Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Farkled on November 18, 2009, 09:13:43 pm
-
Is anybody besides me disappointed, outraged even, with Ken Rockwell's disparagement of the PODAS program and especially Michael, Jeff and the other pros? It's in today's post on his blog. It's a new low for him; outright insults.
I don't mind him touting JPGs and himself and often read his blog for laughs, but this stuff is beyond the pale.
-
Is anybody besides me disappointed, outraged even, with Ken Rockwell's disparagement of the PODAS program and especially Michael, Jeff and the other pros? It's in today's post on his blog. It's a new low for him; outright insults.
I don't mind him touting JPGs and himself and often read his blog for laughs, but this stuff is beyond the pale.
The only thing bigger than Rockwell's mouth is his ego.
Best not to feed the troll.
-
Looks like he's now backed off and removed his trashy entry as a result of a number of complaints.
Michael
-
Not only stupid but a coward too.
If you are stupid at least stand behind your words.
-
This comes as no surprise. Saying silly, controversial things is simply Ken's business model.
Best not to feed the troll.
Exactly.
-
This comes as no surprise. Saying silly, controversial things is simply Ken's business model.
Bingo. Ken is one of many trolling the blogosphere who play the pot-stirring game as a ploy to raise their click-thru numbers. He posts outrageous stuff in a specific formula guaranteed to piss people off; they vent about it on other forums; he gets the free publicity he needs to increase his visitor clicks. Photography bonafides or no, the cynical game he plays with his readers in his pursuit of cash are why I stopped reading him long ago.
-
Photography bonafides or no, the cynical game he plays with his readers in his pursuit of cash are why I stopped reading him long ago.
Definitely more "no" than otherwise. I gave up on him when he started his silliness about JPEGs being good enough and RAWs are unnecessary.
-
If Ken’s understanding of color spaces is any indication, anything he says should be immediately dismissed as that of a troll looking for attention and nothing more.
-
It does seem to be his modus, controversial statements. Good for him for backing off; and hopefully he did some apologizing.
It is curious to me the amount of commentary he elicits from folks who disdain him. His humour and opinions are no less valid because some may disagree with him, and apparantly he does strike a "chord" at times.
-
His humour and opinions are no less valid because some may disagree with him
No, a lot of the stuff he says is verifiably wrong, incorrect, untrue BS. Color management and JPEG vs RAW are two prime examples. It's one thing to be colorful and controversial, it's quite another to be clueless and incompetent. If I were to claim that masturbating with a cheese grater is fun and something everyone should try, that claim would have no validity regardless of whether or not other people agreed with me or not, or how colorfully or humorously I phrased the recommendation.
-
I'm starting to see the funny side of this thread!
-
I stand by my previous statement.
I read his original post about PODAS, saw the pics, thought they were unimpressive, and now I know why. I don't remember him attacking any one person by name, though I could be wrong. The post did seem over the top, even for KR, but moral outrage about it, especially as he's retracted it?
My personal BS filter works just fine, I find him entertaining, informative, and just as full of it as most "experts" at some time or the other. I'm recused from arguments about JPEG vs RAW, as I use both, so I must be a fool.
I have spoke!
-
I stand by my previous statement.
I read his original post about PODAS, saw the pics, thought they were unimpressive, and now I know why. I don't remember him attacking any one person by name, though I could be wrong. The post did seem over the top, even for KR, but moral outrage about it, especially as he's retracted it?
My personal BS filter works just fine, I find him entertaining, informative, and just as full of it as most "experts" at some time or the other. I'm recused from arguments about JPEG vs RAW, as I use both, so I must be a fool.
I have spoke!
I love a good KR thread. The contents are more constant than most of the participant's camera bodies:)
Mike
-
I read one of his posts quite a while ago, looking for humor. There was very little of that, and much less of meaningful content.
I find it much more entertaining to read threads like this one on LuLa. The responses to KR tend to be more literate and imaginative than anything I saw on his website.
@ Jonathan: Just what type of cheese grater would you recommend (for KR, of course)?
-
It might not be popular, but I agree with KR comments on film ;-)
(well some of them)
Back on topic, no question this was ill conceived by Ken, no bad thing that this has been corrected.
But I also think it's rather embarrassing for Capture One, to have a blog up where the photos are shall we say, below par.
Granted they are only "shots of what went on etc" but do we really need camera shake and iffy exposures? This isn't a personal blog it's for a serious course with a camera manufacturer. Maybe Capture One can ensure the next one they do, has somewhat more competent photos??
Would you expect BMW to turn up to a driving course they sponsored with beaten up old cars covered in mud?? Surely even a blog is deserving of something not too bad, not talking about creative talent or work, just erm, well half decent exposures. If the blog writer isn't a photographer (and I surely hope he is not! lol), then maybe someone who is interested would do it.
Just a point to make here..I'll put the fire suit on now
-
@ Jonathan: Just what type of cheese grater would you recommend (for KR, of course)?
(http://officespam.chattablogs.com/archives/chinese-cheese-grater-slide.jpg)
-
(http://officespam.chattablogs.com/archives/chinese-cheese-grater-slide.jpg)
Jonathan,
'fess up now - has that picture been photoshopped?
-
Not the picture but the Kid needed to be photoshopped after the slide. PtGUI pro was used to stitch back the kid.
-
Not the picture but the Kid needed to be photoshopped after the slide. PtGUI pro was used to stitch back the kid.
However it was accomplished, it made me laff out loud. Thanks!
-
But I also think it's rather embarrassing for Capture One, to have a blog up where the photos are shall we say, below par.
Constructive criticism please
http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_3880.jpg (http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_3880.jpg)
;-)
-
But I also think it's rather embarrassing for Capture One, to have a blog up where the photos are shall we say, below par.
I have to agree, especially since some of the images were not just P&S shots, but were taken with Phase-One backs and are equally awful. Snapshots of attendees participating in the workshop are one thing, but some of the model/landscape shots taken with the P65+ backs are absolutely dreadful. I'm not sure what they were trying to communicate with those images, but posting such terrible images isn't very good advertising for their digital backs.
-
I'm outraged! harumph! harumph! harumph!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY)
-
I have to agree, especially since some of the images were not just P&S shots, but were taken with Phase-One backs and are equally awful. Snapshots of attendees participating in the workshop are one thing, but some of the model/landscape shots taken with the P65+ backs are absolutely dreadful. I'm not sure what they were trying to communicate with those images, but posting such terrible images isn't very good advertising for their digital backs.
I do wonder what the hard working pro's of the digital backs forum think of those who are at a level in their photography where they still need workshops and are producing that low a level of work (even with tuition) - but who seem to feel that they need a P40+ or P65+ to the extent of ordering them mid workshop. I don't blame P1 for pandering to this kind of mentality, they have a job to do, all strength to them. The educators though are IMO well out of line if they are encouraging this kind of thing. It's very much a rich mans posing thing going on it seems. It certainly would not be tolerated at any respected university or school. This is however is my own personal opinion, I have zero respect for KR.
-
If Ken’s understanding of color spaces is any indication, anything he says should be immediately dismissed as that of a troll looking for attention and nothing more.
How could you possibly impugn his understanding of color spaces? The man himself writes:
[blockquote]Did you know I conceived the world's first dedicated digital colorspace converter chip, the TMC2272, back in 1990 when I worked at TRW LSI Products? I've been working with the matrix math, hardware and software that does this for decades. I also coined the word "gigacolors," for use with 36-bit and 48-bit color data. I was only kidding, but the word is still used. TRW LSI was a small, ultra-creative division of TRW, and I got away putting the same mirth I use on this website into the datasheets I wrote. The industry copied us and the word lives on. [/blockquote]
It would be the height of irony for someone to write all that vain puffery in service of an overblown ego without at least having some understanding to go with it. Can you possibly be saying than even in this one area where he might lay valid claim to some modicum of expertise, he is actually just as mistaken as in everything else? Sad.
-
(http://officespam.chattablogs.com/archives/chinese-cheese-grater-slide.jpg)
Thank you, Jonathan. That makes my day!
Eric
-
Can you possibly be saying than even in this one area where he might lay valid claim to some modicum of expertise, he is actually just as mistaken as in everything else? Sad.
I can’t say his claims are true or his imagination. I can say his ideas on color spaces show a severe lack of understanding of the topic.
-
How could you possibly impugn his understanding of color spaces? The man himself writes:
[blockquote]Did you know I conceived the world's first dedicated digital colorspace converter chip, the TMC2272, back in 1990 when I worked at TRW LSI Products? I've been working with the matrix math, hardware and software that does this for decades. I also coined the word "gigacolors," for use with 36-bit and 48-bit color data. I was only kidding, but the word is still used. TRW LSI was a small, ultra-creative division of TRW, and I got away putting the same mirth I use on this website into the datasheets I wrote. The industry copied us and the word lives on. [/blockquote]
It would be the height of irony for someone to write all that vain puffery in service of an overblown ego without at least having some understanding to go with it. Can you possibly be saying than even in this one area where he might lay valid claim to some modicum of expertise, he is actually just as mistaken as in everything else? Sad.
So, his main credential as a color space expert is that he invented the word "gigacolors?" I suspect the janitor could have done that.
-
I find this moral outrage against Ken Rockwell to be rather entertaining. I think the greater outrage is that the PODAS site showed such horribly inferior images that it opened itself up to Ken Rockwell's criticism. And nobody wants to be subject to the poking of the class clown.
Frankly, I agree with Ken Rockwell on this one. There is little evidence that this was anything more than a bunch of rich posers learning how to use their cameras and software.
I really wish to be proven wrong on this. Would somebody please show us some world-class photos? Claims of "but look at the detail and resolution" don't counteract the fact that the rest of compositions are amateur hour.
But on the flip side, an argument could be made that workshops are all about learning and not about producing so all is forgiven.
Ken Rockwell may have the photographic attention span of a two-year-old, but that cat actually does know a thing or two and he can usually (not always, but usually) back his claims up with proof.
Ken N.
www.zone-10.com
-
I think the greater outrage is that the PODAS site showed such horribly inferior images that it opened itself up to Ken Rockwell's criticism.
Maybe this text on the blog was recently updated but its pretty clear what we’re supposed to be viewing:
The images posted on this blog are basically snap shots for lack of better words to show what attendees were doing the instruction and fun in progress. These ARE NOT final images from Phase One cameras or the attendees.
There is little evidence that this was anything more than a bunch of rich posers learning how to use their cameras and software.
Maybe but as someone that’s done a few similar seminars, I’m often impressed by the quality of the photography of some rich posers.
Would somebody please show us some world-class photos?
World class? I suspect we’ll end up seeing some quality photography. And since we’ve yet to see what the blog is intending to be anything but snaps, lets cut them some slack, something Ken apparently can’t do because drawing attention to himself is his goal and M.O.
-
I find this moral outrage against Ken Rockwell to be rather entertaining. I think the greater outrage is that the PODAS site showed such horribly inferior images that it opened itself up to Ken Rockwell's criticism. And nobody wants to be subject to the poking of the class clown.
Frankly, I agree with Ken Rockwell on this one. There is little evidence that this was anything more than a bunch of rich posers learning how to use their cameras and software.
I really wish to be proven wrong on this. Would somebody please show us some world-class photos? Claims of "but look at the detail and resolution" don't counteract the fact that the rest of compositions are amateur hour.
But on the flip side, an argument could be made that workshops are all about learning and not about producing so all is forgiven.
Ken Rockwell may have the photographic attention span of a two-year-old, but that cat actually does know a thing or two and he can usually (not always, but usually) back his claims up with proof.
Ken N.
www.zone-10.com
The snapshots on the blog are not taken with Phase cameras, but a point&shoot. There might be some Phase shots there (didn't go through them all), but it is a workshop after all and people were learning the ropes with an MFDB. I don't think any of the photos are meant to showcase the skills of the photographers or the capabilities of Phase backs.
Mr Rockwell is rather uncouth in how he goes after snapshots and presumably* ridicules workshop attendees' accomplishments who were there to learn and see Phase backs in action, rather than produce magazine covers.
Much too much noise about this non-event.
* didn't see the original post
-
Well, I'm no KR apologist, and I think he showed considerable lack of judgement and tact in his initial post, BUT the photos he pointed to were truly awful. I suspect what he was trying to say was that it's not the gear that makes the photograph, it's the photographer.
-
Exif in images shows a Canon G10 and a Phase One for some.
Sorry, but I think it's inappropriate to have poor quality photos on any blog, let alone one that is photography based. I wasn't looking for works of art, or gold medals, but honestly..if the blog guy isn't into photography, let someone take them who is!
Basic stuff like red eye, underexposure, camera shake.
This isn't a blog about some guy doing his garden, you could forgive iffy shots (as he isn't into photography)
Any company or event based blog for photography, should have at least reasonable images on their blog.
-
I visit this site very often but missed this offensive posting as it seems to have been removed very quickly.
Now we are in a large thread and I really do not know what it is about.
Was it so offensive that it can't be reposted or paraphrased in this thread?
Come on guys, has anybody saved the offensive materia so that the rest of us can enjoy the fun also?
I know it is not nice to repeat the offensive material but I feel so left out.
Robert
-
I find this moral outrage against Ken Rockwell to be rather entertaining. I think the greater outrage is that the PODAS site showed such horribly inferior images that it opened itself up to Ken Rockwell's criticism.
You know what a blog is? It's a quick-turn-around, online news letter and in this case the blog had posts made (except the one afternoon where the net went down) when somebody had a spare minute...
The vast majority of the images on the blog were shot with point & shoot (I personally brought my new Canon S90 to shoot snaps with). Those were pretty easy to edit and post quickly...As far as the P65+ shots I did? Heck, I still don't have final edits from Antarctica from Feb, England from July and Southern Utah from Sept. You think I'm gonna have a final selection edit and processed files from Death Valley in less than a week of shooting? Surely you jest...
To give you an idea of our daily schedule, we assembled each day at 5AM to drive to various locations for pre-dawn setup. Sunrise was about 6:18AM. We shot till the light lost it's look. We returned to the Inn for breakfast at 8 or 8:30AM. We then had a morning workshop session, for example–working with Capture One 5.0 (ya see, many of the attendees had never shot a Phase One camera nor used C1). We had lunch then an afternoon session and we assembled at 3PM for the vans to go to the sunset locations (sunset was about 4:28PM or so-depending on the western mountains). We returned for dinner at 6:30-7:30 for dinner, then had an evening session-I did one on integrating Capture One and Lightroom. Pretty much everybody was in bed by 10:30PM (the bar closed at 10PM) and then back up at 4:30AM for the next morning's shoot.
So, based on that shoot schedule, exactly when would you expect people to get final selection edits and final processed images done? Heck, we were just lucky to get the cards downloaded and take a quick glance at what we had just shot, eat, sleep and do it all over again...
I will tell you this, as I was sitting in the back of the meeting room watching people do rough edits of their work, I was rather impressed with the quality of the images...and those images haven't been shown anywhere that I've aware of.
So, you might just want to hold off expressing your "outrage" until you actually have seen some of the final work from the students....
-
I visit this site very often but missed this offensive posting as it seems to have been removed very quickly.
Now we are in a large thread and I really do not know what it is about.
Was it so offensive that it can't be reposted or paraphrased in this thread?
Come on guys, has anybody saved the offensive materia so that the rest of us can enjoy the fun also?
I know it is not nice to repeat the offensive material but I feel so left out.
He didn't use offensive language, if that's what you're asking. He basically showed some of the pics taken with P65+ backs at the event and made a number of derisive and very unflattering comments about the pics and the photographers who took them. He didn't name names, other than to note that Michael and a few other notables were associated with the event. His basic point was that here were all these people, who paid a fair amount of money to participate in the event, who were using expensive loaned P65+ backs and Phase One/Mamiya cameras, and wondering if this was the best they could come up with. The pics he linked to were pretty bad (but as Jeff points out, they were quick uploads of unedited and probably unprocessed shots). But what really had everybody up in arms was the tone he used to make his point. He could have made his point without being quite so snarky (to use a modern term).
-
The educators though are IMO well out of line if they are encouraging this kind of thing.
I suppose you didn't like our going to Antarctica to shoot either? Boy, you must REALLY hate Michael for doing all those workshops all over the world and encouraging pros or amateurs with enough money to go along huh? And you think WE are out of line?
I would be happy to judge YOUR own personal work just as soon as you actually post something on the internet (it seems all your wedding shots are in password protected galleries, don't know what else you shoot). Then when the PODAS students get around finishing we'll compare your stuff to their stuff to see exactly who is out of line...
Actually, it sounds more like sour grapes that the students DO have enough money to go on a really great trip to shoot with really great cameras/backs and have the week to hang out with some really good instructors and learn something. Kinda hard to put a price tag on something like that.
Oh, and yeah...we did have a lot of fun (and made some great images). My apologies if that offends you...
-
Come on guys, has anybody saved the offensive materia so that the rest of us can enjoy the fun also?
I agree - there's nothing like a good tempas in a teapod to while away a dull afternoon
-
It's very much a rich mans posing thing going on it seems. It certainly would not be tolerated at any respected university or school.
I hope to be rich enough to pose on a sand dune ... and I'd even let another rich guy take my picture with a canon P&S and put it on the web.
Sign me up.
I was never very well-tolerated at school myself ... I was always playing with cameras and stuff instead of going to class ...
-
Come on guys, has anybody saved the offensive materia so that the rest of us can enjoy the fun also?
Anyone know how to hack the google cache server? It is in there somewhere ...
-
the wayback machine (http://www.archive.org/index.php) may be of use...
-
...
... the students DO have enough money to go on a really great trip to shoot with really great cameras/backs and have the week to hang out with some really good instructors and learn something.
...
Oh, and yeah...we did have a lot of fun (and made some great images)...
From an amateur and please, not to talk out of turn, but that sounds wonderful.
-
I really wish to be proven wrong on this. Would somebody please show us some world-class photos? Claims of "but look at the detail and resolution" don't counteract the fact that the rest of compositions are amateur hour.
I'm not sure why anyone is judging the skill level of the group based on a bunch of snapshots taken by a couple of guys (frequently using the viewfinder optional technique) simply meant to document the event. (In fact, I"m not sure why it's anyone's concern as to the skill level of those in attendance). I see nothing wrong with PODAS blog. If you aren't interested in what we did then don't check it out. It was a terrific event and first rate. I believe eventually you will see some of the work on the Phase One site, although looking at it here on the web only allows you to formulate opinions about the photographer not the equipment. The very purpose of the event was to allow people to experience the equipment and get an idea what it's like and what it can deliver without having to invest in it. It's not for everyone, but I don't think anyone shooting MFDB ever claims it is.
What's your definition of world class? If it's the same as mine, then you are welcome to come and see a couple of the 40x60's I've printed from the workshop to see if they are world class, because you know that sticking them up here on the web and they'll look pretty much the same as the ones I took with my s90. As far as being amateur hour, I saw plenty of images being worked on, and it definitely wasn't amateur hour.
KR simply thought he found a way to support his claim that the camera doesn't matter, which is his big thing. (Personally I can't believe anyone would look at the snapshots and think they came from a PhaseSystem ... it's pretty obvious they're from a point and shoot). The problem I have is he preaches it as an absolute. Regardless of whether you believe MFDB offers anything or not, I'm certainly glad I'm not shooting the Kodak DCS 560 that I started with. I'm also glad I'm not trying to print 40x60's from my s90. We all know that the camera doesn't make a photographer, but to believe the camera doesn't matter is foolishness. In one regard the camera doesn't matter ... a great image is a great image. But to extrapolate this to the point that the camera never matters is what he implies with all of his rantings, and that's utter nonsense.
Here's one of my favorites from the week. Unfortunately about all I can do with this is put it on the web, because the camera resolved so many footprints even as far away as the large dune they are just too distracting. Too many to even tackle with the clone tool.
[attachment=18056:DunesCF000203_700.jpg]
-
but a point&shoot.
there were subpar even for a modern P&S though... may be cell ph camera ?
-
His basic point was that here were all these people, who paid a fair amount of money to participate in the event, who were using expensive loaned P65+ backs and Phase One/Mamiya cameras, and wondering if this was the best they could come up with. The pics he linked to were pretty bad (but as Jeff points out, they were quick uploads of unedited and probably unprocessed shots). But what really had everybody up in arms was the tone he used to make his point. He could have made his point without being quite so snarky (to use a modern term).
It's not the snark, it's the fact that Ken is a guy who's main photographic activity, last I checked, was shooting snaps of his toddler with a $5000 Nikon. The Nikon glass he claims to own is worth as much as a very solid Phase setup. And have you seen his galleries? He's a total hack. He is, in other words, the exact thing that he condemns: a rich poser with lots of shiny toys and no idea how to use them, artistically or even technically.
Bottom line: the guy adds nothing of value to our community. Ignore him.
-
the wayback machine (http://www.archive.org/index.php) may be of use...
Takes 6 months to show up there ...
-
Someone needs to open the door here, getting a tad heated to say the least.
I don't think it's wise to attack someone's work so vigorously, I cannot say I share KR's love of mega colour, but I wouldn't by any means suggest he has no idea how to use a camera or make some decent shots.
We really don't need to dig this deep into the pit of shame..
This does not strengthen any arguments or points, just deflects from them.
-
Here's one of my favorites from the week. Unfortunately about all I can do with this is put it on the web,
Maybe a postcard?
-
He didn't use offensive language, if that's what you're asking. He basically showed some of the pics taken with P65+ backs at the event and made a number of derisive and very unflattering comments about the pics and the photographers who took them.
Actually, I think he implied to all his readers that ALL of the blog images were from P65+'s when if you looked at the EXIF, many of them were simple G10 images obviously chosen just to illustrate the blog. So his typical spin and questionable veracity was present...
-
And have you seen his galleries? He's a total hack. He is, in other words, the exact thing that he condemns: a rich poser with lots of shiny toys and no idea how to use them, artistically or even technically.
Bottom line: the guy adds nothing of value to our community. Ignore him.
Actually, I have looked very carefully at his galleries. There are some things which are rather pedestrian--no different than any of our own work, but there are some things which one can really learn from. He has a good grasp of color, light and eye-flow.
As to ignoring him and adding nothing of value? Hardly. He has got us acknowledging that there just might be an elephant in the room. Some people see the beast, others still choose to believe that the odor is just fine cheese.
There is this common belief today that SIZE and DETAIL is what matters in a photograph. Frankly, I've seen few photographs from the "masters" shooting MFDB cameras that hold any interest to me because they are nothing more than high-quality and massive postcards. To pick on our host of this website, Michael is simply an outstanding photographer in every regard, but almost without exception my favorite images that he's taken were with inferior cameras. Almost without exception these pixel-sharp "30x40" masterpieces all fall in the "I've seen that shot before" category. If I was there, I would have shot the same thing. Show me something I wouldn't have seen.
"Postcards" you ask? Them's fighting words I know. But come on folks, let's be brutally honest with ourselves. There is hardly anything original going on here. Trust me, this is my biggest criticism of my own work too. I don't have any corner on originality.
Funny thing about Ken Rockwell's criticism. It was less about the quality of the photographs and more about the entire model shoot. He brought up a good point--what about the lighting? What about the props? Where are the motorcycle and the snakes? His point was that this workshop was all about the cameras and software, not about photography. A fair criticism for sure, but the fact is this workshop by the very nature of being sponsored by Phase One was all about the cameras and software.
I look forward to seeing some original and creative photography from this workshop. I'm always up to learning and finding new ways to shoot the same old subject. But, PLEASE don't show me the same shot I've seen 1000x before. If your tripod's tips were setting in well-worn pockets, don't waste my time. I don't care if you shot it with gear costing more than my entire house and you can make out the grains of sand 100 yards away. I've either seen it or done it myself.
-
-
Actually, I think he implied to all his readers that ALL of the blog images were from P65+'s when if you looked at the EXIF, many of them were simple G10 images obviously chosen just to illustrate the blog. So his typical spin and questionable veracity was present...
One of the featured photos from the model shoot was from a P65+ and appears lifeless and dark. Hardly something that speaks well for the photographer or the camera. It was processed in Capture One, apparently without much attention. It also is in Adobe RGB, which is not the best space for the web's unmanaged color.
[attachment=18062:cf006135_small.jpg]
Anyway, I don't see the reason for all the fuss. People trying to score brownie points with Michael by jumping to his defense? Hardly needed since most of us know KR is a buffoon who makes outrageous statements and Michael is the respected host of this forum. However, I think whoever posted the photos in that blog should have used a bit more care.
Bill
-
I look forward to seeing some original and creative photography from this workshop. I'm always up to learning and finding new ways to shoot the same old subject. But, PLEASE don't show me the same shot I've seen 1000x before. If your tripod's tips were setting in well-worn pockets, don't waste my time. I don't care if you shot it with gear costing more than my entire house and you can make out the grains of sand 100 yards away. I've either seen it or done it myself.
Behind that anonymous screen name it's pretty hard to take you at your word since we don't know you from Adam...care to give a link to YOUR work so we can all share?
Fact is, it's ALWAYS a challenge to see something new or the same old thing in a new way...but just because somebody's tripod has been there before is that a reason to give up and turn away? Really, you go to all that trouble of going out at predawn, are you really not gonna kill some pixels?
What decides whether something is worth viewing is a bit more than simply noting it's complete "newness". If that were the case, why would the jazz greats often play the same traditional songs while throwing their own bit of themselves here and there?
Seriously, that's a jaded prospect to YOUR own work leaking out...I do what I do for myself...I seriously don't care what other people think (really, I don't on so many levels :~)
-
Ken Rockwell's work with the Mamiya 7 and 4x5 is pretty good, but he's nuts about the "Your camera doesn't matter" thing, as well as worshipping JPEGs, saying that tripods are OBSOLETE, and calling scanned 35mm film "RealRAW" or whatever.
What he is good at doing is pissing people off intentionally to drive traffic to his website. In this sense, he's a genius, and is very successful at what he does (being an ass for a living).
-
I've no objection at all to a good thoughtful insult, but it's such a shame when a chap's pleasures are solitary. Young Ken should really get out more. Have a coffee. Shave his palms and make new friends. Perhaps even find a hobby. Having an interest in life is important, don't you think?
David
-
I've been to a couple of major workshops, and the work produced was not high art -- because that's not what people go to workshops for. They go there to learn about cameras and techniques and to trade ideas, which actually detracts from the possibility of making really good photos. It's what comes after the workshop that counts. The workshops I attended (at Santa Fe) produced some profound changes in my work, but the little box of slides I bought home were generally junk -- I didn't know what I was doing and the pictures show it. If I *had* known what I was doing, I wouldn't have taken the workshop. Why would I? But my experience radically changed the way that I looked at light, and the manipulation of light; once through that barrier, it was up to me, at home, to do the real work.
In the case of this workshop, for example, I would have had no idea what to do with the models. I have no interest in models, or in fashion, and not much in landscape, but I do have a pretty sharp interest in what these cameras can do, and how they handle, and models and landscapes would give you a fairly thorough demonstration of that. The pictures would have sucked, because I would haven't been as interested in the pictures as in the possibilities, and I would have been as interested in others peoples' results as in my own.
As for Rockwell, I think one of the reasons that he is generally disdained on the more serious forums is that he pitches his view to beginning photographers, and quite a few of his ideas are simply wrong. I'm not talking about opinions or aesthetics, but photographic "mechanics," like his jpg vs. RAW views, which are silly. I've seen some of his camera "reviews" which have also had some major problems (like, mistakes.) There are other well-regarded photographers who like the way that their cameras render jpgs, or who like odd or unusual cameras, and pronounce themselves satisfied with their results, which is fine; but that's different than pitching bad information to beginners.
JC
-
I look forward to seeing some original and creative photography from this workshop. I'm always up to learning and finding new ways to shoot the same old subject. But, PLEASE don't show me the same shot I've seen 1000x before. If your tripod's tips were setting in well-worn pockets, don't waste my time. I don't care if you shot it with gear costing more than my entire house and you can make out the grains of sand 100 yards away. I've either seen it or done it myself.
The workshop was about how to use a very high end digital back, not just physically but from an entire workflow perspective. The focus was on understanding how to use the equipment as well as get the most out of it. While it was in a landscape location, in fact many there were just trying to understand what the equipment was capable of. While we were taking pictures of an interesting place, it certainly wasn't about how to shoot landscape photography and in fact many in the group were not landscape photographers. It was in a class setting so it was limited by the workshop agendas ... as any workshop would be. While I like several of the images I captured, many occasions the light was inadequate so we just made do. For example as far as the dunes, I would have never gone there on the morning I did if I were seriously trying to capture great images ... it's obvious you have to time your visit based on when the wind has cleared the footprints (or drive quite a bit further north to the dunes that are less visited.) So while I got some very nice things (I like them anyway and to me that's all that matters), I think it will take me several trips of exploring and shooting on my own to really capture what I was feeling as I visited the area.
That doesn't mean there weren't some great images captured ... whether they fit your definition of original and creative I don't know but I guess that really doesn't matter.
I've been to a couple of major workshops, and the work produced was not high art -- because that's not what people go to workshops for. They go there to learn about cameras and techniques and to trade ideas, which actually detracts from the possibility of making really good photos. It's what comes after the workshop that counts.
In the case of this workshop, for example, I would have had no idea what to do with the models. I have no interest in models, or in fashion, and not much in landscape, but I do have a pretty sharp interest in what these cameras can do, and how they handle, and models and landscapes would give you a fairly thorough demonstration of that. The pictures would have sucked, because I would haven't been as interested in the pictures as in the possibilities, and I would have been as interested in others peoples' results as in my own.
Good points. I got the feeling there was a very diverse group of photographers there, from commercial to serious landscape ... all just wanting to take a test drive. The models were provided because some wanted a feel for shooting people, and i don't think any of us really wanted to be subjects. Phase was kind enough to bring a few models in. Many in the group such as myself weren't interested in shooting the models so the compromise was going to a location (Artist's Drive) with the models so you could shoot the landscape if you preferred. I don't think they had the equipment they wanted for a location shoot like this, and by the time we got there because of cloud cover it was already getting darker than would be ideal. I don't think anyone was trying to create a masterpiece model shot, they just wanted some images with hair, eyes and skin detail to evaluate the equipment as well as see how the equipment was to handle physically for this type of work.
-
I've no objection at all to a good thoughtful insult, but it's such a shame when a chap's pleasures are solitary. Young Ken should really get out more. Have a coffee. Shave his palms and make new friends. Perhaps even find a hobby. Having an interest in life is important, don't you think?
It seems some people on this thread are being more insulting - actually a lot more insulting - than Ken ever was in his ill-advised post. His post was fairly stupid and poorly considered. But he seems to at least have had second thoughts, as evidenced by his deletion of the post. But now I see posts that suggest he shave his palms!!!! Come on - what's that all about. He never said anything even remotely as stupid and insulting and crude as that. And he never attacked anybody as individuals as many here seem to be doing.
I'm certainly no fan of KR, and I'm certainly not defending what he posted, but some of the stuff I'm reading on this thread reeks of hypocrisy.
-
It seems some people on this thread are being more insulting - actually a lot more insulting - than Ken ever was in his ill-advised post. His post was fairly stupid and poorly considered. But he seems to at least have had second thoughts, as evidenced by his deletion of the post. But now I see posts that suggest he shave his palms!!!! Come on - what's that all about. He never said anything even remotely as stupid and insulting and crude as that. And he never attacked anybody as individuals as many here seem to be doing.
I'm certainly no fan of KR, and I'm certainly not defending what he posted, but some of the stuff I'm reading on this thread reeks of hypocrisy.
Agreed. A step too far. My apologies.
David
-
Behind that anonymous screen name it's pretty hard to take you at your word since we don't know you from Adam...care to give a link to YOUR work so we can all share?
There's an implication here, Jeff, that you think people should only be in a position to criticise a work if they have personally produced their own work that is of greater acclaim than the work they are criticising.
This is clearly nonsense. If this rule applied, then no film critic would be justified in criticising a film unless he/she had demonstrated a greater capacity to produce his own films, than the director/producer of the film she was criticising. Likewise, no critic of novels could safely express an opinion (according to your standards) unless such critic had himself written a successful blockbuster novel.
I also find the PODAS scenes of models on the 'What's New" site very lack-lustre.
All this Ken Rockwell criticism harks back to his notorious comment, "The camera doesn't matter".
We all know that that's the case. It's the photographer that counts, stupid. Many of us like to compensate for lack of talent with increased DR and resolution. I'm no different from everyone else in this respect, but at least I recognise the fact.
-
There's an implication here, Jeff, that you think people should only be in a position to criticise a work if they have personally produced their own work that is of greater acclaim than the work they are criticising.
This is clearly nonsense. If this rule applied, then no film critic would be justified in criticising a film unless he/she had demonstrated a greater capacity to produce his own films, than the director/producer of the film she was criticising. Likewise, no critic of novels could safely express an opinion (according to your standards) unless such critic had himself written a successful blockbuster novel.
I also find the PODAS scenes of models on the 'What's New" site very lack-lustre.
All this Ken Rockwell criticism harks back to his notorious comment, "The camera doesn't matter".
We all know that that's the case. It's the photographer that counts, stupid. Many of us like to compensate for lack of talent with increased DR and resolution. I'm no different from everyone else in this respect, but at least I recognise the fact.
+1
In addition...
My website, Shewe, for my personal work is www.timelessjewishart.com (http://www.timelessjewishart.com), the link is in my signature. I'm not hiding anything and I didn't need a P65+ to make the 30+ megapixel shots shown on that website, I didn't use anything more than an old and very battered 5D and usually a single lens. If people feel that my work is substandard, hey I'm just another hack with a 4 year old DSLR. I'm not someone spending ridiculous money on the most expensive camera equipment in the world without any justification whatsoever given the fact that they need a workshop and still can't get it even close to right. This was far from the Antartica trip which was more like a safari tour on ice. I used the word 'IF' in the sentence you quoted and it wasn't actually specific to this workshop as I made clear but a comment on workshops in general. All you had to do was either justify or refute it if you felt it applied to you. Instead you made a rather pathetic attack. Aging bully tactics are really extremely boring and say far more about you than they do about me.
-
One of the featured photos from the model shoot was from a P65+ and appears lifeless and dark.
Right BJ, but my point was that KR implied in his blog rant that ALL of the PODAS images were P65+ shots when only a few of them were. Thus my comment on KR's his lack of credibility and veracity.
-
My website, Shewe, for my personal work is www.timelessjewishart.com (http://www.timelessjewishart.com), the link is in my signature.
Cool, now I have a frame of reference...
I'm not someone spending ridiculous money on the most expensive camera equipment in the world without any justification whatsoever given the fact that they need a workshop and still can't get it even close to right.
Well, the most expensive is now the Leica S2, so you're wrong there...
I might also point out you seem to have a rush to judgement regarding the needs of the workshop attendees and what they did or didn't get out of the workshop...what exactly are you basing that on....the blog posts of snapshots?
I guess we haven't covered that enough yet huh...the vast majority were shot with a cheap-ass Canon, not the expensive-ass Phase camera/back. So, exactly what are you basing your prejudice on? Because it's clearly prejudice that is making your presume the rich guys can't shoot (point of fact, they were pretty darn good). So, may you should hold your judgement till a point in time you can actually judge, don't ya think?
P.S. There's a "C" in my name bud...
-
There's an implication here, Jeff, that you think people should only be in a position to criticise a work if they have personally produced their own work that is of greater acclaim than the work they are criticising.
No, but I do think people who do express an opinion should be willing to show their own work. Pretty easy to be sitting I don't know where in the world and lobbing insults when you hide behind an anonymous screen name. Pretty easy to strike a superior tone when your own work is invisible...
But that remark was directed at image66...
-
P.S. There's a "C" in my name bud...
One of the truest things I've read here in a long time.
-
My website, Shewe, for my personal work is www.timelessjewishart.com (http://www.timelessjewishart.com), the link is in my signature. I'm not hiding anything and I didn't need a P65+ to make the 30+ megapixel shots shown on that website, I didn't use anything more than an old and very battered 5D and usually a single lens. If people feel that my work is substandard, hey I'm just another hack with a 4 year old DSLR. I'm not someone spending ridiculous money on the most expensive camera equipment in the world without any justification whatsoever given the fact that they need a workshop and still can't get it even close to right. This was far from the Antartica trip which was more like a safari tour on ice. I used the word 'IF' in the sentence you quoted and it wasn't actually specific to this workshop as I made clear but a comment on workshops in general. All you had to do was either justify or refute it if you felt it applied to you. Instead you made a rather pathetic attack. Aging bully tactics are really extremely boring and say far more about you than they do about me.
you seem to be confusing the creative part of photography with the craft, and for some baffling reason you seem to feel that because a 5d is good enough for you it is good enough for everyone. Format has never been about creative skill and digital doesn't change that at all. This is no different than choosing between an 8x10 view camera or a 35mm camera several decades ago. A skilled photographer can create great images with either ... all the chosen format does is limit what can be done with the image afterwards. If the limits imposed by a format are acceptable to the photographer, then logically there is no compelling reason to use a different format. There are many photographers who are not satisfied with that, and that's their choice and not really anyone else's business.
For some reason in the digital era we think this no longer applies - that everyone should fit in the same box and that everyone should only need a dozen or two megapixels and be happy. You seem to have some desire to criticize those you don't know at all, have never seen any of THEIR work (I don't think any of the participants work is on the blog - even the model shots I believe were taken by PhaseOne staff).
As I mentioned, those attending were looking for a way to discover what high end MFDB offered. While I'm pretty sure everyone in the group was impressed with the potential quality when printing very large prints, and while several who had been considering a purchase did so after using the equipment, many made the decision that it wasn't for them. I doubt if any of them would tell you there isn't a difference ... they just didn't feel in their application the difference was warranted.
I guess the bottom line is what difference should it make to you, or anyone else? Why insult us? Why do we as a group of attendees need to provide you with some type of proof as to our skill? Why do you have some right to make any type of judgement about us?
I'm just baffled why anyone really cares ...
-
I guess the bottom line is what difference should it make to you, or anyone else? Why insult us? Why do we as a group of attendees need to provide you with some type of proof as to our skill? Why do you have some right to make any type of judgement about us?
I'm just baffled why anyone really cares ...
The only thing that matters is whether the workshop attendees were satisfied. The rest of us should just be silent (including Ken R), as we were not there and cannot judge the value of the workshop.
I'm going back into radio silence mode, but would add one last thing - I echo Wayne, nobody should really care about this (other than the attendees).
-
I'm just baffled why anyone really cares ...
IMHO it's another manifestation of internet fanboyism: the acting out of exaggerated feelings of techno-partisanship, empowered by the security of the internet's virtual anonymity. You see it in forums covering all areas of interest -- different tech jargon; identical partisan sniping.
-
No, but I do think people who do express an opinion should be willing to show their own work. Pretty easy to be sitting I don't know where in the world and lobbing insults when you hide behind an anonymous screen name. Pretty easy to strike a superior tone when your own work is invisible...
But that remark was directed at image66...
I made two posts in this thread and the first one I did reference my website, the second one I forgot to add it as I had to wrap my computer up and head home. If anybody is interested, you can visit www.zone-10.com. Any reasonable search would have revealed that the majority of my posts are anything but anonymous. Image66 Photography happens to be my business name. I have nothing to hide.
I will freely admit that some stuff is sufficiently pedestrian to warrant enough guffaws to be heard around the world. Yet, maybe there is a gem in there once in a while too. I have never claimed to be a master photographer, that's for sure, and yes, the battle of originality is one I fight every time I pick up the camera. It is all too easy to plagiarize not only others, but yourself too! This was my point. Don't plagiarize other photographs--especially ones YOU'VE taken before.
I host and teach workshops myself. These fall into two categories: 1. The Instructional Workshop. 2. The Fishing Guide. If I'm putting on an instructional workshop the purposes are very much educational and the end goal for the participants isn't necessarily to walk away with a Portfolio Print, but a head full of new knowledge. This is evidently what the PODAS workshop was and if this is true, then I definitely have no problem with the results. If the workshop is more like a Guided Fishing Trip, then the results definitely are a problem.
A coupe of years ago I wrote a brief article called "Copying Others and Breaking Free" which defines the context of my comments in this thread. I've been working hard the past two years stretching my own horizons and doing types of photography I never dreamed of before--including using a cell-phone camera.
Link to "Copying Others and Breaking Free" article: http://www.image66media.com/page24.html (http://www.image66media.com/page24.html)
I don't really care about what cameras were used or the price of the average tripod in the group. The fact that the workshop alone was priced to filter out the tire-kickers is actually a good thing. But what gets me is the defensiveness in this thread by the workshop apologists who instead of admitting that some things were substandard (lighting, models, etc) they choose to attack through various means. It would be very easy to just say "this workshop was not about the photographs, it was about technology and technique." If this was stated up front, all would be forgiven. Ken Rockwell could maintain his moral high-ground and we'd be able to say "So what? It wasn't about producing photographs to begin with."
As previously stated, Ken Rockwell's original post was actually pretty specific and his criticisms are very valid. His premise to begin with was that this was a workshop about equipment and software, and producing photographs was a minor side benefit--not the main purpose.
Michael hosts some incredible trips/workshops. The Antarctic expeditions, for example, are highly regarded not only for the quality of the experience, but the quality of the photographs. Those are photography expeditions first, workshops second. The workshop portions are value-add services. This is evidently 180 degrees different than the PODAS workshop. If it's workshops first, shooting second, that's not a problem. I occasionally sit through training classes myself on highly technical equipment which is off-line.
Ken Norton
www.zone-10.com
-
"Well, I'm no KR apologist, and I think he showed considerable lack of judgement and tact in his initial post, BUT the photos he pointed to were truly awful. I suspect what he was trying to say was that it's not the gear that makes the photograph, it's the photographer."
I would agree with this post. They were truly awful images and I am not referring to the Point and Shoot ones, which were terrible, but to the two I saw shot with the Megabuck equipment. I am afraid it is a classic case of the "Emperor's Clothes". More money than sense! It did not look as though the images I saw could have been taken by anyone with even a fundamental understanding of composition or photographic technique. I was a National Sales Manager for a Company and had I been selling a top buck product like this, there is no way that I would have allowed images like those out on the Internet. It has cast doubt on this product that will be hard to recover if they hope to sell to anyone else outside of their limited truly Professional user group. A big time PR disaster in my opinion and in my last Company you would have had a severe kicking or lost your job for something like this. Any competitors out their will be falling off their chairs laughing.
-
I made two posts in this thread and the first one I did reference my website, the second one I forgot to add it as I had to wrap my computer up and head home. If anybody is interested, you can visit www.zone-10.com. Any reasonable search would have revealed that the majority of my posts are anything but anonymous. Image66 Photography happens to be my business name. I have nothing to hide.
Wow, Grinnell, Iowa...I suppose you know Henry Whilhelm huh? I broke down there last year on a motorcycle trip to California and had to get the bike towed back to Iowa City to get a sensor replaced...
Pretty sure the few P65+ shots posted on the blog were shot with the Phase One tech people–who were van drivers not instructors and were there to help with camera problems and to supply accessories and lenses...yes, they did shoot with the cameras but as I recall they were pretty much shooting the Phase One cameras like big expensive point and shoot cameras...
So, here's an idea...why don't you all reserve judgement about the photographic validity of the workshop attendees' results until you see some? As far as I know, the ONLY workshop shot by an attendee that you've seen is from Wayne and you've all seen two from Michael and none from Mark nor Bill...
-
So, here's an idea...why don't you all reserve judgement about the photographic validity of the workshop attendees' results until you see some?
I fore one was not disparaging any of the attendees. I just pointed out that it was kinda dumb on Phase One's part to post P65+ images that were of such a poor quality. Whatever the intent was behind showing those images, it was just bad marketing, you don't make your products look bad if you can avoid it.
-
"...without being quite so snarky (to use a modern term)."
This has got to be ironic (or perhaps sarcasm was intended?). Either way, I did enjoy a momen't laughter, for which I thank you: snarky is a term I distinctly remember coming out of the mouths of fellow Scottish school children in the 50s!
Luvvit!
Rob C
-
I feel a group hug coming up..
-
[quote name='Wayne Fox' date='Nov 20 2009, 08:49 PM' post='326517'
I'm just baffled why anyone really cares ...
[/quote]
Well, wasn't the blog intended for an audience? The blog images were abysmal, no doubt about that, and no insult meant to anyone. Mark Dubovoy's shot is quite nice btw.
-
Wow, Grinnell, Iowa...I suppose you know Henry Whilhelm[sic] huh? I broke down there last year on a motorcycle trip to California and had to get the bike towed back to Iowa City to get a sensor replaced...
A bit of sarcasm here? Anyone from Grinnell must be an unsophisticated hic as seen through the eyes of a Chicago artist and they don't even stock BMW motorcycle parts. They probably ride Harleys. How could those country bumpkins understand sophisticated photographic equipment? I don't see how those comments add to the discussion and the implication is inappropriate forum behavior.
Pretty sure the few P65+ shots posted on the blog were shot with the Phase One tech people–who were van drivers not instructors and were there to help with camera problems and to supply accessories and lenses...yes, they did shoot with the cameras but as I recall they were pretty much shooting the Phase One cameras like big expensive point and shoot cameras...
The shots may have been taken by van drivers, but why did not the professional personnel at least supervise basic processing of the raw images and convert them to a proper color space for display on the web before posting them? I would say the work was sloppy and the resulting criticism is valid.
-
A bit of sarcasm here? Anyone from Grinnell must be an unsophisticated hic as seen through the eyes of a Chicago artist and they don't even stock BMW motorcycle parts. They probably ride Harleys. How could those country bumpkins understand sophisticated photographic equipment? I don't see how those comments add to the discussion and the implication is inappropriate forum behavior.
Normally, I ignore the user "bjanes" (guess I should have still) but I happened to glance in to see what bit of nonsense he might be posting.
Low and behold, he's taken a casual mention of Grinnell, Iowa as some sort of slam to the "country bumpkins". What "bjanes" failed to see was my attempt at carrying on a civil discussion with "image66" and let him know that I went to his website...the fact that I mentioned that I broke down in Grinnell had nothing to do with anything other than I have a friend who lives in Grinnell, Henry Whilhelm...and wondered if Ken knew him...
So, "bjanes", kindly butt out of that particular conversation and take your rather psychotic allegations regarding my motives with ya...
-
Wow, Grinnell, Iowa...I suppose you know Henry Whilhelm huh? I broke down there last year on a motorcycle trip to California and had to get the bike towed back to Iowa City to get a sensor replaced...
Pretty sure the few P65+ shots posted on the blog were shot with the Phase One tech people–who were van drivers not instructors and were there to help with camera problems and to supply accessories and lenses...yes, they did shoot with the cameras but as I recall they were pretty much shooting the Phase One cameras like big expensive point and shoot cameras...
So, here's an idea...why don't you all reserve judgement about the photographic validity of the workshop attendees' results until you see some? As far as I know, the ONLY workshop shot by an attendee that you've seen is from Wayne and you've all seen two from Michael and none from Mark nor Bill...
Schewe,
by any chance the photo was taking when your motorcycle broke down? EricM tell me that is you.
I didn't believe him, when I saw you in Boston you didn't look so bad, what happen?
If that is you, I will be ok, I do not need help with photoshop.
-
Schewe,
by any chance the photo was taking when your motorcycle broke down? EricM tell me that is you.
Naw, my beard is a lot whiter...
BTW, here's my bike broken down on the off ramp of I80 on the Grinnell exit...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/IMG_2814.jpg)
The miracle in all this was I was able to find a guy who could trailer my bike back to Ginna's BMW in Iowa City and they fixed my bike in under 2 hours...the only downside was that instead of stopping in Grinnell to visit with Henry, I had to spend my time getting the bike fixed. Turns out Henry was actually off to Japan for meetings so I wouldn't have had more than a few minutes to visit.
-
"Pretty sure the few P65+ shots posted on the blog were shot with the Phase One tech people–who were van drivers not instructors and were there to help with camera problems and to supply accessories and lenses...yes, they did shoot with the cameras but as I recall they were pretty much shooting the Phase One cameras like big expensive point and shoot cameras..."
Sorry this makes the situation actually worse not better. If you were selling a Ferrari Challenge Stradale F1, would you select a one-legged man to demonstrate the car's capabilities? I think not. It smacks of poor management and a Company run by amateurs. This type of event would need close management and supervision. If that is not the case, you just don't allow anyone to post images like these for the whole world to see. Two friends actually contacted me and suggested that I log on to KR's site to see what was going on. Hundreds of thousands of people have already seen his Blog. The damage is done.
-
The shots may have been taken by van drivers, but why did not the professional personnel at least supervise basic processing of the raw images and convert them to a proper color space for display on the web before posting them? I would say the work was sloppy and the resulting criticism is valid.
- If they would have done this everybody would complain that these still are only snapshots
- If they would have posted only their best shots people would complain about how staged and artificial this appears. After all, these are amateurs, they CANT shoot good photos!
- If they would have mixed snaps and pro shots people would complain how unfair these comparisations are and point out that it is staged to make compacts look bad. (If they would have produced stunning images out compact cameras everybody would wonder for what these mfdbs are for.)
- If Phase would not have done podas people would tell Phase to make better marketing
- if... well you get my point?
No matter what they did, somebody would complain about something. People LOVE to complain, its part of human nature.
I mean I dont want to rant, its all ok, just saying
-
Normally, I ignore the user "bjanes" (guess I should have still) but I happened to glance in to see what bit of nonsense he might be posting.
Low and behold, he's taken a casual mention of Grinnell, Iowa as some sort of slam to the "country bumpkins". What "bjanes" failed to see was my attempt at carrying on a civil discussion with "image66" and let him know that I went to his website...the fact that I mentioned that I broke down in Grinnell had nothing to do with anything other than I have a friend who lives in Grinnell, Henry Whilhelm...and wondered if Ken knew him...
So, "bjanes", kindly butt out of that particular conversation and take your rather psychotic allegations regarding my motives with ya...
Psychotic, eh, Schewe. That's a pretty serious diagnosis. While we are playing psychiatrist, I would venture that your problem is more akin to a personality disorder than psychosis. Perhaps my inference was a bit of a stretch, but it was based on your propensity to use ad hominem attack rather than reasoning. Your attempt to be civil was out of character and unexpected by me. If you were actually being sincere, I offer my apology.
-
"Pretty sure the few P65+ shots posted on the blog were shot with the Phase One tech people–who were van drivers not instructors and were there to help with camera problems and to supply accessories and lenses...yes, they did shoot with the cameras but as I recall they were pretty much shooting the Phase One cameras like big expensive point and shoot cameras..."
Sorry this makes the situation actually worse not better. If you were selling a Ferrari Challenge Stradale F1, would you select a one-legged man to demonstrate the car's capabilities? I think not. It smacks of poor management and a Company run by amateurs. This type of event would need close management and supervision. If that is not the case, you just don't allow anyone to post images like these for the whole world to see. Two friends actually contacted me and suggested that I log on to KR's site to see what was going on. Hundreds of thousands of people have already seen his Blog. The damage is done.
It is doubtful any posting on KR's site will actually damage Phase or MF reputation. His site is aimed directly at amateur photographers and its sole purpose is to make him money. His dig at PODAS was an attempt to maintain his long preached stance that the camera doesn't matter, and he himself pulled it once he found out his mistake . It is doubtful that any loyal readers of his site are potential clients of phase. If they want to buy into his philosophies it is more a statement about their level of photographic knowledge and skill ... they certainly are in no position to need or be able to use MFDB. Unfortunately he does the photographic community a great disservice and misleads many. Not all of his information is bad, but unknowledgeable and inexperienced photographers have no way to cull the bad from the good.
Considering how much he's backed off (very politely so), I wonder why the readers of this forum can't do the same? The following is from his site ...
"Phase One
Good news: I researched last week's PODAS workshop, and learned a lot more about Phase One. That blog was put together each night as they were trying to put things to bed, so we'll hold off looking at their photos until they are presented formally. The great news is that I sniffed around enough to learn that Phase One Capture 1 software not only works with DNG files from the LEICA M9, it already has calibrated profiles for the M9!"
Personally I'd be more than happy to have Ken shoot along side me some where and see what he can do with his gear compared to what I can do with mine. If he really wanted to do his readers a great service, he should attend the workshop, use the equipment and go through the training ... and print some 40x60 prints. Then perhaps he would understand there are two parts to capture, the artistic part and the technical part, and there is a difference in this equipment's ability to capture images.
(I find it somewhat amusing his constant claims of the camera doesn't matter and yet he's a huge fan of the very pricey Leica M9)
If I were selling a Ferrari I would make sure my customers could actually afford one and then provide them an opportunity to try it out. The PODAS blog intent was to demonstrate to others that may want to test drive the equipment in the future an idea of what attending was about ... there is a great deal of interest in this, and Phase already has a list of those interested in the next one. The blog's intent is not to demonstrate the capabilities of the equipment (which is completely impossible to do via the web anyway) but provide insight as to what the event was like. In that regard it was quite successful. The fact that others have tried to read into the blog something else has been for their own interests, but I'm doubtful Phase will see any negative impact.
I'm quite sure that eventually the blog will provide some very nice images taken by the actual attendees as they find time to prepare them. As Jeff said, I'm not sure when any of us will get around to it.
The simple fact is the only way you can find out what this type of equipment delivers is to to see actual prints and to use it. You can't demonstrate it with web jpegs, and not much point in trying.
personally the workshop was one of the most enjoyable events I have ever attended. The instructors were knowledgeable and willing to share, many times 1 on 1. The other attendees were all great and I don't think any of us were there with the intent of capturing any world class images (although I saw several being worked on that were pretty amazing). I was able to spend 2 hours riding from Vegas to DV with the CTO ... the driving force behind the technology who came from Denmark just so he could get feedback on how to make the system better. The PhaseOne staff is full of terrific energetic people with a real passion for what they do. Anyone considering MFDB would be well advised to use an experience such as this in the decision making process. Considering what it would cost to rent the gear for a week, add in an isolated location that has interesting things to shoot and hours of instruction from outstanding talents on how to maximize your quality from the equipment, and the fact that if you choose to buy the equipment the discounts given you were far greater than the cost of attending ... pretty smart way to evaluate things. Personally I think PhaseOne completely understands how to sell a Ferrari.
Are we to "good night gracie" yet? I know I'm outta here ...
-
"The blog's intent is not to demonstrate the capabilities of the equipment (which is completely impossible to do via the web anyway)"
Why is it impossible? That makes no sense whatsoever, otherwise why do we all post images to the Web if they are all going to look crappy? Are you suggesting that to be able to appreciate a great image, that you have to see it printed? That clearly is just not true. A bad image is ,well, a bad image. There are hundreds of thousands of superb images posted on the Web. These images taken by "Van drivers" just do not happen to qualify as great images. Images on the web can never be as good as high quality prints, but the two images I saw were just so poor, that you could never in a million years print them large (in that state). They would be even worse as prints, not better. I can't see why you want to defend these postings. If they were good, none of us would be writing negative things about them. Many of us are just amazed that anyone could be so blind as to post them in the first place, that's what this thread is all about. We are all just incredulous!
-
The pictures on the blog were meant to be documentary snapshots of what was happening at the workshop, not impressive works of art or demonstrations of the capabilities of the camera system. Did you get a sense of what happened at the workshop? If yes, then they served their purpose. The fact that some of them happened to have been taken with a P65+ doesn't mean anything beyond simply that it just happened to be the camera that the person doing the photographing was holding at the time. Does it make any difference whether they were shot with a camera phone, P&S, DSLR or top of the line P65+?
As a PODAS attendee I can say that I learned a great deal. The instructors were absolutely first rate and Phase One did an incredible job putting it all together and answering questions. I'm happy I participated.
-
Why do we need good image examples anyway?
Is the idea of an SLR camera system some sort of brand new thing that needs to be proven, over and over and over and over...? If you get the freakin' focus right, you have good light, and you know how to convert the files, then success is potentially yours. That goes for all camera systems out there.
What is with this need to be shown what a camera can do, when you already know what it can really achieve in ideal conditions?
Say they posted great images... so what?
They posted bad images... who cares?
Note to Phase One: Next time you have a workshop, bring some strobes/modifiers/grip and more lighting equipment or something, because that's clearly what you needed to achieve some decent pictures for your silly blog to satisfy some people who already know what the camera system is capable of, but still need to be reassured, just in case.
Want some samples for pixel-peeping? Okay, go here: http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/phase-one/) Download that RAW file of the old man, and stare at the detail in his bushy beard all day long.
