mark_l3

just be glad james kim isn't a cop....

"to say it makes no difference to experienced shooters shows real ignorance."

 

I am an experienced user and a pro for 20 years; do I think that using a blad over a mamiya would make a real difference to me? no-not so ignorant after all.

 

quality photographers will get quality images regardless of what camera is used.

 

I prefer mamiya to others but don't make it a religion as some do. I worry more about the quality of the image, I can't do that very well if I have my nose two inches from a print or have a microscope trained on a transparency exclaiming, "look how sharp it is!". Who cares how sharp it is if it's crap!!

 

 

Brett Weston used mamiya by the way, and Adams described Brett as using, "only the best equipment available".

 

so there.......

rather unpleasant oversharpened look to some of the images, others no sharper looking to me than many images made with "non ruling" lenses. didn't spice anything up for me at all.....

seems to me that "full tonal range" would mean shadows and highlights that have exceptional detail--specifically refering to "full tonal range" as in, having tonality/detail/texture throughout the range of tones rather than detailess shadows and highlights.

by the way I like "Sculpture Without Sorrow".

let's see, I said, "how can you have full tonal range AND high saturation?"

 

and you replied, "The two are not mutually exclusive. Take a look at this picture"

 

which it seems to me ANYONE would take that as meaning,"here is a photograph that has both full tonal range and high saturation"

 

your CURRENT definition of full tonal range is from la la land.

"isn't it a simple activity of picking up a camera and shooting a scene you like and then print it?"

 

it depends on if you are taking a photograph or making a photograph.

 

hp and pico

 

why don't you two get a forum for yourselves so that you can have some privacy and spare the rest of us.....

Emre,

 

you must be kidding, that pic is as contrasty as can be, blown out highlights and dark empty shadows.......

what a hissy fit....anyway, it's more than quality, and it's more than the scanner used, as said before, the operator makes a big difference. I would rather make my own scans on my imacon rather than have somebody who has no idea what I want, making my scans for me on a drum scanner. not to mention the amount of time I would have to sacrifice getting the film to the lab and then picking it back up. plus the possiblity of having your images damaged, no one treats your negs/trans better than you.

 

these are some additional things to think about.

how can you have full tonal range AND high saturation?

" it is altering the true for personal gain"

 

NO, it's called artistic interpretation.......

 

 

I don't have documentary photographs hanging at galleries, I have art prints or whatever you want to call them. What I hang on the wall is a representation of what I saw and felt combined into one print. What was there to the naked eye is for anyone to see. If reality was what I wanted to convey then the viewer would be better off going to the place in person.

I find that usually those who obsess over everything but the image, usually don't have much of an image to show.

 

If what collectors think matters to you then that's great for you. I personally have more respect for those who purchase a print because they love the image itself, not what it is printed on. So if non digital is what makes you feel legit, then good for you. for me its all about the image.

 

my prints and the prints of many others go for much more than the cost of a poster---there goes that theory.

 

 

scarcity applies only by the amount of prints made, doesn't really have anything to do with digital or traditional. Adams printed many prints of single images and you can damn well be sure he did his best to make all of them to look as much alike as he possibly could--it's all about a personal vision, not some quaint notion of "genuine" and "unique". do you really think that there are no collectors who have digital prints?

 

I'll take a fantastic image on cardboard any day over a crappy image on the best silver or digital material. if all you do is look through the image to the paper it's printed on then why take the trouble to shoot at all? why not just hang blank photo paper on the wall and worship, I mean, look at that?

too bad reality doesn't agree with you Guy.....

"remove people or coke bottles that did exist"

 

sorry, wrong again, Adams removed, or had removed, several leaves from the bottom of one or both of the aspen tree pics. also the white washed letters of the local high school were retouched out of the manzanar hills photo.

 

doesn't this simply boil down to whether you call yourself an artist or a documentarian? figure it out and leave everyone else alone....

most if not all of the above is not true. being an advertising/fine art photographer myself I have a pretty good idea of the market. digital prints aren't valued as much for some very ignorant reasons, none of which make any sense, but there is a very real market for these prints, I've sold more of my digital prints than "real" (whatever that means) prints.

 

 

 

"Digital Iconoclasts can scream all they want, but the silver image, physically and metaphorically is hard to destroy. Therein lies its intrinsic value"

 

makes no sense whatsoever, traditional color prints have a shorter life than digital bw prints and yet I see these go for thousands or more all the time.

 

problem is that many who poo poo digital OR traditional methods are grasping as hard as they can to their chosen technology to prove themselves to be legitimate, mostly because many of them can't show an image that holds up whether printed digitally or otherwise.

 

some things work better one way or the other-some don't, lets just get the egos out of it.

seems to me that if you are going to compare a digital original to a film original that all other factors must be equal. In other words, you must have a print from the digital image and a DIGITAL print from the film file. otherwise you are also comparing the digital print to the analog print.

 

It's been my experience and the experience of many others here that a digital print has the potential to be much sharper than a tradtional print.

"I don't want my images to look like I thought they would look, that's boring"

 

this is the last thing I would want from film or digital and I wouldn't be in business for very long if this was the way I felt.

 

 

 

 

 

there are good and bad photographers using film and or digital. I shoot film and print digitally. If you are not too invested in large amounts of equipment then go digital, if you already have film equipment then keep that, if you find it doesn't work out, switch...it's that simple. Use what works for you and the type of business you are in. It's not about the equipment as much as it is about your personal style and quality.

I have more than a few eem prints that are several years old that have not aged a bit, I get wonderful prints off of this paper with epson inks.

Peter, stop hugging me....

here's a big hint--light it with reflections...

no problem, just shoot with it and call the prints "artistically distressed".

"TMX can also present some difficulties in high contrast lighting"

 

not true at all, it all depends on your exposure and development, which as many have stated is where you need to begin.

"I think it's the questioner job to provide the reference, not my job to look it up."

 

I wasn't talking to you........

subject matter doesn't mean s**t, it's what they DO with it that counts.

I don't get it, do some of you have some kind of unnatural aversion to cropping? :)