True, but the sooner they find out there aren't any, the sooner they can get good at this.
Originally Posted by jnanian
Originally Posted by eddie
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller
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
"There are a great many things I am in doubt about at the moment, and I should consider myself favoured if you would kindly enlighten me. Signed, Doubtful, off to Canada." (BJP 1914).
Alright, here are 4 different 400 speed films: Kentmere 400, HP5+, Tri-X, and Neopan, which is which? I look at these photographs I cannot honestly say that any of them contains a look specific to the emulsion they were shot on. Also, as someone who has admitted to never printing a single frame in their life, I don't think you are qualified to make that judgment. Listen to the way people describe their favorite films, "alabaster highlights, charcoal black shadows, sandpapery grain, etc..." it's all fucking bullshit. If you can see the difference between films of the same speed and grain type, then one negative was not printed or processed as well as the other. It's easy to convince yourself that you are seeing the so-called "special" aspects of a film when in reality you're just patting yourself on the back...
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
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
silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
artwork often times sold for charity
PM me for details
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
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.
How true and what a wonderful quote.
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Originally Posted by Chris Lange
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.
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.
Last edited by bdial; 11-23-2013 at 05:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.