Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[Anthony Farr]

>
> I can't believe someone who claims have three decades of IT experience could
> be so technically challenged.
>

His IT experience is in sales and marketing.  IOW he's a professioinal
bullshitter.

regards, Anthony

   "Of what use is lens and light
to those who lack in mind and sight"
   (Anon)



On 2 April 2010 06:43, P. J. Alling  wrote:
> On 4/1/2010 10:23 AM, William Robb wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: Digital
>> Photography School K-x "Review"
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://goo.gl/3yFn
>>
>> How could anyone be dumber than Ken Rockwell?
>>
>>
>> I thought the same thing myself, but the proof is there.
>>
>> William Robb
>>
>
> I can't believe someone who claims have three decades of IT experience could
> be so technically challenged.
>
> --
> {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0
> Courier New;}}
> \viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
> interface subtly weird.\par
> }
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[John Sessoms]

From: David J Brooks

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Charles Robinson  wrote:

> On Apr 1, 2010, at 10:23, William Robb wrote:

>>
>> How could anyone be dumber than Ken Rockwell?
>>
>>
>> I thought the same thing myself, but the proof is there.
>>

>
> I especially liked: "These are 100% crops, reduced a little to fit here."
>
> ?-Charles


Or the one i liked." Lent my cable to a friend and have no way of
pulling the photos off the camera."
Hum, card reader.??


Maybe her card reader won't read SDHC cards. I had to get a new reader 
when I started using 4 GB cards.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[David J Brooks]

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Charles Robinson  wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2010, at 10:23, William Robb wrote:
>>
>> How could anyone be dumber than Ken Rockwell?
>>
>>
>> I thought the same thing myself, but the proof is there.
>>
>
> I especially liked: "These are 100% crops, reduced a little to fit here."
>
>  -Charles

Or the one i liked." Lent my cable to a friend and have no way of
pulling the photos off the camera."
Hum, card reader.??

Dave
>
> --
> Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
> Minneapolis, MN
> http://charles.robinsontwins.org
> http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[Jack Davis]

Called "Groundhog IT."

Jack

--- On Thu, 4/1/10, Doug Franklin  wrote:

> From: Doug Franklin 
> Subject: Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010, 1:09 PM
> On 2010-04-01 15:43, P. J. Alling
> wrote:
> 
> > I can't believe someone who claims have three decades
> of IT experience
> > could be so technically challenged.
> 
> Classic problem ... he doesn't have three decades of IT
> experience, he has one year of IT experience thirty times.
> 
> -- Thanks,
> DougF (KG4LMZ)
> 
> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.
> 


  

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[Doug Franklin]

On 2010-04-01 15:43, P. J. Alling wrote:


I can't believe someone who claims have three decades of IT experience
could be so technically challenged.


Classic problem ... he doesn't have three decades of IT experience, he 
has one year of IT experience thirty times.


--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[Charles Robinson]

On Apr 1, 2010, at 10:23, William Robb wrote:
> 
> How could anyone be dumber than Ken Rockwell?
> 
> 
> I thought the same thing myself, but the proof is there.
> 

I especially liked: "These are 100% crops, reduced a little to fit here."

 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[P. J. Alling]

On 4/1/2010 10:23 AM, William Robb wrote:


- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: Digital 
Photography School K-x "Review"







http://goo.gl/3yFn


How could anyone be dumber than Ken Rockwell?


I thought the same thing myself, but the proof is there.

William Robb



I can't believe someone who claims have three decades of IT experience 
could be so technically challenged.


--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[Miserere]

I left a pretty harsh comment on that page. A choice quote from the
review, talking about comparing high ISO images from the Nikon D40 and
the K-x:

"To make them the same size, I reduced the K-x shot by 50% (12mp vs 6
mp) which actually makes it look better. I have no idea how this can
be, but I can only tell it as it is."

Clearly this person should not be let loose on a camera review site.

On my website I have part 1 of a 3-part review of the K-x:

http://enticingthelight.com/2010/03/22/review-pentax-k-x-part-1-first-look/

It's being written by my collaborator, a wedding photographer who
bought the K-x for low-light church shooting. He's been gushing about
it for the last 2 weeks and has sent me some comparison shots with the
K20D that show the K-x to be noticeable superior at high ISO in low
light.

Cheers,


  --M.


-- 

http://EnticingTheLight.com
A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment



On 1 April 2010 10:24, Perry Pellechia  wrote:
> I quote one of the comments:
> "The moral of the story is ‘if you look hard enough on the internet
> you’re bound to find someone even dumber than Ken Rockwell’."
>
>
> http://goo.gl/3yFn
>
>
> <>
> Perry Pellechia
> Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry
> <>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[John Sessoms]

M ... I think this reviewer is a fool no matter what the month.

From: Jack Davis
APRIL FOOL..right? 

Jack 


--- On Thu, 4/1/10, Perry Pellechia wrote:

I quote one of the comments: "The moral of the story is ?if you look 
hard enough on the internet you?re bound to find someone even dumber

than Ken Rockwell?."


http://goo.gl/3yFn





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "P. J. Alling" 
Subject: Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"







http://goo.gl/3yFn


How could anyone be dumber than Ken Rockwell?


I thought the same thing myself, but the proof is there.

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[P. J. Alling]

On 4/1/2010 9:24 AM, Perry Pellechia wrote:

I quote one of the comments:
"The moral of the story is ‘if you look hard enough on the internet
you’re bound to find someone even dumber than Ken Rockwell’."


http://goo.gl/3yFn


<>
Perry Pellechia
Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry
<>

   

How could anyone be dumber than Ken Rockwell?


--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier 
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the 
interface subtly weird.\par
}


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[Perry Pellechia]

I do not think they are that clever on that web site.


On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Jack Davis  wrote:
> APRIL FOOL..right?
>
> Jack
>
> --- On Thu, 4/1/10, Perry Pellechia  wrote:
>
>> From: Perry Pellechia 
>> Subject: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>> Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010, 7:24 AM
>> I quote one of the comments:
>> "The moral of the story is ‘if you look hard enough on
>> the internet
>> you’re bound to find someone even dumber than Ken
>> Rockwell’."
>>
>>
>> http://goo.gl/3yFn
>>
>>
>> <>
>> Perry Pellechia
>> Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry
>> <>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
>> directly above and follow the directions.
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"

[Jack Davis]

APRIL FOOL..right?

Jack

--- On Thu, 4/1/10, Perry Pellechia  wrote:

> From: Perry Pellechia 
> Subject: Digital Photography School K-x "Review"
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Date: Thursday, April 1, 2010, 7:24 AM
> I quote one of the comments:
> "The moral of the story is ‘if you look hard enough on
> the internet
> you’re bound to find someone even dumber than Ken
> Rockwell’."
> 
> 
> http://goo.gl/3yFn
> 
> 
> <>
> Perry Pellechia
> Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry
> <>
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.
> 


  

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography 101

[Stan Halpin]

Don't remember where I saw it, might have been a magazine, might have  
been a link posted here. But there was a wonderful pair of shots. One  
was a herd of photographers clustered together all taking the classic  
postcard shot of Jenny Lake IIRC in early morning. The other shot was  
90°-180° different direction with a much better, more interesting and  
unique shot. (But obviously also forgettable because I have forgotten  
it. Oh well.) The point illustrated was the need to look away from  
the obvious to see the full potential of a given spot.


On  a race track Doug I would probably spend more time turned around  
taking shots of the crowd than I would of the race-car action. I  
don't care for the "herd" mentality either.


stan

On May 5, 2009, at 12:04 PM, frank theriault wrote:

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Scott Loveless  
 wrote:

http://tofuttibreak.tumblr.com/post/93230658

--
Scott Loveless
Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/


That's why I don't like shooting with other photographers.

Funny shot!

cheers,
frank

-


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography 101

[P. J. Alling]

If it were Johnson, the weapon of choice would be a somewhat higher 
caliber, say .45°...


Christian wrote:

Scott Loveless wrote:

http://tofuttibreak.tumblr.com/post/93230658



One of them looks strangely like Mike Johnston.




--
Always read something that will make you look good if you die in the middle of 
it.
-- P. J. O'Rourke


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography 101

[Doug Franklin]

frank theriault wrote:

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Scott Loveless  wrote:

http://tofuttibreak.tumblr.com/post/93230658



That's why I don't like shooting with other photographers.


