DB_Gallery

<p>Fair enough, onward...:-)</p>

<p>Arthur Plumpton wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>The same sort of paradigm when the quartz watch was an innovation and the Swiss makers refused it and stayed with their time honoured mechanical watches. Also when Japanese vehicles were considered unable to replace others. If one thing is certain in technological progress it is that change will always occur. I would rather put my faith in what is new and better for me than whether the CEOs of Leica, Nikon or Hasselblad can remain competitive.<br /> Who is on top of the popularity or most-used tree (often determined by accolades from sports or National Geographic or wedding photrographers or some other niche use) does not concern me, only what product will do what I need, as all digital products, unlike my mechanical film Leica, have quite limited lifespans and overbuilding them may only make some sense for those who use them most intensively (unlike most amateur photographers).<br /> My only intensive use of any devices other than those in the kitchen is my computer for business consulting, but I have yet to notice any significant superiority of my more costly Apple over my client's PC computers, after nearly twenty years serving them.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well that's odd, didn't I actually say "So for <strong>me</strong> the answer is and will always be Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad."?<br /> That means I have made these choices not based on popularity or who is in the lead in some tech-head race but what works for <strong>me</strong> Arthur. And if a camera system lacks a film component, it is out, plain and simple.<br> <br /> After nearly 30 years in this business one might surmise I know what the heck I am doing....and I do.</p>

<p>Benjamin, not sure if you ever had any intention of reading the replies here, but I know why I use Leica M digital and film cameras. It's the glass, simplicity of using the camera it self, and the fact that Leica cameras like the M240 and newer are more reliable than you may think & pair pretty much seamlessly with my M6TTL built in 2001 and my M3 built in 1956.<br /> <br /> But incase that is not enough for you, read this, especially the part about the motorcycle crash:<br /> http://rideearth.net/2016/05/04/leica-m-the-full-review/</p>

<blockquote> <p>In any case, I am concerned primarily with the age-old question: who is producing the best cameras these days? Specifically, are Canon and Nikon still on top where producing great high end cameras is concerned? If they are still on top, can they stay on top? For how long? One asks questions like these primarily to know which one ought to buy, that is, which offers the most bang for the buck</p> </blockquote> <p>A couple things I guess.<br /> <br /> 1. There is no way of knowing because none of us are privy to what is *actually* going on behind closed doors in the R&D department. Modern digital cameras are computers and that means that the technology used in what just came out would likely be considered old by those who live and die by the tech sword. So I don't think you can really be 100% sure even with current offerings.<br /> <br /> 2. I don't know a single person who either is a photographer or aspires to be such who really cares about this, at all. If you are chasing the latest and greatest as a singular model with one kit lens year on year, then one can jump around from brand to brand just to feel *technically* current. But Nikon and Canon are system cameras and it is not uncommon for people to have reasonable to sizable investments in said system. So once the photo enthusiast or photographer is well versed and satisfied in a system, the idea of jumping around from brand to brand just to feel some sense of who is "On Top" superiority is a pretty low priority in my opinion.<br /> <br /> I would never-ever choose a camera or a system based on some silly super geek derived notion of who is "On Top". I choose my camera systems based on the criteria of quality of components, how versatile is the system overall and how well or easy does film integrate into the system. So for me the answer is and will always be Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad.</p>

<p>I don't care anymore if people do it in their own work, fake it out, manufacture their own un-realities, it's all just so sad and rampant now, the photoshop BS and it is to me, quite pathetic.<br> But no matter what I am doing or who it is for, be it advertising, fine art commissions, photojournalism pieces or personal documentary projects...I just won't do this kind of alteration to a photograph, ever.<br> So I have photographs that others would likely say "just remove that power line and it would be much better" that I simply reject, they don't make the edit. For me, it's the only way to work and live my life as a photographer.</p>

