steve_patterson
-
Posts
899 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by steve_patterson
-
-
<p>I too am very pleased with the weird little beast. In many ways, it reminds me of a cross between two of my film cameras of which I'm equally fond: my Leica M3 for its rangefinderish feel and my Canon T-90 for the range of controls. Just a fine, fine little camera, and the resolution is brilliant....<br>
Here's a studio shot under a softbox:<br>
Steve</p>
<p> </p><div>
</div> -
So long, Yuri. What a shame. And a shock.
-
Awhile back, I started a regular blog to talk about politics and theatre (in
addition to being a photographer, I'm a playwright). It's been fun, I've
developed a readership, etc. As I've enjoyed finding images to illustrate my
blog posts, kind of like laying out a magazine, I got to thinking it'd be kind
of a kick to do the same thing with my own images; so I created a photo blog,
and I've tried to post about a shot a day, write a little bit about the image--
why I took it or why I like it, and what the tech was, much as folks post
photos for critique on photo.net. I figure it'll challenge me to keep shooting
too, though it'll be some time before I run out of photos to post.
Anyway, it's been a kick and good way to get pictures out there. If you're
curious, the URL is: http://splattsights.blogspot.com/
Best,
Steve
-
Thanks...excellent responses. And very reasonable sounding prices.
Best,
Steve
-
I recently bought a Canon PIXMA Pro9000, which makes gorgeous prints up to
13x19 with Chromalife inks, which as I undestand should last 30 years on
display under glass and 100 years in archival storage materials when printed on
archival papers.
I sell a picture to papers or magazines once in awhile, but as of late I've had
people asking me how much for prints with the idea of having artistic images
for decor. I looked through the threads here but couldn't quite find an answer
to what a reasonable price would be for such images, say in 8x10 and 11x14 on
archival papers. On the one hand, people like my stuff enough to inquire; on
the other hand, I'm not hanging in galleries. Any suggestions for U.S. prices
would be appreciated. I'm planning on selling the things neither mounted or
framed. It's kind of an issue because I just started a photoblog, and I wanted
to include the information just in case there's anyone nutty enough out there
to buy my stuff.
Best,
\
-
The metering capabilities of the T-90 are superb, and it's a wonderfully designed camera ergonomically--it just feels great to hold. It was one of the first cameras to allow you to do multiple spot meter readings and to adjust where in that range of readings. And if you want to shoot manual exposure, it works very well indeed. I love my Leica, but I use the T-90 a heck of lot more.
The F-1 does have a certain mystique, of course....
-
Here's the Committee to Protect Journalist's article:
-
When I think of McCullin, I always picture the shell-shocked soldier, seated and clutching his rifle barrel during the battle of Hue, or the British soldiers in riot gear charging up a Belfast street past women and children.
S
-
Colin...Steve is a resident of Portland. Thanks for the tip.
S
-
It's north of Montana, isn't it?
Thanks to everyone for the help.
S
-
It fell off a Leica M3. I think it's actually the bayonet on the lens is worn; I don't have any trouble with my other lenses.
Once when I was shooting sports, a bare-bones Canon TX slipped from my grasp and went, bling-bling-bling, ricocheting off bleacher poles before bouncing off a court floor. Not a scratch. I think that's the last time I've had a mishap like this.
-
Well, naturally it's my fault. The bayonet has been slipping now and again, and I should have checked it as I'd just loaded the camera. If the lens doesn't make it, I'll do some sort of penance. Flog myself with bulk film or something.
-
So I'm walking down the street, and the 90 mm Tele-Elmarit casually
drops off my Leica and hits the ground with a dull thud. Arrggh!
So I scoop the thing up, and the glass is intact, but the focus ring
got knocked out of round and won't turn.
So, is this repairable or is it time to have a quiet backyard
service, all the cameras lined up at attention as the Tele is rolled
slowly into its grave?
Distraught,
Steve
-
I love Joyce's work (except Finnegan's Wake, which I couldn't understand despite repeated attempts). I think he's wrong here, but what I think he's saying is that a photograph can be taken in an aesthetically pleasing manner but that it can't be considered art because it doesn't spring wholly from the human imagination. That is, it's a manipulation of what exists rather than the creation of something that has never before existed.
He has a point, but it's awful narrow hair-splitting one in that he ignores that, at its highest levels, the photographer's vision springs from the same inner place from which spring paintings and novels; without that vision, the image would never be realized.
So what the heck: even a genius gets it wrong now and again.
-
A buddy of mine has been agonizing over the market shift from silver
to digital. He's just an ace in the traditional darkroom, has
printed stuff for books, ad agencies, museums, but he's watching the
market slip away and is in kind of quandry what to do next. Go with
another lab? Jump in a learn high-end digital output? Teach?
Considering being a stockbroker?
Any thoughts out there?
Steve
-
Though black and white photography will long be linked to the 1920s to 40s before color came on strong, and there will be a certain nostalgia for that very powerful time, I don't think its necessary applicable to what folks are doing now. It's like saying, well, all the old masters painted with oil--oil is now tainted by the past.
What does around, comes around, to quote a cliche, and in many ways the abstraction of black and white--reducing color scenes to a series of grays--seems as modern (and simple) as many of the multiple-perception games played by modern artists.
Plus the stuff's damned beautiful. I don't think the medium lives in the past; I think its practitioners and viewers do.
-
I regularly see work that interests me in Lenswork Magazine and B&W Magazine. I also try to get out to galleries, see what people are up to. Generally, I see a lot of conceptual work that I admire intellectually but which doesn't excite me a great deal. Other times, I see somebody who has something going--a look or an idea--and it'll be like, wow, I wonder what they'll do with this. There's also a good deal of technically excellent work out there, though it's not always to my taste.
There's a small percentage of work being done that, to my mind, transcends the eye/mind candy category and is really outstanding, but I think there's never really a very large percentage of truly excellent work being done in any particular field. I also find that after looking at photographs for too long, I get burned out and need to...go dig in the garden or drive too fast for conditions...or...or....something to divert the attention.
-
When I'm shooting, I'll sometimes have an instant of recognition,
when all the photograph's elements come together, and if I manage to
hit the shutter, there's this sense of, yes, nailed it. It doesn't
always prove to be so when I hold the negatives up to the light, but
I'd say at least 75% of those shots turn out to be of interest.
It kind of makes me wonder where that "shock of recognition" comes
from. Do we have sort of a pallette of images in our mind's eye,
and when one matches up, there's this sudden click? Or are there
elements you know you have in your mind, and you keep working at it
until--voila--the image reveals itself. I find this especially true
with street, portrait, and theater photography.
I guess my question is: do we instinctually know when a photograph
is ready to reveal itself? If so, how do we recognize it?
Steve
-
Harvey, I think we've wandered pretty far from the subject at this point; and I don't think we're likely to find common ground on this one. Plus the comments are beginning to feel a bit personal, and I'm getting a bit uncomfortable with the tone; so I think I'll turn this one over to someone else. You can e-mail me if you still want to debate the subject.
S
-
Yes. I admit it. You've stumbled onto the conspiracy. Those of us writing fiction and drama are all in on a plot of convince our audience that our work contains "great truths" to ensure we have an audience. Let's just keep that between you and me, okay? *shhh*
Well, seriously, if this way madness lies--and you know that's a quote from "King Lear"--then there are good number of Nobel Laureates out there wearing tinfoil hats.
I would argue that great fiction can lead you sanity, if for no other reason than experiencing great fictional characters is the closest we can get to living within another person's head, and that helps us understand that we are not alone in our feelings and fears. It is an illusion, surely, but the best fiction is grounded in reality, or else it rings false.
Fiction may not fulfill this function for you, and I'm sorry about that because you're missing out. But I suspect the authors of great literary works will be shared and treasured long after both our names have evaporated.
Great photographs have within them great stories, even if they're not overt, and they speak to us as does great poetry--the penultimate image of a poem or image containing a nexus of meaning. John Crowe Ransom called it the objective correlative: the instant that creates and compensatory response in the reader or viewer.
Which is to say: when it rocks.
-
Delta 400 in DD-X has become my favorite combination. Lots of grays but very punchy.
-
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I think fiction as written by Joyce, Faulkner, and Woolf, to name a few, are stunning intellectual achievements and contain within them truths about the nature of consciousness, history, psychology, and the nature of human existence that can only be accessed through the experience of reading, of living within that character. Just because the reader allows themself to live within a character's skin doesn't mean they can't differentiate between ordinary reality and a fictional character. That happens sometimes, but I think most of us can spend some time in Leopold Bloom's mind without losing touch with reality. To assume otherwise rather underestimates the intelligence of others; it's a popular but miserly opinion.
If we read carefully and with empathy, we are granted a window into universal human experiences, a tradition that dates well back to the classic Greek dramas.
-
Harvey--
Just as a reaction to your comments on old Bill Shakespeare, though we are physical creatures living in a physical world, our minds process information not only through fact but through fiction. That is, we're symbol makers. If we weren't, we'd have no numbers or letters--just characters in a story are made up, so are eights and one-halfs--but we also grasp the world through emotional and intuitional cues. The experiences of characters have enough resonance with our own experiences that we gain an intuitive understanding of our lives through their experience, even though they spring from human imagination.
Fiction may be a mental construct, but it is a construct that reflects truths about reality--that's speaking of literature on Shakespeare's level. It sounds like fiction does not speak to you, but, for those receptive of great works, the insights these works can bring to life can be profound.
-
I think you should move a foot or two to the left....
I've never encountered this with my M3; never tried a M6. If it does result in camera shake problems, maybe have the shutter checked out. Otherwise, if you're not used to the quiet of rangefinders, maybe you're compensating for the absence of SLR shhhh-click!*
Steve
*I believe that's the technical term.
Can I see some G10 Sample photos and yalls reviews Please?
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted
<p>I've owned the G10 for about three months now, and I'm very pleased with it. It's versatile, has an extremely good meter, and produces very high quality images. As noted, the image quality detiorates at the higher ISOs, but at 80 on a tripod, it's really quite remarkable. I've been able to make very good large prints with it, and, at 8x10, the quality reminds me of medium-format film. Plus, as a Leica owner and longtime rangefinder fan, I like the feel--it feels like one of the great little Canonet or Yashica rangefinders from the Sixties/Seventies. Not an SLR, but a very good camera with capabilities beyond the average point-and-shoot.<br>
Steve</p>