Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,658   Posts: 1,623,817   Online: 1100
      
Page 26 of 47 FirstFirst ... 162021222324252627282930313236 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 467
  1. #251

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Europa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    52
    Good news, at last.

  2. #252
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,592
    Quote Originally Posted by vlasta View Post
    Good news, at last.
    Who rattled your cage ?

    Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk
    Ben

  3. #253
    cuthbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    26
    Battle of giants...literally.








  4. #254
    frank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Bit north of Toronto
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,220
    Images
    2
    So what gives you the impression that terry Richardson is creepy?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails image.jpg  
    My blog / photo website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

    Openly biased and unabashedly
    pro film and wet darkroom

  5. #255
    cuthbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    26
    Thinking about it...it's a draw: I have them both and I love them both, both are massive, both are classy, the Canon looks and feels newer but the F2 is more classic...so why not keeping both?

    The battle between F1N and F3 is quite easy to resolve in favour of the Canon, on the other side.

  6. #256
    flavio81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    550
    I have not used an F2 nor an F-1, so i can't comment.

    However between a Nikon F and a Canon F-1, the F i like more. It's a tank, so solid and angular.

    Yet i like my Canon EF the same as the Nikon F. It's so beautiful, yet practical.

    Quote Originally Posted by cuthbert View Post
    The battle between F1N and F3 is quite easy to resolve in favour of the Canon, on the other side.
    Agree! (although i like my F3)

  7. #257
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,683
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    Nearly all photography is a "put-on", with the possible exception of family snaps, and even then people wear their best faces. My wife receives a catalogue for women's clothes on a regular basis, and many of the pictures in it contain flare. I haven't seen a lens achieve/suffer from such lack of contrast for many a year, so I assume the photographer wants to evoke a mood, something it seems to do pretty effectively as parcels arrive from the company on a regular basis. A technical fundamentalist may see this as a flaw, but the photograph does what's required - sell clothes. Perhaps he uses a fogged and scratched up old Barnack, it's hard to say.

    An Ansel Adams picture taken on a plate camera isn't objectively better than a Daido Moriyama taken on a pocket Ricoh, though it's certainly different. Was Adams less mannered with his artificially enhanced filters than Moriyama with his flash gun? Both deceive the viewer's eye to the reality of what was in front of them, both are very good printers, both have their own fans and buyers. A camera is a tool, no more, no less.
    I forgot another legal delineation of what is and is not 'porn' - if it can be determined that the sole purpose of the image or text is to cause sexual arousal, and has no other aesthetic or educational value whatsoever.

    I'd say that Richardson's work meets that definition. It certainly has commercial value as a piece by itself, but so does Hustler.

    As to the use of lens flare in the clothing catalog, well, that was obviously an artistic choice made by the photographer and/or the art director who felt that look would evoke a mood that would make people want to buy those clothes. For all we know, since the technical details were not provided, the photographer tweaked his lighting setup in such a way as to provoke flare in the scene despite using the latest, greatest multi-coated whiz-bang optics. Or she could have been shooting them with a Holga. We'll never know.

    As a photographer, I would prefer to work with high-quality optics, reliable mechanics, and competent designs. IF I want lots of lens flare and I'm using a Canon or Nikon, I can always provoke it with the right lighting techniques. If I'm working with an Argus C3, I may get lens flare that can't be fixed (or light leaks if I'm using a Holga) when I DON'T want them. As a friend of mine once put it, "I can make a Hasselblad photo look like a Holga, but not the other way round". There are times when the Argus or Holga are the right tool for the job - their constraints and challenges may be what's needed to produce the body of work the photographer wants to produce. So in that sense, the Yashica T4 is just as "professional" a tool as a Canon EOS 1V, when used within its limits. But it isn't a tool I would use for day-in, day-out shooting because of those very limits. That's just my opinion, others will disagree.

  8. #258

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    I forgot another legal delineation of what is and is not 'porn' - if it can be determined that the sole purpose of the image or text is to cause sexual arousal, and has no other aesthetic or educational value whatsoever.
    That's a tricky definition to make stick. There are all kinds of apparently pornographic imagery on gallery walls, that are not porn simply by the nature of their context. If it's a top shelf magazine, it's likely to be porn. If it's got a £35000 price tag and hangs in a gallery, it's most likely art, by the simple expediency that there are cheaper ways to get your kicks. Similarly, museums are in possession of priceless artefacts that may have been considered pornographic in the classical world, but are now priceless antiques, and therefore not porn.

    How does one decide what is not educational? Terry Richardson was being provocative, and therefore educating the general public in the commercial forces that manipulate them. FWIW, I'm not a fan of Richardson or his work, but one does not need to admire an artist to consider their work worthwhile.

  9. #259

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    I forgot another legal delineation of what is and is not 'porn' - if it can be determined that the sole purpose of the image or text is to cause sexual arousal, and has no other aesthetic or educational value whatsoever.

    I'd say that Richardson's work meets that definition. It certainly has commercial value as a piece by itself, but so does Hustler.

    As to the use of lens flare in the clothing catalog, well, that was obviously an artistic choice made by the photographer and/or the art director who felt that look would evoke a mood that would make people want to buy those clothes. For all we know, since the technical details were not provided, the photographer tweaked his lighting setup in such a way as to provoke flare in the scene despite using the latest, greatest multi-coated whiz-bang optics. Or she could have been shooting them with a Holga. We'll never know.

    As a photographer, I would prefer to work with high-quality optics, reliable mechanics, and competent designs. IF I want lots of lens flare and I'm using a Canon or Nikon, I can always provoke it with the right lighting techniques. If I'm working with an Argus C3, I may get lens flare that can't be fixed (or light leaks if I'm using a Holga) when I DON'T want them. As a friend of mine once put it, "I can make a Hasselblad photo look like a Holga, but not the other way round". There are times when the Argus or Holga are the right tool for the job - their constraints and challenges may be what's needed to produce the body of work the photographer wants to produce. So in that sense, the Yashica T4 is just as "professional" a tool as a Canon EOS 1V, when used within its limits. But it isn't a tool I would use for day-in, day-out shooting because of those very limits. That's just my opinion, others will disagree.
    I've understood quote above but two points to help unwary.

    If you use multi coated filters don't finger print them. It wont remove easily.

    If you want a softer picture stick a thumb print in centre of filter. Just use a single coated filter.

    But back to OP the mechanical timed shutter of the F2 ment that some pros stayed with the F2 and ignored the F3 as new fangled.

  10. #260
    cuthbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by flavio81 View Post
    Agree! (although i like my F3)
    In the round "Who's the king of the 80s?" the only serious competitor of the F-1N is the Pentax LX IMO.

    The Canon is a better system camera with better accessories (viewfinder and screens that modify the lightmeter mode) while the LX has a fantastic lightmeter (especially for night photography), it's small and light and as smooth as silk, while the F-1N is a little "agricultural" (the film advance lever, but I assume it's due to the fact the camera was meant to be used with a motordrive).

    The King of the 70s...I don't know. I can't decide between the massive and powerful black line of the F-1 and the classic retro-futuristic design of the F2AS, surely we are talking about some of the best professional cameras ever made. I can also throw the Minolta XM in this Battle Royale-like fray.
    Last edited by cuthbert; 12-01-2014 at 06:44 AM. Click to view previous post history.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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