Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!

[barryfitzgerald]

That's a stretch, I see not so much 'exaggeration' as simply flaky writing and naive opinion. It's just too poor an article to warrant the sort of laboured interpretation you claim it needs.
Andrew Rodney has a delightful expression - "Polishing a turd"'.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I cannot speak for you lot, but I dont take everything I read on KR's site that seriously, not to say there is not some useful info on there. It aint gospel shall we say. Same for this site.

Good and bad on both.

Easy to pull apart either site on tecnical issues. Michael's digital v 35mm tests tell us that a 6mp APS sensor beats 35mm no worries. Back on planet earth, my little trip out with a 6mp APS and 35mm loaded up with cheapo negative film..and the film camera blew the pants off the digital. Latitude was vastly superior on the film, contrast and colour seperation also much better. But you never see the other side of the coin, just the tedious "res tests", avoiding the areas that matter in the real world (like having a choice of slide or negative)

Bias is where you find it..not for me to spark off the film v digital debate yet again, but there is as much poor information here (and some very good stuff) as Rockwell's site. I am happy to admit the pros and cons of film and digital, Michael on the other hand is not, nor would it seem able to fix his DOF article which also contains inaccurate information too. So let's not suggest this is the holy bible of photographic information any more than KR's site is..

[DarkPenguin]

Easy to pull apart either site on tecnical issues. Michael's digital v 35mm tests tell us that a 6mp APS sensor beats 35mm no worries. Back on planet earth, my little trip out with a 6mp APS and 35mm loaded up with cheapo negative film..and the film camera blew the pants off the digital. Latitude was vastly superior on the film, contrast and colour seperation also much better. But you never see the other side of the coin, just the tedious "res tests", avoiding the areas that matter in the real world (like having a choice of slide or negative)

I thought Jay Turberville debunked that.

[barryfitzgerald]

I thought Jay Turberville debunked that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lol, well I took the shots, I put them up..and I see what is going on. Latitude way better on negative film. Jay hates film more than Michael does probably. I just like using both digital and film, difference is I am prepared to admit that film has some use still, and shock horror can "sometimes" produce better results. Also happy to embrace the joys and advantages of digital, and the pros and cons too.

And I think even the most die hard digi fan would admit that a tiny sensor compact dies a terrible death DR wise against negative film. Didnt stop Jay trying to argue that one..still each to his own as they say. I have a tiny sensor compact too, I just am honest and know the pros and cons of it..latitude aint its strong point.

This harks back to the "makes life easier" gear comments, and that is what its about, nothing else really. Some work better in certain situations that others. This is not the same as "is this a good shot"..

[Jonathan Wienke]

There's no doubt that the D3 with the same exposure would have provided more detail, sharper detail and better detail in those shadows and that some photographers, if not you, would have consequently made a decision in post processing, with such an image, to bring out the shadow detail and thus lose the dramatic effect which you have created by exaggertaing those dark shadows in the same way than Ken exaggerated his concept of "The Camera Doesn't Matter".

I rest my case. 

Ummm...congratulations, you've just proved that no two photographers will process a given RAW exactly the same way, and some will do so more competently than others. If I had a D3 RAW of the exact same scene and moment, I would very probably processed it in a similar manner to pull down the shadows and create the "floating" effect. But if the D3 has superior DR/noise performance than the 1D-II, then I may have been able keep more detail in the moon and the tower brickwork. I doubt that would detract from the artistic merit of the image...

[Nick Rains]

How much equipment means to one "artist" has no bearing on how much it means to another artist.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes.

Imposing 'anti-tool' snobbery on others is simply arrogant and unnecessary. If cameras mean nothing to you, great, I can certainly respect that. But I would ask for the reverse too - respect those who are honest enough to admit to using cameras as an essential part of their 'art'. Both points of view are equally valid.

[Nick Rains]

I cannot speak for you lot, but I dont take everything I read on KR's site that seriously, not to say there is not some useful info on there. It aint gospel shall we say. Same for this site.

Good and bad on both.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe true, certainly I have found value in some of KR's lens comparisons. However, I would have to say that there is generally much more useful and, dare I say it, correct stuff in LL.

Those who are long-time members will know of plenty of forum members on LL who are very well respected photographers. KR's is simply a blog by one person. LL is much more than that with numerous well informed contributors other than MR.

[barryfitzgerald]

Nice!!

"Firstly, let me say that though it will make gear-heads wince, I don't know what camera was used to shoot this, nor what lens, nor do I care. I'm guessing it's film, because of the grain, but none of these factors has anything to do with anything. The image stands on its own for its content, not anything associated with the tools used to create it"

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/balmoral.shtml

Gasp, some people are getting what its all about!

[bernie west]

Imposing 'anti-tool' snobbery on others is simply arrogant and unnecessary. If cameras mean nothing to you, great, I can certainly respect that. But I would ask for the reverse too - respect those who are honest enough to admit to using cameras as an essential part of their 'art'. Both points of view are equally valid.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you have misinterpreted what I was saying.  I am actually on YOUR side.
Did you miss this bit Clearly ones equipment helps one to portray meaning in ones images?  My point was that art is subjective.  There is no objective measure of art.  So Ray making judgments about what is and isn't art, to suit his argument, is a false tactic.  Sorted?

[Nick Rains]

Nice!!

"Firstly, let me say that though it will make gear-heads wince, I don't know what camera was used to shoot this, nor what lens, nor do I care. I'm guessing it's film, because of the grain, but none of these factors has anything to do with anything. The image stands on its own for its content, not anything associated with the tools used to create it"

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/balmoral.shtml

Gasp, some people are getting what its all about!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Has anyone (MR or anyone else) ever said that the viewer cares what tools were used?

I know David Oliver, and I know what cameras he uses. None of those factors take away from my enjoyment of his image, neither does what he thinks about cameras.

What he thinks about cameras, and their importance, is his personal opinion and is only valid to him and his photography. MR doesn't care what he used, I don't either, but David might.

[Nick Rains]

I think you have misinterpreted what I was saying.  I am actually on YOUR side.
Did you miss this bit Clearly ones equipment helps one to portray meaning in ones images?  My point was that art is subjective.  There is no objective measure of art.  So Ray making judgments about what is and isn't art, to suit his argument, is a false tactic.  Sorted?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And I was agreeing with you. My comment was a follow up, reinforcing what you said, after clearly saying "Yes".

[barryfitzgerald]

What he thinks about cameras, and their importance, is his personal opinion and is only valid to him and his photography. MR doesn't care what he used, I don't either, but David might.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lets seperate what counts. KR was talking about IMHO getting great shots, and that alone. He was not talking about in my view, image quality, or pros and cons of certain equipment. Ok it was a tad OTT...but take it as that, I did.

Anything else defies logic. A bit like saying, "if I brush my teeth with a chainsaw..will I hurt myself" its just a tad obvious on that one! lol

We dont need to be told by MR that a holga isnt ideal for fine art landscapes, I am sure pinhole photographers are more than aware of the limitations they face too. I am not going to argue that tech talk and stuff has a place, sure does. But its got a far less important place than getting the actual photo.

[bernie west]

And I was agreeing with you. My comment was a follow up, reinforcing what you said, after clearly saying "Yes".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry, your references to "you" had me thinking you were meaning me.

[Nick Rains]

I am not going to argue that tech talk and stuff has a place, sure does. But its got a far less important place than getting the actual photo.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed.

The amount of importance necessarily varies from one person to the next, from zero to 99%. But it's their choice and no-one has the right to second-guess them.

[Ray]

Jonathan is not saying he allocated priority to technical qualities over artistic ones - he is saying he has used a technical characteristic to support his chosen creative outcome.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nor am I saying that. You missed my point, Nick. I'm saying that Jonathan has deliberately misrepresented those shadows for the sake of artistic effect. He's already admitted there was a fair amount of detail there. He's destroyed that detail in order to create a more persuasive impact. As regards a totally faithful representation of the scene, the image fails because those shadows are unnaturally black, just as Ken's article fails as a verbally accurate description of the precise role that camera equipment plays in the making of a photograph.

Jonathan has deliberately and knowingly distorted reality to impart greater impact to his image, in a similar way to the rhetorical method that Ken has adopted in his article.

[Ray]

Ummm...congratulations, you've just proved that no two photographers will process a given RAW exactly the same way, and some will do so more competently than others. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187788\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, I haven't done anything of the sort. The word 'competently' with regard to artistic expression is a very subjective matter.

Here I am confining myself to the bare, objective facts. By your own admission, you have deliberately and presumably competently destroyed shadow detail in that image for the sake of artistic impact.

Whether that makes the image successful as a work of art is a subjective opinion. That you have deliberately exaggerated the blackness of the shadows is a plain matter of fact. You did it for a reason, just as Ken has exaggeration a few of his statements for dramatic effect. I see essentially no difference except Ken's mode of expression here is in the form of writing and yours, with the castle turret example, is in the form of a photographic image.

[bernie west]

I see essentially no difference except Ken's mode of expression here is in the form of writing and yours, with the castle turret example, is in the form of a photographic image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187822\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Words have objective meanings, something which images don't.  Images need to be interpreted far more than words do.  Yet another poor argument....

[Nick Rains]

Jonathan has deliberately and knowingly distorted reality to impart greater impact to his image, in a similar way to the rhetorical method that Ken has adopted in his article.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, yes, I missed your point.

Exaggeration and distortion for creative effect is often appropriate for an image which makes no claim to be objectively 'accurate'. But it's inappropriate for an article claiming some insight into photography by an author who tries to claim some authority on the subject.

If someone has a point of view, I'd rather they try to persuade me around to their way of thinking with logic and example rather than by exaggeration and distortion.

[Ray]

Words have objective meanings, something which images don't.  Images need to be interpreted far more than words do.  Yet another poor argument....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Never heard such nonsense. Words have objective meanings but images don't? Where are you coming from? The first words that were created, in ancient China, were pictures or pictographs which gradually evolved to ideographs, losing much of their original pictorial representation.

Ever heard of the expression, 'A picture is worth a thousand words'. Dear me!

[bernie west]

Never heard such nonsense. Words have objective meanings but images don't? Where are you coming from? The first words that were created, in ancient China, were pictures or pictographs which gradually evolved to ideographs, losing much of their original pictorial representation.

Ever heard of the expression, 'A picture is worth a thousand words'. Dear me!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

symbology is different from imagery.  Alas, another poor argument.  Perhaps you can show me an image which isn't open to subjective interpretation?

[Nick Rains]

Never heard such nonsense. Words have objective meanings but images don't? Where are you coming from? The first words that were created, in ancient China, were pictures or pictographs which gradually evolved to ideographs, losing much of their original pictorial representation.

Ever heard of the expression, 'A picture is worth a thousand words'. Dear me!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187829\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dear Me indeed, I was just thinking you were finally seeing reason! LOL. Silly me.

You are keen to 'interpret' KRs article but cannot understand Bernie's post?

Of course words have a generally firmer objective meaning than images - he did not say images have no objective meaning and words have only that.

Both have meaning, words however are intended to have specific meanings - that's why we have so many.