jonathan brewer

A couple of items, if you need me to resize the images in order to upload them that is if you agree with what I've said, e-mail me and I'll redo them and resend, One image is a combination family shot/self-portrait which is going into the 'about us' section of my website, the other two images are simple portrait studies, I used strobes for all three shots.

Now something positive will come out of this if I can get Jeff and/or you to admit that I/anybody can disagree with him and still have a degree of skill.

If he had said what you've just said with as much civility as you have used in the above statement that would've be fine, but that's not how he said, it's how you just said it. I respect your opinion because you gave out civility and respect when giving it.

Jeff Spirer said what he said the way he said it, so I would ask you to be fair in this regarding the handling of the images I've just sent you, I will assume you to be honorable which is why I sent the j-pegs even though you are advocate in the other direction.

I sent you my images with the text of the e-mail as follows.....'I'm sending you three images contained in 2 j-pegs, I'll agree to let you upload them as long as the content is not modified in any way, and on the condition the Jeff Spirer sends three images which may be comparable in subject matter or of any subject matter he choose, you upload 3 or mine, you or he upload 3 of his, with a critique by Jeff Spirer of all the images, if this agreeable then you may upload the images, if this isn't agreeable to you and or Jeff Spirer I'll ask you to delete the images immediately.

Regards

Jonathan Brewer'.........

I'll restate in this forum these are the conditions under which I'll ask you to upload my photos. 'It's all about photos' per him, and you suggested.........'let's see some photos'......we'll you have them so let's see them all.

Now according to him and his 'experience with people who chatter on abut Digital and film', it's because I don't know how to take a photograph, that means his images should blow mine away and when they do I'll ask him to explain why they do, and not with 'needless philosophizing' as he's quipped but with specifics, too high, too low, flat lighting, light too harsh, stiff poses, exposure/overexposure, mis-framed, dull, uninspiring, and so forth specifics, now he said what he said for most of this post and it's admiriable that you try to stick up for him but let him stand on his own two feet and prove what he said, that people who don't feel as he does about digital and film 'don't know how to take a photograph' he said that now I'll ask him to put up or shut up.

I'm not posting these to stroke my own ego which is why I don't post images but I'm tired of folks who become judgemental about other folks skill because they feel differently, Jeff Spirer isn't qualified to do that either, you think otherwise show, which will mean that Jeff Spirer's uptown killers will utterly smack my trailer trash snapshots.

These won't be on the web until my website uploads, I'm not getting a prompt to upload when I submit, if I send you the j-pegs can you or anyone else upload them for me.

You as well as he are entitled to an opinion, everyone is, that's what the forum is for, but in terms of him assuming that if anyone else expresses their honest opinion about digital and film which are not in line with his thinking it must be because 'they don't know how to take photographs', that's simple nonsense and is impossible to prove.

If he's right help him prove it, upload my photos after I send you the j-pegs(exactly as I send them to you), he doesn't know what he's talking abuout when deems who and doesn't have skills including himself based on a thread in a post, again if I'm wrong don't tell me show me.

What he says is silly and I don't think he can prove otherwise, upload the photos for me and you guys might as well start proving your theorem on me.

That's bullshit unless I've sent you any photos, I'm responding to the forum so rather than send you anything personally I'll attempt to upload one of my images, you can do the same or just critique mine and clue us all in how someone is clueless with regards to their photographic skills because of their opinion about digital and film.

If it was pointless the morderator would've deleted the thread long ago, to say it's your experience that the photos don't back up whoever argues about digital and film is nonsensical, it's been discussed on ALL of these forums, by at least half of the folks on these forums at one time or another, are all of them clueless according to you?

If it's all about photos show me why I don't know how to take a photograph from this simple photograph which I'll try to upload with specifics and an example of one of your images on the same subject on how you would do it better, otherwise shut up. I'll upload this image since I don't mind it being under the province of Photonet.

There's no relationship between an opinion on this forum and photographic skill if you believe otherwise show us with photos if it's all about photos.

I just got back from the beach and had a ball, be as harsh as you want since you just don't know how to read, I talked about photoshop which you use on a computer which I don't take along when I go to the beach.

'Everything else is just pointless philosohphizing by people who haven't learned how to photograph.'...............this is just plain snide and ignorant and a blanket generalization about photographic skills that you've assumed to be the case because you don't agree with a certain mindset, spare me the retarded jump to a declaration of anybodies skills/or lack of them from what's said in this forum including your work.

Now if you're referring to me personally in terms of skills as a result what I said in this thread, then I know you are speaking from 100% ignorance because I haven't posted any images on this forum although I've exchanged examples of my work with several folks on this forum, it's just as stupid if you're referring to everyone in general with your suggestion about their lack of skills with whoever disagrees with you so can we get back to issues with the personal and snide bullshit, I'd appreciate it.

Now if you can back up your point with examples of your work with mine and everybody else to prove a correllation between what posted in this forum and and an individuals photographic skill who would disagree with you, then don't talk about it show it/prove it/teach us and if you can't come up with specifics then you should look in the mirror when you talk about needless BS.

"As for what sort of gear the renowned photographers of the first half of the 20th century chose, the issue is silly, what choice did they really have? Film photography or what, daguerreotype? Given some of their preferences and methods, had they had today's choices, they might have been solidly digital users."..........................That's ridiculous, how are you going to know what anybody would use? Avedon for quite a few years used basically his Rollei TLR and Deardorff regardless of the new gear that was around.

Equally silly is how you took my statement out of context, the issue is not that they didn't have a choice because they did, many of these folks used gear that was not the best even in relation to their era, Weston certainly wasn't using the best money could buy.

'Digital is not about making better pictures, it's about saving money. Right now, digital is a commercial option where the buck has the last word, even over quality'.....................and assuming this to be a legitimate issue, comparing the advantages of digital over film is a moot point since you're talking about money and not photography.

This is getting tedious so I'll say this and then take my kids out to the beach, the whole issue for me is let Digital stand on it own, its own merits, instead of hype by way predictions and grand pronouncements of what digital will do to film, particularly since nobody ever mentions that digital reinvents itself every 5 yrs which becomes an ever revolving door.

Digital is great when you can come up with an idea that you can bring into reality which you couldn't have done with film, that is a given, but it is a lifestyle that can be boring and tedious, I'm skilled in Photoshop, but that took my spendings months in the dark in front of a lighted box to get that way, I've made a conscious effort now to spend less time in front of a lighted box, I can go to the beach with my kids and my camera and get more in touch with humanity than I could with digital. Sure money is money, business is business.

C'ya

Andre Kerterz, W Eugene Smith, Avedon, Weston, Scavullo, David Bailey, none of these folks needed a $10,000 digital back to do their thing, which is why I don't see the urgency because whatever difference there is between digital and film, it will never be the important difference, the biggest difference, the content of your image as from your imagination and skill.

The above folks produced all time world beating killers shots with TLR'S, Rangefinders, 35mm film cameras, 'Rickety' LF gear, so all this urgency with digital to me at least doesn't mean much, your skill/lack of it/imagination/lack of it is the ultimate determining factor/tool, you just have to decide whether you want to express yourself with a cash outlay of $200.00 or $20,000.

Take some of my gear for example, I've bought from Robert White, from some of the folks that travel back east, I've paid about what the gear is selling for now, regardless of whether is was spurred by the advent of digital or whatever, the 100% mark-ups of the dealers around here are gone, the gear is back to what it should've sold for anyway.

No more gouging, the dealers now understand that, many more folks can now afford film gear, so when you say prices are plummeting, of course I say they were jacked up too high in the first place, at least here in the States, now when you say 'upper end digital' what do you mean by that? What is this 'upper end digital' selling for? How big is the market for this gear?

I ask this from the perspective of how many pros are out there, let along pros that can afford digital cameras and backs that run $2500-$10,000 and a big enough turnover to make a profit from them? 500? 1000? 5000? Commercial shooters with more work than they deal with probably need this kind of gear, wedding shooters making big money, sports, how many does this total up to, because I don't think you can compare this number to millions of film cameras on the planet.

There are countless 35mm cameras, I don't know how many MF cameras, a bunch of LF which go back 50-75-100yrs, all these cameras total in the MILLIONS, they all use film, and for around $50-$200 you're shooting film compared with thousands to get into digital, I don't think you can compare the two markets, so what the pros are doing is a 'drop in the bucket' when raising the digital issue.

There has always been change, there was change before digital got here, film has always undergone change and would do so even if digital hadn't appeared, but what amuses me is that these same pronouncements were made 10yrs ago, 5yrs ago, and I assume 5 and ten yrs from now only 10yrs from now I'll bet you a six pack of Ichiban that I'll still be using my film gear, and you will be using a different digital camera/scanner/pc/Mac/printer.

'Add to that the "new" generation of "viewers" that are used to seeing Duratrans and posters that are lower in quality than fim can provide; and you are in a new day and time.'....................everyone from the 'new' generation grows up and grows older, by the time you get 30, 40, 50, you will have become over the course of time several different people, your tastes, friends, where you live, all of this will change.

What you come to appreciate will also change as you grow, film figures in this and has a history and power that transcends any competition with digital becuse I/we/they love it, there are leica groups, zeiss groups, rangefinder/folder lovers, folks who love the alternative processes, folks who love polaroid transfers/chocalate process.......................................you are in a new day and age every five minutes, regardless of whether digital is here or not, but film like life has nothing to do with what's new, it's got to do with what you enjoy.

'I think that what you are seeing is market forces at play. For those that can afford MF, the new digital cameras are offering quality and convenience that MF shooters have looked for and desired.'....................surely you must be kidding, this statement contains a blanket and very general assumption about what MF shooters are looking for that isn't true, there is already a bridge between film and digital if you have a scanner which enables you to use the cameras you've already paid for as opposed to going out and buying digital cameras that will be worthless in five years.

Some folks keep suggesting that 'I switched and you've got to get on the bandwagon before it is too late'.......the fact is you configured your gear the way you wanted, this suggested 'undercurrent' of urgency like film is dying doesn't exist, if doing it a certain way is the only way it should be done then nobody would bother to make or use anything other than 35mm equipment digital or otherwise.

I have to disagree with how these comparisons between digital and film are laid out unless you come up with specifics to back them up, I actually like the drop in prices for film gear and think it is a boon for anybody smart enough to take advantage of it, getting gear that will if properly maintained always work and whose operational life will by decades outlast any digital camera.

I don't dislike digital as I use it myself, but in a cost effective way, dumping good film gear that you've paid for because of hysteria doesn't make sense to me when you can get a scanner/computer/printer, save money, and still come up with a product that has the richness and patina of film.

The discussion of whether or not to buy a $2500.00 a 35mm digital camera leaves out the fact that you either must have/or get a computer/CD burner/printer/or pay somebody else to print it, so that if you're starting out fresh, the actual cost of that $2500.00 camera is $2500.00 PLUS the 5-10 grand you'll need to hook it up to, now when digital backs get within say what $500 which is what some hi-end MF film backs run, they there may be a run for your money.

I got mine used from B&H and upon receiving it was ready to send it back because of some scratches that they had said nothing about, they said they saw a new one something to the effect of 'one of couple of years', and would gladly take back the one I had and reorder a new for me but I just couldn't see two years, I went ahead and counted my blessings, and just kept it.

Contact Robert White, you might be able to order from him and he and his staff will follow through and he knows the folks at Toyo, the alternative is ordering through B&H/tracking one down every dealer you can find, I don't know about Adorama but that's another story.

Don't lose any sleep over this because it will take a while, contact Mamiya which distributes and repairs Toyo for any possible leads from them, good luck.

Mike Lopez..............You are quite wealthy in fact, assuming that you and your family are in good health, that your family is fed, many folks in this country have families that don't have enough to eat, out of work, and around the world of course you have people/children who haven't had a meal in two weeks.

I'm at the age where a good percentage of my friends and relatives that I grew up with are dead, I know someone close to me who's paralyzed on one side with a heart pacemaker, he got that way because he had his teeth cleaned and no one discovered his early stage of strep throat, which traveled through the micro-cuts of his teeth cleaning into his bloodstream and turned into meningitis which was mis-diagnosed by his doctor, the infection grew and disintegrated a valve in his heart causing a stroke, open heart surgery, a pacemaker, paralysis, and a medical bill of over a million dollars for his time in intensive care. He competed in long distance bike races, and even at age 51 he was in top physical condition which saved his life since the doctors say that only 10% of folks could've survived advanced meningitis, a blown out heart valve, a stroke, and open heart surgery all within a time frame of 4 weeks.

Now he quite depressed and has a reason to be but is beginning to appreciate that he like you still has his life, there's plenty of things you don't have, but you have a wealth of things other folks don't have, you and your photography have a future that will be there until the day you die.

Too many folks are under the impression that you have to get an RZ to get a digital back, look at the Mamiya Website under their Leaf/Valeo section because they have the same digital back for the RZ also available for the RB Pro-SD.

Keep that $2500.00 that's burning a hole in your pocket, in your pocket, You got everything you need, particularly if those RB's are paid for, put that cash away and pretend you don't have it.

Antonio,......my responding to this post has got nothing to do with presuming that you could be dumb, consider that quite a few folks audit this forum and I'm laying out my thoughts not just for you but for them if they find anything I have to say as useful/considering a particular camera/picking a camera on a budget.

I was talking not just to you but to anybody else who meets up with a new situation/firstime situation/is developing a system/work ethnic, now I've already been through this/been through quite a number of cameras/got some ideas about how to go about doing assignments/some ideas how you can trip yourself up.

I don't consider anybody dumb who's enlightened enough to want to take up photography and on top of that asks for advice in a reasoned manner, but you will like we've all done, make mistakes, now I don't know what your notion of being in a rush is so I made no assumption about it.

I'm gonna say this not for you but for anybody in your situation or anybody considering something like this, running a roll through a kiev88 this close to doing an assignment isn't the answer, now what if the roll shows the camera to be defective and the seller asks that you send the camera back to him? Your monies gone and you've still go not camera, you're also gonna to have to shoot several rolls/take the camera out several times to get used to any camera, getting familiar with it and being quick and effective in getting any shot that shows up are two different things, take my advice or ignore it, that's fine with me, but to anybody else out there new to MF I would suggest that being new to MF and purchasing a strange new camera that happens to be a Kiev 88F and hoping to function with it smoothly and quickly(if it holds together) to shoot an assignment for somebody else is not something to do.

Don't go out and shoot an assignment for somebody until the camera becomes part of your arm, you'll be able to react to that 'killer' image that's materialized right in front you, instead of fumbling around for the shutter on an unfamiliar camera/taking forever to reload film/dropping it/jamming it.

With all due respect, the way you're getting ready to at this is a recipe for disaster, regardless of whether you doing a professional assignment or doing a favor for a friend or anywhere in between, you'll end up with a lot of frustration and resentment between all parties involved.

Shooting something you have to get and get right is way different, it's pressure, and if you haven't planned all this out, this is even more pressure, you should not be winging this unless you've done this countless times with equipment you can operate in your sleep.

If you know someone who is willing to help you with this, ask for help at the most, at the least, rent something after having someone who knows the equipment goe through how to operate the gear and then go out and shoot something to familiarize yourself with the gear.

You wanting to shoot in MF is not the issue, it's can you shoot with a degree of skill to pull this off, if you don't pull this off everybody will be unhappy with the result, including you. If you have to shoot this with MF you need a firstline/frontline camera AND a back-up.

There is no shame in being up front with the folks who you want to shoot with MF, tell them you have more experience with 35mm as opposed to MF and that you'd like to shoot both, rent something that you can run a few rolls of film through as opposed to waiting days for camera that may not work, let these folks know your plan, your skills, and get feedback from them re what you plan to try.

Don't try to shoot something for somebody else with a camera that hasn't shown itself to be dependable, the camera may even seem to function but when your rolls come back they're ruined with light leaks/scratches/flare but by that time it's too late.

I hope you rethink this, good luck.

You're outside, you forgot your meter, no clouds/very few clouds/clear day, even better you're shooting negative film, you can shoot F16 @ 1/250 sec which will put your negative in the ballpark for the lab to correct(if any is needed) the exposure to produce a pretty good print.

A stop off either way is almost nothing with negative film which isn't to say you should start out shooting that way, but then again you can get pretty good at guestimating exposures outside after a while.

One point of clarification though, the 'sunny 16' rule is going to work for photographing an object on the ground which is illuminated by the sun, it ins't going to work if you point your camera at the sky which can put you way off which is why they have graduated neutral density filters.

Everybodies left out the availability of Schneider lenses in Pentacon/Exacta 66 mount, for my Mamiya 645 I purchased the Schneider 150 mm F4 Tele-Xenar and Schneider 60mm F3.5 Curtagon and a Zork adaptor(they make adaptors for Rollei), these lenses are still available for around $500.00 and I believe I paid $200.00 and change for the adaptor.

Why bother? These are the same lens formula(sans shutter) used for the Rollei 6xxx cameras for way less money than Mamiyas own lenses, if you anything like the budget, I would go for these lenses which were together were around $3000.00 in Rollei mount.

I got mine from Rolf-Dieter Beier who I believe posts on this forum, and is a Dealer out of Germany, he will find the lenses for you if there are still any left brand new/mint, if you go in this direction I wouldn't slow-drag if I were you 'cuz they're getting scarce.

I use two labs out here in Southern California, they are both in the hollywood area, I drive for half an hour out of my area to go to these labs because of how customer oriented they are, they are both smaller labs that still have the personal touch, you can still talk to the owner/and or technician about what you want, for B & W I use Alan's Custom Lab and for Color I use GreyTone.

These labs both charge around $12.00 and change for a custom handmade print and will KEEP doing it until you're satisfied(not until they're satisfied), you should be getting a proof/test print upon demand and if your're a steady customer who's developed a relationship with the lab, they should be happy to keep at it until you get what you want, no this is exact opposite attitude(but not always) of what I've found at the service bureaus.

I will not be getting rid of my already paid for film cameras for infinitely more expensive digital cameras, nor will I pay a fortune for digital backs, I've married my gilm gear to my digital gear by way of a scanner/CD burner/PC/printer avoiding service bureaus and $100.00 digital prints at all costs/doing it only when I absolutely have to, and I would still do it this way even if I had the money to do it the other way.

You can get a hell of a scanner for $1000.00-$2000.00, a very capable computer for a couple of grand, and even a Epson wide format for three grand, and all this for way less than a $12000.00 digital back, I just feel $100.00 is too much for a print and is the kind of money you would be better off putting into your own gear, I feel it's relative cheap to have someone else do a photomechanical print, cheaper for you to do your digital prints with your own gear in the long run.

Digital isn't going to wipe out film anymore than eating Ice Cream is going to make you tire of sex, digital and film are two different worlds, a mature vs. immature technology, dependable and cost efficient vs. expensive and troublesome and temporary.

Just like Ice Cream and Sex, enjoy 'em both, and just like Ice Cream and Sex, they'll both be around for a long time.

I don't think you would've had a problem with Carnuba wax and wax becoming rancid or mouldy is from 'caking' it on instead of thin coats(several thin coats are better that one thick coat), but the bottom line is you got something to put on your camera, typically wax can go rancid when you leave the can open or leave a rag in it.

I agree with a wax with no silicone because once you get silicone on something, it's almost impossible to get off.

I will not be selling any of my gear that Steve Grimes has worked on, he always billed me after the work was done, incedibly he continued this as standard practice even after several folks became dilinquent in paying for the work he did for as long as 6 months.

'One off' machine work is considered crafting a 'prototype', and unless you are willing to pay big bucks most other machinists upon hearing what you want will tell you to 'get lost'.

The fact that his business is contiuing is a second chance for everyone, I would point out that these folks are so good at what they do, that they could probably make more money doing something else, my point is treat 'em right, and pay 'em on time.

'Make photographs with the camera. Keep it clean and don't put it away wet and it will be just fine.'....................................

..........Bad Advice plain and simple.

Simple care and maintenence means you take 15 minutes to wax your camera once every 3 months, that's nothing, that's one hour per year and isn't going to hinder your taking photographs in any way any more than washing and waxing your car is going to keep you from driving it.

Some folks have 50-60 yr old or more cameras that they've done nothing to and the cameras have held together, this was do to the joinery done by a superior Artisan which kept the camera together despite the exposure to the elements/neglect, that's not a validation for doing nothing.

Doing what the above poster says, some cameras are going to hold together, some are going to bust loose, buying a $12.00 can of wax which will last you 5 years and waxing your camera four days out of the year may save you having to look for a technician/artisan to repair a joint that's broken loose and hoping that these folks will have the same skill as the Artisans who built your camera in the first place.

Wax it Ross, it won't hurt, will help, and won't take any time at all.