I think you made my point for me, Jan. Thanks.
On 1/3/14 6:33 PM, Jan Faul wrote:
The Market? What does "the market” have to do with what or how I
shoot? If I didn’t mind shooting pictures best used on Flickr or
similar, sure then I can shoot any old crap like everybody else is
doing. But I don’t pay attention to what the market is doing as guess
what? Not everybody has the same taste and not everybody buys shots of
half-naked happy couples strolling on a beach in the Virgin Islands
when they are putting together a design for a travel brochure or many
other forms of print use.
“The market” is always full of surprises and full of obscure photo
needs which the wannabes don’t bother pushing a button for. I am
currently designing wraps for cars and need s certain kind of file.
The image has to be panoramic, and it can’t be stitched. The file
needs to be above 200MB and there is a paucity of such files for sale
anywhere. True, I could go to that panorama shop in Chicago, but they
are pricey and do not work with Noblex images.
If you want to shoot digital, at least use a camera with a decent
sensor size, and I am not referring to Nikon or Canon. Sadly the best
sensors are all housed in bodies made by Leica (S2), Hassie (H5),
Phase One, Roundshot and Mamiya and none costs less than a Volvo.
On Jan 3, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Trevor Cunningham wrote:
I only went digital in 2007. I discovered the time spent processing,
proofing, and printing was replaced with culling and post processing.
However, the thought point is interesting. With film, I did put more
thought into each roll as I tried to do something different at least
every other frame. Now, I can afford the opportunity to really
explore a situation. And that's the point missing from the
argument...especially from pros. No doubt, a quality, seasoned pro
will always dedicate a requisite level of planning to any shoot. Does
economizing capture dilute any level of quality from that? Must a
masterpiece be produced from a single roll? Does it really matter?
Tell me, pros, what does the market say?
On 1/2/14 7:19 PM, Bob wrote:
One night after a club meeting in the early days of digital
photography a couple club members met for coffee after the meeting.
One of the guys was telling us how he just shot hundreds of pix with
a model.
I asked how many he would have shot with film. His answer was one or
two rolls. I then asked how much thought and time he put into each
of the hundreds of shots. No answer.
A retired pro across the table looked at me and just smiled. It was
a knowingly smile.....
Bob
On 1/2/2014 9:47 AM, Jan Faul wrote:
For the really lazy and uninitiated, this is one place where film
comes from in big boxes : http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
Of course they ship, and also sell everything you could ever need
to take pictures except for a couple of things, i.e. patience,
skill, curiosity, talent.
I don’t think anybody will miss your lack of effort Don.
On Jan 2, 2014, at 8:01 AM, Randy Little wrote:
and don't forget with HDR capture you can make the zone system
look simplistic. Sure people do a lot of gimmicky crap with it but
a lot of work is just done well and looks nice. I still know of no
phone camera that is easy to use in terms of user interface. My
8x10 is less convoluted then the menu systems on some phones.
Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Dan Mitchell
<danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Dan Mitchell
danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
And what a convenience it is ! No more darkroom, no more smelly
chemicals, no more stained carpets and baths, no drying, no
glazing - these are but a few of the "conveniences" we now can
and (mostly) do enjoy. If we had to have the least convenience
we would all be going back to horse drawn portable darkrooms and
wet plates.
Recently I did indeed use what some would still call a "real"
camera - when I found a place which still sold "real" film for
one of my tiny vintage collection - but what an effort (and
cost) it all was - nope, I think for me effort is just not worth it.
As I may have said before in this column - when I was 40 years
younger I longed for a Hasselblad, now I can easily afford a
good 500CM - but sheer effort of getting film, loading film,
developing and printing same - is frankly now beyond me - yup,
I'm lazy now - it's SO easy just taking a phone out of one's
pocket that I doubt I'll ever use film again. R.I.P.
>>
>>
>> From: Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:jan@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> Subject: Re: Olympus camera news.....
>> Date: 31 December 2013 23:21:53 GMT
>> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals -
Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>
>>
>> Cameras are not being replaced by smartphones, but effort is
being replaced by convenience and laziness.
>>
>
>
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com <http://art4carz.com> <http://art4carz.com>
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm
ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/
.
--
Never trust atoms..... They make up everything.
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
------
Art for Cars: art4carz.com <http://art4carz.com>
Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com
Camera Works - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm
ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/
.