<p>I love my Leica rangefinder cameras but in having had a Fuji GSW690III and a full Mamiya 6 kit with all three lenses, I could never get along with them due to parallax error, much prefer an SLR/TLR for that format. Having a more accurate manner in which to both view and compose the image with medium format film seems to go a long way in working with the shallower depth of field. So I own a large Hasselblad system with two 501CM bodies, 9 lenses, 12 backs including a CFV50c digital and a Rolleiflex 2.8D.<br /> <br /> I would get a Rolleiflex 2.8 from Igor Camera and be done with it. He has them CLA'd, offers returns and has reasonable prices. I would *not* saddle your friend with the task of picking up a camera that may or may not have to go in for service once you get it. I paid $800 for a near mint Rolleiflex 2.8D and not only does it work perfectly without a CLA, the images that 2.8 lens produces are as good as anything I have ever seen and that includes the Mamiya.<br /> <br /> Look up the work of Vivian Maier, Fan Ho and Maude Schuyler Clay to get inspiration of work made with a Rolleiflex, it's a legendary camera for a reason.</p>

<p>Sometimes it depends on the lens more than the brand, they all have their stars and not so stars, try finding a Fujinon 600mm 11.5C for a bargain price. Some of the other excellent Fujinons are really hard to find anymore too, the 360A F10 for example. I tried for 2 years to find one of these until I finally gave up and bought a new Schneider 350mm F11 Apo Tele Xenar which is also now gone, like the 360A a very compact LF lens with outstanding sharpness.<br /> <br /> Modern glass like my Rodenstock 135mm 5.6 and 180mm 5.6 Apo Sironar S lenses have cult status as being the best in class. I find they are the only large format lenses I own that can equal nearly any medium format or 35mm lens shooting the same film stock using the same 15X loupe.</p>

<p>It's interesting for sure.<br /> I have the M240, M6TTL and M3, the M6 & M3 feel and handle fantastic, just the right amount of clamping feel. The 240 feels a lot thicker in actual handling and no where near as good in the clamping department. It's usable but not nearly as nice as the film M's. <br /> Now, when I go from my FM3A, F3, F100 to my D750 or D810, that is a much better transition, the ergonomics on all of those cameras are near perfect, the nicely formed grips on the digitals easily making up for the thicker clamping distance. </p>

<p>You can use the 200-500 5.6 VR on a Nikon film body but it will only be usable wide open which is a welcome change from the G lenses being stuck at minimum aperture on non-AF cameras. Since this lens is so good wide open, I definitely plan on using it on my F100, FM3A and F3 when shooting black and white if I need the reach / isolation.</p>

<p>Well I might have at least bought some time and some sanity back, I made my darkroom ventilation system a lot more efficient. I created two exhaust hoods for both sets of developing trays, 11x14 and 16x20 and then completely sealed off the tray stacker box that holds the stop bath, fixer and two wash trays. It seems to be moving the air around a lot better and I don't smell chemicals anymore.</p> <p>Trying my best to work with what I have....</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>Daniel a lot of folks change lanes in mid life. It's not unusual but just the same you will need a camera for family photos, trips and such.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'll let my wife take over the family / vacation snaps duty, she likes to do that anyway. Once I am done...I am *really* done, for good and completely.</p> <p>Just for kicks I fired up my small closet darkroom last night for the first time in 10 months. I printed a 35mm neg of Tmax 400 shot with a Leica M6 and the peerless 35mm 1.4 Aspheric FLE lens. I used my Saunders LPL 4550 XLG / VCCE enlarger with the impossible to find hybrid diffuser / condenser mixing box and my 50mm 2.8 Apo Rodagon N lens. I took one baseboard meter reading of the highlights and shadows and that fed the proper exposure for the paper directly into the timer, grade 2.5. I did one test strip, looked fine, did one print and came out with the attached 8x10. The print in my hand...that is why I refuse to only shoot digital for the rest of my life, no freaking way man.<br /> <br />Making that print felt great, the way I felt for most of this morning from having vastly inadequate ventilation can only be described as, well...crap. So I am headed to the hardware store to see if I can get materials to better seal off the tray stacker in feeding the exhaust to my fan, a 93mm variable speed computer fan that at best, moves 36.5 CF/M or 2100 CF/H. My so called "Darkroom" contains about 170 cubic feet of air so in theory I should be able to move the needed amount ( 170 x 10 times per hour ) in order to keep from killing my self. But thus far, it is not working right. I would go with a bigger fan but I simply can not move anymore air than that above and below the door to the storage closet.</p> <p>12 years I have been trying my damnedest to come up with a good working darkroom, because people pay for the prints and every other aspect of my business is great. But the problem is if I move away to an area where I can afford either a home with good darkroom prospects or rent an industrial space....I lose the bulk of my business. Damned if I do and damned if I don't...pretty frustrating as I hit the peak of my vision / career...<br /> <br /> Off I go to the hardware store and to check my lottery ticket. If chance favors the prepared, then maybe luck will befall the tenacious...</p><div></div>

