andrew_sowerby

I wouldn't worry too much about xrays fogging 800 iso film. I took a roll of Kodak 3200 with me to Poland last summer (it was xrayed at least six times) and the prints didn't fog up.

 

I assume that you only want to take one camera? Perhaps you could take a serious camera for architecture/landscape and a smaller point and shoot loaded with different film for pictures of people?

 

Have fun!

Here it is!<div></div>

<img

src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/andrewsowerby/92200022.jpg

" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com">

I visited Auschwitz last summer. I was shocked by the number of people photographing (and even videotaping!) their visit. The LAST thing I wanted to do while I was there was snap a bunch of pictures. A worthwhile destination, but not for the faint of heart.

I'll comment the cameras that I've had some experience with:

 

The Canon GIII QL17 is a good camera if you want manual focusing, but it is shutter priority and there's no metering in manual mode. Still a nice camera that can be had on Ebay for under $100. You can read all about it on www.cameraquest.com.

 

The Stylus Epic is great because it's cheap and very small, but I don't think that it has enough control. It also tends towards open aperture which means that you won't get a lot of DOF. Also, it likes to fire the flash unless you turn the flash off, which you will have to do every time you turn the camera on (doesn't retain flash settings). But at the price you can pick them up for on Ebay, you'll never be too concerned about theft!

 

Another suggestion is the Contax T2. I got mine for about $250 on Ebay. Not bad considering that they retailed for $1000+ not too long ago! It has aperture priority (IMO the better choice for shooting on the street) and the manual focusing wheel works well as a zone focusing system.

 

All three cameras have great glass and a bit of a cult following (which is usually a good sign). Just depends what features you want and how much you're willing to spend.

"It would have been a courteous gesture for the gentleman in question to thank you for the tip"

 

^I agree. Perhaps your friend had no legal requirement to ask your permission or inform you that he intended to shoot in the same location, but as a friend (and someone who probably knew that you look up to him) it would have been a nice courtesy.

To document my life. I don't keep a written journal/diary.

"I think that the really difficult subjects such as the attrocities shown by good journalists in Iraq, may never make it to the N.Y.C. art scene."

 

It's interesting that you bring up the example of photojournalism in Iraq . . . because I saw an extensive exhibit on just that subject last time I was in NYC (about a year ago). At the International Center of Photography, I believe.

What does NW mean anyway?

I'd say I shoot about 80% eye and 20% hip. NB: By "hip" I don't mean hip-level, just shot without looking through the viewfinder. Most of the time, composing through the viewfinder is a much better choice, but not always. <br><br>

 

Sometimes I go for the hipshot because I can't get my eye to camera and still have the angle I want, like these shots taken with my camera in the air: <br><br>

 

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/andrewsowerby/92230021.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com"> <br><br>

 

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/andrewsowerby/92230018.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com"> <br><br>

 

Sometimes something unexpected happens and you've got to be very quick to get the shot off. If I had taken to the time to compose this shot at eye level I probably would have missed the action. <br><br>

 

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/andrewsowerby/57160019.jpg" alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com"> <br><br>

 

I shoot mostly with compact P&S cameras with fairly wide lenses (43, 38, 35, 32) and with some practice I've found that I can "aim" quite well.

"I think his stuff is stupid, i know its not a very mature or good argument, but i don't particularly care for his work, nor his ideas."<br><br>

---------------<br><br>

I agree that his ideas seem simplistic, but regarding his work I have to ask: Are you basing your response on the photo collages linked to above or his earlier work? I think that his paintings are stunning.<br><br>

 

<img>http://www.paratexto.com.br/files/0016/2a_01_David0400.jpg</img>

I think that the perspective in the under the Eiffel Tower pic is fantastic. Very nice.

 

I also like the two metro shots. Especially side-by-side as they're posted above.

I'm quite willing to admit when I'm wrong and I will admit to being flippant and dismissive regarding Chip Morningstar's essay. So I read it.

 

In his own flippant and dismissive manner, Morningstar does make a good point about the jargon-heavy nature of humanities academia (a result of "isolation and genetic drift"). This point is nothing earth-shattering, but precious little is, I suppose. There are many who believe that the jargon is occasionally (or usually or always) a means of dressing up a weak idea or even a means of covering up the lack of an idea. At least Morningstar made an attempt to look beyond the jargon to see if there was any substance. His conclusion: not much.

 

Anyway, I feel that the second part of my above post -- the bit that you didn't respond to -- is valid. Go out and look at contemporary work that?s getting attention in the art world. I think that you'll be surprised by the lack of irony.

Michael Chmilar , mar 31, 2005; 02:00 p.m.

 

The postmodern art world is primarily interested in being clever and ironic. It is difficult to be ironic with a single "straight" or "classical" landscape photograph. You can introduce irony by:

If you want to play in the field of postmodernism and "high" art, that is fine. However, it is not the only field around. In fact, it is a very insular, navel-gazing, and academic field. Ironically, postmodernism is largely irrelevant, outside of academia, as described in this essay.

 

Fear of making a "pretty" and unironic image is only important if you are firmly entrenched in postmodernism.

 

--------------------------

 

Re: The essay by Chip Morningstar.

 

"This is the story of one computer professional's explorations in the world of postmodern literary criticism."

 

After reading the first line of the essay I decided to read no further. I don't have any interest in what a student or prof of the humanities would have to say about computer programming, so why should I care what a computer professional (whatever that is) has to say about postmodern literary criticism?

 

Also:

 

In my limited interaction with the art world, I would say that your statements concerning irony and the fear of being genuine may have been the case ten years ago (if ever), but I don't believe that it is the case today. Go to a gallery that features the work of up-and-coming artists in any field. I think that you'll be surprised by the lack of ironic detachment (unless of course you're determined to find it).