Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Abdulrahman Aljabri on April 01, 2016, 01:30:39 pm
-
I couldn't see any new entries by Yelhsa, so I checked his page (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=profile;u=53019) and to my surprise all his posts were deleted! What happened, who made ashely angry??? It can't be me as I was not around when he stopped posting (Jan10).
PS. I am posting here because this is the forum he visited the most
-
Who is John Galt?
-
Possible reaction to the subscription model?
-
Possible reaction to the subscription model?
Is there a new subscription people are required to pay for using the forum?
-
Is there a new subscription people are required to pay for using the forum?
No, but the original idea was subscription for all, so Ashley might have made up his mind then. Or protesting the idea of paid content in general.
EDIT: Ashley keeps posting actively on his Flickr account.
-
No, but the original idea was subscription for all, so Ashley might have made up his mind then. Or protesting the idea of paid content in general.
EDIT: Ashley keeps posting actively on his Flickr account.
I see, there was plan, but it was never implemented. Glad to know that, though I completely missed it.
-
I would suggest that this thread be moved to a more appropriate section of the forum, but far be it from me, a lowly crop sensor DSLR user who doesn't make any money by creating images, to question the judgment of "the real workers" of "the medium format page which use [sic] to be to be [sic] the pro section."
After all, I suppose Abdulrahman posted in the MF forum because he knows, just like James, that "its' [sic] the only place the pros go and the only place for real learning". Clearly all the real "pros" wouldn't dare read or post in any of the other subfora. They wouldn't want to corrupt their minds with the thoughts or (gasp!) images of those who aren't "real workers".
OK, I suppose that's enough 1 April tongue-in-cheek fun for me!
All inline quotations from bcooter's reply to Any pro using formable HMI lighting? (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=108798.msg897704#msg897704), quoted in its full unabridged form at the time of this post for posterity:
Chris.
I appreciate your integrity, but please move this back to medium format, because its' the only place the pros go and the only place for real learning under pressure.
I presented 5 medium format images and this lighting section has few respondents.
Lighting has a lot to due with medium format so lets loosen up and go back where it started.
We all here to lean but let's learn from the real workers . . . the people that try everything which lands on the medium format page which use to be to be the pro section.
I know your trying to follow Kevin's rules but those rule don't work. Michael would have let this pass.
PR . . . real world. I go real world with people like Ulf or well if we're here NOT to make camera companies happy... no reason to share.
tough out man.
J.
IMO
BC
-
I would suggest that this thread be moved to a more appropriate section of the forum, but far be it from me, a lowly crop sensor DSLR user who doesn't make any money by creating images, to question the judgment of "the real workers" of "the medium format page which use [sic] to be to be [sic] the pro section."
After all, I suppose Abdulrahman posted in the MF forum because he knows, just like James, that "its' [sic] the only place the pros go and the only place for real learning".
Maybe we simply need a section reserved for pros, where one would have to have a business address to be able to post?
-
Maybe we simply need a section reserved for pros, where one would have to have a business address to be able to post?
Both e-mail and physical addresses are easily faked, and where would the rest of us go to LEARN ?
-
Maybe we simply need a section reserved for pros, where one would have to have a business address to be able to post?
Well, for a long time, the Medium Format section has pretty much been that... then every once in a while someone gets their panties in a bunch because we're all discussing what I'd call "Pro Oriented Topics" and not just Medium Format. Those discussions benefit everyone, not just pros and I think the multi-level interaction is invaluable. I wish the MF section was just called "Pro-ish Hangout". I don't think you can create a new section and call it that, though. We're creatures of habit and would probably ignore it.
-
To be or not to be; to post or not to post, pro or otherwise.
The difficulty that this site will always pose a pro is similar to that in any other non-selective membership site: the lack of certainty about the other people with whom one might be in correspondence within said site.
That said, it's not been my experience that pros were ever all that given to discussing their techniques and or equipment with other photographers. Even less likely was it that people working within the same city would share information that could offer the competition the slight advantage whatsoever; I'd be surprised if things have changed very much, and I'd imagine that with the tougher market out there today, important things are kept ever more closely to the individual chest. As for discussing prices/charges: you must be joking! Self-preservation is de rigueur, above absolutely everything else
As odd is the expectation that pros might think of themselves as gratuitous schools for amateurs, especially in a world where the professional and amateur distinctions are becoming more blurred the further down the market one goes... with less work around, the more control one can exercise over one's own outlets, abilities and possibilities the better; seems common sense to me.
Now, remove all that stuff about markets from the equation, and where do we find ourselves, from a pro's point of view?
Chat about pixel-count, badges etc. is, I suggest, an amateur fixation, based on the belief that having the latest and greatest will make one a better photographer and, thus, bring one a little closer to the goal of making some money from the thing, at least enough to get back part of what was otherwise wasted on the harware. I say wasted and I mean it: the average amateurs can get as much photographic joy out of a reasonable camera as from the top-of-the -range; where in hell are they selling all these huge enlargements they deem a theoretical necessity for their camera to be able to produce? They don't even need the pixel-count: they can stitch, yet something more with which to play and entertain themselves.
I remember clearly that during my own time there were people who swore by Nikon, Rolleiflex and Hasselblad, and those others who risked all with Pentax and Mamiya and/or the larger formats such as 4"x5" upwards. It didn't actually seem to create fanboys, as such, perhaps largely because there were no forums like this one, and no Internet existed to foster the cults. People had and used what they'd bought in to, and as long as the tools gave the results required, why would anyone change until they got into a higher level of market, when it became financially possible and advantageous (if only for basic prestige purposes) to have a few Hasselblad bodies and lenses lying around the studio even though the job was being shot on 135 format? People who hire you want to feel secure in the belief that they haven't picked a fly-by-night who might just vanish with part of the budget.
So there you are: why would any current top professional photographer feel a need to spend free time writing on LuLa - or anywhere, for that matter? In my own day, when I was busy I had no time to spend on anything else, and that often included eating and even sleeping. When I had periods with little or even no work I felt so helpless, humble and uncertain that just going out to see existing clients became a bit of a challenge. Without the adrenalin pumping, there are many things one can't hack. And dealing with some corporate asshole is one amongst those things, and there certainly were a few of them around, much to my initial surprise in those early days. There were also some gems who made working with them a pleasure. Writing to strangers in order to lift the business blues would certainly not have risen high on my list of remedial mechanics!
Time to spend on websites aside, there is also the website situation that occurs where the seasoned pro finds himself at loggerheads with an amateur who is simply unwilling or, as bad, unable to realise the limitations of his own knowledge or understanding. Who wants to argue? Who cares enough?
So yeah, some can and will become disenchanted with the entire experience. In my view, the principal attraction of a pro-section is in seeing higher-grade images from commissions etc. and I have little wish to look at crap and even less to discuss it - I can produce enough of my own, thanks very much. That's one reason why I so enjoy Cooter's posts: he knows his onions and isn't afraid to show images that live up to what one would hope he can produce. Personally speaking again, his genres are not so far away from where my own lay in the day; I enjoy seeing where he takes it now, well beyond my own time. As I never had much interest in architecture or still life, I can't say I currently find such shots suddenly very interesting. Yes, of course I can appreciate good work for what it is, but it doesn't excite me, which is something quite else. And if you lose excitement, whither motivation?
Rob C
-
At Luminous Landscape, every day is April Fool's Day.
-
I can understand the frustration on the part of Paul, feeling that somehow James was talking down to him and all other amateurs on this forum.
However, as a professional, I know that was not the case. It is just that a professional looks at the same subject very differently then an amateur. Amateurs and hobbyist are always concerned about the most MP or the best DR or the highest sex appeal, etc. Or should I say they put too much of an emphasis on those topics. After you become seasoned at what you do, these topics are mehhh.
Professionals are thinking about what kind of value will this add to my business, is it a marketable asset, will it get me additional work, what will the ROI be, how will it help improve my portfolio, will this enable me to create new types of work, if so do I want to and will people actually want to pay for it, can I just rent it instead if I only need every so often, etc., etc.?
Of course with the initial announcement of a new camera, back, light, whatever, the interest is sparked, but reality sets in very fast. Plus, I just don't have time to chew the fat about things that really don't matter.
In my own experience, I have been using a P45+ for a while now, a back released in 2007 and "outdated." I could have upgraded by now if I wanted to, however doing so is not going to provide me with any additional value with the type of work I do. I am getting more into beverage and liquor, which may involve lifestyle work. I am planning personal projects that center on this, and, if it is something I enjoy and something people want to pay me for, I may upgrade to an IQ260. But not for the high MP count or DR or better high ISO or interface, just merely because the XF body is very nice, has a waist high VF (which helps my back) and my P45+ will not attached to it.
Then there is the lighting aspect of photography, which as a pro I put more effect into then any other aspect of creating an image. I eat, drink and sleep lighting; it is almost the only thing I think about.
Not to say amateurs don't, some do and are very good at it. However most have this notion that a MFD system and a higher MP count or using the latest and greatest equipment is the secret sauce to great photography.
I have a meeting today with a restaurant that is letting me use there space for a personal project in return for providing them with a days worth of photography. Unbeknownst to me, the marketing directer is a hobbyist. She asked what type of camera I use, and, as always, I just said a MF system. Typically there is never a follow up question and the conversation moves on, but she started to talk about film and brands and mentioned Rollie & Hassy, so I had to say a "Phase One back on a tech camera."
Her eyes light up when she heard Phase One, and she said that certainly "sweetens the deal." (BTW, I find this to be a pretty impressive part of P1's marketing, that "Phase One" has become part of the overall culture.) It has now become obvious that she thinks in the same way as I described above; the latest and greatest trump lighting and composition. Todays meeting should be interesting.
(Plus I was planning on shooting the images for my portfolio with my MF system with the lighting very well planned out, and shooting for them with my Canon 5DII with a couple of lights relying more on ambient (kind of an upgraded magazine style). Now I will have to really plan out their images too, since well, ISO 200 is kind of the max.)
-
I can understand the frustration on the part of Paul, feeling that somehow James was talking down to him and all other amateurs on this forum.
However, as a professional, I know that was not the case. It is just that a professional looks at the same subject very differently then an amateur. Amateurs and hobbyist are always concerned about the most MP or the best DR or the highest sex appeal, etc. Or should I say they put too much of an emphasis on those topics. After you become seasoned at what you do, these topics are mehhh.
Professionals are thinking about what kind of value will this add to my business, is it a marketable asset, will it get me additional work, what will the ROI be, how will it help improve my portfolio, will this enable me to create new types of work, if so do I want to and will people actually want to pay for it, can I just rent it instead if I only need every so often, etc., etc.?
Of course with the initial announcement of a new camera, back, light, whatever, the interest is sparked, but reality sets in very fast. Plus, I just don't have time to chew the fat about things that really don't matter.
In my own experience, I have been using a P45+ for a while now, a back released in 2007 and "outdated." I could have upgraded by now if I wanted to, however doing so is not going to provide me with any additional value with the type of work I do. I am getting more into beverage and liquor, which may involve lifestyle work. I am planning personal projects that center on this, and, if it is something I enjoy and something people want to pay me for, I may upgrade to an IQ260. But not for the high MP count or DR or better high ISO or interface, just merely because the XF body is very nice, has a waist high VF (which helps my back) and my P45+ will not attached to it.
Then there is the lighting aspect of photography, which as a pro I put more effect into then any other aspect of creating an image. I eat, drink and sleep lighting; it is almost the only thing I think about.
