Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,288   Posts: 1,535,359   Online: 762
      
Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 37891011121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 132
  1. #121
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,680
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    If no hybrid technology is to be used/mentioned in APUG, I suppose the Photo Gallery should be removed since the photos posted there only got there via a hybrid approach.
    That argument has been beaten to death many times.

    There are clear guidelines provided on this too that pop up before an upload.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #122

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    If no hybrid technology is to be used/mentioned in APUG, I suppose the Photo Gallery should be removed since the photos posted there only got there via a hybrid approach.
    That's what I wonder. I'm not so sure there's such a thing as a 'straight scan'. I'm glad D/APUG are separate entities, but the gallery, by nature, displays hybrid work.

  3. #123
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,231
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    This reminds me how much nature photography has evolved. 60 years ago the only pictures we had of wildlife birds were pictures of stuffed animals (mostly in black and white, with the colours described by the caption). Then, around the '80, pictures begun to emerge of real animal activities taken in real natural conditions (nesting, "dancing", hunting etc.). Those images required weeks or months of work, and either a lot of attempts before capturing the image or hours and hours or days of patient waiting.

    Autofocus and motor drives made things easier. Then came infrared remote controllers, and photoelectric cells remote shutters. All this raised the general quality of the products, but still the best photographers do get the best shots. Nobody of them would go back to the old days of manually focusing a Novoflex photo-rifle while following a bird in fly. But that doesn't mean that it is the camera which takes the picture! Wildlife photography still requires dedication, intelligence, culture and a lot of craft, which are aimed to the final result which is the only thing that matters.

    Pictures taken with a Novoflex rifle would not have an additional value because autofocus was not used, I say. The first rule my first photography book taught me was: nobody cares about how difficult it was to get the picture, the only thing that counts is the picture itself.
    Take a look at some of the bird photographs of Douglas Herr, who shoots manual focus Leica R equipment. The glass is different, and that changes the color palette, but what I think is most interesting about his work is that he has to be a better stalker than a birder relying more heavily on the latest gizmos. He gets closer than you can imagine with shorter than average lenses and no autofocus. Less technology, more in tune with nature.

    http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  4. #124
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    Take a look at some of the bird photographs of Douglas Herr, who shoots manual focus Leica R equipment. The glass is different, and that changes the color palette, but what I think is most interesting about his work is that he has to be a better stalker than a birder relying more heavily on the latest gizmos. He gets closer than you can imagine with shorter than average lenses and no autofocus. Less technology, more in tune with nature.

    http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/
    It's old technology and is called "a hyde" or shooting hut . I think this kind of photography really begun being "widely" practised around the 1970s. Even with a hyde, you normally need a fairly long lens and even with a tripod colour material of decent speed was not available for that kind of pictures let's say in the '50s. The "problem" with this technique is that you only have pictures of birds on the ground or on a perch.

    On the other end, getting a picture of a sparrow in flight is something quite more challenging (I am tempted to say "near impossible"). Big raptors, storks are somehow easier to photograph if you find them. Trying to get an image of a swallow in flight with a manual focus camera can be very taxing for the nerves.

    I remember a famous series of pictures of a kingfisher made by Paolo Fioratti in the early '80s underwater with a Hasselblad. He also published how did he obtain them. They were widely "copied" subsequently. It involved the use of "traps" and a camera sitting for weeks in the water inside its water-tight case, the bird had to be studied for a long time and especially all the work in order not to frighten the bird (which would have left the spot) was very gradual and involved weeks of work. The images were absolutely stunning, normal focal length, and definitely no autofocus
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  5. #125
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,231
    Images
    20
    I'm sure Doug shoots from blinds sometimes (as have I) and has taken advantage of natural forms of concealment in the field, but he's written about his technique, and often it's just knowing how not to look like a predator. Art Morris, who is more well known and is always up to date with the latest technology uses many of the same techniques. Both of them are naturalists first, photographers second. This is more important than the gear. Sure there are some amazing things done with focus traps and such, but they are no substitute for basic knowledge of the subject. Bird photography is a very tough discipline, and any way you slice it, it's a lot of time in the field, a lot of missed shots.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  6. #126
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,963
    Images
    6
    I wonder if woodworkers have the same philosophy. 2 different PBS shows that have different philosophies. Roy Underhill of The Woodwright shop
    http://www.pbs.org/woodwrightsshop/
    and
    Norm Abram of New Yankee Workshop
    http://www.newyankee.com/

    Maybe a celebrity death match will settle who's the bestest woodworker?

