Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!  (Read 46255 times)
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #220 on: April 09, 2008, 10:31:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BTW....With what Nick is saying about print sizing is a bit misleading...and the whole pixel  count thing is mostly unimportant (thats right..it doesnt matter). Ive blown up a half-frame slide scan to 40" by 60" and it looks 'effin brilliant. The larger you print the further back the viewer stands. I wonder what the certain ration is to that... size vs. viewing distance. It is entirely relative to it's surroundings and has nothing to do with resolution per se. Unless...like when MR came into my gallery and looked at one of my prints from 6 inches, that sort of detail is somehow of importance to you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I too have blown up 35mm slides to ridiculous sizes and they too have looked great. Some subjects look fine with grain etc, no argument there.

BUT, what I do is produce prints of that size that you can stick your nose up against and still look sharp. It's what I choose to do and it suits the sorts of images I shoot and sell.

My comments were always in the context of what I do, which I though I made clear in my post, and are therefore not misleading at all.

Since you say you have a gallery you will surely realise that you can spot a photographer a mile off because they always look closely at prints - can you say you never do this?
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #221 on: April 09, 2008, 10:54:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since you say you have a gallery you will surely realise that you can spot a photographer a mile off because they always look closely at prints - can you say you never do this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I invariably do that. If I visited your gallery, I'd definitely do that.

What I would not do is, being undecided as to whether I liked a photograph or not, walk up to it close, inspect the detail and sharpness and then declare I liked it on the grounds it was sharp and taken with good equipment.

Rather, liking an image, I would approach close, inspect the detail and declare, "Great photo, and it's sharp too".
« Last Edit: April 09, 2008, 10:56:41 PM by Ray » Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #222 on: April 09, 2008, 11:06:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Rather, liking an image, I would approach close, inspect the detail and declare, "Great photo, and it's sharp too".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And that's the way is should be.

However, if the image is unsharp on close inspection then whether it still works for you or not is your choice.

Generally I find traditional landscape images a let down if I approach and find it's merely an over-enlarged 35mm shot. I reckon that if one is going to go to all the trouble to get to wild places then you should take the biggest camera you can manage. You can always make it less sharp for creative effect, but the opposite is problematic to say the least!

(Quick edit, before anyone flames me on this) ...except Galen Rowells work which relies greatly on the spontaneity of 35mm for its power. Every 'rule' has it's exceptions!
« Last Edit: April 09, 2008, 11:09:14 PM by Nick Rains » Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
Slough
Guest
« Reply #223 on: April 10, 2008, 01:53:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Okay! Fair enough! You are more adept at writing nonsense than I am. All meaning exists only in the mind, just as the sensation and experience of color exists only in the mind. Do you think there's meaning out there that grows on trees just waiting to be plucked??

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pretentious nonsense.

Quote
If anyone reads anything and draws an inference, makes an interpretation, right or wrong, what on earth causes you to think that has nothing to do with what the writer meant or implied?

What makes you think that your 'interpreation' has anything to do with it?

You remind me of religious nutters who see meaning where there is none, and use that to justify their extreme actions. No amount of evidence and argument will dissuade them from their chosen path because they believe. That is how you are. Belief transcends evidence.

Quote
Have you had private conversations with Ken Rockwell who has told you that my interpretation of his article has nothing to do with what he meant or implied?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Have you?

A good technical writer can convey meaning in their writing without the need to contact them to find out whether or not they meant something totally different.

But then again, what Ken wants is publicity and sloppy writing gets that.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #224 on: April 10, 2008, 08:33:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Pretentious nonsense.
What makes you think that your 'interpreation' has anything to do with it?

You remind me of religious nutters who see meaning where there is none, and use that to justify their extreme actions. No amount of evidence and argument will dissuade them from their chosen path because they believe.

Ken Rockwell's defenders are exactly the sort of people who drank the Kool-Aid at Jonestown and the spiked vodka at Rancho Santa Fe (Heaven's Gate); they believed in something because they wanted to believe in it, and not because any of them had any objective or logically defensible evidence to support their beliefs. Once you go beyond the limits of logic and evidence and begin basing your belief system solely on what you want to believe or what you choose to believe something means, there's no limit to the silliness, stupidity, and outright evil that you can get involved in. Hopefully, we won't see any of them on the news sometime in the future chanting in a commune with shaved heads and awaiting the return of the mother ship or some other such nonsense.

Quote
A good technical writer can convey meaning in their writing without the need to contact them to find out whether or not they meant something totally different.

The ultimate goal of any writing is to communicate something from the writer to the reader with the smallest degree of adulteration possible, regardless of what that something is. It doesn't really matter if the writer is explaining the best way to accomplish a particular task in Photoshop or Excel, describing what the daily life of a soldier in Iraq is like, or narrating fictional events taking place in an imaginary location.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2008, 08:54:20 AM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #225 on: April 10, 2008, 11:00:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ken Rockwell's defenders are exactly the sort of people who drank the Kool-Aid at Jonestown and the spiked vodka at Rancho Santa Fe [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Seriously..you're having a laugh ,right?
BTW..They were murdered at Jonestown....it was NOT a mass ,willing,suicide.That just came to mind...though I'm sure there are many more factual errors in your posts...
Logged
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


« Reply #226 on: April 10, 2008, 02:13:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You remind me of religious nutters who see meaning where there is none, and use that to justify their extreme actions.
Quote
Ken Rockwell's defenders are exactly the sort of people who drank the Kool-Aid at Jonestown and the spiked vodka at Rancho Santa Fe
Quote
They were murdered at Jonestown....it was NOT a mass, willing, suicide.

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
- Godwin's Law
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #227 on: April 10, 2008, 02:17:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Seriously..you're having a laugh ,right?
BTW..They were murdered at Jonestown....it was NOT a mass ,willing,suicide.That just came to mind...though I'm sure there are many more factual errors in your posts...

I'm absolutely serious. Most committed suicide at Jonestown because they believed, and those who did not were murdered by those who believed. But everyone's death there was the result of someone's belief in Jim Jones' teachings, belief not based on logic or evidence, but on their collective willingness to interpret passages of the Bible based on what Jim Jones said they meant instead of their plain literal commonly understood meaning.

The methodology that Ray is using to interpret Ken Rockwell's writings is the same as that which the cultists used to interpret the Bible.
Logged

bernie west
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132



« Reply #228 on: April 10, 2008, 06:14:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hopefully, we won't see any of them on the news sometime in the future chanting in a commune with shaved heads and awaiting the return of the mother ship or some other such nonsense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think there is a chance we might see some later this year.  Have you guys heard of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)?  It's going to be the worlds biggest, baddest, and fastest particle accelerator by a factor of 4 or something like that, and it is due to be switched on in I think October this year.  Basically it is going to smash particles together with enough energy that they hope to be able to see the quatum particles that make up protons, electrons etc.  But there is all sorts of doomsday theories being thought up, ranging from Chernobyl style meltdown, wormholes, blackholes, and ultimately the end of the whole earth (or was that the universe?  I can't remember).  One cool thing that some people reckon might happen is that from that point forward in time, time travel back to that point might be possible.  So if you all of a sudden you start seeing people in tight silver suits around October, then you'll know what's going on.  

Sorry for that interuption, now back to your normal programming....
« Last Edit: April 10, 2008, 06:15:10 PM by bernie west » Logged
mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #229 on: April 10, 2008, 06:14:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm absolutely serious. Most committed suicide at Jonestown because they believed, and those who did not were murdered by those who believed. But everyone's death there was the result of someone's belief in Jim Jones' teachings, belief not based on logic or evidence, but on their collective willingness to interpret passages of the Bible based on what Jim Jones said they meant instead of their plain literal commonly understood meaning.

The methodology that Ray is using to interpret Ken Rockwell's writings is the same as that which the cultists used to interpret the Bible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Get a grip Colonel Klink...Ray and I happen to comprehend that KR's article is alluding to a classic argument and THAT is what was being discussed. Your self-deluded interpretation of the literal meaning of  that article is about as off base as the idea of WMD's in IRAQ...y'dig?
Logged
bernie west
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132



« Reply #230 on: April 10, 2008, 06:17:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray and I happen to comprehend that KR's article is alluding to a classic argument and THAT is what was being discussed.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By whose reckoning, other than you two boobs??
« Last Edit: April 10, 2008, 06:18:04 PM by bernie west » Logged
mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #231 on: April 10, 2008, 06:20:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
By whose reckoning, other than you two boobs??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188563\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By MY reckoning..that IS the POSTING ya daft fool ! Go discuss you're anti KR rant where it's relevant.
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #232 on: April 10, 2008, 06:25:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Get a grip Colonel Klink...Ray and I happen to comprehend that KR's article is alluding to a classic argument and THAT is what was being discussed. Your self-deluded interpretation of the literal meaning of  that article is about as off base as the idea of WMD's in IRAQ...y'dig?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Arguing about cameras mattering or not is interesting.

Arguing about who does or doesn't understand KRs article is not.

His poor attempt to write a monologue about something he clearly does not 'grok' is not something worth getting all excited about. You all give him too much credibility when he should just be ignored.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #233 on: April 10, 2008, 08:17:09 PM »
ReplyReply

When it becomes clear that the people you are arguing with have bunkered down as though they are fighting a war and are not receptive to ideas, there is really no point in continuing the discussion.

I've got better things to do.
Logged
mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #234 on: April 10, 2008, 08:37:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When it becomes clear that the people you are arguing with have bunkered down as though they are fighting a war and are not receptive to ideas, there is really no point in continuing the discussion.

I've got better things to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Awwww.....c'mon buddy buddy, don't y'have at least one lunatic fringe idea or comment to add before this (hopefully) finally gets buried once and for all. You can do it...How about you speak in tongues or somesuch. I'm counting on you Ray!
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #235 on: April 10, 2008, 08:47:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Awwww.....c'mon buddy buddy, don't y'have at least one lunatic fringe idea or comment to add before this (hopefully) finally gets buried once and for all. You can do it...How about you speak in tongues or somesuch. I'm counting on you Ray!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought he tried that.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #236 on: April 11, 2008, 02:06:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When it becomes clear that the people you are arguing with have bunkered down as though they are fighting a war and are not receptive to ideas, there is really no point in continuing the discussion.

I've got better things to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am receptive to facts, not unsupported ideas, and make believe. You have yet to present one single supporting fact for your viewpoint. Unedited quotes will do.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #237 on: April 11, 2008, 02:44:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am receptive to facts, not unsupported ideas, and make believe. You have yet to present one single supporting fact for your viewpoint. Unedited quotes will do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've already told you. Facts are the province of science. I don't consider that Ken's article is either scientific or technical, or is meant to be. It's a polemic on the excessive concern that many of us have, including myself, with the technical aspects of our camera equipment. He has a valid point and he's made it.

If you are unable to understand it, then too bad!
Logged
lovell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #238 on: April 11, 2008, 03:48:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Is this KR thing still being argued about?  Wow!

KR's ramblings are mostly cr@p boys.  His ramblings are indefensible, and for one to defend KR says more about one then about KR.  And what this says is not very nice, nor pretty, and may well be indicative of character or mental issues.

As to enlargements, anyone that thinks one can get "frikin" great results when enlarging HUGE and from a low pixel image, or even a half frame of film is one that has profoundly low, low quality standards.

And it is exceeding foolish to assume that as prints get bigger, viewers will view further away.  One only needs to go to any number of fine photographic art museums anywhere to find a huge print that has profound clarity when viewed INCHES away, and it is this type of enlargement clarity that really seduces the viewer, pulls him in, and is a glorious experience.  And this is ONLY possible with a very large negative, or large number of pixels, and/or large sensor.

So for enlargements, the size of the sensor, the number of pixels, or in the case of film, the size of the negative matters.  In other words, the camera does in fact matter, and to suggest otherwise is to not understand photography, nor the tools used to practice photography.

This issue is black and white, so why it is debated is most peculiar, to be sure.

Now as to creating a composition (not image quality), then yes, the kit matters little, if at all.
Logged

After composition, everything else is secondary--Alfred Steiglitz, NYC, 1927.

I'm not afraid of death.  I just don't want to be there when it happens--Woody Allen, Annie Hall, '70s
mrleonard
Guest
« Reply #239 on: April 11, 2008, 04:46:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is this KR thing still being argued about?  Wow!

KR's ramblings are mostly cr@p boys.  His ramblings are indefensible, and for one to defend KR says more about one then about KR.  And what this says is not very nice, nor pretty, and may well be indicative of character or mental issues.

As to enlargements, anyone that thinks one can get "frikin" great results when enlarging HUGE and from a low pixel image, or even a half frame of film is one that has profoundly low, low quality standards.

And it is exceeding foolish to assume that as prints get bigger, viewers will view further away.  One only needs to go to any number of fine photographic art museums anywhere to find a huge print that has profound clarity when viewed INCHES away, and it is this type of enlargement clarity that really seduces the viewer, pulls him in, and is a glorious experience.  And this is ONLY possible with a very large negative, or large number of pixels, and/or large sensor.

So for enlargements, the size of the sensor, the number of pixels, or in the case of film, the size of the negative matters.  In other words, the camera does in fact matter, and to suggest otherwise is to not understand photography, nor the tools used to practice photography.

This issue is black and white, so why it is debated is most peculiar, to be sure.

Now as to creating a composition (not image quality), then yes, the kit matters little, if at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[attachment=6056:attachment]Well..this image from a half frame film camera I blew up 5 feet by 4 feet..and it  doeslook great. The grain  is very nice.Unlike you, I am open-minded is all...and I DO have very high quality standards.I am not saying that a low pixel high grain image will ALWAYS make a great emlargement...never said that. As to viewing a photo up close,the opposite also holds true.When viewed up close the inage is fuzzy /grain/texture and is given clarity from a more distant viewpoint...this is also very seductive.
 If you read my OP, you'd see I wasn't actually addressing what KR's writing per se...but to the classic argument that they allude to.
 Finally..it is mostly being constantly debated becaue of stubborn,narrowminded individuals such as yourself that see things in such absolute terms...and in such tired,uninteresting,uninspired,and unoriginal viewpoints.

 BTW Ken Rockwell's writings are (largely) verbatim copies of German National Socialist propaganda tracts from the 1930's. "The Camera Does Not Matter" is in fact originally entitled the Final Solution. There are also studies that show being exposed to KR's website causes the growth of a leathery tail, higher suicide rates and are currently being outlawed in many countries.[attachment=6057:attachment]
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad