chris_antidote

<p>@ Sarah Fox, You shouldn't find it strange I use a medium I dislike. I would use film exclusively, If I could.. Here's the thing, I'm not opposed to the small working class companies that I sometimes get commissioned by. Their companies are start ups, new in the game... and If a client has a budget of $5000, which will barely cover the cost of my time, the grips, lighting, make-up & hair stylist, and models... I'll shoot digital. The client likes it because it is faster but is naive to the quality. Because when you shoot everything perfect with digital you start to have a -cartoonish- looking ad. When you shoot with the same intent, style, and with film, it looks like a brilliant movie set, that looks surreal, and not unreal. It really is paramount. The bigger companies have a minimum budget of 25 grand... So you can see the difference. I got my start with art galleries for my work with film. And eventually was represented by a well known LA and New York gallery. This later started to branch out into magazine work. <br>

This is a very noisy and complicated world we live in, Sarah. Which is the very reason I haven't uploaded any of my photos... (Even if my gallery representatives would let me) Nor have I used an email or name that isn't anonymous. Chris Antidote? ha, I was looking at my assistant when we put those two together. Why? You ask... because I would be frowned upon if anyone I worked with, commissioned by, represented with, found out I was having my sh*ts and giggles in an online forum. My name is too distinctive and people talk. I like to post ridiculous question I already know the answer to and watch everyone argue. Which sometimes is hilarious and surprisingly sometimes very informative. </p>

<p>@Sarah Fox, Will you elaborate on your question? <br>

Also, Could you send a private message. This forum thread is not about the use of mediums. Thanks. </p>

<p>@Sarah Fox, I use both formats. </p>

<p>@ Ken Papai, ahaha. I think it's funny you post a link to another forum I started and call it harsh. It's good people have their views and I find it amusing when someone gets offended because their opinions aren't parallel. People want to sugar coat everything so they don't hurt feelings. It's like these critique forums on here, everyone is basically saying nice things... how does that person getting critiqued ever expect to learn and grow if he thinks everything he does is wonderful. I'm pretty sure the admins of this website are getting to know me real quick. </p>

@admin, who's not being civil?

 

On a better note..., As it may be.. Ansel

Adams and a colleague essentially

invented the zone system laws. He

also stated in his literature books that a

new technology would change the

rules. And was aware of a digital

frontier as well as color photography as

a new art form. What he neglected to

say is that eventually his laws of zones

would change too.

@stephen cumblidge, are you admitting I'm clever? I just

don't want to be fat or boring.

<p>@ Tom Mann, Because I thought it was just as irrelevant as "How do you hold your camera when shooting vertically?" And, "Is bokeh strictly a function of the lens?" lol. No, I'm really advertising for Kodak Films, Because I don't want them to go bankrupt. And I want to shove film in all the faces of digital snap shooters who walk around with a bulge in their pants that isn't an extra roll of film. Hehe, No. I'm completely obsessed with enthusiast who love rambling on about all this nonsense in blogs, instead of going out and shooting photos. Actually, I do shoot film, I'm a purist, but I use a digital scanner. No no, Really, it's all about art and form and composition. It doesn't matter what you shoot as long as you shoot entirely with your minds' heart in focus. Unless you have arterial plaque. which is why you're not out in the world shooting photos because you're afraid of the heart attack that might ensue. Nonetheless, I'm completely sure of everything I've said. </p>

<p>Look, I'm not talking about printable ranges or dark room enthusiast like Ansel Adams. The films today have so much latitude, Kodak Portra is rated well beyond the usable scale of zones. Which is why you can over and under expose and normally get a good shot. If you had a hasselblad scanner, drum scanning at 4.9 D-max, individually recording every tone variable with remarkable accuracy; you're still blowing away modern day digital cameras. Which by the way, most modern day digital camera companies, claim more dynamic range than your zone system. Nikon d800!? Obviously everyone born today is limited by printing. We can't escape that, just yet. </p>

<p> I've heard with modern scanners, the full range of a scanned negative is about 15-19 stops.... </p>

<p>A good body, and good lens are both, normally rated for about ten years of use. If you look at the bottom of either product you will see a recycling sign with a number... thats how long, whatever company thinks their product will last with normal use. </p>

<p>@Tim Lookingbill I figured, because I didn't mention anything about his process etc. No worries, mate. </p>

<p>@Tim Lookingbill I know his work. We hosted an exhibit w/ william eggelston, stephen shore, luigi ghiri, and Tierney Gearon, a few years ago. </p>

<p>@Fred G I may have stepped on some toes and I apologize for that. However, This is black text on a white background and there are no boundaries for this context. And I got to tell ya, there is a vase difference between good and bad work. I respect a persons' opinion 100% more who creates excellent body work, opposed to barely mediocre. I mean, maybe I'm not an expert, but I contribute and run a semi-nice art gallery in downtown Long Beach and I see a abundant body of photography art. It's one thing for an educated artist to critique something opposed to some guy who can't even fathom William Eggelstons compositions. Are you REALLY going to take that guys opinion over a seasonal professional or one of those photography masters? And the answer is F NO. unless you too, are an idiot. Because heres the thing, you aren't going to learn a damn thing from the guy in the room producing the worst work. </p>

<p>m</p>

<p>@Fred G ahahah! How is what I said any worse that what you did. You dissected his entire paragraph. ahaha. </p>

<p>@Stephen Cumblidge Well, compared to what? your bad insect photos, terrible architecture work, or the all centered portraits? </p>

<p>@ Stephen Cumblidge However, most the photos here that get good ratings aren't in museums and world renowned art galleries. Nor are they awarded top honors at companies like hasselblad or receiving Getty images Lifetime achievement awards. Which, by the way, to some degree, says something about the people in here giving ratings.......</p>

<p>I shoot a medium format film camera and use carl zeiss glass. Never need to update. And Love using the same camera year in and year out. </p>

<p>?</p>

<p>@Marc Bergman. Thats how I feel, too. I like to scan once. Store my negatives somewhere safe and move on to the next photo. However, I'm just not sure how I should be saving my files.. Tiff or Jpgs. Most professional I've spoken to suggest there is no visible difference in a high quality jpeg compressed from the original Tiff. Additionally, you're saving about 3/4 of the hard drive space when you convert. Kinda a bummer when digital storage is still a problem when you shoot film. Scanners are spoiling. </p>

@walter could you explain "dyes not silver -would last"

Well, yeah.. I know to convert over to jpg for web use. To clarify I meant for large prints.

<p>After scanning I normally Save my files in a 16bit tiff. format. Should I convert these to Jpeg 16bit files? I know the files sizes are vastly different. I'm just worried about losing bits and pieces of quality. </p>

<p>Thanks for the info. I heard from a friend that the fujicolor balances indoor lighting and outdoor lighting much better than kodak. due to the 4th layer technology....As of right now, I'm swaying toward shooting fuji film.</p>

<p>Buddy of mine is having a wedding... never shot a wedding and I was wondering what film to use? He doesn't even plan to have a photographer shoot the wedding but asked me if I was willing to shoot some photos for him. Nothing too serious just so he has some photos from the wedding. <br>

I have a few rolls of kodak portra 400 & 800 and Fujicolor 400s & 800z. Shooting 645, 120 rolls. </p>

<p>Any thought about what I should be shooting in the afternoonish, on a big boat... some indoor and outdoor shots.. </p>