  7. #127
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,813
    I'm always in awe of the doodads and power tools at hand in the new Yankee workshop. He's got pretty much every tool and accessory for anything. I'd love to have a workspace like that. Though there is much pleasure to fabricate and create something with basic tools from the ground up, fun as well sometimes when you improvise.

  8. #128
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    I'm sure Doug shoots from blinds sometimes (as have I) and has taken advantage of natural forms of concealment in the field, but he's written about his technique, and often it's just knowing how not to look like a predator. Art Morris, who is more well known and is always up to date with the latest technology uses many of the same techniques. Both of them are naturalists first, photographers second. This is more important than the gear. Sure there are some amazing things done with focus traps and such, but they are no substitute for basic knowledge of the subject. Bird photography is a very tough discipline, and any way you slice it, it's a lot of time in the field, a lot of missed shots.
    Absolutely yes.
    Even using a blind is not so easy. Birds are clever creatures. As an example, photographers have to enter in two persons and then after a while one leaves the hide so that the bird think the blind is empty, it seems!. The manoeuvre has to be repeated every day. The photographer often remains in the hide until night.

    There are more favourable situations, though, where the birds are accustomed to human presence, such as on fixed hides in parks. I remember a birdwatcher hide in the Riserva Naturale di Macchiagrande, Rome, straight over a pond, where a Falco di Palude (Circus aeruginosus) was going around at comfortable shooting distance and many other birds were easily visible among which an Airone Rosso (Ardea purpurea), it goes without saying I was without a camera and it was backlit anyway). When I was younger I tried to do some of this kind of photography (my hide was my green car with the rear door opened) and I can attest it gives the "shiver" (just like birdwatching in general).

    Another example is being lucky enough to have a garden in the countryside, set some natural perches and having a camera constantly aimed at the perch. Having the habit of sitting near the camera reading books helps.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  9. #129

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Brussels and North Sweden
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    14
    Hi All

    I am new here, but this is exactly why I am here ... my current practice does this, I shoot digital and make the negs on an Epson 3800 using QTR (though I used to use PDN) then print in Palladium. I am intending to change this routine in the near future and use analogues capture on Fuji GX680 which I will digitise then proceed as I currently am. This change is waiting for a suitable scanner for the MF film (I am hoping that the Plustek is as good as the hype!). I am making this change because of the shortcomings in digital capture (I use a D2x and may buy the D800) in terms of enlargements ... images break down too soon for my plans, OK upto 16x20 but not really beyond that.

    Anyway, for me no question, there is such a lot to be had from both avenues and I am sure that purists like Adams would have heartily embraced the technology in the same sort of way.

    Dave
    A good photograph is one that communicates a fact, touches the heart and leaves the viewer a changed person for having seen it. Irving Penn
    www.djsp.eu
    www.djsp.eu/blog
    Youtube channel - macgabhan
    fb Djs Photography

  10. #130
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,212
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    The unfortunate presumption here is that digital=easy.
    Never presumed that. Sorry, but I've likely forgotten more about the difficulties of digitally abstracting reality than you ever knew in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Master digital retouchers aren't hacks. Digital processes don't axiomatically de-skill photographers and printers.
    Never accused them of so being. And never said or implied that. How do you draw these conclusions? Did you not read the phrase "Not better. Not worse?"

    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Since I doubt you've seen Bob's work, it's troubling that you all but say it's somehow "less" than the non-computer based printing and darkroom work he did for years.
    Never thought, felt, said, or implied that. Your phrase "all but say..." translates into a conclusion by you absent any supporting statements by me. I have nothing but the greatest respect for Bob (and Max). That's why I was asking their opinions. Stop trying to drive wedges.

    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    BTW, Michaelangelo didn't chisel David by himself, no more than Old Masters works didn't rely on underpainters.
    But he/they did use real chisels, didn't he/they? So sadly you again missed my point about real versus virtual entirely.

    I was simply asking if the change in artistic tools from real to abstract might also cause a change in the final realization of the artist's vision. Because if it did, then that might also factor into the possible reconciliation between the two approaches. Nothing more.

    If you look at my eclectic little collection of hobbiest photos on this site you'll see an antique storefront displayed together with a WWII bomber in flight. There's a reason that when I picked up the 4x5 I didn't head for the airshow. It's the same reason that when I picked up the Nikon F2 with an MD2/MB1 motor drive I didn't head for the antique store. The tools in hand alter the vision. Even for a non-artist like me.

    But I think it's now time for me to excuse myself from this thread. Carry on, CGW...

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin