Tom Mangelsen`s Gear

[Mike Sellers]

Does anyone know what he uses? He sells prints to 40x60 or more so is he digital or film?
Mike

[Colorado David]

I can't say what specific gear he uses, but I'm pretty sure he's a Nikon shooter.

[Mike Sellers]

Has anyone seen one of his big prints in person? Was it sharp?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

He was film, now digital. Sharp in both cases. Or, shall I say, sharp enough.

Some of his large prints I've seen do have obvious film artifacts, like grain or chromatic aberrations, but nobody but us, photographers, noticed or cared. The same goes for some of his early digital files, lots of color noise, for instance.

[leuallen]

If you go to Creative Live they have a 3 day course by Tom Mangelsen. Not only will you find out what he uses but how he uses it.

Larry

[John Koerner]

He was film, now digital. Sharp in both cases. Or, shall I say, sharp enough.
Some of his large prints I've seen do have obvious film artifacts, like grain or chromatic aberrations, but nobody but us, photographers, noticed or cared. The same goes for some of his early digital files, lots of color noise, for instance.

I was going to say something to that effect.

All this talk about resolution, people quibbling over minutia, when ALL of today's cameras are superior to what was available just a few years ago.

This photo from Mangelson (via Nikon, 2010) was voted one of the top 40 most important nature images of all time.

Yet, by today's standards, it is a noisy, pretty poor-quality image ... but yet it was the "dance" (the moment captured) which created the award, not the absence of noise or artifacts.


Compared to the color and clarity that cameras are able to achieve today (via Canon, 2014), the progress that's been made for all of us is remarkable.



Jack

[Codger]

Ten years ago Tom used, among other systems, the Fuji 6x17 gear, packing from one to three of the cameras and fixed lenses at any time.  Those are medium format and print large very effectively.  Five years ago he was using the Nikon D3x and some of the large prints utilized some multi-image stitching.  They, too, are acceptably sharp and the post-processing is well done.

[SeanBK]

Has anyone seen one of his big prints in person? Was it sharp?

Past June, I was leaving out of Denver Int'l airport & he has a Gallery 'fore u go thru' TSA, so while waiting I went thru' his Gallery. The images were big & were rather sharp. It seems like the landscape shot may have been M.F but the results r doable w/expensive Nikon or Canon glass, Nikon D800 or Canon 5D MkIi or III & on Tripod. Good post work too.
There is a free video on Creative Live > Mangelsen. That's where he talks @ gear or u can buy his video classes where he shows his gear.

[Tinstafl]

I will say that his work is outstanding.  I have purchased a couple pieces in fact and they are quite large. Some stitching on one but another is just amazing on canvas and it is big too. I have never bought prints before but some of his wildlife stuff is amazing. 

[tim wolcott]

The reason most photographers use the light jet to make their prints is because they shoot with a 35mm and they can get a way with murder to some degree since it has a 16 bit interpolation software built into the printer but it use a maybe a 4 bit paper when exposing.  Also most of these guys don't make their own prints because they don't know how.  This is the case like Mangleson, Lik, Mitchum and others.  Sorry to burst any bubbles but a true photographer would take the time to make their photographs.  Tim

[DanielStone]

The reason most photographers use the light jet to make their prints is because they shoot with a 35mm and they can get a way with murder to some degree since it has a 16 bit interpolation software built into the printer but it use a maybe a 4 bit paper when exposing.  Also most of these guys don't make their own prints because they don't know how.  This is the case like Mangleson, Lik, Mitchum and others.  Sorry to burst any bubbles but a true photographer would take the time to make their photographs.  Tim

There are photographers, there are photographers who can also print, there are photographers who pay others to print for them, there are printers who cannot photograph worth a damn but can print a helluva lot better than most 'photographers', then there are wonderful printers who also happen to be great photographers

I like to print my own stuff, since I still shoot primarily film. Color and b/w. But I also drum scan certain shots, because what I am capable of in the manual darkroom isn't enough to make the photograph really shine, so a digital intermediate is needed.

I'm aware this is your opinion, but personally I wouldn't say it's fair to lump all photographers who don't print their own stuff into the category of being "unprofessional"... Some might not enjoy it, or have the space/time to do it, or maintain a machine to do so... So they outsource. Kind of like saying "anyone who doesn't do all their own car maintenance isn't a 'real' car owner" :p... Some people just like keeping their hands clean, and are willing to pay someone else to do the dirty work

Just my 2¢ of course

-Dan

[tim wolcott]

I'm glad to see you print your OWN work.  That shows dedication.  But most if not all the pro's in the past printed their own work.  I think sending work to printers, you get what you pay for, most are low payed people who can't shoot there for it would be very difficult for them to pull off a superior print.  And create what the artist intended it to be.

But I do believe its time for the inkjet community to unite and dispel all the lies that are being told by so-called photographers like Lik, Mitchum, Mangleson and others.  Its a shitty process that deserves no respect whether they print that crappy process themselves or not.  It has nothing over pigment prints or pigment inkjet prints.

ITS TIME FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING, by producing prints the right way.  This means prints that lasts a long time, chemically free and heavy metal free, have real dynamic range and color rendition.  Its time to clean up this industry from the bad.  Would a buyer of art, knowing buy a the print, if he knew it  would faded quickly, no of course not.  But for to long others have sat back not saying anything about this very fade able process.  Hell even AIPAD has finally said things about what they have been selling, only 20 after what I have been saying and a few others.

If he produced good prints then they wouldn't have come to me and my lab to ask if I would print for them!

 

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

I looked through his photographs of birds...perhaps 10% are fine images. The rest (to my eye) were not very good to put it politely - in terms of composition, color and subject matter. Apologies - I don't usually comment on aesthetics...but since I do a lot of bird photography these days as part of my research, I have some experience in that genre.