Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,269   Posts: 1,534,405   Online: 921
      
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 125
  1. #91
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    There's basically 2 people in this thread going back and forth. Hardly the rioting offensive thread people are making it out to be. I think some of the comments were stupid and irrelevant but this place is hardly like photo.net or dpreview.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  2. #92
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    I don't understand all the fuss in this thread. This Forum SHOULD be about a photographers PERSONAL CHOICE. It is every bit as ridiculous to criticize someone for choosing to shoot digital as it is to criticize someone who chooses to only shoot film (and besides, from the comments I've read here over time, it appears most of us here shoot both).
    I completely agree with you here. I get angry at people who criticize my choice to use film but I also ensure I don't criticize their choice to use digital. My friend (a very adamant feminist (her term, not mine)) had a screaming match in a university class with a professor who told her that she wasn't a real feminist since she didn't want a career, she wanted to stay at home with kids and pursue her non-money making passion of gardening (she married into money). "What is the point of fighting for a woman's right to choose to do anything they want when you deny all but one of their choices?" I think anyone here on APUG who think we are trying to make everyone go back to film is sadly misunderstanding what this community is about; for me, this community is about empowering people to use film and to ensure the knowledge base required to practice this art form is maintained. I would hope that somebody who is 100% digital would still be able to get something out of this website, just as I try to get something out of digital websites. There is this sense on APUG like if someone uses digital, they have betrayed real photographers and need to be ostracized - we are here because we feel excluded from digital sites, so let's exclude others???

    I think McCurry is a great photographer but his is not the style I would buy or emulate. I could care less what he shoots with or that he has stopped using film, I care much more about what his output looks like. And I think if you had a time machine that let you asked any of the great masters of photography what they would do if they were alive today, do you really think all of them would be 100% analogue? Do you really think Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Karsh, Kertesz, Weston and any other who was worried about feeding their family through their art would really be concerned with anything other their output and getting paid for it? Would any of you turn down work for National Geographic or Vogue or the New York Times because they insisted on digital capture? Why would we blame McCurry for doing what his job demands? Of course he doesn't shoot film, he can't and still feed his family. He'd pay his interns if there wasn't a line out his door offering to work for free; I would have done it before I became responsible for other people.

    Thank-you for posting the interview and even asking the question to him.
    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  3. #93
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,626
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    actually a lot of things mentioned in that article are wrong ..
    first and foremost, before the 1920s it was not turkey, turkey did not exist
    it was the ottoman empire which in its height spanned from asia to venice.
    only now noah's ark considered to be in turkey.
    Well, this is the internet.

    i wish the racists would not comment in threads it ruins it for the site as a whole.
    Well, this is the internet.

    ...apug used to be known as "the most polite forum on the internet"

    ... not this
    Well, this is the internet.

    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #94
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    I don't understand all the fuss in this thread. This Forum SHOULD be about a photographers PERSONAL CHOICE. It is every bit as ridiculous to criticize someone for choosing to shoot digital as it is to criticize someone who chooses to only shoot film (and besides, from the comments I've read here over time, it appears most of us here shoot both).
    McCurry loved Kodachrome; he later loved using the E100 Ektachromes. I believe his choice to go digital was largely a pragmatic one, and I won't criticize him for it.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  5. #95
    Dinesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie View Post
    ...... he is lucky I never bump into him on the street.
    As I walk looking straight ahead and not down, I probably wouldn't even notice you!
    Kick his ass, Sea Bass!

  6. #96

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,120
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Well, this is the internet.



    Well, this is the internet.



    Well, this is the internet.


    as homer would say: DOH!
    thanks for the dopeslap xldude
    - J
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  7. #97
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    McCurry loved Kodachrome; he later loved using the E100 Ektachromes. I believe his choice to go digital was largely a pragmatic one, and I won't criticize him for it.
    The only thing I could be critical of is forsaking a medium which made him. Of course, it's all about the content - but I tend to doubt Afghan Girl would have lost something had it not been on Kodachrome.

    I guess what I'm saying is of course there's "I don't really use film for commercial work" line of view and then there's the "I don't use film, ever" line of view that personally rubs me the wrong way. He can do whatever he wants, but I'd imagine if one was shooting film for 30+ years, it'd be an old friend - not a divorced wife.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #98
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,541
    Images
    15
    Digital or film is irrelevant when discussing McCurry's trademark image, Afghan Girl. He had a camera. He was there are the right time and the right moment, AND he had refined sense of empathy and association with the subject that allowed him, for a few brief sections to capture that cold, haunting stare, he then moved on. Twenty hears later he re-photographed Sharba Gullut, Afghan Girl, with the same empathy and associative qualities that made his first image. The only big difference was that the resulting image was nowhere near as hauntingly beautiful as the first, but we can understand that: age and the incessant weariness of war would take its toll on the hardest of hardened Pashtun, the feared ethnics to which Gullut belonged. I have viewed several later works of McCurry and don't think those works are anywhere near as moving as the one that put his name up in lights, even though decades later very few people can associate the image with the photographer by name. Luck, timing and preparedness, together with people skills would have delivered millions of similar images in the decades since, whether on film or digital. Good on McCurry for using what is best for his professional needs irrespective of what others think. That's what we all do.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  9. #99
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,626
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    The only thing I could be critical of is forsaking a medium which made him. Of course, it's all about the content - but I tend to doubt Afghan Girl would have lost something had it not been on Kodachrome.

    I guess what I'm saying is of course there's "I don't really use film for commercial work" line of view and then there's the "I don't use film, ever" line of view that personally rubs me the wrong way. He can do whatever he wants, but I'd imagine if one was shooting film for 30+ years, it'd be an old friend - not a divorced wife.
    That why I say I think it's largely a pragmatic decision. His world (the one of photojournalism) changed around him. Salgado went to digital, with a stated reason being the difficulty of getting film safely through airports.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #100
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,239
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    Digital or film is irrelevant when discussing McCurry's trademark image, Afghan Girl. He had a camera. He was there are the right time and the right moment, AND he had refined sense of empathy and association with the subject that allowed him, for a few brief sections to capture that cold, haunting stare, he then moved on. Twenty hears later he re-photographed Sharba Gullut, Afghan Girl, with the same empathy and associative qualities that made his first image. The only big difference was that the resulting image was nowhere near as hauntingly beautiful as the first, but we can understand that: age and the incessant weariness of war would take its toll on the hardest of hardened Pashtun, the feared ethnics to which Gullut belonged. I have viewed several later works of McCurry and don't think those works are anywhere near as moving as the one that put his name up in lights, even though decades later very few people can associate the image with the photographer by name. Luck, timing and preparedness, together with people skills would have delivered millions of similar images in the decades since, whether on film or digital. Good on McCurry for using what is best for his professional needs irrespective of what others think. That's what we all do.
    She was angry with him at having to show we face and scared, but in her culture she did as a man asked, that's why she has those haunting eyes, it's anger and fear. She was pulled out of we classroom for the shot to get better light and he chose her specifically. It almost ruins it when you read the full story, but the image is what inspired me as a photographer. It was on my wall from the time I was 12 till 28... I also own the original national geographic periodical (somewhere). I might be obsessed. Also the original slide is not quite as saturated, thank the touch up guys for that.


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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