That's the third time you have said you are a genius.
I wonder how this expresses itself; or what are you a genius at.
My class was tested in grade 6. I couldn't figure where the answers went, so I wrote them beside the question. At the end I saw the teacher tear of the perforated side, which I then realized was where the answers were supposed to be.
I got a 0
oh, three of these are with an M2/ 50 summicron combo, and one is with a Nikon F3/T and a 35/1.4...
your post made my day chris, thanks
I'm guilty of the same thing.there are two reasons I can think of
1. they did not record and don't remember that info
2. They are trying to tell you that this info is irrelevantEquipment and materials don't make a picture. the photographer does. anyway don't copy. find your own style
all the best.
John is right. people love to chase magic bullets,and the reason is simple. as soon as they can claim that they didn't have the exact same materials and equipment it explains to them why their images aren't as perfect as the master they were trying to imitate.of course this is nonsense, but it has kept resellers in business for decades.the truth is much harsher. today's equipment and materials are better than they have ever been in photographic history. we have no excuse;we need to try harder.BTW,john did it; his images are unique and beautiful while having his very own style. I bet, he could tell us his current equipment and material choices and, we still could not duplicate his style ; I know, I could n't; sowhat's different?only the man behibd the camera; that's where the magic is; not in the camera bag. as they say:The magic is in the wizard not in the wand.
all the best keep working at it. success will eventually come, and then people will ask you what camera and film you are using. the best feature of your camera are the 6 inches behind the viewfinder.
Well said, Chris.
The only other explanation of course is Stone's self proclaimed genius. I've read that claim of his several times, as someone else mentioned. If you say it often enough then it must certainly be true. How else could you have so little knowledge of the silver process while also having so much knowledge of the silver process. :p
Here is my "no magic bullet" example, borrowed from the gallery.
Same film, camera, lens, subject and exposed a few seconds apart, printed on the same paper, though with 1/2 grade difference in filtration. If you look at the prints there are differences, but they are really, really subtle, and the only way I know the difference is that I wrote on the back of each print what neg it was from.