Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II  (Read 85569 times)
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #120 on: February 21, 2013, 06:26:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Now you have to understand that I have an 83-year-old neck, so I've done a couple things to keep the weight off of it.

Hi Russ,
I didn't realise you were that old. At 70, I'm just a youngster compared with you.  Grin

Replacing the 70-200/F2.8 with the lighter 70-200/F4 is a move in the right direction, but that D3 is a heavy beast. I recall holding just the camera body in my hand at a photographic exhibition a few years ago, shortly after the camera was first released, and felt immediately that it was noticeably heavier than any of my other cameras. The weight alone put me off, regardless of the price.

I think you should consider replacing that burdensome D3 with Nikon's newest upcoming camera, the 24mp D7100. This camera with zoom lens attached might weigh no more than the D3 body, and the technical performance at base ISO will probably exceed that of the D3 in every department, DR, SNR, Tonal Range, resolution etc.

Regards
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #121 on: February 22, 2013, 03:39:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Surely, Ray, you don't subscribe to the notion that it's the camera that makes the difference? Or the neck?

Rob C
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #122 on: February 22, 2013, 07:46:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Surely, Ray, you don't subscribe to the notion that it's the camera that makes the difference? Or the neck?

Rob C

What difference are you referring to, Rob?
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6064



WWW
« Reply #123 on: February 22, 2013, 02:01:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Ray. Good advice I'm sure. I did switch to a D800 for a lot of my work, but I still love my D3 for certain things. Early next month I'll shoot the dress rehearsal for a play. I shot a rehearsal with the D800 in December since my D3 was at Nikon for repair, and the weight of several hundred 36.3 megapixel files was pretty intimidating. The D3 returned nicely CLAed but with its autofocus problem unfixed and I had to send it back. I'm hoping it'll show up again before the next shoot. I do love the D800. ISO range is about the same as with the D3, but dynamic range and color accuracy are noticeably better. Of course, resolution is improved too. On the other hand though I have pretty powerful computers it takes a long time to plow through that many pixels.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #124 on: February 22, 2013, 02:15:35 PM »
ReplyReply

What difference are you referring to, Rob?



Of the resulting pictures?

Rob C
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #125 on: February 22, 2013, 09:20:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I did switch to a D800 for a lot of my work, but I still love my D3 for certain things. Early next month I'll shoot the dress rehearsal for a play. I shot a rehearsal with the D800 in December since my D3 was at Nikon for repair, and the weight of several hundred 36.3 megapixel files was pretty intimidating.

Hi Russ,
I also use a D800E. I thought it might be the last camera I'd buy because it has the same pixel density as my other cropped-format Nikon, the D7000, and therefore serves the same purpose as that camera, in addition to its wider angle of view that the full-frame sensor provides. In effect, it seemed like I was getting two cameras for the price of one.

However, on my last photographic trip, carrying just my D800E and a couple of zoom lenses, I found it very frustrating having to continually change lenses, especially when I was clambering over and trying to balance on fallen stone slabs in temple ruins in the Cambodian jungle.

For this reason, I'm going back to carrying two cameras with lenses attached, despite the extra weight. I guess I'll just have to take up weight-lifting to keep up my strength.  Grin

Whilst the old D7000 has no image-quality advantage if one is using the D800, the new D7100 does have the advantage of higher resolution and therefore provides effectively a longer reach with the same lens.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #126 on: February 22, 2013, 09:27:33 PM »
ReplyReply



Of the resulting pictures?

Rob C

Hi Rob,
Cameras can make a big difference to the resulting picture. Didn't you know that?  Grin

For example, if you don't have a camera, you can't take a photograph at all, so no resulting picture, zilch, nada, unless you take up painting of course.

If you do have a camera, but it's a Brownie Box camera, or an iPhone camera, you might still be able to take worthwhile pictures which may be more interesting, and considered by some to be more artistic, than certain other images taken by other photographers using multi-thousand dollar MFDBs. When it comes to artistic matters, everything is a matter of opinion.

However, I doubt that Gursky's Rhein II, at its humongous size of 8ft x 12ft, would have sold for $4.7 million if it had been taken with the average iPhone. However, the 40mp, Nokia PureView 808 could probably have done the job, thus demonstrating that there is a difference between a very small 5mp sensor and a significantly larger 40mp sensor.  Grin
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #127 on: February 23, 2013, 09:13:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Rob,
Cameras can make a big difference to the resulting picture. Didn't you know that?  Grin

For example, if you don't have a camera, you can't take a photograph at all, so no resulting picture, zilch, nada, unless you take up painting of course.






Dear me, Ray that’s so reactionary!

You are missing the entire point of photography, which is fundamentally nothing more than vehicle to a sublime emotional experience. Or, you may just be signalling the early stages of photographic competence, and so I shan’t offer any seriously critical comment here, other than to let you know that the best, for you, is yet to come.

Snapping’s like fishing (obviously) and you will one day discover that the very best snaps are the ones that you simply didn’t make for the fundamental reason that you were so wrapped in the moment (even, sometimes, decisively so) that the distraction of finger on button would have absolutely removed the thin, evanescent patina of magic, that quasi-erotic sense of oneness with the creation before your eyes, that not making the shot actually allowed you to preserve within the eternity of your inner consciousness.

Similar to fishing, as I said, but with the advantage that you never, ever have to stand there, legs apart and arms stretched out in undignified boastful measure.

Less is sometimes more, but nothing is perfection. As I’m sure you now agree.

Don‘t become disheartened, though, there’s time enough yet.

So, Ray, I find myself having to suggest that your thoughful contention about the relative values of having or not having a camera to hand at any one moment of possible photographic moment doesn’t, in fact, hold at all: the better experiences, those rare (very) happenings that transcend the mundane are all best experienced without mecha-electro distractions in hand. Just like the fish, as I said when I came in.

Someone remarked somewhere else about the strange habits of some LuLa members; you know, like not sticking to finely defined lines of demarcation (lines of demarcation are usually finely defined) such as lenses only to be mentioned within the context of a lens thread, cameras only in camera threads, and so forth. I can’t say that I have ever found this rule to have been violated within the illuminated (and illuminating) pages of this fine journal, have you? As for allegations of personal attack! Goodness me, perish the thought that such ungentlemanly behaviour would be tollerated by the establishment, the writing hierarchy of this club for seniors!

Bless you, my son; the planets will soon align, Kodachrome will return.

Rob C

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5530



WWW
« Reply #128 on: February 23, 2013, 09:45:05 AM »
ReplyReply

That's why I am on LuLa!
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8853


« Reply #129 on: February 23, 2013, 06:40:57 PM »
ReplyReply


You are missing the entire point of photography, which is fundamentally nothing more than vehicle to a sublime emotional experience.


Vehicles can make a difference, Rob, especially when trying to capture the sublime emotional experience of crossing the Great Sandy Desert in Western Australia.

Without the right type of vehicle you woulkd likely get stuck. In an area without mobile phone coverage, you might die.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7763



WWW
« Reply #130 on: February 23, 2013, 08:36:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Snapping’s like fishing (obviously) and you will one day discover that the very best snaps are the ones that you simply didn’t make for the fundamental reason that you were so wrapped in the moment (even, sometimes, decisively so) that the distraction of finger on button would have absolutely removed the thin, evanescent patina of magic, that quasi-erotic sense of oneness with the creation before your eyes, that not making the shot actually allowed you to preserve within the eternity of your inner consciousness.

Rob,

This is your best post ever.

The most amazing thing is that we don't really need a camera not to take the shot. It ends up being a call for simply seeing. The implications of your fishing analogy are so profound that I'll spend my whole NRT-BKK flight playing with it without touching a camera!

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #131 on: February 24, 2013, 09:47:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob,

This is your best post ever.

The most amazing thing is that we don't really need a camera not to take the shot. It ends up being a call for simply seeing. The implications of your fishing analogy are so profound that I'll spend my whole NRT-BKK flight playing with it without touching a camera!

Cheers,
Bernard




Good Lord! Thanks for that, but I do hope you take time to listen to the stewardesses' safety announcements! (And that no lady is playing make-believe in the toilets.)

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #132 on: February 24, 2013, 09:56:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Vehicles can make a difference, Rob, especially when trying to capture the sublime emotional experience of crossing the Great Sandy Desert in Western Australia.

Without the right type of vehicle you woulkd likely get stuck. In an area without mobile phone coverage, you might die.


Ray, I have long been resigned to the inevitability of the event; it powers one of the few remaining reasons for making an exposure photograph: eternity, or a stab at it. Or, maybe two hundred years if stored properly (the print, not myself).

As far as deserts go, not a chance: I won't even go to the beach these days. Not because I fear a sunstroked street shooter, but because I'd get sand in the car and then the apartment. Which I'd have to clean.

Rob C


Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2660


« Reply #133 on: July 12, 2013, 04:17:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"This effect (most obvious in works like 99 Cent and Rhein II, 1999) is achieved by photographing a scene of deep space, scanning the image into a computer and dividing it into horizontal bands, adjusting objects near the vanishing point so that their resolution matches that of objects in the foreground, and then pasting the whole thing back into its original configuration. The results are twofold: First, atmospheric perspective is eliminated; second, things that originally lay one behind the other now lie next to each other on the same spatial plane."

Margaret Sundell, "Review: Andreas Gursky, Matthew Marks", Artforum 38 (7), March 2000, p131
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #134 on: July 13, 2013, 04:00:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Now we understand art.

Love those writers!

Rob C
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2660


« Reply #135 on: July 13, 2013, 11:14:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Now you have a clue.
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #136 on: July 22, 2013, 10:18:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Snapping’s like fishing (obviously) and you will one day discover that the very best snaps are the ones that you simply didn’t make for the fundamental reason that you were so wrapped in the moment (even, sometimes, decisively so) that the distraction of finger on button would have absolutely removed the thin, evanescent patina of magic, that quasi-erotic sense of oneness with the creation before your eyes, that not making the shot actually allowed you to preserve within the eternity of your inner consciousness.

Well - yes. But it helps to have to have a camera, or the habit of a camera, so you are open to the possibility of those very best snaps. Drawing serves the same purpose, as John Ruskin pointed out. He thought everyone should be encouraged to learn drawing, not because they would produce good drawings (very few would do that) but because they would learn to look and see. I think the same is true of  photography - the attention it develops is, for many of us, more valuable than the photographs.
Logged

opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #137 on: July 22, 2013, 10:51:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Well - yes. But it helps to have to have a camera, or the habit of a camera, so you are open to the possibility of those very best snaps. Drawing serves the same purpose, as John Ruskin pointed out. He thought everyone should be encouraged to learn drawing, not because they would produce good drawings (very few would do that) but because they would learn to look and see. I think the same is true of  photography - the attention it develops is, for many of us, more valuable than the photographs.

But don't you think there is a fundamental difference between drawing which requires calming down and concentration, vs happy snapping which merely detaches you from reality? I agree that photography can potentially develop attention, but in its current state it reminds me of all those people that actually missed the experience of vital events because they were too busy trying to capture it on video.
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #138 on: July 22, 2013, 11:03:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Well - yes. But it helps to have to have a camera, or the habit of a camera, so you are open to the possibility of those very best snaps. Drawing serves the same purpose, as John Ruskin pointed out. He thought everyone should be encouraged to learn drawing, not because they would produce good drawings (very few would do that) but because they would learn to look and see. I think the same is true of  photography - the attention it develops is, for many of us, more valuable than the photographs.
Well put, Ken. When I had an 8x10 view camera, I often set it up just to look at scenes, without bothering with film.
Recently I went out photographing with my DSLR, and with the first shot I realized that I had no memory card in the camera (blush, blush). I kept on shooting, and looking, anyway. I'm sure it helps.

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #139 on: July 22, 2013, 11:12:37 AM »
ReplyReply

But don't you think there is a fundamental difference between drawing which requires calming down and concentration, vs happy snapping which merely detaches you from reality?
I find that going out with a camera helps me to pay attention in a way that carries over into occasions when I don't have the camera. I would admit, though, that digital photography too often lures me into taking far too many photographs. But that is another story.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad