Yes, that's all well and good. And two years ago, I would have made the same arguments. But today I can't find ANYONE who's livelihood depends on photography who's not shooting digital. I'm sure there are some out there. But of the hundreds of portfolios I've reviewed this year, I haven't seen one. You can expound endlessly on the art of Adams and Weston and the beauty of large format silver prints. But when you talk about what's the most reliable path to good work for the average photographer, it isn't film. If you haven't seen great BW digital prints, you really haven't been getting out to the galleries. The evidence is on the wall.
> Hi Bill ... > > I was wondering when someone was going to make that point. Being a "pro" > doesn't always mean anything more than being able to sell your work, to > have a market for it. Those who say that it must be good because it's done > by a pro are laboring under a misconception. That's not to say a lot of > pros don't do good, or even great, work. It depends, I think, on their > field and where their work is marketed. A pro newspaper photographer has > an entirely different agenda than a pro advertising photographer or a pro > fine arts photog, and so on. > Because a pro uses a digital camera for his or her work doesn't mean it's > the right piece of gear for a pro in a different field or for the serious > and skilled amateur. There are lots of pros out there using film, but > their market doesn't dictate a need for digital. > > As for quality, I do believe there are absolute benchmarks for it, but what > is acceptable, or even good or great quality, in one field may not cut it > in another. When I talk about quality B&W work I am describing exhibition > quality prints made to a very high - perhaps even the highest - standard, > which is not often seen these days. > > I know a very well known pro - you'd know him and his work in a heartbeat - > who was made famous by his photographs as were his subjects. He has many > well known magazine covers and stories to his credit. His work, from the > POV of quality prints, is at best mediocre. He was great at making a > personal connection with his subjects, getting acceptable quality work to > the magazine on time, and coming up with interesting and sometimes intimate > images. They were not high quality images, though. One of his most well > known covers was 60% blown out highlights, but that worked for the magazine > because that's where they put the copy. OTOH, you won't find that image > hung next to a Weston print (any Weston) or an Ansel Adams print, just as > you probably wouldn't find their prints hanging in the pop culture section > of the museum. > > So, when someone tells me that they are doing GREAT B&W work with a digital > workflow, I want to see it, and put it next to a print of a known quality. > I just have not seen the depth of tone, the deepest blacks, the most subtle > gradations, the finest of detail, in digi prints. Are such prints out > there? maybe. But I've not seen 'em. Show me an Adams quality print, or > a WES quality print, done digitally, and I'll shut up, eat my words, sell > my film gear, and buy a new Hasselblad medium format digital camera. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Probably because the work is good enough to keep the clients happy. > > Without wanting to step on anyone's toes, quite often the pro boys > > aren't doing the best work out there. It's the knowedgable and > > skilled amateurs who are the benchmarks. > > > > William Robb > > > >