You see a lot of the same sort of "herd mentality" at work among the pro 
photogs at the auto races, too.  It's both sad and funny, in a way.  For 
example, at the beginning of the 2005 Petit le Mans, there was a huge 
accident in the first corner.  About fifty or sixty pro photogs were 
standing in a herd all getting the same shots of the wreck from the same 
position.  I was about 25 meters to their left, and I got better shots 
of the wreck as it developed than any I've seen in a publication or on a 
web site (I've shown them here before, but it was a while ago).  Too bad 
I didn't have any contacts to sell them (and still don't). :-(


If you're interested, there's still a page up with web-sized shots and a 
narrative:   Click on the 
photos to see the web-size versions.


Somewhere, I've got photos of "herds" of pro photogs at other places 
around Road Atlanta, too.  There are several spots that draw them like 
cows to a salt lick.


--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography 101

[Christian]

Scott Loveless wrote:

http://tofuttibreak.tumblr.com/post/93230658



One of them looks strangely like Mike Johnston.

--

Christian
http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com/

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography 101

[frank theriault]

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Scott Loveless  wrote:
> http://tofuttibreak.tumblr.com/post/93230658
>
> --
> Scott Loveless
> Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008
> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/

That's why I don't like shooting with other photographers.

Funny shot!

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Digital Photography

[Peter Alling]

Well, at least it makes me smile.

At 09:40 PM 2/4/04, you wrote:
Shel,

If my kids won't make you smile, nothing will:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1106077&size=lg

  See?  I bet you're smiling...

-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The 
pessimist fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Show me some soul, some heart, something
to make me smile ...
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan  

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

Actually, what I was saying had nothing to do with digital,
per se.  What I said was that over the past few years, with
the advent of media needing more pictures faster, the spread
of images on the web which can be posted by anyone with any
type of equipment at any level of skill, the overall quality
of photographs has dropped.  It's not JUST with digital
cameras, but, since their use is expanding exponentially,
and we perhaps get to see more digitally created images, the
use of digital cameras has to be considered a contributing
factor.  Since I can now place my photos on the web for
anyone to see, their presence also contributes to the
overall quality of photography, good or bad. It didn't used
to do that outside of a small local area where I may have
had a show.  Now more people can see my work - your work -
in a matter of minutes than might have seen it in weeks of
an exhibition.  And the damned photos are viewed at a 600 x
400 pixel size that does nothing to show their true quality,
good or bad.

Now, since most people have never seen exhibition quality
prints, B&W or color, film or digital, their points of
reference becomes the overall lower quality of images that
flood the world today.  Those lower quality images become
the standard by which other images are judged by most
average people.  That's the standard that they strive for
because they know no better.  Their exposure to photography
has been through lower quality images - those posted to the 
web, printed in magazines and books, on television and in 
newspapers.

In a way it's like food: most people in the US today have
never eaten absolutely fresh fruit, fruit picked that
morning and eaten within hours.  So, for most people, fresh
strawberries are judged by older, chemically treated
berries, maybe even berries from another country.  Until
those people eat a truly fresh berry, grown in rich, fertile
soil, they will never know what they are missing.

Recently I had a brief discussion with a picture editor.  He
said, quite candidly, that he doesn't have time to really
look at a picture ... he makes his assessment on an
immediate
impression.  And while that's understandable, some photos
that have a lot of content, that are designed to have some
emotional impact and to tell a story, get overlooked and
passed by because they are, in the editor's words, "too
subtle to make an impact."

We live in a fast world, a world of supersaturated images
(just look at the prevalence of highly saturated films that
are so frequently used), loud movies, lots of background
noise ... all of that must be somehow overcome if one is to
be heard.  Bigger, brasher, louder is not better.  Details
are lost in the fury.

This list has about 600 members.  We are all photographers
to some degree.  However, I'm willing to bet lunch that the
majority of the list members have NEVER seen the kinds of
photographs I'm describing ... of course, how many of the
600 will step forward to admit that.

What I read on this list a lot is that the photos the
members make are "good enough" or "acceptable" for their
needs.  There's nothing wrong with that ... it's just a
shame that so few people today have the desire or the time
to produce something great.  To work, perhaps, a week or
more on a photograph until it's perfect, until it sings and
leaps off the paper.  Good enough is, obviously, good
enough.

And every person that has said their work is "good enough"
makes my point.  Not that it's wrong to make average quality
prints for viewing in average situations, but because
average has become something for many people to aspire to
because they don't know any better.

Now, if you digital divas want to say that I'm condemning
digital, go ahead.  Enjoy your little fantasy that I'm a
blowhard and am down on digital cameras.  I'm down on
mediocrity ... and if your digital work is mediocre, and
you don't aspire to making better quality images or photos,
if all you want to do is talk about the technical stuff that
goes on inside a camera or resides hidden in software
instead of talking about and trying to make great
photographs, so be it.  

Ciao 4 now

graywolf wrote:
> 
> Shel, does not say you can not take good photos with a digital camera,
> he says the percentage of those who do is going down. That is true on the face
> of it. "I like my digital camera", is far different from, "You should throw away
> your film and go digital like I did", which is what you some others seem to be
> preaching.

Re: Digital Photography

[Herb Chong]

your memory is bad, i have been shooting as much digital as the technology
allowed for 6, almost 7 years now. i have zero regrets on shooting as much
digital as possible. i think Shel's blaming digital and the forward march of
technology for his problems is childish.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> The funny thing is I remember you and most of them as the loudest, "I
> will never go digital" folks on the list at one time. But in a way I am
glad,
> because your and their idiocy has driven me seriously back to the Graphic
which
> had been used mostly as a joke until I started reacting to the "Digital
Ober
> All" nonsense. Now I am having more fun, and it only takes a couple of
images a
> week to do it.

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

Well, shell, is right. When there was only one camera in the world and only one 
person who knew how to use it there was a purity of expression that could not be 
denied. Once there was two of each that purity was diluted 50%. When there were 
a million it was diluted a million fold. With each generation of "its easier", 
the percentage of dedicated practitioners has been reduced, and the percentage 
of dilettante has increased. You seem to be the one who has to defend his 
position fervently. Feeling insecure about going digital? Need to justify the 
expense? Shel, does not say you can not take good photos with a digital camera, 
he says the percentage of those who do is going down. That is true on the face 
of it. "I like my digital camera", is far different from, "You should throw away 
your film and go digital like I did", which is what you some others seem to be 
preaching. The funny thing is I remember you and most of them as the loudest, "I 
will never go digital" folks on the list at one time. But in a way I am glad, 
because your and their idiocy has driven me seriously back to the Graphic which 
had been used mostly as a joke until I started reacting to the "Digital Ober 
All" nonsense. Now I am having more fun, and it only takes a couple of images a 
week to do it.

Where did you ever get the idea, Herb, that your way is "The One True Way"?

--

Herb Chong wrote:

which, since it's just a camera, leaves your complaints at "it was better in
the good old days".
Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography



It's a friggin' camera, Herb.  It produces what you can make
it produce.




--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Digital Photography

[Peter Alling]

Now that was uncalled for, (but funny, in a bizarre, sick sort of way...).

At 06:53 PM 2/4/04, you wrote:
On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5
>minutes trying to work out what you guys meant...
>
>I just about fell off my chair when it hit me...
>
>That was totally NOT what I was going for with that comment, you guys are
>feral!
That simply isn't true. I've never been into toilet slavery.

LOL



Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan  

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

Why, Herb ... they're the greatest advance in photography
since the Polaroid, surpassing film by degrees.  They
produce wonderful results in the hands of a creative soul
... 

or ... 

they're the biggest piece of shit to come down the pike
since the camera obscura, and in the hands of some soulless
techno maven produce nothing but mediocre images that need
to be manipulated heavily in Photoshop to make even a
passable image.

It's a friggin' camera, Herb.  It produces what you can make
it produce.

Herb Chong wrote:
> 
> alright, what do they produce?
> 
> Herb...
> - Original Message -
> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Digital Photography
> 
> > Hey, Herb, I NEVER said that digital cameras produced crap.
> > Read my comments to graywolf in a bit.

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

Well, it did make me smile ... mainly because the EXIF data
were missing 

It's kinda cool the way the noses are ...

shel

frank theriault wrote:
> 
> Shel,
> 
> If my kids won't make you smile, nothing will:
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1106077&size=lg
> 
>   See?  I bet you're smiling...

Re: Digital Photography

[frank theriault]

Shel,

If my kids won't make you smile, nothing will:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1106077&size=lg

  See?  I bet you're smiling...

-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Show me some soul, some heart, something
to make me smile ...
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

Re: Digital Photography

[frank theriault]

Herb,

What's this "film guys" stuff?

Geez, aren't we all here taking photographs?

I can't throw numbers around.  I have no idea how many stops of dynamic 
range my favourite films have;  not because I'm stupid, but because I don't 
give a shit.

I take photographs.  Either they work, or they don't.  Isn't that what it's 
about?

I think the problem with this thread (or maybe the problem with digital?) is 
that one tends to get lost in the technology.  At least I think I would.  
That's kind of the problem that I have with AF AE cameras, too.  In order to 
"make things simpler", they've added so many freaking thumbwheels, buttons, 
switches, displays and "control surfaces/interfaces" on the bodies, it's a 
wonder anyone can figure out how to turn them on, let alone take a photo 
with them!

As someone said earlier, we're basically dealing with focus, aperture and 
shutter speed.  Everything else gets in the way, at least for me.

Am I saying digital's bad?  Of course not!  Is it better than film?  I have 
no idea.  Does film produce results that satisfy me?  Much of the time.  
Would I do better with digital?  I don't know for sure, but I doubt it.

OTOH, maybe for others, doing different types of photography, digital's much 
more appropriate.  But, please, let's not get into a "film guy (or gal) vs. 
the digi-guys (and gals).  No good can come of that, IMHO.

regards,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Digital Photography
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:02:04 -0500
i have some examples (not taken with my *istD) where i have pulled about 6
stops more range out of a single image than the unmodified image was
showing. blending together a sequence of 6 exposures, each 1 stop apart,
shows about the same contrast as the manipulated single image. the color
isn't as good in the shadows as blending 6 exposures, but not bad. i'd like
to see the film guys try getting 10 or so stops of dynamic range onto any
single exposure with good contrast. a digital sensor with 12 bits/pixel is
by definition able to record 12 stops of dynamic range. the deepest shadows
are not going to be great, but not great is better than not at all.
_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca

Re: Digital Photography

[John Francis]

> 
> But the digital camera fanatics, instead of seeing the
> thread as a discussion about PHOTOGRAPHY, and the
> desire/need (real or perceived) for more images delivered
> faster, and reducing the quality of photographs, saw it as
> an attack on their precious pixels.


Perhaps that's because you aimed your criticisms at digital
photography, not at 21st-century photography.

Not that aiming at 21st-century photography would have been
any more accurate, either - the same old arguments have been
levelled at 35mm vs. medium format, roll film vs. sheet film,
and probably at sheet film vs. wet plates.

Re: Digital Photography

[Herb Chong]

the missing step is that i can go to 20 stops if i wanted to with what Rob
and i do, and in color. the practical limit is my patience.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> Almost any standard B&W negative film will record 10 stops, that is where
AA got
> the 10 zones in the zone system from.

Re: Digital Photography

[Herb Chong]

capture on film is what i am talking about. in B&W printing, you can change
the paper contrast or use multiple contrast filters and exposures if you are
using such so that the highlights and shadows you captured still print. yes,
it's only about 7 stops range that will show up on the print as you compress
it. the characteristic curves for traditional B&W film that i have looked at
reach only about 10 stops with normal development in something like
D-76/ID-11.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> Use chromogentic B&W film. 15 stops is pretty normal. What I want to see
is a
> print that can show it. AFAIK, B&W is still limited to about 7 stops, and
color
> to about 5. Of course if you are talking about compressing those 10 stops
down
> to 5 you are saying something different than you seem to think you are
saying,
> as that is easy to do with traditional photo techniques.

Re: Digital Photography

[John Francis]

> 
> if we follow Shel's line of reasoning to completion, taking away all of his
> film bodies and making him use an *istD for a week will result in him
> turning out pure and only pure garbage because it's the camera's fault.

Actually just about all of Shel's arguments against digital are nothing
more than a rehash of the old sheet film vs. roll film bickering.

Re: Digital Photography

[Norm Baugher]

I was actually being facetious... 
Norm
graywolf wrote:

Almost any standard B&W negative film will record 10 stops, that is 
where AA got the 10 zones in the zone system from.

--

Norm Baugher wrote:

What's the range of B&W?
Norm
Herb Chong wrote:

 i'd like to see the film guys try getting 10 or so stops of 
dynamic range onto any
single exposure with good contrast 

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

Almost any standard B&W negative film will record 10 stops, that is where AA got 
the 10 zones in the zone system from.

--

Norm Baugher wrote:

What's the range of B&W?
Norm
Herb Chong wrote:

 i'd like to see the film guys try getting 10 or so stops of 
dynamic range onto any
single exposure with good contrast 



--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Digital Photography

[Bill Owens]

Overall, mine are much better.  Especially the indoor shots with ambient
light due the ability to adjust the white balance to the current lighting
conditions.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> i seriously doubt any *istD owner here on PDML thinks they are getting
fewer
> good pictures than they were with their film cameras. if anything, the
> majority report more and better pictures.
>

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

Use chromogentic B&W film. 15 stops is pretty normal. What I want to see is a 
print that can show it. AFAIK, B&W is still limited to about 7 stops, and color 
to about 5. Of course if you are talking about compressing those 10 stops down 
to 5 you are saying something different than you seem to think you are saying, 
as that is easy to do with traditional photo techniques.

--

Herb Chong wrote:

i have some examples (not taken with my *istD) where i have pulled about 6
stops more range out of a single image than the unmodified image was
showing. blending together a sequence of 6 exposures, each 1 stop apart,
shows about the same contrast as the manipulated single image. the color
isn't as good in the shadows as blending 6 exposures, but not bad. i'd like
to see the film guys try getting 10 or so stops of dynamic range onto any
single exposure with good contrast. a digital sensor with 12 bits/pixel is
by definition able to record 12 stops of dynamic range. the deepest shadows
are not going to be great, but not great is better than not at all.
Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography



Seriously the advent of digital capture has spurned on the imaging
software

developers to produce a whole array of tools that weren't available in the
past. One type of which are the extended contrast tools which create HDR
images. Using this technology often an image can be shot which would have
been

impossible using film due to extremes of contrast. There are some
occasions

where the light will never be "right", this technology (which obviously
can now

be used to extend and compress the contrast range of digitized film
images)

provides a whole new set of opportunities to the thinking photographer.




--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Digital Photography

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Norm Baugher" 
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> What's the range of B&W?
> Norm
>

8 to ten stops easily, 10-15 stops if you really try hard.

William Robb

Re: Digital Photography

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Ok, so now I truly have NO IDEA what you are talking about...

*eek* and I'm not exactly sure if I really want to know?!?!

tan.

Cotty said:

> That simply isn't true. I've never been into toilet slavery.
> 
> LOL
> 

Re: Digital Photography

[Herb Chong]

a restatement of my previous pithy remark - the ones that complain the most
are the ones that don't have one.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> I've enjoyed the discourse on the matter, however it seems peculiar that
the
> listers arguing so vehemently against digital image capture don't own
DSLRs
> (digi-p&s don't count). :-)

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

Aw, come on, Cotty. You are a video cameraman. That means you smell bad, and 
have hypertrophied musles in you right shoulder. Paint with light! Indeed!

(OK, so it isn't a one liner)

--

Cotty wrote:

On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:


Hey! I asked for straight lines, not competition! 


I don't take snaps, I paint with light!

Really.



Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Digital Photography

[Herb Chong]

if we follow Shel's line of reasoning to completion, taking away all of his
film bodies and making him use an *istD for a week will result in him
turning out pure and only pure garbage because it's the camera's fault.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> Apparently, from comments on this list, when you buy a DSLR you lose
whatever
> common sense you had.
>
> Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one liners.

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

You forget that a few years back when all you guys were saying digital was not 
worth the money, I was saying your are full of crap. Now that you are converted 
I have to defend the other side. The recently converted are always such 
unthinking fanatics.

If I went back into commercial photography, I would go digital to do otherwise 
would be stupid and suicidal, as you well know. But, as a hobby, I have gone 
backwards prefering the old ways.

My post was not intended specifically to you but to the wider audiance of the 
list, you just provided a point to start from, Rob.

Landscapes? Why I don't know, Rob. I think that the proper way to do landscapes 
is to find a view. Then you set up the camera for the shot. They you wait until 
the light is right. Somehow, I do not see the need to shoot a thousand frames to 
get it. I mean 90% of the serious landscape photographers still use a view camera.

--

Rob Studdert wrote:



I think if you actually owned one you'd find it a little more capable that you 
expect, of course there are things that it can't do but hey all media has it's 
limitations, you've just got to learn what they are (which is difficult if you 
don't own one).

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Digital Photography

[Cotty]

On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>> Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5
>> minutes trying to work out what you guys meant... 
>> I just about fell off my chair when it hit me...
>
>   I plead innocence! - I was just seeing if I could twist
>   the thread back to the one a while back about the global
>   warming/impending ice age boogieman. 
>   ... and, of course, try to blame it all on the ease of digital
>   photography.
>
>   (pure as the driven snow) Bill !8^D

It was him, Miss, honest. He started it Miss.



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

The interesting thing is if you do your own settings, so you know what you did 
rather than having to look up what the camera did, you get to the point you do 
not need that technical data. "In that light I probably used f2.8 at a 30th with 
that film, and it looks like I used the 90mm lens." In other words you know what 
you are doing, so it is easy to do it backwards and know what you did.

But on the other hand, most of the pro-digital folks here are sounding like a 
bunch of artists I know, "I'm an artist, I don't care about all that technical 
stuff". Trial and error are less work than gaining a sound knowlege of the 
technology, and now you don't even have to pay for the waste. Great! A new 
generation of digital-artists.

To me a "photographer" is someone who is skilled in the craft of photography. It 
does not really matter whether he is doing digital photography, or chemical 
photography, but if he is not skilled in his craft he can hardly call himself a 
photographer. Picture taker? Maybe. Snapshooter? Yes.

I kind of like the observation we keep hearing that HCB did not do his own lab 
work. No one, that I know of, has asked the questions, did he know how, could he 
have done it if he chose to? I will bet the answer to them is yes. I mean, if 
you don't know how it's done, how can you direct the lab person?

--

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Technical data doesn't make a strong image.

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:

I totall agree Rob...

plus it records all the technical shooting
data for review after the fact."



--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

RE: Digital Photography

[Len Paris]

Yes!  The exact words years ago (before digital anything) were, "Film is
the cheapest thing in photography."  You were supposed to shoot, shoot,
shoot! 

Len
 * There's no place like 127.0.0.1
 

> I totall agree Rob...
> 
> Rob Studdert noted:">Isn't the first advice that any 
> photographer gets is to
> shoot then shoot some more? The way I see it is that digital 
> makes this easy
> given that there is no film costs plus it records all the 
> technical shooting
> data for review after the fact."
> 
> 
> tan.
> 

Re: Digital Photography

[Cotty]

On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5
>minutes trying to work out what you guys meant...
>
>I just about fell off my chair when it hit me...
>
>That was totally NOT what I was going for with that comment, you guys are
>feral!

That simply isn't true. I've never been into toilet slavery.

LOL




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: Digital Photography

[Cotty]

On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>Hey! I asked for straight lines, not competition! 

I don't take snaps, I paint with light!

Really.



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: Digital Photography

[Rob Studdert]

On 4 Feb 2004 at 18:13, graywolf wrote:

> Well, I find it peculiar, that all you anti-film folks don't own a Speed 
> Graphic. Strangely, I find myself doing the same thing with photography that 
I 
> did with beer when I gave up drinking a lot, and instead began drinking an 
> occasional bottle of the good stuff. Doing less, enjoying it more.

I don't own a Speed Graphic but I do own a Bessa folder and two Mamiya 67 
bodies (and even an old Argus 6x6). I didn't say that film hasn't a place and I 
still very much enjoy and intend to continue making good use of film in those 
bodies.

> Personally, I find the whole process of (B&W) photography enjoyable. It does 
not 
> get in my way. I use the Graphic for fun, and processing the film, making 
> prints, etc. is an important part of it to me. From what I read here most of 
you 
> do not like photography. It is a bore, and a bother. I sometimes wonder, why 
not 
> hire someone to take pictures for you?

Who wrote that? I personally printed several 11x14" prints that I shot (and 
processed) with my lowly film gear pre-christmas, they are now adorning the 
recipients walls. I enjoyed the process, they enjoyed the prints.

> Digital seems to be the P&S dream, no need to feel guilty any longer about 
all 
> those prints you used to just throw away, just delete them. A DSLR and 
> landscapes? Sorry, I can not help sneering.

What's the problem with DSLRs and landscapes, tilt and shift?

> Even if someone gave me a DSLR, it would just replace the 35mm for snapshots, 
I 
> would still be shooting the Graphic for serious (fun) photography.

I think if you actually owned one you'd find it a little more capable that you 
expect, of course there are things that it can't do but hey all media has it's 
limitations, you've just got to learn what they are (which is difficult if you 
don't own one).

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Digital Photography

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

hehehe, you're forgiven Bill, now that I am officially corrupted from my
naivety... 

;-)

tan.

- Original Message - 
From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> Tanya wrote:
>
> > Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5
> > minutes trying to work out what you guys meant...
> > I just about fell off my chair when it hit me...
>
> I plead innocence! - I was just seeing if I could twist
> the thread back to the one a while back about the global
> warming/impending ice age boogieman.
> ... and, of course, try to blame it all on the ease of digital
> photography.
>
> (pure as the driven snow) Bill !8^D
>
> -
> Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast
>
> http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
>

Re: Digital Photography

[John Francis]

> 
> graywolf wrote:
>  
> > Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one liners.
> 
>   Photography is all about light. What makes you think 
>   that you can learn more from firmware than film?


What makes you think you can learn more about light from film
than from a device that measures light directly?

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

Well, I find it peculiar, that all you anti-film folks don't own a Speed 
Graphic. Strangely, I find myself doing the same thing with photography that I 
did with beer when I gave up drinking a lot, and instead began drinking an 
occasional bottle of the good stuff. Doing less, enjoying it more.

Personally, I find the whole process of (B&W) photography enjoyable. It does not 
get in my way. I use the Graphic for fun, and processing the film, making 
prints, etc. is an important part of it to me. From what I read here most of you 
do not like photography. It is a bore, and a bother. I sometimes wonder, why not 
hire someone to take pictures for you?

Digital seems to be the P&S dream, no need to feel guilty any longer about all 
those prints you used to just throw away, just delete them. A DSLR and 
landscapes? Sorry, I can not help sneering.

I just stuck all the 4x6 prints that were laying about, at least the ones I 
found so far, into some albums. Doing that, I saw that the real reason for me to 
want to go digital is the lousy printing the mini-labs do. About 1/2 of those 
snapshot prints were unacceptable. How they can get good prints from some shots 
on a roll, and bad ones from others when they were all shot in the same light at 
the same settings is beyond my understanding. Automatic machinery run by idiots 
is my best guess. About 10% are bad because I was not paying attention to what I 
was doing. Suffering from autocamitus, I guess.

Even if someone gave me a DSLR, it would just replace the 35mm for snapshots, I 
would still be shooting the Graphic for serious (fun) photography.

--

Rob Studdert wrote:
On 4 Feb 2004 at 14:11, Robert Gonzalez wrote:


I agree wholeheartedly.  And I'm still trying to get used to the idea 
that I can take as many pictures as I want and not have to worry about 
the cost.  But when I remember, I shoot, check exposure, look at the 
composition, re-compose, re-shoot, experiment, etc.  Then I get very 
quick feedback that would have taken a week previously.  Its a marvelous 
teaching tool.


I've enjoyed the discourse on the matter, however it seems peculiar that the 
listers arguing so vehemently against digital image capture don't own DSLRs 
(digi-p&s don't count). :-)

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Digital Photography

[Bill D. Casselberry]

Norm Baugher wrote:
 
> We're not buying it Bill...

I might have been fudging a teeny bit on the snow part

!8^) Bill

-
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast

http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-

Re: Digital Photography

[Norm Baugher]

We're not buying it Bill...
Norm
Bill D. Casselberry wrote:
Tanya wrote:

 

Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5
minutes trying to work out what you guys meant... 
I just about fell off my chair when it hit me...
   

	I plead innocence! - I was just seeing if I could twist
	the thread back to the one a while back about the global
	warming/impending ice age boogieman. 
	... and, of course, try to blame it all on the ease of digital
	photography.

	(pure as the driven snow) Bill !8^D 

   
 

Re: Digital Photography

[frank theriault]

Tom,

I've been reading this thread with great amusement.  I may just decide to 
wade in at some point.

You may get a few good one liners if I do...  

-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer




From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Digital Photography
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:27:41 -0500
The masses are no smarter or dumber than they have ever been, but they do 
have more money than they used to.

Aside to Tanya, just because it sells for lots of money does not mean it is 
good.

Both confidence men, and cops depend on people being dumber than you or I 
would believe possible to do their job.

If you want to be a great artist you have to be at least borderline insane.

A digital SLR does not take any better pictures than a 1903 box Brownie, 
but it is a lot more impressive to show your friends.

Apparently, from comments on this list, when you buy a DSLR you lose 
whatever common sense you had.

Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one liners.

_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Re: Digital Photography

[Bill D. Casselberry]

Tanya wrote:
 
> Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5
> minutes trying to work out what you guys meant... 
> I just about fell off my chair when it hit me...

I plead innocence! - I was just seeing if I could twist
the thread back to the one a while back about the global
warming/impending ice age boogieman. 
... and, of course, try to blame it all on the ease of digital
photography.

(pure as the driven snow) Bill !8^D 

-
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast

http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-

Re: Digital Photography

[Christian]

tv wrote about his foot picture:

>  and shot on velvia!

Oh!  Thank God!  I thought you had some serious illness.  It was just those
garish Velveeta colors (toe cheese?)

Christian

Re: Digital Photography

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Ok, so innocent, naive little Fairygirl has just sat here for a good 5
minutes trying to work out what you guys meant...

I just about fell off my chair when it hit me...

That was totally NOT what I was going for with that comment, you guys are
feral!

OMG, if I make it to GFM, it is going to be one very interesting couple of
days, and I fear that I will bear the brunt of many jokes at my expense...

LOL!!!

tan.  *who mutters under her breath... "Bloody men!"* hehehe


> On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> >Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
> >
> >> Bill, despite your cynicism the "grab" shots are often also the "money"
> >> shots...
>
>
>
> > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast wrote
>
> > ;^)
>
> Your mind is as filthy as mine Bill, LOL.
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> _
> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
>

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

Hey! I asked for straight lines, not competition! 

--

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

graywolf wrote:
 

Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one liners.


	Photography is all about light. What makes you think 
	that you can learn more from firmware than film?


--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Digital Photography

[Robert Gonzalez]

I agree wholeheartedly.  And I'm still trying to get used to the idea 
that I can take as many pictures as I want and not have to worry about 
the cost.  But when I remember, I shoot, check exposure, look at the 
composition, re-compose, re-shoot, experiment, etc.  Then I get very 
quick feedback that would have taken a week previously.  Its a marvelous 
teaching tool.

Rob Studdert wrote:
On 3 Feb 2004 at 16:50, Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Fun, Paul ... absolutely.  But will it do anything to
improve your photographs or make you a better photographer. 
I can do similar things with my hands but it won't make me a
better lover ;-))


I don't understand why there seems to be so many comments on the list 
suggesting that shooting digital cameras will likely not strengthen our skills 
as photographers? 

Isn't the first advice that any photographer gets is to shoot then shoot some 
more? The way I see it is that digital makes this easy given that there is no 
film costs plus it records all the technical shooting data for review after the 
fact.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: Digital Photography

[tom]

Hey, that pic is pin sharp, perfectly exposed, and shot on velvia!

tv 

> -Original Message-
> From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Digital Photography
> 
> Hey, you can't talk about TV like that .
> 
> --
> 
> Steve Desjardins wrote:
> 
>  > ...and an idiot will take underexposed blurry pictures of
> > his foot. 
> 
> --
> graywolf
> http://graywolfphoto.com
> 
> "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not 
> going to be able to change them anyway."
> 
> 
> 

Re: Digital Photography

[Steve Desjardins]

Light, it be light. The same light hits both cameras.  This debate is
about are emulsions and developers and sensors and curves.


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/04/04 02:42PM >>>
graywolf wrote:
 
> Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one
liners.

Photography is all about light. What makes you think 
that you can learn more from firmware than film?

Re: Digital Photography

[Steve Desjardins]

TV's picture was dead sharp and well exposed.  That was part of the
horror . . 


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/04/04 02:31PM >>>
Hey, you can't talk about TV like that .

--

Steve Desjardins wrote:

 > ...and an idiot will take underexposed blurry pictures of
> his foot. 

-- 
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com 

"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

graywolf wrote:
 
> Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one liners.

Photography is all about light. What makes you think 
that you can learn more from firmware than film?

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

Hey, you can't talk about TV like that .

--

Steve Desjardins wrote:

> ...and an idiot will take underexposed blurry pictures of
his foot. 
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

The masses are no smarter or dumber than they have ever been, but they do have 
more money than they used to.

Aside to Tanya, just because it sells for lots of money does not mean it is good.

Both confidence men, and cops depend on people being dumber than you or I would 
believe possible to do their job.

If you want to be a great artist you have to be at least borderline insane.

A digital SLR does not take any better pictures than a 1903 box Brownie, but it 
is a lot more impressive to show your friends.

Apparently, from comments on this list, when you buy a DSLR you lose whatever 
common sense you had.

Come on, dudes, give me some more straight lines for a pithy one liners.

--

Bruce Dayton wrote:
Not only has it resulted in mediocre photos, it has helped people to
learn to blame the equipment rather than themselves for the output.
It carries over into the segment that actually can create great
photos.  The prevailing opinion is that they must have a GREAT camera,
not that they are a GREAT photographer.  I believe that this attitude
and training (dumbing down) of the masses is eroding the pro
photographer's ability to earn a decent living.


--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: Digital Photography

[Cotty]

On 4/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
> 
>> Bill, despite your cynicism the "grab" shots are often also the "money"
>> shots...



> Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast wrote

>   ;^)  

Your mind is as filthy as mine Bill, LOL.


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: Digital Photography

[Bill D. Casselberry]

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
 
> Bill, despite your cynicism the "grab" shots are often also the "money"
> shots...

;^)  

-
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast

http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-

Re: Digital Photography

[graywolf]

Correct, Bucky. That comes from breaking it up into all those little squares. 

--

Bucky wrote:

No, sorry you are WRONG WRONG WRONG.  Digital cameras filter the soul right
out of the light.  PERIOD.

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 3-Feb-04 21:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Digital Photography
Photography isn't technical data, it is how light reflects off
of objects, it is shadows, and colours, and shapes.
Knowing what light does is the real mastery of photography.
What light does has nothing to do with cameras, really.




--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

RE: Digital Photography

[Malcolm Smith]

John Francis wrote:

> Nor, for that matter, does using film somehow make you more 
> of a real photographer than using digital.  It's not the 
> equipment - it's the eye behind the viewfinder, and the mind 
> behind the eye, that count.

I most certainly agree. 

Some people on this list - say Shel for candid shots and Frank (see below)
for reflections - show pictures which from the eye of the viewer have
dispensed with the camera at all; it's as though you were looking through
the eyes of the person who took the shot.

With me, it's always apparent there was a camera in-between the two. To be
able to use your camera as 'eyes' is the key - I'm still trying to achieve
that.

Malcolm

# Everyone praises Frank's ability for candid shots, which are good. Take
another look at his ability with use of reflections, we have seen this
recently with a building, a motorcycle engine cover and an old Jaguar car,
note the reflection from the bumper.

 

Re: Digital Photography

[John Francis]

> 
> One angle to consider is that the tools (cameras, etc) have become
> much better than in the past.  This means that more and more
> non-photographers are using the tools to turn out mediocre work.  In
> the past they would not have even bothered.  So the overall body of
> image quality would slowly go down hill a bit.  These same tools in the
> hands of a photographer who knows how to use them, can become much
> more powerful and enables them to make more great images in less time
> than in the past.

Precisely.  It's the inexorable march of progress.

There are many more bad drivers on the road today than there were 50
or 100 years ago.  But that doesn't mean the best drivers of today are
any worse than the best drivers of that period - it just means that
nowadays driving is a commodity experience, not a rare skill.

Similarly, there is an awful lot of really bad software being written
today.  But there is also some pretty good stuff - far more than there
was back in the days when software writing was a specialist discipline.

There are just as many (and probably more) good photographers today
than there were 25, 50, or 75 years ago, too.  It's just that there
are also many more mediocre photographers around now that photography
has become a mass market activity.

A good photographer will produce good images, no matter what tool he
(or she) elects to use.  Just because the 'non-photographers' pick a
digital camera to take their non-photographs does not mean that using
a digital camera automatically relegates your images to the scrapheap.

Nor, for that matter, does using film somehow make you more of a real
photographer than using digital.  It's not the equipment - it's the
eye behind the viewfinder, and the mind behind the eye, that count.

Re: Digital Photography

[John Francis]

Gee, I wonder why that would be?

If some people insist on belittling the equipment choice of others
(despite the fact that only recently, on this list, it was pointed
out that some of the most admired photographs are technically not
of the highest standard, and many are taken with inferior equipment)
then perhaps people would have good grounds for some animosity.

Equating digital cameras with crappy photography is just stupid.

 
> Gee, Bucky ... is there some personal animosity attached to
> that comment?
> 
> Bucky wrote:
> > 
> > Don't worry about it, Rob.  It's pretentious, self-important drivel spoken
> > entirely in Blowhardese.
> 

Re: Digital Photography

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Yes, but Shel, sometimes, when  you are following around a very stubborn
18mth old who refuses to co-operate, despite having a vision of how the shot
*should* look, you sometimes have to compromise AND sometimes, the
compromise is surprising in that the results are better than what you had
originally anticipated anyways... Or you'll be sitting at a wedding taking a
5 minute break and see a really great moment with the Groom and his new
Father in Law joking around, so you grab the camera quickly without too much
(conscious) thought and shoot off 6 or 7 frames in a couple of seconds,
knowing that it is a great moment and in the hope that just one of those
frames will capture exactly the right expression...

Of course, this is the case with film OR digital, but I can tell you that if
I'd climbed a 20,000ft high mountain and had two glass plates left to shoot
with (did anyone else watch that Ansel Adams docco?), I'd be considering the
shot MUCH more carefully than if I were sitting at a kids birthday party
shooting candids with a digital camera in my hand...

tan.

> Sheesh, tanya ... perhaps one might do well to think about
> every shot, regardless of haw many frames are left.  When
> you reach a certain level in any art or sport, the thinking
> becomes automatic, transparent ... the photography just
> happens, and all the technical stuff needn't be given any
> time consuming thought.  It's like muscle memory.
>
> And this is true for 35mm photography as well as larger
> formats.
>
> shel
>
> Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
> >
> > I think that for the
> > likes of Ansel Adams etc, if you are shooting with glass plates, medium
> > format etc, and you only have one or two frames left, you are really
FORCED
> > to THINK about what you are going to put into the photograph.  You would
> > probably spend much more side on the technical stuff to ensure that it
is
> > JUST right, iykwim, so that you don't, in effect, waste an
opportunity...
>

Re: Digital Photography

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Shel, I wasn't referring to myself!  However, I have noticed that I *could*
become lazy or complacent if I let myself...

I don't though (get lazy), I have too much pride in my work.  However, I am
sure that there are many "pros" around who focus on the money much more than
I do, and to whom don't put as much heart into their work as most of us
around here too.  To them, photography isn't so much a passion as it is an
income...

tan.

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> I certainly hope that you don't "hope that the general rules
> of probability would allow you to get 'the' shot at some
> time..."  IMO, a photographer should know what he or she is
> doing, and know how and where and when to press the button.
>
> Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
>
> > With digital you probably tend to shoot a little more frivolously in the
> > hope that the general rules of probability would allow you to get "the"
shot
> > at some time...
>

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

I certainly hope that you don't "hope that the general rules
of probability would allow you to get 'the' shot at some
time..."  IMO, a photographer should know what he or she is
doing, and know how and where and when to press the button.

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:

> With digital you probably tend to shoot a little more frivolously in the
> hope that the general rules of probability would allow you to get "the" shot
> at some time...

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

Sheesh, tanya ... perhaps one might do well to think about
every shot, regardless of haw many frames are left.  When
you reach a certain level in any art or sport, the thinking
becomes automatic, transparent ... the photography just
happens, and all the technical stuff needn't be given any
time consuming thought.  It's like muscle memory.

And this is true for 35mm photography as well as larger
formats.

shel

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
> 
> I think that for the
> likes of Ansel Adams etc, if you are shooting with glass plates, medium
> format etc, and you only have one or two frames left, you are really FORCED
> to THINK about what you are going to put into the photograph.  You would
> probably spend much more side on the technical stuff to ensure that it is
> JUST right, iykwim, so that you don't, in effect, waste an opportunity...

RE: Digital Photography

[Bucky]

Q.E.D.

> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 3-Feb-04 22:42
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Digital Photography

> Light has soul??
> Clams got hands
> WW
> 
> 
> 

Re: Digital Photography

[Bruce Dayton]

One angle to consider is that the tools (cameras, etc) have become
much better than in the past.  This means that more and more
non-photographers are using the tools to turn out mediocre work.  In
the past they would not have even bothered.  So the overall body of
image quality would slowly go down hill a bit.  These same tools in the
hands of a photographer who knows how to use them, can become much
more powerful and enables them to make more great images in less time
than in the past.

The tools can be helpful and help you learn more or they can make you
lazy.  I personally have found digital to helping me improve.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Tuesday, February 3, 2004, 6:10:50 PM, you wrote:

HC> so that means you disagree with Shel since he said they are all getting
HC> worse.

HC> Herb...
HC> - Original Message - 
HC> From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HC> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HC> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:00 PM
HC> Subject: Re: Digital Photography


>> So, really, in regards to film/digital making better photographers, I
>> believe that they both have merits for and against improving people as
>> photographers, I think it is just a matter of taste really...

Re: Digital Photography

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bucky" 
Subject: RE: Digital Photography


>   Digital cameras filter the soul right
> out of the light.  

Light has soul??
Clams got hands
WW

RE: Digital Photography

[Bucky]

No, sorry you are WRONG WRONG WRONG.  Digital cameras filter the soul right
out of the light.  PERIOD.

> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 3-Feb-04 21:50
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Digital Photography
> Photography isn't technical data, it is how light reflects off
> of objects, it is shadows, and colours, and shapes.
> Knowing what light does is the real mastery of photography.
> What light does has nothing to do with cameras, really.

Re: Digital Photography

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Bill, despite your cynicism the "grab" shots are often also the "money"
shots...

>From a business stand-point and mainly in reference to weddings and
children's photography, spontaneity and candidature are essential.  The shot
I posted the other day that I "saved" after it being grossly underexposed -
well, I just sold that to the bride's mother as an 11 x 14 print, framed and
matted and a grand total of $475.00.

>From a personal stand point, and as a mother, these shots are simply
irreplaceable.

Ok, so it may seem trivial and insignificant to you, not exactly
earth-shattering or mind-blowing stuff, but neither is much of the stuff
that we chat about on the PDML.  I honestly don't understand why you reacted
in such a way to that comment - after all, not everyone on this list is a
landscape or nature photographer and "grab" shots, to some people could be
putting dinner on the table tonight...

tan.

- Original Message - 
From: "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
>
> > ... may allow you in certain circumstances to get "that" grab shot
> > that could have been missed .
>
> Ah good - I feel much safer now that we are finally able
> to capture the critical mass of "grab shots" necessary to
> preserve our Earth's axial tilt and, as a bonus, prevent
> a too early plunge into some global disaster of epic
> proportion
>
> ;^)  Bill
>
> -
> Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast
>
> http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
>
>

Re: Digital Photography

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> On 3 Feb 2004 at 17:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > Technical data doesn't make a strong image.
>
> Nor does the quality of a B&W print.

I have seen some very strong images ruined by poor printing.

I am of the opinion that technical data is one of the things
that intrudes like a bull in a China shop into photography.

A photograph is just an image on paper.
On it's own, a basely simple object.
A flimsy artifact covered with some sort of chemical soup.
Does the nature of that soup matter to the photographer?
Well yes, of course.
Does the photographer really need to know the chemical
composition?
Not really, though a passing knowledge will probably prove
useful.
Nothing we are doing with this stuff is really all that
complicated.
We push a button.
Some time later, we have a photograph.
It's really pretty easy, no matter what pople like to think.
Light reflects off an object, and we have to get the right
amount of light to some sort of light gatherer.
There are but three controls to do this.
And another control to tell the camera when to do it's thing.
To make these 3(THREE) controls work, we are now faced with
multiple buttons, little screens and interactive menu tools.
We have viewfinders with flashing lights, drums and marching
bands, and a few baton twirlers on the more expensive ones.
And why do we have this?
So we can take 500 images to get one keeper.
Of course, to get that one keeper, we have to wade through 499
other pictures.
Like this is makes any sense at all.
I think what makes more sense is to control ones urge to take 20
pictures where 2 will do.
Then, when you go to look at your work at the end of the day,
you can sit down, relax, and really look at everything you have
done, really do justice to the process, and really learn what
works and what doesn't.
When you have 499 pictures to look at, the tendency is to look
only at what works, and do that in a perfunctory fashion.
The tendency is to not learn from your mistakes, just to ignore
them.
And repeat them ad nauseum.

I think if you want to learn how to take pictures, then a
digital camera and a few gigs of storage is great.
I think if you want to learn how to make photographs, you need
to make the time, and take to really look at photographs.
Both your own, and those of other artists.

I think you need to look at images that both delight and repel,
for knowing what doesn't work, or what you don't like, is as
important as knowing what works, and what you like.

I think you need to build up an "image database" of pictures in
your head, not your hard drive.

I think you need to spend more time looking at your subject,
learning about it, and understanding it.
You don't do that by putting a camera between you and what you
are looking at.
If you are taking more pictures than you can comfortably
critique, you should think about taking less pictures, and
looking at more.
Photography isn't technical data, it is how light reflects off
of objects, it is shadows, and colours, and shapes.
Knowing what light does is the real mastery of photography.
What light does has nothing to do with cameras, really.

William Robb

Re: Digital Photography

[Bill D. Casselberry]

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:

> ... may allow you in certain circumstances to get "that" grab shot 
> that could have been missed .

Ah good - I feel much safer now that we are finally able
to capture the critical mass of "grab shots" necessary to
preserve our Earth's axial tilt and, as a bonus, prevent
a too early plunge into some global disaster of epic
proportion

;^)  Bill

-
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast

http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-

RE: Digital Photography

[Bucky]

Don't worry about it, Rob.  It's pretentious, self-important drivel spoken
entirely in Blowhardese.


> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 3-Feb-04 18:04
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Digital Photography

> I don't understand why there seems to be so many comments on the list
> suggesting that shooting digital cameras will likely not
> strengthen our skills
> as photographers?

Re: Digital Photography

[Paul Stenquist]

Seriously, I think it will help me produce some difficult shots. For 
example, the stock house I work with wanted me to do some tabletop 
shots that included a window frame shadow.I had trouble making this 
work on film with my studio strobes. With the digital, I can check 
results immediately and work at it until I get it right. I also had to 
produce some motion blurs with a sharp central image. Getting the right 
balance of flash and exposure was tricky. With film I had to wait to 
see if I got it right. With the digital I get immediate feedback and 
can make adjustments as necessary. I find I even use it as a test 
instrument for shooting Medium Format. I love it.
Paul
On Feb 3, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Fun, Paul ... absolutely.  But will it do anything to
improve your photographs or make you a better photographer.
I can do similar things with my hands but it won't make me a
better lover ;-))
Paul Stenquist wrote:
For the past three days I've been shooting the *ist D with my
treasured K series primes. All I can say is: "HOLY $%&*#! THIS IS 
GREAT FUN!
IT'S GOTTA BE THE  SECOND BEST THING YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR HANDS!"
Paul

Bob Blakely wrote:

Is like "Industrial" music. It has no soul.

Sorry...
Just lamenting the eventual demise of film and my beloved LXen. I 
can hear
the voices of the future now, "A film camera. How quaint!"

Re: Digital Photography

[Herb Chong]

so that means you disagree with Shel since he said they are all getting
worse.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> So, really, in regards to film/digital making better photographers, I
> believe that they both have merits for and against improving people as
> photographers, I think it is just a matter of taste really...

Re: Digital Photography

[Herb Chong]

such an arguement has been made about photography versus painting when
photography was invented.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> Quality is subjective, but unless one has seen the full
> gamut of possibilities, there is no way that a reasonable
> judgment can be made wrt to the relative quality of any
> given work.

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

Actually, that's not true.  Knowing the technical data of an
image does not make a strong image.  However, a quality
print, B&W or otherwise, can make a mediocre or poor image
very strong indeed.  Likewise in digital.  In fact, we
proved that here a couple of years ago.  I scanned a neg and
fiddled with it in some image editing program, and posted
the results here.  You took the same image, and with your
skill in Photoshop, got superior results, and a more
powerful image.

Knowing the exposure parameters of a print, the developer
used, and so on, is not, in and of itself, going to make a
strong photograph.  Regardless of the technical data given
to the lesser skilled printer, the print by the master will
be quite a bit different in many ways, and more than likely
the stronger image. 

Rob Studdert wrote:
> 
> On 3 Feb 2004 at 17:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> > Technical data doesn't make a strong image.
> 
> Nor does the quality of a B&W print.

Re: Digital Photography

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

I do think that their is merit in what Shel is saying.  I think that for the
likes of Ansel Adams etc, if you are shooting with glass plates, medium
format etc, and you only have one or two frames left, you are really FORCED
to THINK about what you are going to put into the photograph.  You would
probably spend much more side on the technical stuff to ensure that it is
JUST right, iykwim, so that you don't, in effect, waste an opportunity...

With digital you probably tend to shoot a little more frivolously in the
hope that the general rules of probability would allow you to get "the" shot
at some time...

On the other hand though, being ABLE to shoot freely without regard to film
etc, may allow you in certain circumstances to get "that" grab shot that
could have been missed whilst you were busy working out the technical stuff
for the MF shot.  For example, just the other day someone referred to
shooting kids, VERY accurately (was it Bruce?) and said how you may think
that you "get" the shot and only two seconds later, they pull something out
of the hat with an expression or pose that was totally unexpected and that
totally overtakes what you just shot moments earlier.

When I was shooting those product shots a few weeks ago, being able to shoot
digital was invaluable.  The packaging included a highly reflective sticker
that I hadn't even considered until seeing the shot on the screen on the
back of the camera and I had to adjust my lighting many times before I was
able to get the shot without reflections and hot spots on those labels.  Had
I been shooting film, I would have sent the films off to the lab
none-the-wiser and have been totally heartbroken when they all arrived home
looking like crap and requiring probably more than one re-shoot...

One thing I have noticed though, is I think it is making me lazy to a
certain extent.  I don't seem to be "absorbing" the exposure settings and
technical stuff as much as I used to in the learning process.  Sometimes, I
am finding myself, just shooting, deleting and re-shooting until it looks
"good" rather than stopping and thinking "hmmm, I think that needs 2 stops
more light etc".  Instead, I just switch the dials around a little bit
haphazardly until I am happy with the result.

Exposure wise, after "discovering" how easily I can "save" underexposed
images, I am also becoming much less pedantic about having the exposure
"spot on", and this can't be a good thing.  Of course, on the other hand,
when it comes to over exposure, it has made me think MORE about what I am
doing to prevent hot spots and blown out highlights...

So, really, in regards to film/digital making better photographers, I
believe that they both have merits for and against improving people as
photographers, I think it is just a matter of taste really...

tan.


- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> What I've seen is just the opposite wrt to creating strong
> photos and powerful images.
> The overall quality of photographs has dropped substantially
> in the past decade or so, and while digital cameras are not
> the only reason for this, they are one of the prime
> contributors.  Do you know that there are people (and I bet
> some are on this list - in fact, I KNOW some are on this
> list) who have NEVER seen a gorgeous B&W silver print, whose
> only exposure to photographs have been ink jet prints,
> images from the web, photos appearing in magazines and
> books, and color minilab prints made with consumer quality
> (i.e., low quality) zoom lenses mounted on cameras using
> automatic everything.
>
> While those things, individually, will not cause a drop in
> quality, taken collectively, and in a climate where MORE
> MORE MORE rather than BETTER BETTER BETTER is rampant,
> quality will suffer.  We are, because of automation and the
> need for speed, entering the age of the generic photograph.
>
> Shooting more, exposing more frames, is only a small part in
> the formula that equates to quality.
>
> shel
>
>
> Rob Studdert wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand why there seems to be so many comments on the list
> > suggesting that shooting digital cameras will likely not strengthen our
skills
> > as photographers?
> >
> > Isn't the first advice that any photographer gets is to shoot then shoot
some
> > more? The way I see it is that digital makes this easy given that there
is no
> > film costs plus it records all the technical shooting data for review
after the
> > fact.
>

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> > What I've seen is just the opposite wrt to creating strong
> > photos and powerful images.
> 
> >From what I've seen of your photographs I expect that the type of photos that
> you perceive to be strong and powerful will likely decline due to a shift in
> public perception regarding public rights and security. Whilst I very much
> appreciate many of your "people" images soon only third world countries will
> offer the only great photo fodder in along this vein.

I'm not talking about MY photos, Rob, I'm talking about
photography in general. Don't make this an issue about my
style of photography (of which you've seen very little and
know even less about).  Of 30+ years of photography, and
thousands of negatives, you and this list have seen, at the
most, fifty shots.  That leaves thousands more to look at.

> 
> > The overall quality of photographs has dropped substantially
> > in the past decade or so, and while digital cameras are not
> > the only reason for this, they are one of the prime
> > contributors.  Do you know that there are people (and I bet
> > some are on this list - in fact, I KNOW some are on this
> > list) who have NEVER seen a gorgeous B&W silver print
> 
> How does the printing make you a better photographer? HCB didn't print a thing
> from what I understand.

I didn't say PRINTING will make you a better photographer. 
I said that there's a quality that some people have never
experienced, ergo, they know nothing of it, and their
experience wrt understanding the degrees of quality is
limited. Don't put words in my mouth ...  It was a couple of
years ago, for example, that i commented here on the quality
of a certain photographers prints, which i saw at an
exhibition.  I was told on no uncertain terms by a number of
"experts" on this forum that such quality could not be
obtained with 35mm work.  However, those who subsequently
saw the exhibit agreed with my comments about quality.

Quality is subjective, but unless one has seen the full
gamut of possibilities, there is no way that a reasonable
judgment can be made wrt to the relative quality of any
given work.

Re: Digital Photography

[Rob Studdert]

On 3 Feb 2004 at 17:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Technical data doesn't make a strong image.

Nor does the quality of a B&W print.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Digital Photography

[Rob Studdert]

On 3 Feb 2004 at 17:24, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> What I've seen is just the opposite wrt to creating strong
> photos and powerful images.

>From what I've seen of your photographs I expect that the type of photos that 
you perceive to be strong and powerful will likely decline due to a shift in 
public perception regarding public rights and security. Whilst I very much 
appreciate many of your "people" images soon only third world countries will 
offer the only great photo fodder in along this vein.

> The overall quality of photographs has dropped substantially
> in the past decade or so, and while digital cameras are not
> the only reason for this, they are one of the prime
> contributors.  Do you know that there are people (and I bet
> some are on this list - in fact, I KNOW some are on this
> list) who have NEVER seen a gorgeous B&W silver print

How does the printing make you a better photographer? HCB didn't print a thing 
from what I understand.

> Shooting more, exposing more frames, is only a small part in
> the formula that equates to quality.

Sure selection of lab, printing technique and the depth of your pockets has a 
lot to do with it digital or not.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

Technical data doesn't make a strong image.

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
> 
> I totall agree Rob...
> 
> plus it records all the technical shooting
> data for review after the fact."

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

But it is true, Herb 

Herb Chong wrote:
> 
> everyone has said this every 5 years since forever. doesn't make it true.
> 
> Herb
> - Original Message -
> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 8:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Digital Photography
> 
> > What I've seen is just the opposite wrt to creating strong
> > photos and powerful images.
> > The overall quality of photographs has dropped substantially
> > in the past decade or so, and while digital cameras are not
> > the only reason for this, they are one of the prime
> > contributors.  Do you know that there are people (and I bet
> > some are on this list - in fact, I KNOW some are on this
> > list) who have NEVER seen a gorgeous B&W silver print, whose
> > only exposure to photographs have been ink jet prints,
> > images from the web, photos appearing in magazines and
> > books, and color minilab prints made with consumer quality
> > (i.e., low quality) zoom lenses mounted on cameras using
> > automatic everything.
> >
> > While those things, individually, will not cause a drop in
> > quality, taken collectively, and in a climate where MORE
> > MORE MORE rather than BETTER BETTER BETTER is rampant,
> > quality will suffer.  We are, because of automation and the
> > need for speed, entering the age of the generic photograph.

Re: Digital Photography

[John Francis]

> 
> Now you know what we've been talking about!  It is more fun than I
> have had with a camera in a long time.

Quite.  Although, of course, some folks will continue to disparage
it as a device for taking mediocre photographs with no soul.

Still, you know who blames the tools ...

Re: Digital Photography

[Herb Chong]

everyone has said this every 5 years since forever. doesn't make it true.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> What I've seen is just the opposite wrt to creating strong
> photos and powerful images.  
> The overall quality of photographs has dropped substantially
> in the past decade or so, and while digital cameras are not
> the only reason for this, they are one of the prime
> contributors.  Do you know that there are people (and I bet
> some are on this list - in fact, I KNOW some are on this
> list) who have NEVER seen a gorgeous B&W silver print, whose
> only exposure to photographs have been ink jet prints,
> images from the web, photos appearing in magazines and
> books, and color minilab prints made with consumer quality
> (i.e., low quality) zoom lenses mounted on cameras using
> automatic everything.
> 
> While those things, individually, will not cause a drop in
> quality, taken collectively, and in a climate where MORE
> MORE MORE rather than BETTER BETTER BETTER is rampant,
> quality will suffer.  We are, because of automation and the
> need for speed, entering the age of the generic photograph.

Re: Digital Photography

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

I totall agree Rob...

Rob Studdert noted:">Isn't the first advice that any photographer gets is to
shoot then shoot some more? The way I see it is that digital makes this easy
given that there is no film costs plus it records all the technical shooting
data for review after the fact."


tan.

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

More does not, in and of itself, equal better, Herb.

Herb Chong wrote:
> 
> a double standard exists. it's too easy to take lots more, so it can't be
> good for you, can it?

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

What I've seen is just the opposite wrt to creating strong
photos and powerful images.  
The overall quality of photographs has dropped substantially
in the past decade or so, and while digital cameras are not
the only reason for this, they are one of the prime
contributors.  Do you know that there are people (and I bet
some are on this list - in fact, I KNOW some are on this
list) who have NEVER seen a gorgeous B&W silver print, whose
only exposure to photographs have been ink jet prints,
images from the web, photos appearing in magazines and
books, and color minilab prints made with consumer quality
(i.e., low quality) zoom lenses mounted on cameras using
automatic everything.

While those things, individually, will not cause a drop in
quality, taken collectively, and in a climate where MORE
MORE MORE rather than BETTER BETTER BETTER is rampant,
quality will suffer.  We are, because of automation and the
need for speed, entering the age of the generic photograph.

Shooting more, exposing more frames, is only a small part in
the formula that equates to quality.

shel


Rob Studdert wrote:
> 
> I don't understand why there seems to be so many comments on the list
> suggesting that shooting digital cameras will likely not strengthen our skills
> as photographers?
> 
> Isn't the first advice that any photographer gets is to shoot then shoot some
> more? The way I see it is that digital makes this easy given that there is no
> film costs plus it records all the technical shooting data for review after the
> fact.

Re: Digital Photography

[Herb Chong]

a double standard exists. it's too easy to take lots more, so it can't be
good for you, can it?

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Photography


> I don't understand why there seems to be so many comments on the list
> suggesting that shooting digital cameras will likely not strengthen our
skills
> as photographers?
>
> Isn't the first advice that any photographer gets is to shoot then shoot
some
> more? The way I see it is that digital makes this easy given that there is
no
> film costs plus it records all the technical shooting data for review
after the
> fact.

Re: Digital Photography

[Rob Studdert]

On 3 Feb 2004 at 16:50, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> Fun, Paul ... absolutely.  But will it do anything to
> improve your photographs or make you a better photographer. 
> I can do similar things with my hands but it won't make me a
> better lover ;-))

I don't understand why there seems to be so many comments on the list 
suggesting that shooting digital cameras will likely not strengthen our skills 
as photographers? 

Isn't the first advice that any photographer gets is to shoot then shoot some 
more? The way I see it is that digital makes this easy given that there is no 
film costs plus it records all the technical shooting data for review after the 
fact.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Digital Photography

[Shel Belinkoff]

Fun, Paul ... absolutely.  But will it do anything to
improve your photographs or make you a better photographer. 
I can do similar things with my hands but it won't make me a
better lover ;-))

Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
> For the past three days I've been shooting the *ist D with my
> treasured K series primes. All I can say is: "HOLY $%&*#! THIS IS GREAT FUN!
> IT'S GOTTA BE THE  SECOND BEST THING YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR HANDS!"
> Paul
> 
> Bob Blakely wrote:
> 
> > Is like "Industrial" music. It has no soul.
> >
> > Sorry...
> > Just lamenting the eventual demise of film and my beloved LXen. I can hear
> > the voices of the future now, "A film camera. How quaint!"