Gee, you can also take pictures with a Leaf camera system as well. Yes, it also makes use of a lens and a sensor, and captures light. Who would of thought?: http://www.leaf-photography.com/rawimages.asp (http://www.leaf-photography.com/rawimages.asp)
-
"I'm quite sure that eventually the blog will provide some very nice images taken by the actual attendees as they find time to prepare them. As Jeff said, I'm not sure when any of us will get around to it."
That makes an interesting point: if time is so short, the likelihood of ever making prints doubtful, then where the basic reason for having the equipment? Must have missed something in translation.
;-)
Rob C
-
Why do we need good image examples anyway?
Note to Phase One: Next time you have a workshop, bring some strobes/modifiers/grip and more lighting equipment or something, because that's clearly what you needed to achieve some decent pictures for your silly blog to satisfy some people who already know what the camera system is capable of, but still need to be reassured, just in case.
Well honestly I can see why the blog might want decent samples..I mean kinda funny a top end camera maker has iffy shots don't you think?? Works of art not needed, but we also don't need disaster bin shots either..I'm not talking about folks on the course showing their work, just reasonable shots of what was going on, not a big ask really.
Don't even need a fancy lighting setup either, any old budget DSLR, kit lens and flashgun would have done just fine and dandy. (Ken and his D40! lol)
I can see the funny side of all this..like someone passing away at a surgeons conference, and the doctor says to the family
"If only the medics had got there sooner"...
The place is full of photographers! So nobody thought to get someone to take half decent shots? I would kinda be pretty embarrassed about that.
-
[quote name='Schewe' date='Nov 20 2009, 06:18 PM' post='326476']
No, but I do think people who do express an opinion should be willing to show their own work. Pretty easy to be sitting I don't know where in the world and lobbing insults when you hide behind an anonymous screen name. Pretty easy to strike a superior tone when your own work is invisible...
Unquote
Pots and pans.......?
-
WOW!!!...Five pages of smacking Kenny! Now that's REAL insecurity.....
-
Pots and pans.......?
Perhaps you meant "Pots and Kettles ... "? In that case, I don't think Mr. Schewe is either anonymous or unqualified. I've seen his work and know his credentials as most here probably have.
Otherwise, you're gonna have to explain.
-
"Professional": Engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation (a professional boxer)
Oxford Compact English Dictionary
There have been references to the fact that only "amateurs" frequent Mr Rockwell's site. Might I remind some of the contributors to this site what the word professional means in the Queen's English. Based on the description in the Oxford English Dictionary, that probably means that 99% of those on this site (and most others) are "amateurs". Guess what, I am an ameteur and that does not bother me. I feel I can at least take an average image, something that is not apparent from the two images posted taken with the Megabuck cameras. This is the point.
I don't want to hide either, so you can have a go at my images if you so desire. I certainly don't claim that any of them compete with Joe Cornish's images, but I enjoy photography as a hobby. The conclusion I have drawn from this whole debate is that buying a Phase One system will not guarantee that I too can mimic Joe Cornish. He has talent and I am an ameteur. Money alone is no substitute for real artistic talent. If that were the case, the best photographers in the world would only be wealthy individuals. With one or two exceptions (Lord Snowdon for example), they are not wealthy people but people with a very special talent that cannot be bought. Here endeth the lesson!
http://photo.net/photos/caribsurf (http://photo.net/photos/caribsurf)
-
Perhaps you meant "Pots and Kettles ... "? In that case, I don't think Mr. Schewe is either anonymous or unqualified. I've seen his work and know his credentials as most here probably have.
Otherwise, you're gonna have to explain.
You are correct "Pots and Kettles? My comment referred to:
Quote
Pretty easy to be sitting I don't know where in the world and lobbing insults when you hide behind an anonymous screen name.
Unquote
As someone who has been "burned" in the past by his replies I took the opportunity - as others did - to reply to him. What goes around comes around?
-
You are correct "Pots and Kettles? My comment referred to:
Quote
Pretty easy to be sitting I don't know where in the world and lobbing insults when you hide behind an anonymous screen name.
Unquote
As someone who has been "burned" in the past by his replies I took the opportunity - as others did - to reply to him. What goes around comes around?
I see ... your rejoinder doesn't really make any sense, but I'm all for giving back as good as you get!
-
You are correct "Pots and Kettles? My comment referred to:
Quote
Pretty easy to be sitting I don't know where in the world and lobbing insults when you hide behind an anonymous screen name.
Unquote
As someone who has been "burned" in the past by his replies I took the opportunity - as others did - to reply to him. What goes around comes around?
Stamper
There is something you have got to learn: there are holy cows and then there are sacred cows; you must not go around pulling tails indiscriminately.
Rob C
-
A bit of sarcasm here? Anyone from Grinnell must be an unsophisticated hic as seen through the eyes of a Chicago artist and they don't even stock BMW motorcycle parts. They probably ride Harleys. How could those country bumpkins understand sophisticated photographic equipment? I don't see how those comments add to the discussion and the implication is inappropriate forum behavior.
Just so you know, I knew exactly the perspective of his comment. Absolutely no offence was taken. What is quite fascinating is that my wife and I chose to move to Grinnell and neither one of us are from here. It is quite amazing that there actually is civilization outside of gridlock cities. Granted, we have to spit out the hay seeds, take off our John Deere hats and bib overalls before a video conference call. Many learned people are quite aware of Grinnell because of the college located here.
I've met Henry in passing, but I've not actually sat down with him to get to know him yet. Our paths just haven't been crossing, but I'd like to interview him for my website, though. We live only a few blocks from each other.
The nearest BMW dealership is in Iowa City. However, when I had my Audi, I could get it serviced locally because one of the shops dealt with fancy imports owned by the college students. I learned about that after spending $5000 at the dealership in Des Moines. Those vehicles have the "ET Phone Home" circuit in them. Every three months the car feels lonely and wants the white-glove treatment from the factory trained mechanics.
Regardless, it is a comfy town to live in, with a top-rated school district. I can be at an airport flying somewhere across the country in about the same amount of time as anybody living in a major city. No harm, no foul and I can see the stars at night.
BTW, if anybody is passing through Iowa on I-80 and would like to take a break from driving, let me know and I can point you to some places to point a camera at and if I'm available we can grab a bite to eat or do coffee.
Oh, BTW, Harleys and BMWs outnumber Hondas around here.
Ken Norton
www.zone-10.com
-
That makes an interesting point: if time is so short, the likelihood of ever making prints doubtful, then where the basic reason for having the equipment? Must have missed something in translation.
Rob C
I suppose it's because selling images of Death Valley really isn't what most us actually do ... I sell some landscape images, but not sure any of my clients are interested in Death Valley, if I indeed find any actually worthy of selling.
WOW!!!...Five pages of smacking Kenny! Now that's REAL insecurity.....
Actually there hasn't been that much Kenny smack if you read the thread. It's five pages of smacking those of us that were involved in the workshop ... as though we owe everyone an explanation and a portfolio of our work to justify we actually need the equipment and are worthy enough photographers to own it.
-
Stamper
There is something you have got to learn: there are holy cows and then there are sacred cows; you must not go around pulling tails indiscriminately.
Rob C
Is that the correct gender?
-
I think that the problem with Mr Rockwell is that he does not hit the right tone and mixes things deserving critcism with those which do not deserve criticism.
I believe its perfectly OK to post snaps of a photography workshop which are just that, snaps for remembering the workshop. Nobody expects and nobody needs these snaps to be of high quality.
BUT if one posts shots taken with THE cameras (or digital backs) being introduced or advertised at such workshop one should be extra careful to post only such shohts which are of a minimum quality, particularly if the place where such shots are posted can be viewed by the greater public. Bottom line: The participants in the workshop might well be good photographers but the person who posted those horrible Phase One shots is definately not an experienced PR guy.
-
Is that the correct gender?
Stamper
Guess it all depends on the cow?
Rob C
-
QUOTE (Schewe @ Nov 20 2009, 06:11 PM) *
P.S. There's a "C" in my name bud...
One of the truest things I've read here in a long time.
Do you mean cuddly?
-
been that much Kenny smack if you read the thread. It's five pages of smacking those of us that were involved in the workshop ... as though we owe everyone an explanation and a portfolio of our work to justify we actually need the equipment and are worthy enough photographers to own it.
Damn shame, too. Envy disguised as disinterested criticism, IMHO. Saw the same thing with the Antarctica trip.
JC
-
Envy? Envy of what I read on the digital back forum of the life of an MF shooter? The 'fun' of that recent article on the guy who bought the Leaf? If you gave me a P65+ I'd put it immediately on ebay and finish paying off my mortgage with change for a new car. No thank you.
I have no problem whatsoever with serious pro's who are interested in these backs, they have the need. I am confused by the fact that for years all the MF dealers have been saying that the best way to choose a back is to have a representative come to your studio and spend a day there with the things you shoot. The idea of a workshop for these pro's does as a result sound, well, like a nightmare actually. An expensive nightmare compared to what the dealers have long championed as the correct way to buy a MFDB. Even the dealers suggest that you shoot with all the backs (different manufacturers) in your target zone to see what you prefer. With your subject matter. With your computers and workflow. In your own time. At your studio or usual locations.
But when you put up photos like that from a p65+ on your blog to champion your workshop you do invite the notion that you are selling incredibly expensive equipment to rank amatuers and you don't mind the fact. Whether or not it is true, you can't deny the inference. Bad marketing maybe (are those p65+ shots still up there?) but as yet there has not been anything to prove otherwise other than some rather annoyed members of that workshop. (well they would be). I'm still confused though. Wayne is a serious pro, no question whatsoever about that. He just said that he doesn't shoot landscape. Can I ask Wayne, why a workshop? What am I missing?
-
I have no problem whatsoever with serious pro's who are interested in these backs, they have the need.
So, you're ok with "serious pro's" going on the workshop but you somehow draw the line at "amateurs"? That's pretty arrogant dooode...
Fact is, the pro photo equipment market has, for years, been subsidized by "amateurs"...none of the pro equipment from the low end to the high end pro equipment could be produced if pros were the only buyers. Now, it's typical of some pros to look down their noses a "amateurs". But I have a slightly different view...
Personally, I have a lot more respect for somebody who does things for love vs. money...I've been a pro (25+ years as an award winning advertising photographer) and an "amateur" (the last couple of years that I've refused to do commercial assignments). To be honest, the money motive of being a pro tends to put a real slant on one's views of the industry...
On the other hand, people who do something because they purely love to do it I think are pursuing a more noble goal...they don't do stuff for just money...they do it for love...
And thank those people for their love of the art because without them we wouldn't have nearly the range of "professional equipment" available as pro's if there weren't a bunch of guys and gals willing to pay a lot of money for equipment they don't really "NEED".
Naw, gotta tell ya, all you cheap-ass pro's out there (and pro photographers are nothing if they aren't "cheap") owe a debt of gratitude to all those wealthy "amateurs" out there that are willing to help subsidize the pros cause if it weren't for them this stuff would cost a _LOT_ more money...
-
So, you're ok with "serious pro's" going on the workshop but you somehow draw the line at "amateurs"? That's pretty arrogant dooode...
Fact is, the pro photo equipment market has, for years, been subsidized by "amateurs"...none of the pro equipment from the low end to the high end pro equipment could be produced if pros were the only buyers. Now, it's typical of some pros to look down their noses a "amateurs". But I have a slightly different view...
Personally, I have a lot more respect for somebody who does things for love vs. money...I've been a pro (25+ years as an award winning advertising photographer) and an "amateur" (the last couple of years that I've refused to do commercial assignments). To be honest, the money motive of being a pro tends to put a real slant on one's views of the industry...
On the other hand, people who do something because they purely love to do it I think are pursuing a more noble goal...they don't do stuff for just money...they do it for love...
And thank those people for their love of the art because without them we wouldn't have nearly the range of "professional equipment" available as pro's if there weren't a bunch of guys and gals willing to pay a lot of money for equipment they don't really "NEED".
Naw, gotta tell ya, all you cheap-ass pro's out there (and pro photographers are nothing if they aren't "cheap") owe a debt of gratitude to all those wealthy "amateurs" out there that are willing to help subsidize the pros cause if it weren't for them this stuff would cost a _LOT_ more money...
Jeff, I think that is a great post. Thank you.
Not that I'm wealthy, but one can aspire...
Dave Chew
-
It is a good thing to follow the First Law of Holes; if you are in one, stop digging.
-
So, you're ok with "serious pro's" going on the workshop but you somehow draw the line at "amateurs"? That's pretty arrogant dooode...
Fact is, the pro photo equipment market has, for years, been subsidized by "amateurs"...none of the pro equipment from the low end to the high end pro equipment could be produced if pros were the only buyers. Now, it's typical of some pros to look down their noses a "amateurs". But I have a slightly different view...
Personally, I have a lot more respect for somebody who does things for love vs. money...I've been a pro (25+ years as an award winning advertising photographer) and an "amateur" (the last couple of years that I've refused to do commercial assignments). To be honest, the money motive of being a pro tends to put a real slant on one's views of the industry...
On the other hand, people who do something because they purely love to do it I think are pursuing a more noble goal...they don't do stuff for just money...they do it for love...
And thank those people for their love of the art because without them we wouldn't have nearly the range of "professional equipment" available as pro's if there weren't a bunch of guys and gals willing to pay a lot of money for equipment they don't really "NEED".
Naw, gotta tell ya, all you cheap-ass pro's out there (and pro photographers are nothing if they aren't "cheap") owe a debt of gratitude to all those wealthy "amateurs" out there that are willing to help subsidize the pros cause if it weren't for them this stuff would cost a _LOT_ more money...
I actually said the opposite. I cannot see what there was in it for a pro not shooting landscapes over the dealer recommended method of having the dealers of several manufacturers (kill that there are only 2 big ones left ) come round to your studio or place of work and spend a day shooting what you shoot the way you shoot it. I'm interested in learning.
It's a free market and a democracy, anyone can spend their money how they want with the greatest of pleasure. I do personally respect the need for a P65+ back by an amatuer around the same level as a Lamborghini Murcielago for driving around LA (how many huge prints can you hang around a house?). Fun if you can but still rather silly that people would consider it necessary or that people would defend it as anything other than a 'if you can then why not' expenditure.
-
Everyone loves a good controversy
I wonder how hard it is to handle one of these awesome sounding cameras?
Is it much more difficult than a DSLR?
Truly the naysayers have much to naysay.
Could an amateur handle a p45?
oopsy, I mean p-65
-
Everyone loves a good controversy
I wonder how hard it is to handle one of these awesome sounding cameras?
Is it much more difficult than a DSLR?
Truly the naysayers have much to naysay.
Could an amateur handle a p45?
In an attempt to move this discussion to a more elevated plane (he said, clearing his throat) I'll respond, because this is a very good and relevant questions.
Ever since I started working with a P45 several years ago, and particularly with the P65 last year, it has become very clear to me that to get the most from equipment at this level one has to use the best possible technique. This includes a large solid tripod and head, mirror lockup, self-timer with at least a six second delay (with longer lenses), and the use of optimum aperture.
More casual use will produce images that may appear to be fine, but which will likely be found to be similar to the output from a sub 24MP DSLR.
We discussed this at some length and then demonstrated it to the participants at PODAS in Death Valley the other week. Some folks were coming back from a morning or afternoon shoot and finding that their images didn't seem to them (or us) to be of the quality that they expected. But then when we went through a check list of shooting technique we always found what the problem was – non-critical focus, camera vibration, etc.
All of these affect all cameras, of course, but when you're north of about 35MP the cameras are so unforgiving of poor shooting technique that the advantages of the system are negated, or at least leveled.
If someone has shot 4X5" film critically with a view or technical camera then this won't come as a surprise, but for people coming from 35mm who think that MF digital systems are the same as what they're used to, there is a rude awakening in store.
This goes a long way toward explaining what one reads and hears from people who test an MF system and then claim that they don't see an advantage. It also helps explain why something like PODAS was so valuable. People had the opportunity to work side by side with instructors who are familiar with the gear and issues as a result of personal experience, even more so I believe than a dealer would be.
Michael
-
Leave it to Michael to enter the only post in 6 pages worth reading.
Thanks, that was very informative.
-
I can say I never hear anything good coming from KR site. It is always controversy. I don't think KR has the resources and knowledge base to provide a timely and relevant information. So he cries fire a lot. There are many good sites that actually do their homework I think it is just hard for him to compete. He needs to get his name out there somehow. It works. Ignore it and he will either go away or be forced to write something of actual value.
-
"O ye, of little faith", don't despair! Decent JPEG's are available on the Web. Have a look at 25 entries to the National Geographic's International Photography Contest 2009 (these are just entries). Not one of them has won anything yet. All probably shot with "ordinary" cameras. It is possible to see fine images on the Web and appreciate ability, technique etc. Most of you will enjoy these and take comfort from the fact that you can get great images from relatively inexpensive gear. Chins up please! See:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/n..._internati.html (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/national_geographics_internati.html)
-
Most of you will enjoy these and take comfort from the fact that you can get great images from relatively inexpensive gear.
of course you can. And now we've seen you can take diabolical snapshots with eye-wateringly expensive gear. Personally the longer I take photographs the more I realise how little I know, and how little all the hours of reading books, forums, and whatever have resulted in any information that has really sunk in and become second nature.
I don't know if I'll ever use gear more expensive than the stuff I have now. I doubt it. But until I've actually really nailed some of the finer points of technique which Michael mentions above - and I mean really nail them: it really only is in the last 12 months I've reaslised that exceeding f11 is actually very counter productive with my DSLR.
My point being I suspect it is actually considerably harder to produce impressive results with something as unforgiving as a P65 than it is with the average DSLR, but the potential is there if you're able to exploit it do produce really, really memorable photography.
-
Leave it to Michael to enter the only post in 6 pages worth reading.
Thanks, that was very informative.
Yes indeed, and I can vouch for that, because I attended this workshop and went through the whole experience. What Michael outlines here corroborates my findings exactly. And by the way, the workshop was an excellent experience in every conceivable way. Nobody can judge the value of this event from images posted on a blog site. It's just preposterous to try.
I'm now working on some of the images I made there, so it's a fortuitous time for me to add a bit of technical perspective on the question of what one gets for the investment. I own a DSLR with 21 MP, F-F and 6 micron pixel pitch. So I really went there with the primary intent of finding something out - hence an open, but questioning, mind as to what value-added there would be from another system also sporting 6 micron pixels albeit many more of them. What I saw with my own two eyes from my own work with the system is simply that there's a whole lot more to this than the ability to make huge prints, which in any case I have no room to either display or store, and I'm not in business selling them. It's about the image quality obtainable with correct capture technique. The P65 and P40 sensors have 12.5 stops of dynamic range. Our DSLRs have 5 or 6. The Phase lenses were designed for digital imaging and the quality is superb. I made a number of photographs with this camera in extremely low light, on a tripod, with low ISO, mirror lock-up, time delay - the whole 9 yards; for the ones that came out well, the cleanliness and crispness of the quarter-tones and below which I can open-up in Capture 1 from these shots is kind of breath-taking. The detail I can pull-up on rock faces a good distance away under normal daylight, even before any sharpening - also amazing. I'm not detracting from the fine capabilities of my Canon 1DsMk3, but this stuff is at another level, and you don't need huge prints to see it. 11*17 will do. I'm finding as I process these images that in some cases there are photographs within photographs; Death Valley is that kind of place, and the MP count and the IQ both facilitate selecting and cropping portions of an image which make fine, high-resolution photos in their own right, depending on the crop, say in the 11/17 ~ 13/19 size range. So yes, it's inherently pricey stuff because of what goes into making it, but it delivers.
-
Ever since I started working with a P45 several years ago, and particularly with the P65 last year, it has become very clear to me that to get the most from equipment at this level one has to use the best possible technique. This includes a large solid tripod and head, mirror lockup, self-timer with at least a six second delay (with longer lenses), and the use of optimum aperture.
Michael
There's an interesting aesthetic aspect to this comment, as well. When all is said in done, in my own photography I'm not very interested in tripod/MLU/self-timer shots. I ABSOLUTELY do not think that there's anything wrong with them, and I own a fantastic print of Adams' Moonrise, and other photos made within this aesthetic. But for my own photography I prefer movement stuff, with drama -- if I could pick any famous shot in the world, and have taken it, it'd probably be something from Henri Cartier Bresson or Robert Capa or James Nachtwey, rather than one of those still and silvery shots. For that reason, I have a D3, and I'm now collecting m4/3 gear. Again, I love some of the shots I've seen with the big high-end cameras, but we've gotten to the point with digital now where the cameras themselves are a critical aesthetic choice -- not just a matter of ultimate print size, but in how the cameras themselves must be handled.
I may be completely wrong in this -- perhaps we'll have a better idea when somebody shoots a Leica S2 handheld from a moving helicopter.
JC
-
I also learned, and saw, that with good hand-holding and exposure technique these cameras can be used hand-held successfully. You need a firm but relaxed grip of the camera, shutter speed about three times the focal length of the lens, and a good squeeze (rather than push) technique of the exposure button. I'm not saying you'd want to do sports photography with this gear, but it is less limited than it may at first appear.
-
It's about the image quality obtainable with correct capture technique. The P65 and P40 sensors have 12.5 stops of dynamic range. Our DSLRs have 5 or 6.
Mark,
Please tell me that this is a typo mistake. You should be aware that that the D3x has a DR equal to that of any MFDB, as well as having many other features that make MFDBs look like dinosaurs.
-
Yes, according to DxO the high-end DSLRs approach the DR of the Phase back. I should have been more discriminating in that comparison. While dinosaurs are extinct, the new breed of digital backs is on the leading edge of 21sts century imaging technology, and as I said, offers unique properties of image quality which is worthwhile seeing or better still working with to appreciate. It's due to a combination of contributory factors. Also as I alluded to, a high-end DSLR remains a very good camera and valuable for a lot of stuff you wouldn't ideally do with an MFDB, but each has its place in the sun.
-
Yes, according to DxO the high-end DSLRs approach the DR of the Phase back. I should have been more discriminating in that comparison. While dinosaurs are extinct, the new breed of digital backs is on the leading edge of 21sts century imaging technology, and as I said, offers unique properties of image quality which is worthwhile seeing or better still working with to appreciate. It's due to a combination of contributory factors. Also as I alluded to, a high-end DSLR remains a very good camera and valuable for a lot of stuff you wouldn't ideally do with an MFDB, but each has its place in the sun.
All that being said, even the cheapest DSLR's on the market today have considerably more than 5-6 stops of dynamic range. I think you meant to say "slide film", not DSLR.
-
No I didn't mean slide film - it was just a seniors' moment - my bad. Anyhow, looking at the DR numbers on DxO's website, of course it varies as a function of ISO. On the intro page for the Phase P40 for example, they rate DR as 13. Then when you go to the DR tab with the graph, you see it ranges between about 12 and 8.7 depending on the ISO. Overall not much different than a Nikon D3x. One does need to be careful interpreting and comparing the DxO results for MF sensors for reasons they themselves explain on their website. And other factors affect IQ out of the box. For example, the DSLRs are all equipped with low-pass filters, while the Phase backs are not.
All that said and done, when I sit here playing with my MF results from the DV experience, I can tell you the good ones are the highest technical quality image files I've ever produced "straight out of the box", and I've been working with the original Canon 1Ds and then the Canon 1DsMk3 on thousands of images over a number of years. At some point, once we get beyond hair-splitting over numbers and look at real photographs one simply has to acknowledge what is. One should also take account of evidence in the market place. This gear is inherently expensive, and the people who buy it, on the whole and from my observation, don't buy it frivolously because they have some money to spend - whether they make money from photography or not they come into this realm with considerable experience making photographs and quite well-formed taste evaluating images, and they assess what they'll get for what they may invest. I know this runs contrary to some assertions on this thread that the demand side of the market is somehow irrational, but in general that's not true. I raise the point simply to say that others can legitimately corroborate my own observations, so either we're all nuts or none of us are, and there is something special about this technology.
-
Yes, according to DxO the high-end DSLRs approach the DR of the Phase back. I should have been more discriminating in that comparison. While dinosaurs are extinct, the new breed of digital backs is on the leading edge of 21sts century imaging technology, and as I said, offers unique properties of image quality which is worthwhile seeing or better still working with to appreciate. It's due to a combination of contributory factors. Also as I alluded to, a high-end DSLR remains a very good camera and valuable for a lot of stuff you wouldn't ideally do with an MFDB, but each has its place in the sun.
Mark,
I didn't mean that MFDBs are like dinosaurs because they are extinct, but because they are big, heavy, cumbersome and slow.
I can understand in a world of expensive cars and attractive models hired at $10,000 a day to languish over such cars; in an environment where the photographer controls the elements in the scene and has the time to arrange the lighting and composition to his satisfaction, and can employ assistants to carry the heavy tripod and other equipment, there would perhaps be no reason not to use a camera which is capable of producing the very best image quality possible, irrespective of the fact that the advantages of such exceptional image quality may often be lost in the processing for many applications such as magazine spreads.
We should not forget Michael's comparison on A3+ size prints of identical scenes taken with the Canon G10 and the P45+.
We should also not forget the psychological effect of expensive equipment, ie. the placebo effect. There have been numerous double-blind tests conducted with great scientific rigour which imply very clearly that people do actually experience greater pleasure as a result of the mere belief that the product with which they are interacting, using, sampling, tasting etc is a superior product. It's why people will often swear blind that their ridiculously expensive amplifier 'sounds' better than another good, well-designed but sensibly priced model. It actually does sound better as a result of their believing it sounds better.
However, place such people in a position where they are not aware which amplifier is in use, as in a double-blind test, and they can be at a complete loss as to which amplifier creates the better sound, and sometimes even get things the wrong way round, consistently confusing the cheaper amplifier with the much more expensive one.
An even more graphic example of this effect I came across recently was an experiment in which electrodes were placed of the participants' heads to measure activity in the pleasure centres of the brain during a wine tasting session. This methodology was used presumably because we know that people are often given to telling little white lies to save face and avoid giving the impression, for example, that they might be unsophisticated and not know the difference between a good quality wine and a cheap wine.
The results were surprising. Those who believed that the (in truth) cheap wine they were tasting was actually the expensive wine, because they'd been told it was expensive, experienced greater pleasure when drinking that (in reality) cheap wine than they did when drinking the 'real' expensive wine.
-
Ray,
Neither the Leica nor the Phase are big, heavy, cumbersome or slow. I used the Phase 645DF with the 80mm lens, the 45mm lens and the 75-150mm zoom lens for the whole week we were there. In fact, in terms of dimensions the Phase is a flatter camera than my Canon 1Ds Mk3. It is a bit heavier, but not by much with the single focal length lenses. With the 75-150 it's got to be somewhat heavier than a Canon 1Ds3 with a 24-105 zoom just because there is more glass, but I was surpised by how manageable it is. I was expecting much worse. Also the form factor is pretty good, so it's no more cumbersome than our larger DSLRs. I would have been happier with one or two of the buttons placed a bit differently, but that's a quibble. As for responsiveness, it really is good. The autofocus on this model in particular is VERY responsive. It takes longer to process images because there is so much more data to process, but here too, much faster than I was expecting (using Sandisk Extreme 4 cards) . As I said, this isn't gear for sports photography, but your characterization of it is truly way off the mark. If you can borrow access to one of these specific models and haven't done so yet, use one for half a day and you'll see what I mean. Likewise for the image quality.
I was involved in a blind-tasting of rum back in the mid 1960s when I was teaching in the Caribbean for a 2 year stint (done to raise funds for good causes). We designed the experiment very scientifically and the results were really interesting. The rums which people normally considered beneath their dignity (too cheap, "common stuff" in the grocery store) turned out to be the favoured brands under blind-tasting. So I know exactly where you're coming from. And it is true that the overall quality of digital imaging has reached a stage where it can be difficult to discern what kind of camera produced what images; but all that said, there are just enough instances I've seen and experienced where it seems like MF, smells like MF, looks like MF and is MF. I won't tire of my 1DsMk3, but as I said, each has its place in the sun and when MF is used to its fullest comparative advantage there is no mistaking what it is.
-
Ray,
Neither the Leica nor the Phase are big, heavy, cumbersome or slow. I used the Phase 645DF with the 80mm lens, the 45mm lens and the 75-150mm zoom lens for the whole week we were there. In fact, in terms of dimensions the Phase is a flatter camera than my Canon 1Ds Mk3. It is a bit heavier, but not by much with the single focal length lenses. With the 75-150 it's got to be somewhat heavier than a Canon 1Ds3 with a 24-105 zoom just because there is more glass, but I was surpised by how manageable it is. I was expecting much worse. Also the form factor is pretty good, so it's no more cumbersome than our larger DSLRs. I would have been happier with one or two of the buttons placed a bit differently, but that's a quibble. As for responsiveness, it really is good. The autofocus on this model in particular is VERY responsive. It takes longer to process images because there is so much more data to process, but here too, much faster than I was expecting (using Sandisk Extreme 4 cards) . As I said, this isn't gear for sports photography, but your characterization of it is truly way off the mark. If you can borrow access to one of these specific models and haven't done so yet, use one for half a day and you'll see what I mean. Likewise for the image quality.
I was involved in a blind-tasting of rum back in the mid 1960s when I was teaching in the Caribbean for a 2 year stint (done to raise funds for good causes). We designed the experiment very scientifically and the results were really interesting. The rums which people normally considered beneath their dignity (too cheap, "common stuff" in the grocery store) turned out to be the favoured brands under blind-tasting. So I know exactly where you're coming from. And it is true that the overall quality of digital imaging has reached a stage where it can be difficult to discern what kind of camera produced what images; but all that said, there are just enough instances I've seen and experienced where it seems like MF, smells like MF, looks like MF and is MF. I won't tire of my 1DsMk3, but as I said, each has its place in the sun and when MF is used to its fullest comparative advantage there is no mistaking what it is.
Mark,
Big, heavy, cumbersome and slow are relative terms. I admit the Leica S2 is an example of an MF digital camera which is not excessively big and heavy compared with a 1Ds3 or D3x (if you discount the lenses), contrary to the usual situation with MFDB, but it's greatly lacking in many of the prized features sported by cutting-edge 35mm DSLRs.
Consider just one factor of cutting edge technology, lens Image Stabilisation. This is cutting edge technology which is far more significant (in my view) than some slight increase in resolution due to an increased pixel count. Absolute lens quality is a significant issue for me, but technology which allows one to realise the maximum potential of any lens in practical situations is surely more significant. I bought a new camera recently, the D700, mainly on the impressive qualities of just one lens, the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. It's the only Nikkor lens I own. I can't find another one that interests me. If the recent Canon 100/2.8 IS Macro were a Nikkor lens, I'd buy it in a flash. The fact that the Nikkor 14-24 does not have VR is not such an issue because it's such a wide-angle lens which doesn't require a particularly fast shutter speed for a sharp result.
Cutting-edge technology is the 8 fps of the Canon 7D at an affordable price. The Leica S2 has double the pixel count of the 7D but 1/5th of the frame rate. How cutting edge is that? 15x the price but almost 3x as slow. Not impressed!
I appreciate the fact that, without stitching, an MFDB like the P65+ is the only solution for impressive results at huge print sizes. But this is a very limited application, ie. subjects which do not lend themselves to the stitching process because of significant subject movement. I understand that it's not practical to get a model to hold perfectly still, without blinking, so one can take a series of shots of various portions of her face and then stitch them together to make a gigantic, high resolution poster. That would be very restrictive. If you are in the business of producing gigantic, high resolution posters that bear scrutiny from up-close, then a P65+ may be justified.
My printer is the relatively small Epson 7600. The wonderful flexibility of cutting-edge 35mm format DSLRs is far more significant and exciting for me.
-
Ray, most of the time one would use a Phase One camera on a tripod. When you use a camera on a tripod, the IS MUST be turned off (at least with some cameras and lenses including my 1DsMk3, but perhaps not all) otherwise the result is WORSE. I've pesonally tested this one time when I was disappointed with the sharpness of some on-tripod shots with my 1DsMk3. So the absence of IS is irrelevant for all the work one would do with this camera mounted on a tripod. Furthermore, the need for IS can be overblown. If you had had the opportunity of seeing the very large (I believe probably 40*60 inch) prints Mark Dubovoy displayed at the workshop from his Antarctica shoot, you would readily appreciate what I mean. These were done with the Phase back, hand-held on a boat and the far distant detail in the snow and ice is simply breath-taking. No IS.
The point you are missing in all of this is the elementary one that different technologies satisfy different objectives and not all features are necessary or possible on every type of camera; that doesn't make one kind of camera lacking in technical progress relative to another. They are just different. If you need a high frame rate, you don't need a Phase One camera. If you need ultra-high resolution then you may well need an MFDB-type camera, and the application may be less limited than you think.
An Epson 7600 BTW, provides ample print size to take good advantage of this technology. 24*30 inch prints from a properly made Phase One exposure would be stunning at that size.
The model shoot which Michael did, and the one done in Death Valley did not require stitching to deal with blinking eyes. Sure, you bracket exposures to select the best one, but that's it.
Ray, I went into that workshop with a questioning and open mind. I'd seen MF prints in Michael's gallery which impressed me a lot, but I've also seen there a whole slew of Sony, Nikon and Canon originated prints which also impressed me a whole lot. So needless to say, I was asking myself "what's the deal here?" As well, we all know a Canon 1DsMk3 has a pixel size of about 6 mu and the same goes for the latest Phase One backs. So again, "What gives?" One of the reasons, amongst others, I attended this workshop was to learn more about what goes into the technology, see exactly what it can do in my hands and those of others with more experience at it than me, and make up my own mind once and for all what, if anything, distinguishes this technology (goes well beyond pixel pitch and pixel count) from what I own and use very satisfactorily. I also wanted to get some insight into what makes MF so darn expensive, so I could put on my economist' cap and evaluate the likelihood of the costs coming down. Well, the workshop satisfied my curiosity on all of these counts. I am thoroughly convinced MF delivers another level of image quality when used correctly, and I am quite convinced that for understandable technical reasons costs for this level of quality will not come down substantially any time soon - so a good news/bad news story, but there we have it.
With that I shall now close my contribution to this thread. My intention here was not so much to carry arguments, but to give readers the benefit of insights I gained from my participation in this excellent workshop.
All the best.