Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: david distefano on April 04, 2012, 04:24:43 pm
-
yesterday i read on a blogger site, whose initials are kr, that ansel adams work, when he used his hasselblad equipment, had no artistic value and not worth looking at compared to his large format work. i have seen many of the hasselblad images and i'm sure almost everyone has seen moon and half dome and for this person to say his work with this camera has no value is just lunacy.
-
Don't get your blood pressure up about anything on a blog site (mine included). Any idiot can pretend to be knowledgeable even if they are a complete moron.
-
And take anything you read on KR's website with a large pinch of salt
-
KR! I didn't see that. He is the poster boy for an internet idiot.
-
KR lives from the clicks made on his blog, of course he says/writes such rubbish, he wants to polarize he wants to stay the person people talk about and visit his blog.....success for him this time.
-
Hi,
What Ken Rockwell wrote is this:
....
"Medium format is just overgrown 35mm (relatively fixed lenses and finders), while large format is the instrument of the immortals. No one pays much attention today to Ansel Adams' most recent work, which was only shot on medium format."
....
I don't know about which of Ansel Adams' images were shot on different formats. My take on the issue the issue is that the image cares little about how it was shot. Some things are certainly better done with some equipment than others. What Ken Rockwell writes about is really cameras with movements vs. rigid bodies.
Now, much of Mr. Rockwell's writing is a bit on the shallow side. I would prefer articles with some more depth.
Regarding medium format, it is probably a niche, but a niche wide enough for some companies like Hasselblad and Phase One making a decent living of it. Companies like Alpa and Arca are also involved with MF digital, and hopefully they are doing well, too.
Several authors on these forums shoot different formats, from 4/3 to IQ180 and I presume that there is a reason they do. Something like horses for the courses.
Best regards
Erik
yesterday i read on a blogger site, whose initials are kr, that ansel adams work, when he used his hasselblad equipment, had no artistic value and not worth looking at compared to his large format work. i have seen many of the hasselblad images and i'm sure almost everyone has seen moon and half dome and for this person to say his work with this camera has no value is just lunacy.
-
Wasn't Moonrise shot with a 'blad? A great example of a worthless image made even worse by the bad choice of format. No idea what he could have been thinking. Of course Ansel was a rank amatuer compared to the masters like KR...
-
No Moonrise was shot with an 8x10, but KR wouldn't know the difference anyway.
-
And take anything you read on KR's website with a large pinch of salt
Considering that he states the following his "about me" page:
I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page.
Anyone who gets wound up or upset from reading his website needs to get a sense of perspective. He outright admits that he's yanking the chain and yet every few months someone here falls for it.
-
I think KR would know the difference.
I'm pretty sure he has a Tachihara and a Linhof 5x4 regarding large format and I've never known him to say anything derogatory about the Mamiya 7 when it comes to medium format.
-
I think KR would know the difference.
I'm pretty sure he has a Tachihara and a Linhof 5x4 regarding large format and I've never known him to say anything derogatory about the Mamiya 7 when it comes to medium format.
I set up AF on both my D3x and D4 using KR's cheat sheet, and believe me I'm very happy I did. It's clear that KR is at least a better synthetic writer than whoever wrote the manuals, or designed the menu structure.
I do agree KR is irritating. A good description of him would be to say KR might be Ann Coulter in drag :)
Edmund
-
If we distill KR's "about me" page to get it's essence, we have this:
I have the ... sense ... of a three-year old
-
I think KR would know the difference.
I'm pretty sure he has a Tachihara and a Linhof 5x4 regarding large format and I've never known him to say anything derogatory about the Mamiya 7 when it comes to medium format.
Simply owning a camera and knowing what to do with it or knowing what a good image is from it are two different things. Anyone who makes this statement is pretty clueless in general about images regardless of format: "when he used his hasselblad equipment, had no artistic value and not worth looking at compared to his large format work." Looking at KR's photographs, is he someone you would go to for aesthetic advice?
-
kirk i was referring to moon and half dome which was shot with a hasselblad.
-
What Ken Rockwell wrote is this:
....
"Medium format is just overgrown 35mm (relatively fixed lenses and finders), while large format is the instrument of the immortals. No one pays much attention today to Ansel Adams' most recent work, which was only shot on medium format."
Actually I really like, appreciate and respect KR. He speaks his honest opinion, impression and thought, and do not follow the marketing hype from camera makers as is evident is done also in articles here on LuLa. Is that not what we want? Or do we want to read what camera companies want us to buy??? It is funny how peoples emotions go hot on what KR writes... yet we all enjoy (?) to read him, yes??
Then may I politely ask why respected names in posts above offend him???
In the reference quote above, what is incorrect? It does in fact NOT state anything other than what he is probably right in... Really?? Yes, do we in fact pay attention to Ansel Adams' most recent work shot on "only" medium format? Or for that matter even the work he shot on polaroid? I do have the book he wrote on the Polaroid Land Prints, and it not only gives more fruit for thought on the zone system, but also contain some indeed very impressive and artistic polaroid prints.
Did KR really state that Ansel Adam's work on mere medium format was not art??? Not per what I can see in above posts. Then politely, what do you gents argue of???
B.t.w. I really do like Peter Lik also, whos images I am frequent very impressed of. Seems he similar to KR do work per his own mind and way. Is that not a value in arts??? Anything wrong with that? Or is that actually a good thing?
Best regards,
Anders
-
I don't read kr, I have only heard of him through forum banter..and so my response to some of his quotes are just that, reactions to one-liners.. but there have been a few that
made me wince..broad generalizations like this one come to mind..I do a blog every now and then and I will cut him some slack as I know it is easy to have some diarreaha of the mouth at times
and not be precise with language to convey exactly what you mean. If KR is speaking about the general public, then yes, most people don't know of his polaroid work or 120 work, or color work, or 25mm contax work..but I think that is KR's audience.. the general public.. why anyone here would read him is curious to me. Personally I think Ansel was very capable of composing, processing and printing his hasselblad images and he has some great ones from that time. I wonder also from his quote if he thinks less of cartier-bresson than adams based on the square inches of the format?..it is implications like this which causes many here to write him off.
-
Looking at KR's photographs, is he someone you would go to for aesthetic advice?
Nope - but I wouldn't do that anywhere else either.
-
Nope - but I wouldn't do that anywhere else either.
Absolutely the right attitude; I agree totally with your sentiment.
Rob C
-
Chest pounding aside.......
-
"Moon and Half Dome" (may have been "Moonrise over Halfdome", don't remember exact title) was shot with a Hasselblad 500c and 250mm Sonnar.
KR presents a mixed bag on his site, some reviews are pretty accurate but very opinionated.
-
Considering that he states the following his "about me" page:
Anyone who gets wound up or upset from reading his website needs to get a sense of perspective. He outright admits that he's yanking the chain and yet every few months someone here falls for it.
Well, I have a problem with a "disclaimer" like that ... since you have no clue when he is weaving fact with fiction this would mean his entire site should be treated as a hoax, yet he doesn't present it that way and certainly most don't read his "disclaimer". So it doesn't excuse anything he says, and on a site like his shouldn't apply, unless he puts disclaimers for each time he's playing a "hoax".
His site is full of contradictions, odd conclusions (and assumptions), strange opinions (often without any logical support) and intermingled with some accurate information and helpful pointers. Unfortunately the entire site is a disservice to those trying to learn, because the only ones who know it's inaccurate are not those who frequent his site.
-
His site is full of contradictions, odd conclusions (and assumptions), strange opinions (often without any logical support) and intermingled with some accurate information and helpful pointers. Unfortunately the entire site is a disservice to those trying to learn, because the only ones who know it's inaccurate are not those who frequent his site.
It's an Internet problem, really. There is no editorial control, and no peer review (and usually no citations, either). So it's rather like a slightly barmy local parish magazine, which contains some snippets of good stuff and a load of complete nonsense and half-baked opinion as well.
All you can say is Reader Beware.
John
-
It's an Internet problem, really. There is no editorial control, and no peer review (and usually no citations, either). So it's rather like a slightly barmy local parish magazine, which contains some snippets of good stuff and a load of complete nonsense and half-baked opinion as well.
All you can say is Reader Beware.
John
Is that not true of pretty much all of internet, also when editorial control or peer review etc, it usually aims at telling us one thing: the new product is tad better, go out and buy it! Making us spend $$$$...
With that in mind, is it not encouraging when there are opinions that speak their mind off not in the direction of that stream???
I am mere asking...
-
Its a new-era problem. "Facts" are established by the internet and not by research. KR isn't the only site with this problem.
Yes, KR's site is a bit "breezy" and when dealing with tech'l information, can be too loose. That said, something is to be said for portals to the next generation, which may not be to our liking or standards, but remain effective. Not all bad.
Seems unlikely we can have it both ways...although one still hopes.
-
Hi,
My take is that Ken Rockwell sometimes has good points. On the other hand, he has a lot of bad points. He recommends no use of tripod, 18-200 lens, shooting JPEG instead of raw. All that can make sense in a context, but that context is not mine. He even found the scanner I have (the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro) as good as the Imacon. Nice to hear, but it is really good advise?
I don't really perceive the internet in general or forums like this uncritically technology oriented. Editorial article in periodicals are often much more technology oriented. Folks on this forums have different experience, knowledge and also different set of tools. Some of the posters actually develop raw processing applications, for instance.
Of course, there is a tendency that posters and publishers get overly excited over some new technology. One example the latest generation of MF backs which were assumed to match 8x10 for resolution. On the other hand it is quite obvious that knowledgeable users left 5x4" when the P45 backs arrived on the scene. It is a question of context. 40 MP digital was good enough to replace 4x5" for the purpose it was used. It may be shown that 4x5" has more to give if it scanned at 6000 or even 10000 PPI, but 2000 PPI was normally used and 40 MP digital was good enough to replace it.
Some like the look of scanned Velvia some others did not like at all. It's much a question of context. Ken's advice makes sense in one context, for instance he says that 6MP is enough for any print size. That may be correct, in a given context, but that context may not be mine.
My view is that the image cares little about the technology used. You can take an image 8x10" or a Pentax Spotmatic II. If the image is good it is not important how it was made. I care little if an Ansel Adams image was shot on 8x10" or Hasselblad as long as it is a fine image. Ansel Adams was very much aware of the capabilities of the systems he used on the other hand. In one of his book he discusses the choice of lens and developer for his "Aspens" images, where he strived for maximum acutance.
Best regards
Erik
Is that not true of pretty much all of internet, also when editorial control or peer review etc, it usually aims at telling us one thing: the new product is tad better, go out and buy it! Making us spend $$$$...
With that in mind, is it not encouraging when there are opinions that speak their mind off not in the direction of that stream???
I am mere asking...