia Britannica then, comparing to Wikipedia today?</p>

<p>Kryn:<br> What lenses are you using on your D800e?</p>

<p>This discussion will be stuck forever if we apply same values to conceptual photography (original OP's image) and documentary war photos - they have nothing in common but the medium used to create them. In my opinion photography is too broad to try to find common ways of making or receiving it. I consider any writing which accompany a photograph a context, not inherent part of it. And it's presence can alter my perception of a given work. I enjoy Van Gogh's work more after reading his biography, Giorgio de Chirico's autobiography was a big disappointment to me, now I try to forget it when looking at his works.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Although marketing is in fact an art!</p> </blockquote> <p>I have to disagree with that as a general statement. Marketing visuals can exhibit great craftsmanship but you need someone like Andy Warhol to make them art.</p>

<p>One note on fujis: batteries do not last long, plan on getting at least 2 spares and eu compatible charger.</p>

<p>Werner Herzog's "Cave of forgotten dreams" documentary deals with this interesting aspect of 30k years old cave paintings: their meaning and our ability (or inability) of understanding them. There are no humans from that time to explain these images to us not there is a convenient title inscribed underneath. Still these images are deeply moving even thou we may understand them completely "wrong" as to what their creators intended.</p>

<p>To reach the heights of hypocrisy the buyer of such a camera can go on the streets to photograph homeless and deranged claiming some social mission.</p>

<blockquote> <p>what's the difference between a rolleicord and a rolleiflex? How do they compare in terms of lenses and size? Anyone that can enlighten me?</p> </blockquote> <p>I do not have personal experience with Rolleiflex. According to brief online search I made when getting Rolleicord, Flexe's are heavier, can have brighter/sharper 2.8 lenses and are more expensive - usually at least 2x Cord's price.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8484685">Rifqi,</a><br> I just looked at your online portfolio: great stuff no matter what camera you are using.</p>

<p>I stopped using my mamiya C220 after getting Rolleicord V. Rollei is substantially smaller and lighter than mamiya TLRs. Paid $250 and after another $250 spend for CLA it's a pleasure to use, many images in my portfolio were made with it. Cons are: focusing screen a bit dimmer and it does not focus as close as C220 or C330. No experience with flash.</p>