A TOTALLY DIGITAL CONVERSATION !

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Mar 15, 2007.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    I was on AOL tonight and noticed a name from the past in my online
    Buddy List (and no, it wasn't D-Mac). One of the things I always
    liked about AOL was that you could make a Buddy List and it would tell
    you which of your buddies are currently online.
    Then you could simply IM (Instant Message) them and talk to them.
    Back when I was hot shit on AOL, I would have as many as 6 IM's open
    at once with different people. It's how I learned to type so fast
    (and believe me, typing with one hand ain't easy).

    I still have all my old people that I used to talk to 10 years ago in
    my list, some famous, some not. Anyway, tonight I noticed a guy who I
    haven't talked with in years who was a very serious photographer in
    NYC. I remember that he used a Sinar P-something camera and the guy
    couldn't stand digital (it was still in it's infancy when we last
    spoke). In other words, he was the evil Anti-Annika.

    So I was interested to see if his views had changed any or if he had
    become just another film luddite.

    Anyway, I enjoyed the chance to speak with the guy and I saved the
    conversation hoping that others might find it interesting reading. It
    is a bit long so you might wanna go grab a favorite beverage before
    you sit back to enjoy.
    I won't reveal my friend's name or his actual identity (that I just
    learned tonight) so I'll just call him "PhotoDude."
    Also remember that this was an IM conversation so sometimes one person
    (me) will type two or three lines before the other has a chance to
    answer.
    But here is the text of the conversation with only some personal stuff
    snipped:
    ======================================

    Annika1980: Taken any good pics lately?
    PhotoDude: hi there, I'm actually on a photo trip as we speak, how
    are you?
    Annika1980: fine. where are ya?
    PhotoDude: Idaho, then up to Montana in a day or 2
    PhotoDude: what have you been up to?

    Annika1980: sounds like fun. getting any good pics up there?
    PhotoDude: not yet in Idaho, I was in utah last week and got some
    good ones there
    PhotoDude: what's new with you?
    Annika1980: well, since i haven't talked to you in about 5-6 years
    years, everything
    PhotoDude: such as?
    Annika1980: i shoot almost all digital now. Canon, of course
    Annika1980: you still got that Sinar?
    PhotoDude: yep and other film cameras
    Annika1980: no digital?
    PhotoDude: I have a leica digital but that's for vacation snaps, I
    shoot film for my real work
    Annika1980: Leicas are for posers.

    Annika1980: are you like famous?
    PhotoDude: I'm getting there
    Annika1980: atta baby.
    i rememeber you showing me a pic of a fork or something like that
    PhotoDude: I do mostly landscape now
    Annika1980: got a website? i'd love to see them
    Annika1980: weren't you shooting fashion or something back in the
    day?
    PhotoDude: I'm not big on giving out my name on aol, but I'll email
    you a sample, I used to do advertising photography
    Annika1980: i like nature photography
    here's one I took the other day
    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/75457158

    Annika1980: you can check out my other galleries there as well.
    Annika1980: i can understand your privacy concerns. you haven't
    changed much in that respect.
    Annika1980: your name is still in my buddy list and yet i don't even
    know who you are. kinda weird.
    PhotoDude I like the photo of the heron, good capture

    (He sends me a link to his website)

    Annika1980: glad to meet ya. finally.
    e-mail some pics when you get a chance. maybe something from your
    current trip
    Annika1980: hey, i've got a Q. for ya
    PhotoDude: mail, what's the q?
    Annika1980: where is the money to be made in photography these days?
    besides fashion and advertising (since i'm not in NYC)

    (He then e-mailed me one of his photos ... B/W of course)

    Annika1980: nice photo. a little too artsy-fartsy for me, but hey
    Annika1980: also, how do you sell your work?
    PhotoDude: advertising is not what it used to be, I'm out of it and
    now make my living selling prints through galleries across the US
    Annika1980: sounds like what I should be doing
    Annika1980: or at least that's what some tell me
    PhotoDude: it's not that easy, it's very competitive and you need to
    be artsy
    Annika1980: yeah, i know. the duller the better
    PhotoDude: not dull
    Annika1980: not too many collectors buying full color pics of herons
    these days
    PhotoDude: nope but they pay as much as $4000 for one of my B&W
    prints, artsy works

    Annika1980: have you ever tried doing any books?
    Annika1980: what size prints do you usually sell?
    PhotoDude: I did 2 books already, but not books of my personal work,
    I've had several offers but didn't have enough images, after this trip
    I will
    PhotoDude: 14", 20" 24" 40"
    Annika1980: sounds like everything is going well for you. i'm glad.

    Annika1980: i think in your biz its kind of a snowball effect. once
    you get your name out there the market gets more and more lucrative
    for you
    PhotoDude: yep, name recognition matters greatly
    Annika1980: a bit too greatly some would say

    Annika1980: i think the photography world is going downhill now that
    every idiot with a cellphone cam thinks he's ansel adams
    PhotoDude: yep, digital has had a hand in that

    Annika1980: do you photograph what you love to photograph or do you
    photograph what sells?
    PhotoDude: I photograph what I want, I'm lucky that what I like to
    look at is also appreciated by others
    Annika1980: yes, very lucky indeed.

