 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Here's 'da low down posted by xenon101 on January 15, 2002 at 06:02:44:
*** I probably do more in one week with photography than you do in a month.Very possible I severely and intentionally am abandoning photography.
*** I have the luxury of being able to use and compare multiple formats and multiple brands of 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x12, and 4x5 (using multiple lens brands).
I can’t not to miss opportunity to boost myself by mentioning that I use to work at regular basis with 20X30 cameras. It dose not make me more qualified but the point “The Size”, this IS important. :-)
*** I have never thought that I've missed a shot because the Nikon focus system was "too slow." So - frankly you have your opinion, I have my experience, and I don't agree with you.
“Miss a shot” is not an issues. The issue is (at least for me) that between an event that YOU consider should be “monumented” and the event when a camera executes your will ....there is a default delay or proxy process that you are not controlling. The longer time this delay the more opportunitys that the Reality will be changed when the camera will be ready. It is NOT so critical for sport, where the events are most of the time are structured and predictable. But if you actively shoot journalistically and candidly Life (I did for "artistic" purpose) then the speed of autofocus is absolutely critical and the most of the time is the major factor of failure.
*** Personally, I find Canons difficult to use because the controls do not seem to be layed out very well.
As a person who used practically all Cameras I assure you this is a mater of couple days of shooting and you’ll get comfortable …unles it is F2 :-). It is like a driving a new car…. 2-3 days and you feel that it was built specially for you.
*** It all comes down to personal preference, my preference is for Nikons because I like the way they operate and the ED series glass is very, very good.
Well, from certain prospective the FM2 was the best camera ever was produced….
*** In fact, in many instances, if you do not know what to look for in a picture, you could not tell the difference between the Nikon ED glass and Leica glass. In most cases, Nikon will be sharper if measured in lp/mm (yes! it's true!) but - the Leica picture will have more depth and apparent sharpenss to the eye because the lens contrast is slightly better. Leica designers know that contrast improves the "look" of the photo and will often tradeoff MTF for better contrast (and color balance).
What bothered me with Nikons lenses was the polygraphics-quality of their images (similar to the quality of Soundstage when you place the full size ported monitors write next to the back wall). The threshold between the densities looked like it was using a screen as a background. It is wonderful for the technical aplications or for SACD lovers but has nothing to do with reality. Unarguably the Leica’s lenses are more interesting but the way Leica’s body designed drive me creasy….
*** How about you???
I am photography for 20 years and worked in many areas of it: commercial photography (still have no idea what it is), advertising photography (serious studio and location works), havy technical photography, heavy processing… Use to be a hard-core photography artist (the Americanism “artist” is totally BS word to me) and had fairly interesting collection of works. Use to supervised and own some studios and labs. Have some researched and invention in photography was well.
Follow Ups:
***" 'Miss a shot' is not an issues. The issue is (at least for me) that between an event that YOU consider should be “monumented” and the event when a camera executes your will ....there is a default delay or proxy process that you are not controlling. The longer time this delay the more opportunitys that the Reality will be changed when the camera will be ready. It is NOT so critical for sport, where the events are most of the time are structured and predictable. But if you actively shoot journalistically and candidly Life (I did for "artistic" purpose) then the speed of autofocus is absolutely critical and the most of the time is the major factor of failure."****This could be true for journalistic use. In that case, I would probably use my M6 & track focus the event in the viewfinder. Then I'm really not that worried about missing an event through focus lag. If you're worried about that, then you should also worry about shutter lag. Every 1/1000 of a second counts.
From my perspective, after analyzing thousands of hours of high-speed motion picture film, there are so many nuances that the eye misses in any sequence, that claiming you have captured the "decisive moment" is only because you haven't seen the other 1000 that happened between the time you pushed the shutter button, the iris stopped down, and the shutter opened and closed. It's all relative to your frame of reference - reality changes infinitely - so you're still missing something even with your Canon that focuses faster. The best rule of photography is still, "f/8 and be there." The "be there" part being the most important...(smiley face)...
Could a thousand monkeys with a thousand cameras possibly produce "Moonrise Over Hernandez New Mexico"? Of course not, there's a building between the road and the cemetary now and the view isn't the same - that's not the monkey's fault.
Yes, in many instances M-line with 24 mm set to infinity with the stop down and shooting “from belly” is the way to go. From the different prospective life exists between the moments when Henri Cartier Bresson pressed the button…In photography we drag the Reality by its ears into a place and time where we feel comfortable to handle it… and then we call it Real. I find it is very boring and self-restricting in photography. Too much recreation of hypocrisy!