Not to say amateurs don't, some do and are very good at it. However most have this notion that a MFD system and a higher MP count or using the latest and greatest equipment is the secret sauce to great photography.
I have a meeting today with a restaurant that is letting me use there space for a personal project in return for providing them with a days worth of photography. Unbeknownst to me, the marketing directer is a hobbyist. She asked what type of camera I use, and, as always, I just said a MF system. Typically there is never a follow up question and the conversation moves on, but she started to talk about film and brands and mentioned Rollie & Hassy, so I had to say a "Phase One back on a tech camera."
Her eyes light up when she heard Phase One, and she said that certainly "sweetens the deal." (BTW, I find this to be a pretty impressive part of P1's marketing, that "Phase One" has become part of the overall culture.) It has now become obvious that she thinks in the same way as I described above; the latest and greatest trump lighting and composition. Todays meeting should be interesting.
(Plus I was planning on shooting the images for my portfolio with my MF system with the lighting very well planned out, and shooting for them with my Canon 5DII with a couple of lights relying more on ambient (kind of an upgraded magazine style). Now I will have to really plan out their images too, since well, ISO 200 is kind of the max.)
-
Okay, so I wrote that response, went out on a couple open houses, thought about it and said maybe I should change some things. However, it appears Theodoros quoted me for the purpose of permanently recording my response publicly, so let me just add a clarification.
First, to me, amateur is not some negative term. I merely use it to define a person who is not paid for their work, and a professional is nothing more then someone who gets paid for their work. There are plenty of amateurs who could outshoot plenty of pros out there. This is very much the case with those who shoot landscapes; it is too bad for them that making a living of landscapes is probably the hardest genre to make a living at in photography.
Second, lighting is much more important to a good photographer than camera gear. It's not that I think amateurs can't or don't understand lighting, many do more so then many pros. It's just as a professional I get the opportunity to play with more lighting gear then what I normally would have access to, either due to being given a budget to use them or having the required commercial insurance needed to rent them.
-
Seems that I opened a can of worms. I'll answer that question first:
Both e-mail and physical addresses are easily faked, and where would the rest of us go to LEARN ?
We could have a section where only verified pro could write but everybody could read. And: sure addresses can be faked, but fake an address just to be authorised to post in a sub-section is not worth it.
Now, I'll comment on Rob's post.
-
To be or not to be; to post or not to post, pro or otherwise.
The difficulty that this site will always pose a pro is similar to that in any other non-selective membership site: the lack of certainty about the other people with whom one might be in correspondence within said site.
That said, it's not been my experience that pros were ever all that given to discussing their techniques and or equipment with other photographers. Even less likely was it that people working within the same city would share information that could offer the competition the slight advantage whatsoever; I'd be surprised if things have changed very much, and I'd imagine that with the tougher market out there today, important things are kept ever more closely to the individual chest. As for discussing prices/charges: you must be joking! Self-preservation is de rigueur, above absolutely everything else
As odd is the expectation that pros might think of themselves as gratuitous schools for amateurs, especially in a world where the professional and amateur distinctions are becoming more blurred the further down the market one goes... with less work around, the more control one can exercise over one's own outlets, abilities and possibilities the better; seems common sense to me.
First: we obviously already have professional photographers posting on forums, most notably Yelhsa which is the subject of this thread. So your theory, which I have read many times, is not supported by the facts. Professional photographers like to "talk shop", even if it does not bring them any money and they do that on Internet forums, when the forums are active and well maintained.
Now, remove all that stuff about markets from the equation, and where do we find ourselves, from a pro's point of view?
Chat about pixel-count, badges etc. is, I suggest, an amateur fixation, based on the belief that having the latest and greatest will make one a better photographer and, thus, bring one a little closer to the goal of making some money from the thing, at least enough to get back part of what was otherwise wasted on the hardware. I say wasted and I mean it: the average amateurs can get as much photographic joy out of a reasonable camera as from the top-of-the -range; where in hell are they selling all these huge enlargements they deem a theoretical necessity for their camera to be able to produce? They don't even need the pixel-count: they can stitch, yet something more with which to play and entertain themselves.
You seem to think that every amateur wants to become a pro (to "get back money waster on the hardware" or so). I understand why you think that, but it is not always true.
Taking your example of stitching: the stitching software was developed by amateurs. Same goes with focus stacking software. At some point, there were people who were not paid to take photographs (so they were not professional photographers), but like to play with their then new digital cameras and had this idea to use them for something else. On forums, they met people who could code and they had great fun to experiment about what could be done. Fast forward one or two years and you have panorama or focus stacking software, which then some pros use. Fast forward another 5 years, and it is part of photoshop. Add another 2-3 years and it is part of camera firmware.
Do you think these amateurs wanted to sell pictures? No, they just wanted to play with the cameras.
I remember clearly that during my own time there were people who swore by Nikon, Rolleiflex and Hasselblad, and those others who risked all with Pentax and Mamiya and/or the larger formats such as 4"x5" upwards. It didn't actually seem to create fanboys, as such, perhaps largely because there were no forums like this one, and no Internet existed to foster the cults. People had and used what they'd bought in to, and as long as the tools gave the results required, why would anyone change until they got into a higher level of market, when it became financially possible and advantageous (if only for basic prestige purposes) to have a few Hasselblad bodies and lenses lying around the studio even though the job was being shot on 135 format? People who hire you want to feel secure in the belief that they haven't picked a fly-by-night who might just vanish with part of the budget.
I remember clearly that during that time, you already had cults. People went to Arles with a Leica on their neck to be considered as a "real" photographers. People fought wars on what developper was to be used.
-
1. "First: we obviously already have professional photographers posting on forums, most notably Yelhsa which is the subject of this thread. So your theory, which I have read many times, is not supported by the facts. Professional photographers like to "talk shop", even if it does not bring them any money and they do that on Internet forums, when the forums are active and well maintained."
2. "You seem to think that every amateur wants to become a pro (to "get back money waster on the hardware" or so). I understand why you think that, but it is not always true.
3. "Taking your example of stitching: the stitching software was developed by amateurs. Same goes with focus stacking software. At some point, there were people who were not paid to take photographs (so they were not professional photographers), but like to play with their then new digital cameras and had this idea to use them for something else. On forums, they met people who could code and they had great fun to experiment about what could be done. Fast forward one or two years and you have panorama or focus stacking software, which then some pros use. Fast forward another 5 years, and it is part of photoshop. Add another 2-3 years and it is part of camera firmware."
4. "Do you think these amateurs wanted to sell pictures? No, they just wanted to play with the cameras."
5.. "I remember clearly that during that time, you already had cults. People went to Arles with a Leica on their neck to be considered as a "real" photographers. People fought wars on what developper was to be used."
......................................................................
1. Talking shop with another pro is not the same beast as 'chatting' within a broader, public audience. That some do both proves nothing either way. And what pros actually exchange is seldom what amateurs might be hoping to hear or pick up on. Personal remains just that. Frankly, the number of pros on LuLa seems to be a very small minority of poster indeed.
2. Nobody claimed it to be a universal state; I do claim it to be a generally desired one, though.
3. Exactly my point: it's the playing that excites many people, not the job, the profession of producing photographs to order.
4. Same as per 3.
5. Owning a Leica ceased to be any badge of professionalism the moment US/UK war photographers discovered Japanese lenses. The advent of the Nikon F nailed the last nail. There was a very long period of my pro life where I could have been a Leica owner but it never became part of my kit: too limited (M type) and ditto the R versions which for as long as I was interested didn't offer 100% screen viewing: fatal for anyone doing pro work on 135 cameras. Don't forget that Arles is about a very narrow band of photographic thought, hardly professional photography in the sense of somebody working for ad. agencies or general commerce. If anything, it seems to have become little more than a portfolio-viewing exercise; with reportage virtually dead in the water, what else could anyone reasonably expect? Magnum ain't what it used to represent to the outer world some years ago. To live it had to change, seek other markets not as heroically 'romantic' as the earnest young turks at Arles might imagine...
As to what developers were to be used, that was, again, an am. problem: I used D76 for every black/white film type I processed after I turned pro. There was simply no real, valid reason to do otherwise. You learned how to work within a minimal range of film types worth using, on the formats you had, and the times they needed in the soup. That was it. Any more than that, and you were back in a camera club.
Buy hey, that's just my post to which you responded, and just how I see it; I'm sure there are as many opinions as there are readers. The definitive reason would have to come from the absent one.
Rob C
-
I used to be a member of an artist's circle in Vienna that was "chaired" by a friend. Professional artists and painters. My friend saw me drawing, encouraged me to draw. And when I got better, he told me that at some point, the drawing becomes natural and then you need to turn to direction, to directing those figures you see in your mind's eye, then drawing them. And maybe we should take this lesson up here: We've all been around for some time; most of us can do what we want to do technically - we may not light like Cooter, but we can light, we can compose etc; but the question is what should we bring into the image, what is out shopping list? Should we try to work the model, should we try to milk the scene, should we try to retouch it into fantastical realism ...? So maybe the interesting conversation about these pictures is what was the brief, what did you think of showing, what did you actually end up showing ... etc. And btw, Cooter, I don't know whether it's intentional but that helicopter image frightens *me* here in Paris more than the mugshot of the guy who just got arrested after supervising that nice killing spree over here. Was it your intention to scare the viewer?
Edmund
Rob C. asked why post?
So bottom line . . . on an open forum I'd rather show these images, explain why I shot them, what we were thinking at the time, than talk how much latitude a camera has or why a Canon isn't as good as a Nikon.
1dx
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/HORSES_BEACH.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/BLACKHAWK_POINT.jpg)
5d2
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/paris_light.jpg)
Contax-P30+
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/SWIM_BLACK.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
BC,
Thank you for the photos and the lighting diagram. Beautiful and very different images!
The girl picture is arresting.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
1. Talking shop with another pro is not the same beast as 'chatting' within a broader, public audience. That some do both proves nothing either way. And what pros actually exchange is seldom what amateurs might be hoping to hear or pick up on. Personal remains just that. Frankly, the number of pros on LuLa seems to be a very small minority of poster indeed.
2. Nobody claimed it to be a universal state; I do claim it to be a generally desired one, though.
3. Exactly my point: it's the playing that excites many people, not the job, the profession of producing photographs to order.
4. Same as per 3.
5. Owning a Leica ceased to be any badge of professionalism the moment US/UK war photographers discovered Japanese lenses. The advent of the Nikon F nailed the last nail. There was a very long period of my pro life where I could have been a Leica owner but it never became part of my kit: too limited (M type) and ditto the R versions which for as long as I was interested didn't offer 100% screen viewing: fatal for anyone doing pro work on 135 cameras. Don't forget that Arles is about a very narrow band of photographic thought, hardly professional photography in the sense of somebody working for ad. agencies or general commerce. If anything, it seems to have become little more than a portfolio-viewing exercise; with reportage virtually dead in the water, what else could anyone reasonably expect? Magnum ain't what it used to represent to the outer world some years ago. To live it had to change, seek other markets not as heroically 'romantic' as the earnest young turks at Arles might imagine...
As to what developers were to be used, that was, again, an am. problem: I used D76 for every black/white film type I processed after I turned pro. There was simply no real, valid reason to do otherwise. You learned how to work within a minimal range of film types worth using, on the formats you had, and the times they needed in the soup. That was it. Any more than that, and you were back in a camera club.
Buy hey, that's just my post to which you responded, and just how I see it; I'm sure there are as many opinions as there are readers. The definitive reason would have to come from the absent one.
Rob C
1 Then, if the pros seldom exchange what amateurs might be hoping to hear or pick up on, why not having the exchange on a special section that the amateurs would not have to read?
2 You are right that plenty of amateurs desire to turn professional. What I am arguing is that the attitude of the ones who have no such desire is important to understand the situation.
3-4 Agreed.
5 You are right when you say that Nikon and D76 was what the pros used at the time. My argument was that, at the time, amateurs fought over these subjects, which had no interests for the pros. I see a parallel with today's amateurs discussing subjects like resolution or corner sharpness which have no interest for the pros.
-
Rob C. asked why post?
For me early on it was to learn about the transition from film to digital. Actually since I shoot human subject oriented advertising, (is that a genre?) I found the best source of learning digital capture and workflow was wedding photographers.
(...)
Thank you for your answer.
After reading it, it seems to me that the kind of pro who, basically, work on assignments, is a bit like a movie crew. For movie making, because of the complexity of the process, the function is divided between different persons: director, but also art director (responsible for the look of the set), costume designer /stylist, lightning director, camera operator. The director gets the assignment in the form of a scenario and is responsible to translate that into a visual product with the crew.
In photography, usually, the same guy wears all these hats and that confuses things for amateurs. In photography, a pro gets an assignment (which is not as detailed as a film scenario, but the underlying idea is the same) and is responsible to translate it into a series of pictures. He will need to arrange a set, lights, models, props, etc...
It seems to me that what you are interested to talk about is what the director does. On the contrary, amateurs only see the function of the guy behind the camera, the camera operator, and are interested in discussing the various knobs and handles the camera has.
Now: it is possible to discuss that function of a director in a photo forum. Actually, this is exactly what Yelhsa did and still does in his blog: present the assignment (the house) and show with before and after pictures the work of the crew to present the house in the way desired by the customer.
But if you want to discuss this and have other pros present their work in this way, I feel that you would get better results with a pro section. At present, you are using the MF section of a landscape forum to discuss assignments for product and people photography, in the hope that the price of the cameras will have selected the pros (as it did a few years ago). But, because second hand MF cameras have become more affordable, there are no amateurs owning one and they are interested in discussing the various knobs and handles their new MF camera has.
-
I just came across this:
http://www.jnevins.com/garywinograndreading.htm
Dogmatically and by various definitions, it absolutely should be elsewhere, but it stikes me that it fits right here better than anywhere else, simply because I believe it's pertinent to what's going down at the moment in this thread...
Rob C
-
Thanks for that, but regarding the negativity: it worries me too.
Well... maybe it should worry you. Maybe you should talk about it with your physician. Depression is treatable and you don't deserve all that negativity in your hard earned retirement. Just saying.
Plenty of people find great pleasure in crafting images, even when they are not getting paid for it. So if you find crafting images futile without the monetary gain, maybe it is just you and not all of them.
-
Not to gang up on Rob, just to suggest that humans have had the urge to snap (i.e., record) the world around them long before cameras were invented, like 35,000 years long ago, in caves. I doubt they were paid for it.
-
Keith, Slobodan, landscapephoto:
Okay, I suppose I'm seeing too much through my own prism; problem is, it's the only one I have.
But I can't honestly see it as "depression"; more as simply a realisation of reality. None can be a virgin again, and came a time I realised that I, at least, had to stop pretending. As for the cavemen: they didn't live long enough to get bored scratching.
Anyway, the offending posts have been removed, so let's hope the world moves along in peace.
Regarding the lottery: there's always next week!
;-)
Rob
-
Keith, Slobodan, landscapephoto:
Okay, I suppose I'm seeing too much through my own prism; problem is, it's the only one I have.
But I can't honestly see it as "depression"; more as simply a realisation of reality. None can be a virgin again, and came a time I realised that I, at least, had to stop pretending. As for the cavemen: they didn't live long enough to get bored scratching.
Depression feels like realisation of reality.
You worry about yourself (you said so) and the people reading what you wrote in that thread worry as well. Just ask for an independent opinion.
-
... But I can't honestly see it as "depression"; more as simply a realisation of reality...
"And on the brave and crazy wings of youth
They went flying around in the rain
And their feathers, once so fine, grew torn and tattered
And in the end they traded their tired wings
For the resignation that living brings'
Before The Deluge by Jackson Browne: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
-
"And on the brave and crazy wings of youth
They went flying around in the rain
And their feathers, once so fine, grew torn and tattered
And in the end they traded their tired wings
For the resignation that living brings'
Before The Deluge by Jackson Browne: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
That's cool! I also discovered this a moment ago:
Garry Winogrand / recommended books
Winogrand: Figments From The Real World
Szarkowski, director of MOMA's photography department, cultivated Winogrand and, after his death in 1984, was left with the task of editing 6500 rolls of unprinted (and 2500 rolls of undeveloped) 35mm negatives (about 300,000 unedited images altogether). Nine stages of Winogrand's work are presented chronologically here and in a traveling exhibition, along with a sizable selection of "unfinished" later work described by Szarkowski as "deeply flawed" and "pointless."
That says a lot about photography. Perhaps it's about how much of it you have done -or should do - in a lifetime: diminishing returns, and all that jazz. Saturation Point: maybe American landscapers find it at Zabriskie Point.
;-)
Rob
-
Winogrand is one of my favorite photographers. But most of his goodness was from his early years. Electric stuff. Alas, his latter-day work was mundane to the point of pointlessness, IMHO. I don't know if he was depressed or discouraged or just simply lost his mojo, but there was more than a hint of a tell in those thousands of undeveloped rolls. Tragic, really.
Part of art is need. We do it because we're driven to. Part is joy. The happiness that comes from crafting a tiny bit of truth.
Seems to me Winogrand ended up just doing it out of habit. Any art, certainly any joy, was long gone.
-
Winogrand is one of my favorite photographers. But most of his goodness was from his early years. Electric stuff. Alas, his latter-day work was mundane to the point of pointlessness, IMHO. I don't know if he was depressed or discouraged or just simply lost his mojo, but there was more than a hint of a tell in those thousands of undeveloped rolls. Tragic, really.
Part of art is need. We do it because we're driven to. Part is joy. The happiness that comes from crafting a tiny bit of truth.
Seems to me Winogrand ended up just doing it out of habit. Any art, certainly any joy, was long gone.
Art. I thought I used to have definitions that mattered (to me) and then they slowly went the way of most other things we think we are certain about. I have come to the conclusion that art - whatever it is - is a God-part, and if we are touched by it, then good for us for as long as the magic sticks. But any expectations that it should bring us anything beyond its own intrinsic reward in the doing of, is madness. It may or it may not - not part of the divine deal; if anything, it's probably the unconscious Faustian one that brings other rewards.
I hesitate to go there again and re-articulate my opinion, which is that I fear the same fate probably awaits anyone who does too much of it. It can well, as you suggest, become habit, which is fine just as long you don't catch on to what's going down. I think Garry was far from alone in reaching that point. Maybe Robert Frank was smarter: did his climactic thing prematurely and never went back. It's no fun realising you might be like one of those mechanical toys that fell over and can't stop marching until the spring unwinds.
I've been a fan of Saul Leiter since the end of the 50s, and he was well on the go before that. In interviews many decades later towards the end of his life, when sudden re-recognition engulfed him, he mourns the passing of his anonymity and the way people keep wanting another piece of him. But he was quite old and Winogrand not.
I don't really think it depression, not that I know a lot about any of those people to judge, but I think depression is a state that covers much more than just the interface between you and your 'art' if you have one. Who knows?
Gotta fly, cash my huge lottery win, buy some vegetables and have another coffee. As I'm buying another ticket, the win won't even buy the coffee. Life.
Rob C