    PhotoDude: lucky yes, but it's been a lot of hard work for a very
    long time and have made a huge investment in it
    Annika1980: glad we got to talk. I'll keep your website bookmarked
    PhotoDude: it was good to hear from you, keep shooting

    <snipped some personal stuff and some talk about high-end Audio>

    PhotoDude: I travel 4-5 months a year
    Annika1980: $4000 will buy lots of film and paper
    PhotoDude: or a set of cables
    Annika1980: tell you what .... next time you have a hankering to
    spend $4K on some cables .... buy me a 1DsMKII instead and go to Radio
    Shack
    Annika1980: for me, it's a Catch-22. I shoot with a Canon 20D cause
    I cant afford the really good gear. But if I had the really good
    gear, I could probably make it selling photos
    Annika1980: so i do the best i can with what i got

    PhotoDude: the gear helps but it's not the gear that makes the images
    good, it's the photographer, read less of the mass market photo stuff,
    especially the digital stuff and start reading more art oriented photo
    magazines like Lenswork
    Annika1980: yeah, i listen to Brooks Jensen's (of Lenswork) podcasts
    every day at work. it keeps me inspired

    PhotoDude: I'm pretty set with the audio stuff, I won't be buying
    that stuff for quite some time
    PhotoDude: do you read the magazine, look at the images?
    Annika1980: in some ways, audio technology is like film
    technology .... both of them are stagnant
    PhotoDude: films keep getting better, kodak just updated a bunch of
    film and fuji is doing so as well
    Annika1980: sometimes I look at lenswork. nice stuff, but the color
    seems to be a bit off
    PhotoDude: well it's a B&W magazine

    Annika1980: i figured you'd be shooting with a digital back by now.
    get with the program, dude!
    Annika1980: if i shot landscapes i'd use a scanning back
    Annika1980: like stephen johnston
    PhotoDude: scanning backs take too long,like 90 seconds, that can be
    a problem as clouds move, grass blows
    Annika1980: Photoshop, baby!
    Annika1980: multiple exposures!
    PhotoDude: it's the image that matters, all that other stuff screws
    up the process
    Annika1980: i agree with the first half of that
    PhotoDude: well, I've learned a thing or two about photography, but
    do what you do

    Annika1980: for the landscape shots that you take, what gear do you
    usually use?
    Annika1980: and which films?
    PhotoDude: sinar for 6x12cm and 4x5, Fuji GX617 for 6x17cm, Fotoman
    612 for 6x12cm, Fuji Gx60III for 6x8cm, Mamiya 7II for 6x7cm, Rolli
    6008i for 6x6cm
    PhotoDude: Tmax 100 and techpan,although techpan is discontinued
    Annika1980: someday i'll let you explain to me the need for 6
    cameras.

    Annika1980: why not just get the digital back on the Hassy or a Phase
    One back for your cameras?
    Annika1980: i think all that stuff screws up the process

    PhotoDude: some cameras I can fly with, some cameras are small and
    are ok to take on vacation, some cameras are bigger and use bigger
    film, I usually take 2 systems on a driving trip
    Annika1980: yeah, wouldn't it be nice if one camera did it all?
    Annika1980: oops, i forgot . the 1DsMKII does!

    PhotoDude: a digital camera is not going to give the the kind of
    image quality that I get with film,
    Annika1980: well it's a bit late here (1:00 AM) to begin that
    argument
    PhotoDude: a DSLR is not going to do what a Sinar can do
    Annika1980: do you think a photo like the one you just e-mailed me
    could not be done with a DSLR?
    PhotoDude: I can afford any camera I want, why do you think I shoot
    film and use the cameras that I use?
    Annika1980: because for you it is about the process as much as the
    image

    PhotoDude: it would not have the same image quality, also collectors
    pay much more for a silver or platinum print than they do for digital
    Annika1980: so I've heard
    PhotoDude: I don't care about the process, I want the image
    Annika1980: well if the image is all that matters then the top of the
    line digital stuff like the digital backs blows away anything film can
    do. but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one

    Annika1980: hey, thanks for takin the time and talkin to me
    Annika1980: and good luck on your career.
    PhotoDude: Bret, I've been doing digital imaging professionally since
    1991, I can afford any camera I want, for B&W film is the way to go,
    If I shot color I would consider digital
    PhotoDude: anyway, I have to get to sleep, i need to get up at 5am
    tomorrow and go shoot, I'm glad you wrote,keep in touch, good luck to
    you as well
    Annika1980: fair enough. what do you say to people who claim that
    the new digital B/W printing processes are superior to the old?
    PhotoDude: I've tried them, you still need to use B&W film
    Annika1980: next time we'll talk about digital printing.
    Annika1980: cya
    PhotoDude: take care
     
    Annika1980, Mar 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    >>Big Snip...

    Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
    for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
    you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Mar 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Mar 15, 6:40 am, "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote:
    > >>Big Snip...

    >
    > Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
    > for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
    > you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...


    I think this passage is the crux of the matter:

    PhotoDude: I can afford any camera I want, why do you think I shoot
    film and use the cameras that I use?
    Annika1980: because for you it is about the process as much as the
    image

    IOW, the guy does what he does the way that he does because that's
    what he knows how to do. And he was making the exact same comments 8
    years ago. Of course, it held a lot of truth back then since digital
    was just getting started. But today his statement smacks of
    ignorance.
    The technology has changed, but his opinions never will.

    You might have also sensed a touch of arrogance in some of his
    comments like, "I'm a big fancy photographer and you aren't so what do
    you know?" He's always had that. Well there are many other bigger
    fancier photographers who now shoot digital who would disagree with
    his views. I met the guy years ago on one of the high-end audio
    groups.
    He was one of the folks claiming that a $4000 set of interconnects
    sounded better than a properly designed $100 pair, even if nobody
    could hear the differences in a double-blind test. I would taunt him
    the way I do folks here who claim that Leica is the ultimate camera
    and nothing else comes close.

    You don't have too many folks (excepting D-Mac) making outrageous
    claims like that in the video or photographic world since the
    differences are easily seen.

    The photo he e-mailed me was a B/W landscape shot with a "dreamy" kind
    of artsy blur to it, certainly not anything that would require a Sinar
    or a MF camera. But the guy knows his market and is very successful
    in the fine art world where quality takes a back seat to reputation.
    You could have a portfolio of masterpieces but since you're an unknown
    you'd starve to death, while some rich idiot will pay $10,000 for a
    casual snap taken by Diane Arbus.

    That is why the fine art galleries or a lot like the high-end audio
    salons .... lotsa snake oil.

    Brooks Jensen, editor of Lenswork, has some comments about that in
    one of his podcasts here:

    http://tinyurl.com/yt4hcp

    or

    http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0016 - An Example of What Makes My Blood Pressure Rise.mp3
     
    Annika1980, Mar 15, 2007
    #3
  4. Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    >>> Big Snip...

    >
    > Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
    > for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
    > you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...


    Well, and if I were making 40" prints or such I wouldn't be expecting to
    do that from 35mm film, either.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 15, 2007
    #4
  5. Annika1980 wrote:

    > I met the guy years ago on one of the high-end audio groups.
    > He was one of the folks claiming that a $4000 set of interconnects
    > sounded better than a properly designed $100 pair, even if nobody
    > could hear the differences in a double-blind test. I would taunt him
    > the way I do folks here who claim that Leica is the ultimate camera
    > and nothing else comes close.


    Ah, I wondered where the $4k cable crack came from; camera cables are
    expensive, but not *that* expensive!

    Double blind tests are my friend. On the one hand, they'll root out
    lots of the idiocy; and on the other hand, they'll provide enough
    evidence to convince me if one of the "weird" ideas is actually right,
    despite my prejudices.

    > You don't have too many folks (excepting D-Mac) making outrageous
    > claims like that in the video or photographic world since the
    > differences are easily seen.
    >
    > The photo he e-mailed me was a B/W landscape shot with a "dreamy" kind
    > of artsy blur to it, certainly not anything that would require a Sinar
    > or a MF camera. But the guy knows his market and is very successful
    > in the fine art world where quality takes a back seat to reputation.


    Well, that kind of shot probably requires really low visible grain, so
    if the prints are big, I can see why it'd have to be MF or higher.
    There's more to worry about than just resolution, remember.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 15, 2007
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Guest

    On Mar 15, 10:10 am, "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    > On Mar 15, 6:40 am, "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote:
    >
    > > >>Big Snip...

    >
    > > Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
    > > for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
    > > you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...

    >
    > I think this passage is the crux of the matter:
    >
    > PhotoDude: I can afford any camera I want, why do you think I shoot
    > film and use the cameras that I use?
    > Annika1980: because for you it is about the process as much as the
    > image
    >
    > IOW, the guy does what he does the way that he does because that's
    > what he knows how to do. And he was making the exact same comments 8
    > years ago. Of course, it held a lot of truth back then since digital
    > was just getting started. But today his statement smacks of
    > ignorance.
    > The technology has changed, but his opinions never will.
    >
    > You might have also sensed a touch of arrogance in some of his
    > comments like, "I'm a big fancy photographer and you aren't so what do
    > you know?" He's always had that. Well there are many other bigger
    > fancier photographers who now shoot digital who would disagree with
    > his views. I met the guy years ago on one of the high-end audio
    > groups.
    > He was one of the folks claiming that a $4000 set of interconnects
    > sounded better than a properly designed $100 pair, even if nobody
    > could hear the differences in a double-blind test. I would taunt him
    > the way I do folks here who claim that Leica is the ultimate camera
    > and nothing else comes close.
    >
    > You don't have too many folks (excepting D-Mac) making outrageous
    > claims like that in the video or photographic world since the
    > differences are easily seen.
    >
    > The photo he e-mailed me was a B/W landscape shot with a "dreamy" kind
    > of artsy blur to it, certainly not anything that would require a Sinar
    > or a MF camera. But the guy knows his market and is very successful
    > in the fine art world where quality takes a back seat to reputation.
    > You could have a portfolio of masterpieces but since you're an unknown
    > you'd starve to death, while some rich idiot will pay $10,000 for a
    > casual snap taken by Diane Arbus.
    >
    > That is why the fine art galleries or a lot like the high-end audio
    > salons .... lotsa snake oil.
    >
    > Brooks Jensen, editor of Lenswork, has some comments about that in
    > one of his podcasts here:
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/yt4hcp
    >
    > or
    >
    > http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0016 - An Example of What...


    I think Jensen hit the nail right on the head. I couldn't agree more
    with him.
    Also, I feel a lot of film photographers, or a lot of people for that
    matter, do not like change, and in this case, I am referring to film
    vs. digital.

    > You could have a portfolio of masterpieces but since you're an unknown
    > you'd starve to death, while some rich idiot will pay $10,000 for a
    > casual snap taken by Diane Arbus.
    >


    You got that right Bret! That is the first lesson I learned in
    photography as an art. It is a shame really because I've seen these
    $10,000. prints made by famous photographers and I wouldn't pay $10.00
    for it. Total crap.
    Now, I like Diane Arbus and most of her work, but I'll be damned if
    I'm going to spend that much on a print of hers.
    Helen
     
    , Mar 15, 2007
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Pat Guest

    On Mar 15, 12:56 am, "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    > I was on AOL tonight and noticed a name from the past in my online
    > Buddy List (and no, it wasn't D-Mac). One of the things I always
    > liked about AOL was that you could make a Buddy List and it would tell
    > you which of your buddies are currently online.
    > Then you could simply IM (Instant Message) them and talk to them.
    > Back when I was hot shit on AOL, I would have as many as 6 IM's open
    > at once with different people. It's how I learned to type so fast
    > (and believe me, typing with one hand ain't easy).
    >
    > I still have all my old people that I used to talk to 10 years ago in
    > my list, some famous, some not. Anyway, tonight I noticed a guy who I
    > haven't talked with in years who was a very serious photographer in
    > NYC. I remember that he used a Sinar P-something camera and the guy
    > couldn't stand digital (it was still in it's infancy when we last
    > spoke). In other words, he was the evil Anti-Annika.
    >
    > So I was interested to see if his views had changed any or if he had
    > become just another film luddite.
    >
    > Anyway, I enjoyed the chance to speak with the guy and I saved the
    > conversation hoping that others might find it interesting reading. It
    > is a bit long so you might wanna go grab a favorite beverage before
    > you sit back to enjoy.
    > I won't reveal my friend's name or his actual identity (that I just
    > learned tonight) so I'll just call him "PhotoDude."
    > Also remember that this was an IM conversation so sometimes one person
    > (me) will type two or three lines before the other has a chance to
    > answer.
    > But here is the text of the conversation with only some personal stuff
    > snipped:
    > ======================================
    >
    > Annika1980: Taken any good pics lately?
    > PhotoDude: hi there, I'm actually on a photo trip as we speak, how
    > are you?
    > Annika1980: fine. where are ya?
    > PhotoDude: Idaho, then up to Montana in a day or 2
    > PhotoDude: what have you been up to?
    >
    > Annika1980: sounds like fun. getting any good pics up there?
    > PhotoDude: not yet in Idaho, I was in utah last week and got some
    > good ones there
    > PhotoDude: what's new with you?
    > Annika1980: well, since i haven't talked to you in about 5-6 years
    > years, everything
    > PhotoDude: such as?
    > Annika1980: i shoot almost all digital now. Canon, of course
    > Annika1980: you still got that Sinar?
    > PhotoDude: yep and other film cameras
    > Annika1980: no digital?
    > PhotoDude: I have a leica digital but that's for vacation snaps, I
    > shoot film for my real work
    > Annika1980: Leicas are for posers.
    >
    > Annika1980: are you like famous?
    > PhotoDude: I'm getting there
    > Annika1980: atta baby.
    > i rememeber you showing me a pic of a fork or something like that
    > PhotoDude: I do mostly landscape now
    > Annika1980: got a website? i'd love to see them
    > Annika1980: weren't you shooting fashion or something back in the
    > day?
    > PhotoDude: I'm not big on giving out my name on aol, but I'll email
    > you a sample, I used to do advertising photography
    > Annika1980: i like nature photography
    > here's one I took the other dayhttp://www.pbase.com/bret/image/75457158
    >
    > Annika1980: you can check out my other galleries there as well.
    > Annika1980: i can understand your privacy concerns. you haven't
    > changed much in that respect.
    > Annika1980: your name is still in my buddy list and yet i don't even
    > know who you are. kinda weird.
    > PhotoDude I like the photo of the heron, good capture
    >
    > (He sends me a link to his website)
    >
    > Annika1980: glad to meet ya. finally.
    > e-mail some pics when you get a chance. maybe something from your
    > current trip
    > Annika1980: hey, i've got a Q. for ya
    > PhotoDude: mail, what's the q?
    > Annika1980: where is the money to be made in photography these days?
    > besides fashion and advertising (since i'm not in NYC)
    >
    > (He then e-mailed me one of his photos ... B/W of course)
    >
    > Annika1980: nice photo. a little too artsy-fartsy for me, but hey
    > Annika1980: also, how do you sell your work?
    > PhotoDude: advertising is not what it used to be, I'm out of it and
    > now make my living selling prints through galleries across the US
    > Annika1980: sounds like what I should be doing
    > Annika1980: or at least that's what some tell me
    > PhotoDude: it's not that easy, it's very competitive and you need to
    > be artsy
    > Annika1980: yeah, i know. the duller the better
    > PhotoDude: not dull
    > Annika1980: not too many collectors buying full color pics of herons
    > these days
    > PhotoDude: nope but they pay as much as $4000 for one of my B&W
    > prints, artsy works
    >
    > Annika1980: have you ever tried doing any books?
    > Annika1980: what size prints do you usually sell?
    > PhotoDude: I did 2 books already, but not books of my personal work,
    > I've had several offers but didn't have enough images, after this trip
    > I will
    > PhotoDude: 14", 20" 24" 40"
    > Annika1980: sounds like everything is going well for you. i'm glad.
    >
    > Annika1980: i think in your biz its kind of a snowball effect. once
    > you get your name out there the market gets more and more lucrative
    > for you
    > PhotoDude: yep, name recognition matters greatly
    > Annika1980: a bit too greatly some would say
    >
    > Annika1980: i think the photography world is going downhill now that
    > every idiot with a cellphone cam thinks he's ansel adams
    > PhotoDude: yep, digital has had a hand in that
    >
    > Annika1980: do you photograph what you love to photograph or do you
    > photograph what sells?
    > PhotoDude: I photograph what I want, I'm lucky that what I like to
    > look at is also appreciated by others
    > Annika1980: yes, very lucky indeed.
    >
    > PhotoDude: lucky yes, but it's been a lot of hard work for a very
    > long time and have made a huge investment in it
    > Annika1980: glad we got to talk. I'll keep your website bookmarked
    > PhotoDude: it was good to hear from you, keep shooting
    >
    > <snipped some personal stuff and some talk about high-end Audio>
    >
    > PhotoDude: I travel 4-5 months a year
    > Annika1980: $4000 will buy lots of film and paper
    > PhotoDude: or a set of cables
    > Annika1980: tell you what .... next time you have a hankering to
    > spend $4K on some cables .... buy me a 1DsMKII instead and go to Radio
    > Shack
    > Annika1980: for me, it's a Catch-22. I shoot with a Canon 20D cause
    > I cant afford the really good gear. But if I had the really good
    > gear, I could probably make it selling photos
    > Annika1980: so i do the best i can with what i got
    >
    > PhotoDude: the gear helps but it's not the gear that makes the images
    > good, it's the photographer, read less of the mass market photo stuff,
    > especially the digital stuff and start reading more art oriented photo
    > magazines like Lenswork
    > Annika1980: yeah, i listen to Brooks Jensen's (of Lenswork) podcasts
    > every day at work. it keeps me inspired
    >
    > PhotoDude: I'm pretty set with the audio stuff, I won't be buying
    > that stuff for quite some time
    > PhotoDude: do you read the magazine, look at the images?
    > Annika1980: in some ways, audio technology is like film
    > technology .... both of them are stagnant
    > PhotoDude: films keep getting better, kodak just updated a bunch of
    > film and fuji is doing so as well
    > Annika1980: sometimes I look at lenswork. nice stuff, but the color
    > seems to be a bit off
    > PhotoDude: well it's a B&W magazine
    >
    > Annika1980: i figured you'd be shooting with a digital back by now.
    > get with the program, dude!
    > Annika1980: if i shot landscapes i'd use a scanning back
    > Annika1980: like stephen johnston
    > PhotoDude: scanning backs take too long,like 90 seconds, that can be
    > a problem as clouds move, grass blows
    > Annika1980: Photoshop, baby!
    > Annika1980: multiple exposures!
    > PhotoDude: it's the image that matters, all that other stuff screws
    > up the process
    > Annika1980: i agree with the first half of that
    > PhotoDude: well, I've learned a thing or two about photography, but
    > do what you do
    >
    > Annika1980: for the landscape shots that you take, what gear do you
    > usually use?
    > Annika1980: and which films?
    > PhotoDude: sinar for 6x12cm and 4x5, Fuji GX617 for 6x17cm, Fotoman
    > 612 for 6x12cm, Fuji Gx60III for 6x8cm, Mamiya 7II for 6x7cm, Rolli
    > 6008i for 6x6cm
    > PhotoDude: Tmax 100 and techpan,although techpan is discontinued
    > Annika1980: someday i'll let you explain to me the need for 6
    > cameras.
    >
    > Annika1980: why not just get the digital back on the Hassy or a Phase
    > One back for your cameras?
    > Annika1980: i think all that stuff screws up the process
    >
    > PhotoDude: some cameras I can fly with, some cameras are small and
    > are ok to take on vacation, some cameras are bigger and use bigger
    > film, I usually take 2 systems on a driving trip
    > Annika1980: yeah, wouldn't it be nice if one camera did it all?
    > Annika1980: oops, i forgot . the 1DsMKII does!
    >
    > PhotoDude: a digital camera is not going to give the the kind of
    > image quality that I get with film,
    > Annika1980: well it's a bit late here (1:00 AM) to begin that
    > argument
    > PhotoDude: a DSLR is not going to do what a Sinar can do
    > Annika1980: do you think a photo like the one you just e-mailed me
    > could not be done with a DSLR?
    > PhotoDude: I can afford any camera I want, why do you think I shoot
    > film and use the cameras that I use?
    > Annika1980: because for you it is about the process as much as the
    > image
    >
    > PhotoDude: it would not have the same image quality, also collectors
    > pay much more for a silver or platinum print than they do for digital
    > Annika1980: so I've heard
    > PhotoDude: I don't care about the process, I want the image
    > Annika1980: well if the image is all that matters then the top of the
    > line digital stuff like the digital backs blows away anything film can
    > do. but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one
    >
    > Annika1980: hey, thanks for takin the time and talkin to me
    > Annika1980: and good luck on your career.
    > PhotoDude: Bret, I've been doing digital imaging professionally since
    > 1991, I can afford any camera I want, for B&W film is the way to go,
    > If I shot color I would consider digital
    > PhotoDude: anyway, I have to get to sleep, i need to get up at 5am
    > tomorrow and go shoot, I'm glad you wrote,keep in touch, good luck to
    > you as well
    > Annika1980: fair enough. what do you say to people who claim that
    > the new digital B/W printing processes are superior to the old?
    > ...
    >
    > read more »


    After reading the post, it is quite obvious who is right: neither of
    you. You're both zealots who are entreanched in your position and not
    willing to listen to the other site.

    I can think of a dozen reason why digital is better than film and I
    can think of a dozen more why film is better than digital. There is
    no right or wrong. There is no "better".

    You are tying to make a certain statement and digital works great for
    you. He is trying to make a different statement and film works great
    for him. So what's the problem. He's doing what he wants, making a
    living, and not hurting anyone. What else could you ask for? But
    you'll never "convert" him until he sees a reason to switch. He knows
    the field and talks to people. He knows why he does things the way he
    does. And he'll know when/if it's time to convert.

    In the mean time, photography is a big tent.
     
    Pat, Mar 15, 2007
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Mar 15, 1:36 pm, "Pat" <> wrote:
    > After reading the post, it is quite obvious who is right: neither of
    > you. You're both zealots who are entreanched in your position and not
    > willing to listen to the other site.


    Yeah, but one of us is a real zealot and the other just plays one on
    TV.

    Brooks Jensen had some thoughts on one of his podcasts (available on
    his site) about film shooters who have an aversion to digital. He
    noted that they must not buy photo books since almost any book you can
    find is printed with digital processes. Also, he commented that it
    isn't a question of IF these guys will be switching to digital but
    WHEN. And it may not be by choice.

    At least Jensen recognizes the realities of the situation. As editor
    of a B/W fine arts magazine (Lenswork) I would expect him to also come
    down on the side of film, yet he takes a more realistic view than my
    friend.
    Whenever you hear someone make a blanket statement like, "Digital
    doesn't have the quality of film," then you know you are talking to
    someone with very limited experience in modern day digital technology.

    I find myself in a great spot, being "Totally Digital Annika" and
    all. I can continue to make the argument that digital equals or
    surpasses film. I have the luxury of time on my side since digital
    technology is improving by leaps and bounds while film technology is
    mostly stagnant. So if I'm wrong today, I will surely be right
    tomorrow.

    Who Rules?
     
    Annika1980, Mar 15, 2007
    #8
  9. Annika1980 wrote:

    > That is why the fine art galleries or a lot like the high-end audio
    > salons .... lotsa snake oil.


    No, people spend the kind of money they want spend because they can. If it
    makes them happy to pay $4,000 for 20' of Andrew Heliax rf coaxial cables
    for their speakers so be it. Personally, I find using Mil spec silver and
    Teflon coaxial cables for audio work to be best. Of course, it helps that
    it is dirt-cheap surplus.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Mar 15, 2007
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-03-15 03:40:32 -0700, "Kinon O'Cann" <> said:

    >>> Big Snip...

