It can never be a good day when Karl makes sense... :D... you did well against the Lions this afternoon though. Best regards, Deen -- Deen Hameed deenhameed@xxxxxxxxxxxx 0405 649 101 2004-08-08 18:48:51 At 2004-08-08, 16:34:20 karl shah-jenner (shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: >From: "David Dyer-Bennet" >> (Not originally addressed to me, but since I'm going to take on some >> of the stuff later on it seems only fair to respond to this also). >> >> I've still got a 4x5 and two MF cameras, as well as something like 5 >> film bodies (same lens system as my good digital). > >So David, do you miss what a 4x5 format can bring to an image that cannot be >achieved with a smaller format? > >in a like vein, why did you have 4x5 as well as 35mm, was it just the >resolution or maybe the perspective control, or was it the added dimensional >qualities too? > >curious, not being argumentative. > > > >> So I don't miss them. They're not gone. They're still there. I can >> use them any time I find them appropriate. > >again not to be a prick but because I find myself in a similar situation, do >you make the effort to grab the 4x5 or would you, when a digital camera is >quicker and easier to use? > >I'm staying film for what it forces on me and using digital for emailing, >ebay and parties where I'm a guest an I just want blackmail material ;-) > >> You say that like it's a good thing. It's *not*. Making the craft >> easier is *good*. It increases the pool of artists working. Good >> artistic vision doesn't always tie to good craft / technical skills, >> or the right attitudes to acquire them easily. > >sure, I'd FAR prefer a factory cranked out engine in a mass produced car >over the COST of a hand built one any day ;-) > >At this stage I see there are sacrifices being made in photography since >digi swept in, but it's mostly relating to the issue of format. >preservation is also an issue for me too.. > > >> For that matter, the fact that digital darkroom is *so much* faster >> than chemical means an artist can create more of the same quality, or >> perhaps higher quality in the same amount. Or can have a life in >> addition to being an artist. > > >Had a guy stop by the other day pulling his hair out - he's shot 9000 images >on Saturday and had been working without sleep 'till Monday to get a web >page of thumbnails up to sell images from a show. He was exasperated as his >method had messed up the file order and he was totally tanged so I helped >him get it all back to rights. He's also had a cart go silly on him and >totally lost one set of images.. He was very happy that a few days prior >I'd taught him a way to cut down on the time processing the images but >still, he wanted the whole lot ready to go by Wednesday. > >9000 images. > >he'd shot everything! Admittedly there have been times when I'd have liked >to capture at 100th of a second everything continuously that passed before >my eyes, but 60 minutes yielding 360,000 images for me to pour over, >scrutinise and cull back to a likely one or two??? damn, it'd take me days >and days to see them all, to really *see* them. so much for a life ;-) > >His 9000 printed at $1 a shot would be an awesome collection. I had a >motor sport shooter I had to help out too, hundreds and hundreds of >out-of-focus images, he had been shooting with AF on, I told him to pick the >spot where the cars would look best, turn off AF and shoot just that spot >and nowhere else. he was much happier the next time when ALL the shots were >at a particular, dramatic point and all were in focus. > >OK, these are silly and common mistakes that one overcomes as one's >experiences guide them, but I was truly amazed at the mass of images these >folks were trying to handle. Both men were reputable shooters here yet >neither had been shooting discriminately and were trying to cope with vast >amounts of work in image processing and handling. One has 10 120Gb hard >drives at home filled with images (!) He was also the guy who'd lost 260Gb >worth when a striped raid array went screwy :-/ > >no constraints had left these guys with their heads spinning and they had >become desperate individuals trying hard to control a lust that had got out >of hand. > > > >>>It's also very rewarding to overcome a major hurdle and >> > succeed. > >> And it's very frustrating to see people knocking their heads against a >> brick wall *when there's a door right next to them*. > > >I prefer (and it's personal) to take on challenges that offer rewards in the >long run rather that taking the easy road. I feel the rewards more, the >satisfaction runs deeper.. I like the contrasts - and yes, I'm the goose >that stays out way longer on a cold rainy day than I should just because >that hot shower feels soooo much better at the end > > >> Are the rewards the same? I think most people can tell "bad" from >> "good" most of the time. I think the kid who does a *good* job will >> get a lot more support and reaction from his friends. > >good until it becomes familiar and commonplace, then the challenges are gone >and the appreciation falls away. Do you remember the first time you pulled >a wet print from the chemistry? I miss that feeling. > > > >> > our darkroom efforts are diminished by this sort of thing though. >> > is it a real Faberge egg or a plastic copy? no one asks, they >> > assume it's the plastic copy and don't bother picking it up to >> > check.. after all, Faberge eggs are only ever found in museums :-( > >> I gotta deny the attempted analogy between a digital image and a >> plastic copy. That's nonsense. > >I'm just saying that people who view imaging as easy, something that anyone >can do will fail to appreciate what's before them. The manufacturers have >spent squillions telling everyone it's easy and that they can do it - it's >hard to argue with that sort of advertising! As a consequence many people >will look at an image as just one image of many that they may care for or >not. It will have no value though, it's just a picture after all! > >My comment that Faberge eggs are found in museums however reflected my view >that as this fad progresses all appreciation of current photographers may >just fall away - and only those who's works currently reside in galleries >will be received as being special. if it's outside a gallery it's just a >picture. > >have their been any greats remembered for their digital? AA was really keen >on the early work done in the field - did he make any digital images? if he >did does any one know of any ? > > > > >> It's true that things that were interesting only for their rarity lose >> their value when not rare. But if the value *was* due only to their >> rarity, then they weren't really important in the first place, were >> they? It was a false value. > >All value is false, residing only in the hearts of the man or woman who >treasures these things. Love, hope, law, justice, kindness, art, country, >pride - these things we hold as so special, these things that we die for >are intrinsically valueless, they don't exist without the observer or the >desire to respect and preserve their experienced value. they are creations >of the human heart and without us they would evaporate. > >damn - I'm getting too close to the realms of phenomenology ;-) > >but really, there used to be awe experienced when folks looked at a picture >created using multiple exposures with multiple enlargers when they knew what >they were looking at, and it was an appreciation not just of the image but >of the effort that went into it - the assumption now is that any twit can do >it in PS. .. and subsequently the efforts of the darkroom practitioner who >undertakes such a feat is diminished, they are written off as a twit who >obviously didn't realise how easy it would have been done with a PC or a Mac > >I *like* the idea that in this world there exists people who work hard to >achieve gains, it gives me hope that my life too can have some value > >maybe I'm just being a sentimental fool and overdramatic. don't know, it's >just what I feel. > >k > ___ END OF QUOTED TEXT ___