I wish I could paint. I kind of feel that an entire Photography is a dildo of Painting. A painter dealing with pure reality (Real of Imaginary). A photographer is searching for a substitution of reality and, by the way, most of his findings are accidental. (Though I understand, possess great knowledge, and can fluently operate in pure photography language) Still, in painting the “creator/author” drives process but in photography the dead process has too much influence to the artistic result. This is perhaps why the best of my “serious” photographs exist as sketches. (I’m dangers enough to do this)
Regards,
Romy the Cat
Painting exists in a totally self-manufactured world like fiction writing. To me, non-fiction is far stranger than fiction because there are real events that become stranger than fiction.I find the world itself far more interesting and bizarre than anything I've seen painted. Therefore, I love photography because I can find those small moments in space and time where everything comes together, including serendipidous events, to make "reality" unreal. I truly love examining the visual flotsam and jetsam created by humans. Telephone poles, train tracks, jet trails, roads, fences...any and all of the "visual interruptions" so unnaturally placed - can't get enough.
***"...but in photography the dead process has too much influence to the artistic result..."***
Self-limitation by self definition. Photography can be whatever you want it to be. Real, unreal, surreal, abstract,...it's up to you - hell, paint ON the photograph if you like painting. It's certainly NOT the visual medium that's in question, it's the imagination of the artist to exploit the medium. Painting has it's materials/process limitations which influence the final work. Sorry, can't buy into your thesis.
Contrast Ralph Eugene Meatyard with Edward Weston. Meatyard had his own world which he created, while Weston found abstract forms throughout the world he traveled. Elger Esser makes 3 hour exposures where the world changes througout the photo flattening the light and obscuring details. Contrast that to Harold Edgerton who explored the world through small instants in time.
You have to use and control the tools & processes in any art form to create the image you want - that's the challenge. If you feel process-limited, then don't blame the art form, look at yourself. If you still feel you are limited, then change your mode of expression through something you are more in tune with - but, don't blame the medium.
Picasso started as a spectacular realistic painter. After seeing his first photograph he declared that painting was dead - and then went on to expand and explore new methods of expression in painting for the rest of his life - partially spurred on by the photographic challenge to painting's ability to minutely render reality. In the '70's and 80's, photo-realistic painting appeared to challenge photography again...and the circle was complete.
Finally, I really don't think of photography as "art." It's really more of a sport.
*** Painting exists in a totally self-manufactured world like fiction writing. To me, non-fiction is far stranger than fiction because there are real events that become stranger than fiction.You have to take under consideration that you are dealing with a guy who consider Gabriel Garcia Marquez if very non-fictional writer. Go figure….
*** I find the world itself far more interesting and bizarre than anything I've seen painted. Therefore, I love photography because I can find those small moments in space and time where everything comes together, including serendipidous events, to make "reality" unreal. I truly love examining the visual flotsam and jetsam created by humans. Telephone poles, train tracks, jet trails, roads, fences...any and all of the "visual interruptions" so unnaturally placed - can't get enough.
Ones, when I was young and clean, I was in love and did a wonderful collection of very fine works about the girl. I took that collection so seriously that I temporary stopped notice the girl with all ner needs. So, where it the Reality and where is fiction when you're talking about the sick male brain?
*** Self-limitation by self definition. Photography can be whatever you want it to be. Real, unreal, surreal, abstract,...it's up to you - hell, paint ON the photograph if you like painting.
Sounds to me like the Army's propaganda. :-)
*** You have to use and control the tools & processes in any art form to create the image you want - that's the challenge. If you feel process-limited, then don't blame the art form, look at yourself. If you still feel you are limited, then change your mode of expression through something you are more in tune with - but, don't blame the medium.
I always looked at myself and as any normal egotistic Cat I’m not looking for the opportunities or methods but for the benefits. I would like to remind you that the “process-limited status” could be applied to a coordinate system of the demands. Perhaps this is why you never have seen in the bookstores a book with a title “World Creating for Dummies”.
*** Picasso started as a spectacular realistic painter. After seeing his first photograph he declared that painting was dead - and then went on to expand and explore new methods of expression in painting for the rest of his life - partially spurred on by the photographic challenge to painting's ability to minutely render reality. In the '70's and 80's, photo-realistic painting appeared to challenge photography again...and the circle was complete.
…and pay attention that all Picasso’s works are eventually b/w even if he used colors.
*** Finally, I really don't think of photography as "art." It's really more of a sport.
I have detected it. The world divided by pursuing spirit and the billable hours. As a “billable hour’s sport” photography is dead. As a “process for process” photography is as interesting as any other masturbativ actively.
Regards,
Romy the Cat
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