    >
    > Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
    > for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
    > you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...


    You're talking to a guy on AOL and admonishing him to listen to pros?!?
    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Mar 15, 2007
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Colin_D Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    <snip>
    > salons .... lotsa snake oil.
    >
    > Brooks Jensen, editor of Lenswork, has some comments about that in
    > one of his podcasts here:
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/yt4hcp
    >
    > or
    >
    > http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0016 - An Example of What Makes My Blood Pressure Rise.mp3


    I listened to that podcast, and by and large he is right - probably not
    popular with the salon set, but right.

    However, he omitted one important point, the perceived parallel between
    art photographs and paintings. Both depict a still image of a scene,
    one by opto-chemical/digital methods, and one by human skill with a
    brush. The problem arises because the opto group try to command the
    same prices as the brush group.

    At my camera club a year or so back, we had a talk by a well-known New
    Zealand artist. He paints from photographs of landscapes etc. he takes,
    and according to him, he can paint a scene in a few hours, and then
    command prices into four figures. Not that IMO they are worth it, it's
    his name that sells, just as your acquaintance does with high-end
    photography.

    At the club, somebody asked if he could sell a straight photograph for
    the same price as he does his paintings. He seemed to think that
    reproducing, more or less, the photo with a brush on canvas added to the
    value of the image, implying that a photo is not art until it has been
    painted. His reasoning escapes me, though I have a sneaking feeling
    that money talks as usual.

    There's a lotta crappola in the art world, methinks.

    Colin D.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
     
    Colin_D, Mar 15, 2007
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    "Annika1980" <> wrote:

    > collectors
    > pay much more for a silver or platinum print than they do for digital



    Don't most photo labs print digital images on photographic emulsion?

    --
    m-m
     
    M-M, Mar 16, 2007
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Charles Guest

    On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:49:18 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04
    @aol.com> wrote:

    >Annika1980 wrote:
    >
    >> That is why the fine art galleries or a lot like the high-end audio
    >> salons .... lotsa snake oil.

    >
    >No, people spend the kind of money they want spend because they can. If it
    >makes them happy to pay $4,000 for 20' of Andrew Heliax rf coaxial cables
    >for their speakers so be it. Personally, I find using Mil spec silver and
    >Teflon coaxial cables for audio work to be best. Of course, it helps that
    >it is dirt-cheap surplus.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Rita



    LDF-4 isn't all that expensive, but it would be difficult to fit under
    the furniture
     
    Charles, Mar 16, 2007
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    George Kerby Guest

    On 3/15/07 4:45 PM, in article
    , "Annika1980"
    <> wrote:

    > On Mar 15, 1:36 pm, "Pat" <> wrote:
    >> After reading the post, it is quite obvious who is right: neither of
    >> you. You're both zealots who are entreanched in your position and not
    >> willing to listen to the other site.

    >
    > Yeah, but one of us is a real zealot and the other just plays one on
    > TV.
    >
    > Brooks Jensen had some thoughts on one of his podcasts (available on
    > his site) about film shooters who have an aversion to digital. He
    > noted that they must not buy photo books since almost any book you can
    > find is printed with digital processes. Also, he commented that it
    > isn't a question of IF these guys will be switching to digital but
    > WHEN. And it may not be by choice.
    >
    > At least Jensen recognizes the realities of the situation. As editor
    > of a B/W fine arts magazine (Lenswork) I would expect him to also come
    > down on the side of film, yet he takes a more realistic view than my
    > friend.
    > Whenever you hear someone make a blanket statement like, "Digital
    > doesn't have the quality of film," then you know you are talking to
    > someone with very limited experience in modern day digital technology.
    >
    > I find myself in a great spot, being "Totally Digital Annika" and
    > all. I can continue to make the argument that digital equals or
    > surpasses film. I have the luxury of time on my side since digital
    > technology is improving by leaps and bounds while film technology is
    > mostly stagnant. So if I'm wrong today, I will surely be right
    > tomorrow.
    >
    > Who Rules?
    >

    Who's more pompous?

    Tough call...


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    George Kerby, Mar 16, 2007
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    George Kerby Guest

    On 3/15/07 5:49 PM, in article , "Rita Ä
    Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

    > Annika1980 wrote:
    >
    >> That is why the fine art galleries or a lot like the high-end audio
    >> salons .... lotsa snake oil.

    >
    > No, people spend the kind of money they want spend because they can. If it
    > makes them happy to pay $4,000 for 20' of Andrew Heliax rf coaxial cables
    > for their speakers so be it. Personally, I find using Mil spec silver and
    > Teflon coaxial cables for audio work to be best. Of course, it helps that
    > it is dirt-cheap surplus.
    >
    >

    Who cares?


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    George Kerby, Mar 16, 2007
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    George Kerby Guest

    On 3/15/07 5:59 PM, in article
    2007031515593350878-christophercampbell@hotmailcom, "C J Campbell"
    <> wrote:

    > On 2007-03-15 03:40:32 -0700, "Kinon O'Cann" <> said:
    >
    >>>> Big Snip...

