rickbarbosa

<p>The difference comes down to your attention span.</p>

<p>From the moment you measure to the moment you release the shutter, it is photography. After that, wether you're in the darkroom or on the computer, it is imaging. </p>

<p>Eric's probably right. My work takes me all over the western states, so anywhere in Oregon is kind of a hop-skip for me. The loop I'm talking about isn't much further than any of the coastal loops, but a bit tiring to get to and from, especially if you're looking for an easier, tourist(y) drive, and photo ops. I've lived on the coast, Willammette Valley, Cascades, Central and eastern Oregon, and there's not an area of the northwest I haven't explored or worked in, so I know a few places that even Oregonians will never take the time to see, because they are too far from the major routes and freeways. </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Drive down on the Oregon side to Hood River or the Dalles, then drive back on the Washington side. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>OR, just stay on the Oregon side, drive on to Arlington, make your way over to Fossil and loop on back to hwy 97 and either head back north to 84, or make your way over Mt Hood via WarmSprings. The Fossil loop is just a quick easy look of the much bigger Blue Mountain Scenic Byway, which is a whole other trip in itself. I'm pretty numb to the Gorge and Falls, having to cross it on my way back and forth from eastern Oregon to Portland all year, but at the right time, with the right light, it still manages to surprise me. It's all in the timing. Start early. </p>

<p>Recently watched a movie titled "Cinematographer Style". The emphasis throughout the interviews is not so much about technology and equipment, but, get this, LIGHT. and shadows. Composition. Vision. Isn't that just the most ridiculous thing you ever heard? To think that the same thing that has inspired painters, and sculptors and just about every visual artform across the entire spectrum of human civilization is still the only thing necessary to produce quality art today, regardless of the equipment, medium or subject matter. Silly rabbits.</p>

<p> If any of you work in law enforcement, military, firefighting, or any other dangerous line of work, you are aware of "that" guy. Straight up adrenaline junkie, wanna-be jockstar, superhero trying to live out his alpha monkey fantasies at the expense of the public, co-workers and eventually, himself. Always itchin' for action, feels they can do the job better than anyone, but never gets the chance because their superiors are all too aware of the these traits, and wish to keep him on a short leash, and out of the public eye. <br>

Maybe it's Hollywoods' fault. Maybe it's the two pots of coffee he may have drank. Long hours, frustrated expectations, rough childhood, a tweak in the brain or an itch in the pants. I could be wrong about this officer. He may be nothing like that in his personal life, but there are many who are, and my first thought when I saw the video was "Oh yeah, THAT guy. I <em>know</em> that guy." But that was only because I was already informed that he was an officer. If I hadn't known that he was, I figured the rider could have scooted the bike around, if not into him. Yeah, I know he would be risking getting shot, but there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have gotten shot anyway by complying with another civilian. </p>

Jeff Conrads' link above has more than enough information.

<p>A couple of other things. The judge who released him said he did not do anything illegal by videotaping, and the paperwork used to search his parents house, and take all cameras and computers, had NO SIGNATURE from any judge. Said it was a "secret". Secret judges, storming troopers? </p>

<p>He had a GOPRO camera. On the top of his HELMET! In public. No secret "wiretapping". No criminal anything minus the speeding wheelie which was based on an eyeball estimation. Practically everyone who doesn't ride a motorcycle thinks sportbikes are too fast, and cruisers are too loud, and get so worked up whining about something they don't understand to the point where they are willing to let this kid get prosecuted illegally. In some countries people are intimidated, abused, and even killed for documenting anything, especially the abuse of power. I guess the gutless sheep who thinks these scare tactics are okay will not be happy until it becomes the norm here as well. The kid is an Air National Guard with a CLEAN record, and they want to send him to Prison? wow. </p>

<p>Kezia: I say "style' for lack of a better word. It could be that the cameras discreet size, or odd configuration, or simply the fact that it didn't look like a pro set up, bigger camera, lenses, etc., had more to do with it. While most of the guys I work with and photograph are used to seeing me with a camera in my hand, or over my shoulder, the difference in how they reacted to me with a smaller SLR and set up in the past, and how they react to a much bigger DSLR and set up, has totally changed the way I aproach any situation. Discreet, candid shot are not as easy to take anymore, and as I said before, if I'm not comfortable, it doesn't even come out of the holster. It could be that Holdt didn't want to intimidate anyone with a better set up, and have to be identified simply as a photographer, or journalist, or maybe it's just not wise to bring spendy gear into those kind of situations. Or maybe he himself was poor at the time. <br /> His photos remind me more of the type of cheap cameras my mom used when I was a growing up. We lived in conditions similar to the ones Holdt has documented, and some of my memories of that time can be as bleak and harsh as he's presented in his work, so that's where I get those impressions from. <br /> My father is more of an events and wedding type of photographer would probably have harsher judgements of Holdts' choice of equipment and technique, and would have more of that type of criticism, I believe. After not seeing him for almost 20 years, I shared my work with him, so he could see what kind of situations I am involved in, and he had more to say about resolution and color, and seemed almost oblivious to the story I was trying to capture with my "outdated" camera. So thats his perspective. But I understand that his presence and presentation as a professional is more important to him and his clients, than the content and substance in a lot of those situations. The same holds true for a lot of other "gig" oriented photographers. At one point, while driving around the mountain roads in Puerto Rico, he pointed to laborers on the side of the road, and farms, emphasized the need to upgrade my equipment and presentation so as to not become "one of them". Them were fightin' words in my head, so my retort was something along the lines of pointing out that I'd rather be there where the interesting characters and stories were, rather than endure another boring wedding or event. Probably a little harsh, and I can understand where he would need to believe this, as it is his primary form of income, but some people need to understand that there are also photographers who either care about, or are too involved with the subject matter being presented to care if any one acknowledges their prescence as a photographer. In some cases, such as Holdts, it may even diminish his abilities as a story teller, and perhaps, as far as his subject is concerned, as a human being.<br>

It would also be a different matter if he just took the photos and left them on their own to speak for themselves. He actually had strong ideals and emotions tied into his projects, and writes pretty extensively on his views, so there's plenty of conversation to draw from that as well. I know there's a lot of hipster photographers who actually prefer to buy cheaper older cameras merely for their "vintage" or "lo-fi" (yes, someone actually called it lo-fi) "effect", but I don't think Holdts' case can be compared to those. Not even close. Considering how much he's written, I imagine the photos served more as a way to keep notes, without having to pull out a pen and paper, and write as he interacted. Just take the shot, write about it later. Usually how I approach it, anyway.</p>

<p>I believe the word can also be used to define a body of work which best represents a persons style, usually along a specific time within their development of their art or craft. Johnny Cash during his Sun Records years. Vintage Johnny. </p>

<p>Anyone who has, or is till living in the kind of conditions he is documenting will probably tell you that extreme poverty is best represented by his style of photography. Bleak, dark and devoid of any vibrancy. <br>

The "message" is not paramount to me, but there has to be an interesting Scene, situation, or story to even think about pulling my camera out of its' holster, if that makes any sense. I am captivated by light, and composition (and gear) as much as anyone else, but that aspect is purely reactionary, and meaningless to me if the I'm not comfortable, or if I'm just uninspired. Same with any other artform. Woody Guthrie YES. JohnDenver NO. </p>

<p>I miss the good old days when we just argued over film vs digital</p>

<p>The G1 sounds like a durable enough (and small enough) to look into. The Pen E-Px series looks more like what I'm looking for, though. The GF1 looks about right too, although I'm not sure if it can handle the environment. I've looked into all cameras mentioned here. Nice to have so many choices. Never looked too deeply into the M4/3rds systems, so it's nice to learn about it at least. </p>

<p>The E-1 looks about the same size and build quality as my Nikon D200. It's not what I was looking for, but definitely worth considering if my current set up ever fails. I don't really expect any camera to be perfectly dust or moisture free, especially in the type of conditions I will put it through, but its got to endure some abuse. <br>

The E-Px, G-x cameras are about the same size as my old Nikon FE, FE2, and I guess that's what I miss. Situations gets intense, and wrestling the mid size DSLR out of its holster and making adjustments on the fly takes a lot longer than to used to when I carried these old film cameras. My environment is in the wilderness, on wildfires, and I still need to do my job safely, so if the situation is too dangerous, the last thing I need to be doing is wasting time messing with gear. It's a distraction to me, and to those I'm working with as well. The point & shoot tough series look discreet enough, but lack the controls, etc. A splash- proof m4/3rds Olympus sounds pretty good to me also. Thanks for the input, guys. </p>

<p>Any experience with either Olympus or Lumix 4/3 in adverse weather or dangerous environments? Looking to replace my Nikon DSLR for a more efficient and discreet set up, but also needs to endure a lot of wear and environmental abuse. </p>

<p>The trick is to buy gear that is even <strong>more </strong>expensive. The older gear becomes your back-up gear, and you can use that in dangerous situations and inclement weather. If you can't afford new gear, I guess you'll have to just do your resesearch, like I did, and buy gear that is tough enough to deal with whatever abuse you think it will have to endure. I bought a D200 when it came out a few years ago. It is always slung over my shoulder(holster), or clipped to a belt, or strapped to my pack. It's still going strong. Not as shiny, and I couldn't sell it for a quarter of what I payed for it new, but it still does its' job. Anyone who works, (or plays) in a dangerous environment is usually well trained in maintainig situational awareness, and the last thing they need to worry about is wether or not the gear is up to the task. </p>

<p>The photographer explains in the link below the photo. Not a single exposure, but still a very creative and useful technique. </p>

<p>What Steven said. <br>

Tripod and remote. Play around with it from there. Fast lens will help with battery life if you decide to experiment. </p>

<p>How about knee or ankle shots? Are those as "cowardly" as a hip shot? If I need to, I'll crouch, hold the camera in a vertical position, between my ankles, or even "run and gun" if the situation calls for it. Depending on the size and speed of the lens I'm using, I am pretty aware of how the photo will turn out without having to look through the viewfinder. I love my viewfinder. Would never buy a camera without one, but I have never felt like less of a photographer for not using it. I understand that this thread is more about furtive, or "creepy" behavior, and agree that it's kind of ridiculous to be so apprehensive, especially when you're carrying a camera in public, but it's no more ridiculous than having to think about wether you'd be respected any less for shooting from the hip, or contemplating the proper orientation of your "moral compass". </p><div></div>

<p>Have to agree with Bill on the northbound route, especiallly with respect to U.S395 & 97. I've worked up and down every route in the NW, and that's the only one that doesn't put me to sleep. Scenery just keeps coming at you, and changes so often and drastically, that it feels like you're traveling through different states. </p>

<p>Wouldn't need the flight. North-South American Geological tour on my bike, with a focus on time lapse/Astrophotography. </p>

<p>Wouldn't need the flight. North-South American Geological tour on my bike, with a focus on time lapse/Astrophotography. </p>

<p>Portland Memorial Masoleum. You said unusual, right? </p>