At 11:05 3/7/02, Daan wrote:
It allways striked me that most of serious nature phototgraphy (as shown in
nature photography magazines and nature photography contests) is done on
Velvia, some on other Fuji and Kodak is only used by very few nature
photographers. People who don't do nature photography seem to use far more
Kodak and tend to find Velvia unrealistic and flashy.
For my eye (I am a nature photographer and a Velvia enthousiast), Kodak
slides look dull/gray/yellow, not natural at all.
Depends on what "Kodak slides" you are using, the subject material and the
lighting conditions. To assign this attribute to *all* of Kodak's
transparency films for *all* applications of it is unfair. There's E100S,
E100SW, E100VS, EPN-100, EPP-100, and that's just [most of] the E-6 ISO 100
daylight. There's also Kodachrome 64. Not that I personally care for any
of them that much except Kodachrome, but they're all different in color
accuracy, contrast and saturation. Caveat: the Kodachrome preference is a
very personal one; others should use what fulfills their vision (see rant
below).
I find Velvia and E100VS too saturated with very unrealistic color
rendition and use Kodachrome for the majority of 35mm, and Provia 100F for
the majority of medium format (no 120/200 Kodachrome). However, there are
those who use films like Velvia and E100VS. You mention contests and I
know some use them for contests specifically because they leap off of the
wall and grab a juror's attention upon walking into the room if there are
bright colors in the subject material that will super-saturate with these
two films.
[Begin Ayn Rand Rant]
I will not work to juror/critic expectations. I visualize what I want
first, then perform the technical work to achieve the visualization, jurors
and critics be damned. My "art" is mine and I *won't* allow it to be
driven by others' expectations. If I do [shoot to others' expectations],
it's no longer *my* art, but becomes *their* art. If it starts with film
selection, were does it end? Subject material? Composition? Time of
day? Time of year? Lighting angles?
I hear Galen Rowel's name mentioned frequently. I also see what are
essentially clones of his work submitted to photography competitions. IMHO
that's not "original" work. I will not dispute that he's a superb
photographer. He is, and has some outstanding, very original
work. "Copying" it by making photographs that are home-grown versions of
his compositions may demonstrate technical prowess, but it's *not* original
work. [Don't confuse this with understanding and making use of some of his
"first principles," e.g. using the "Zone System" does not by itself create
copies of Ansel Adams' work.] The Great Photographers defined their own
unique style; their originality is a large part of what made them Great
Artists instead of being an Excellent Technician.
If I were creating photographs for a "stock" agency or doing
commercial/industrial work for hire it would be different, but I'm not. I
don't care that much what film National Geographic uses either; they can
use what suits them for their vision and I'll do the same for mine.
[End Ayn Rand Rant]
Seems to me that photography "culture" pushes us in percieving the results
of specific films, techniques and tools as "normal". Granularity and
contrast figures don't tell the whole story.
You're right, they don't. There's a lot more to it, i.e. the entire
process from light source, to subject material, to lens, to film, to print
(or projection, web, publication, et cetera).
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|