    >>
    >> Pretty funny stuff. Here's a working pro telling you that film beats digital
    >> for landscape quality, but for some reason it didn't seem to sink in for
    >> you. I think you need to consider his words carefully...

    >
    > You're talking to a guy on AOL and admonishing him to listen to pros?!?

    <SNORT>

    GOOD one!


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    George Kerby, Mar 16, 2007
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Mar 15, 6:59 pm, C J Campbell <>
    wrote:
    > You're talking to a guy on AOL and admonishing him to listen to pros?!?


    FYI, dilweed, I've talked to many pros on AOL from all fields ....
    photography, audio, video, golf, etc.

    Right now on my Buddy List, for example, I see a famous Audio writer
    and a famous sportswriter are logged on. Also, a guy who used to work
    for CBS (who gets me into big golf tournies) as well as at least one
    of my nephews. I can talk to any of them with one click.
    Now tell me more about your online experience, loser.
     
    Annika1980, Mar 16, 2007
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    anon123 Guest

    In article <>,
    "Annika1980" <> wrote:

    > dilweed
    > loser.


    Your arrogance is overwhelming, from continually posting in all caps to
    thinking yours is the best camera on the planet.

    I know you would like to be "famous," whatever that's worth, but I don't
    think you will get there with such an angry attitude.

    I'll check back on you at a future date; maybe you'll grow up. Until
    then, nice pictures and all, you are now in my killfile. Bye.
     
    anon123, Mar 16, 2007
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Pat Guest

    On Mar 15, 4:45 pm, "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    > On Mar 15, 1:36 pm, "Pat" <> wrote:
    >
    > > After reading the post, it is quite obvious who is right: neither of
    > > you. You're both zealots who are entreanched in your position and not
    > > willing to listen to the other site.

    >
    > Yeah, but one of us is a real zealot and the other just plays one on
    > TV.
    >
    > Brooks Jensen had some thoughts on one of his podcasts (available on
    > his site) about film shooters who have an aversion to digital. He
    > noted that they must not buy photo books since almost any book you can
    > find is printed with digital processes. Also, he commented that it
    > isn't a question of IF these guys will be switching to digital but
    > WHEN. And it may not be by choice.
    >
    > At least Jensen recognizes the realities of the situation. As editor
    > of a B/W fine arts magazine (Lenswork) I would expect him to also come
    > down on the side of film, yet he takes a more realistic view than my
    > friend.
    > Whenever you hear someone make a blanket statement like, "Digital
    > doesn't have the quality of film," then you know you are talking to
    > someone with very limited experience in modern day digital technology.
    >
    > I find myself in a great spot, being "Totally Digital Annika" and
    > all. I can continue to make the argument that digital equals or
    > surpasses film. I have the luxury of time on my side since digital
    > technology is improving by leaps and bounds while film technology is
    > mostly stagnant. So if I'm wrong today, I will surely be right
    > tomorrow.
    >
    > Who Rules?


    You have the luxury of time, but your bud is waiting for the field to
    settle a bit before he jumps in. Meanwhile, you've invested in your
    87th camera system to keep up with the technology.

    Your friend is marketing himself as a film photographer. A purist.
    Old school. A skilled craftsman working in a traditional way.
    Quality beyond digital, etc. etc. It's working for him, so be happy
    for him. His market -- the people he is selling to -- is happy.
    They probably want film just because it isn't digital. So he's giving
    them what they want. When you go to a camera system at 50 gb images,
    he'll probably go to glass plates, tin types, or 8x10 sheet film that
    he makes in his kitchen -- just so he can be different.

    If I ever get the chance, I'll set my b&w darkroom back up -- even if
    I have to make the chemicals and paper myself. I always liked it.
    Working in a darkroom gives you a totally different perspective on
    shooting pictures. The lack of images is also important to film. You
    don't have 300 images available for snapping. You bud might have 2 or
    3. A 35mm might have 36. That changes your perspective.

    So let your friend go and rejoyce in the fact that he is happy and
    successful. Don't worry. In a few years he will convince you to go
    to film ;-)
     
    Pat, Mar 16, 2007
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Mar 15, 9:42 pm, anon123 <> wrote:
    >
    > I'll check back on you at a future date; maybe you'll grow up. Until
    > then, nice pictures and all, you are now in my killfile. Bye.



    Well since this is your first post ever, I'm crushed.
     
    Annika1980, Mar 16, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Justin

    one way voice conversation

    Justin, Dec 14, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    555
    Justin
    Dec 14, 2003
  2. john.janebutler

    msn messenger 6.0 - webcam conversation

    john.janebutler, Sep 11, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    471
    john.janebutler
    Sep 11, 2003
  3. Frez

    Audio conversation----help

    Frez, Nov 25, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    499
  4. anthonyberet
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    555
    anthonyberet
    Jan 3, 2004
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    507
    Whiskers
    Aug 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page