<p>To be completely honest, things are about to change in a big way for me in photography.<br /> <br /> I have had such an amazing life though exploring the world with my cameras, a *very* rewarding career with it for almost 30 years, 21 years using digital. But 12 years ago, I told my self that I wanted to move toward both creating silver gelatin fine art prints and teaching my love of film and the darkroom & have the proper space and equipment to do that. I have the very best of everything I need in terms of equipment but the space and the prospect of me getting anything larger than the storage closet outside of my condo is shrinking fast. No matter how ingenious I get at overcoming having an impossibly small space, I am just not able to do this like I want to, certainly not teach.<br /> <br /> So I am faced with two options. One is to bail on the idea of using film and printing in a darkroom and just continue on with digital. The other is to bail on it all and move on to another career and life. After several long talks with my wife and following her advice to sleep on it, 2016 will be my last year as a photographer. It will no longer be a career or even a hobby, I will divest my self of the hardware, archive the images and in 2017, move to a new life. My wife and I will move out of the wonderful town I have lived in for 18 years and start fresh somewhere new. She has a great job so I can take my time within reason in finding a new path.<br /> <br /> I just can't bear the thought of not doing black and white film and darkroom work and being stuck with just digital the rest of my life so this year marks the conclusion of my involvement in photography.<br /> <br /> Here is to a great last year!</p>

<p>I shoot both, enjoy film the most by far.</p>

<p>I had one for my D700 when I used them. They stopped by the time the D800 came out which is really too bad since it makes no sense to me why there is no optical manual focus aide with all the manual focus lenses in production ( Zeiss Milvus for example ).</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with wanting as sharp of a photograph as possible as long as it does not get in the way of creating a photo with mood, strong composition and meaning. <br> I was out in -10F temps this week doing some moonlit landscape work for a regular client. They tend to use the images in a wide variety of sizes and placements, from display on small mobile devices to prints as large as 30 feet wide, so maximum resolution and sharpness play a key role.<br> Well, on about half of the images, I had bumped the focus a bit and they were ever so slightly soft. I rejected those images as I need them to be as sharp as they can be. </p>

"Film work ought to be an admirable hand-crafted niche form that is, instead, in danger of becoming known as a home for needy, "I AM SPECIAL" pain-in-the-asses." Well thankfully the art buying world does not view it that way, or else I would be left without a career & life path that truly bears my fingerprint or personally satisfies. Thankfully, I have found balance in doing both....<div></div>

I look back to where my journey started 40 years ago at age 8 and it was me just trying to get the basics of film down with a Kodak X15F 126 camera. I then think to where my mind was at age 13 after mowing lawns all Summer to buy my first SLR when I knew this would be my career and life. Then along comes 1994 and my world is turned upside-down, forced by editors at the paper I worked at to "Lead the charge" in making the transition to digital....It sucked and I hated it. So here I am 21 years later and I still use digital, some of the best in the biz too ( Leica M240, Nikon D750, D810, Hasselblad CFV50c ) and the thing that excites me the most, will get me out of bed well before sunrise tomorrow after this snowstorm....? Film & the darkroom. Yep, you read that right, the fact I will be shooting black and white film that I can make a real print with my real hands in my real darkroom, that is what keeps me in this career. After 21 years and possibly a million images made with it, digital is just as old hat to me as film and the darkroom is to most on here. Nowadays, all my camera systems have to have digital and film components that play nice together...because any camera system that is digital only is pretty much useless to me. The brightest part of my future is black and white film and the darkroom.

Arthur, The top pops up on the camper to reveal a very comfortable queen sized bed, the 50 watt solar panel you see on the air damn is one of an array that produces 350 watts to two completely independent solar / battery systems. All the lighting is LED and the fridge / freezer is 100% solar powered. There is 20 gallons of fresh water, a two burner stove, sink and a heater that works very fast to heat the interior up. The antenna on the roof to the right is a cellular signal booster that adds up to 55db of signal strength. My wife loves the cell booster as she works remotely for a major healthcare provider and can go with me on months long road trips. The truck has many modifications such as a very beefed up suspension and an engine that produces 407HP instead of the stock 236HP and actually gets better gas mileage too. There is a shooting platform on the roof for those high vantage points. So to answer your question in short, yes, I can and do live out of this setup and have for months at a time on various projects. Living in the heart of the Colorado Rockies, I also use the rig quite a bit near home as it is set up for all 4 seasons. It might be one of my favorite pieces of camera gear as I have found that visiting a place to get a "keeper" is not really good enough...you have to live there if you can.<div></div>

Sure, do it all the time. And if I don't get a keeper on the first, second or even the third day, I just keep working it until I do. I can usually stick in one spot for up to two weeks in my built-for-photography rig. I got the idea to build it after a conversation with Jack Dykinga, a nice dry place to deal with film holders, food, etc. I mean....how else you gonna "Avoid the Cliche"...?...;-)<div></div>

Jeez Allen, thanks, I think...;-) I was just trying to get folks inspired by the idea that not everything has been seen or done. The image was last Sunday's New York Times Travel section cover, while been done before, not an in your face, eye level ski shot. That was my point I guess, get into the rhythm of who you are behind or not behind a camera and you *should* at least in theory be able to avoid said cliche.

<p>It's not uncommon for me to be photographing in some of the most over-photographed places around, but somehow, I almost always manage to come up with something that is not what people expect and therefore, not cliche. <br> Maybe it has to do with doing this as a full time job for nearly 30 years but I don't find them all that hard to avoid. After awhile, you just develop instincts that make quick work of overcoming it.</p> <p>That's my take on it anyway...</p><div></div>

<p>Me, a pro using Photoshop since 2.0 in 1991, I don't use HDR but Photomerge is pretty handy.</p>

<p>I have been pretty happy to stay with CS6 & LR5 but now the latest Mac OS is making it to where you have no choice but to go CC, otherwise it makes upgrading to future hardware a tricky proposition.<br> <br /> Then add new tools like Palette Gear's new <a href="http://palettegear.com">tactile interface</a> and the equation start to move in the direction of CC. I'm still sitting tight for the moment though...</p>

<p>I shot about 40,000 images for my biggest client this year, I do corporate journalism for them. I just went and checked, 37 were in RAW. I love JPEG, it is like shooting chrome.<br> Good for Rueters, enough of the BS and a great PJ can make getting a real moment better than most "art". </p>

<blockquote> <p>I agree that the polarizer has use, certainly for cutting glare on water or for highlighting clouds. The problem is that you can not use a hood and the polarizer needs to be adjusted for every situation, so one must remove the hood and adjust. This can be done for landscapes but not for anything that requires any amount of shooting speed.</p> </blockquote> <p>I simply could not disagree more, I use polarizers all the time in high action shooting on paid ski shoots, lifestyle, all kinds of advertising, you get into a rhythm of adjusting it. I have also put special measurement markings on mine so I don't have to even look through them to keep up with the change in light.<br /> <br /> As far as filter use overall, I use a lot of different filters for several different systems because I shoot a lot of black and white films including infrared. Since I insist on getting right in camera, filter use for me is alive and well.</p>