Now that the flame war partially sharing this thread name has been
quenched (for which, thanks):
AG Schnozz wrote:
> Over the weekend I did some scanning and worked on a photo
> project. One thing that I noticed as I dug through 20 years of
> slides is that prior to Digital, a lot of my images are quite
> dreadful. What I thought was good is now pedestrian. In
> reality, I probably only took two to three "portfolio grade"
> pictures per year. You've already seen most of them.
Goodness! Are your standards so high? Or mine so low? :-) Just
different, of course. I've never been quite sure what you mean by
"portfolio grade", but you have made that clearer below, something that
will make a gallery goer say with positive intonation "That's a
Schnozz!" without seeing the credit tag.
I have generally been far more interested in simply seeing and capturing
a decent shot of something interesting and/or beautiful. Any time I can
cause someone viewing one of my images to see something they wouldn't
have noticed otherwise and/or see the beauty in something that they
would not have otherwise noticed, I feel further accomplishment.
As a result, my recent, rather random browse through some old slides,
occasioned by a desire to find a specific subject in my shoebox filing
"system", found me arrested by a several images that impressed me.
However I know they aren't portfolio grade in the sense you mean it,
being mostly nice captures of natural beauty or people I care for.
On the other hand, we seem alike in another way. Although I appreciate
it when others like or even occasionally praise my images, my primary
source of evaluation is internal.
Looking back, something that I did this year, starting almost by
accident, was to create a couple of "slide" shows for on screen viewing
with music that accomplished my goal of altering the internal state of
the viewers in a specific way. Looking forward, I'd like to expand on
that through fine tuning the existing work, creating one or more new
ones and expanding the venue for their viewing.
Now that your thoughtful post has given me the opportunity to think on
it, I suppose my goal with these "serial" photographic creations is much
the same at heart as your goal to create with your photography "An
experience, not just something to "look at" but to draw you in with your
emotional being." And their use might be near your alley too, as it has
so far been fornon denomination/source/tradition based spiritual
gatherings.
> In the past three years, since going digital, I've shot more "portfolio
> grade" images each year than all the previous years combined.
>
> Much of that is through sheer quantity. But another aspect is the
> instant-feedback....... A quick "chimp" will yield greater feedback to
> photography improvement than nearly anything else. Chimps are not just for
> exposure!
>
I too have experienced an increase in the number of shots I perceive as
high quality since starting to use digital. Part of it seems to me to be
due to the factors you mention, quantity and feedback. On the other
hand, I feel my keeper ratio has not declined in general and I am
surprised how seldom I chimp. I mean to, but I just forget fairly often,
sometimes to my detriment. For me, I think another factor is the lack
of financial risk in taking chances I probably should have taken before.
There are also some characteristics of theses cameras that simply allow
me to do things I couldn't do before.
> What about the tool itself? I'd suggest that my old OM-2S is
> capable of better images than my digitals, but in reality it's
> more a situation of what is more appropriate for a given
> purpose. The E-1 might lack some of the "resolution" and
> "detail" of some other digital cameras, but it's the rare 35mm
> film image that even comes close to matching it.
>
I just don't see the OMs as capable of matching what I'm getting from
the 5D for most of my uses. I still love them, but the areas where they
are competitive are limited. The limitations are really in lack of the
AF option and in the films they expose. My preferences in subjects and
other equipment mean that sensor/film speed are very important to me and
I seldom find grain an image enhancer, unlike many others. I now have
many much loved images that I'd never have been able to capture with an OM.
> ........
> I was looking at some Grand Canyon pictures taken exactly two
> years ago. The Velvia slides have a "depth" to them the digital
> images don't. It's subtle, but there. The digital images are
> sharper, but the film images just possess a "yummy" look to
> them. So many of my old pictures had the same lovely
> tonalities, but something else made the entire image lame.
>
If these are some of the images you posted and I did some post work on,
the "lameness" may often be correctable. But whether the magic would
still be lost in prints even starting with full original scans, I have
no idea.
> <snip B&W ;-) >
>
> One doesn't shoot 20,000 pictures in a year without doing some
> growing.
Something like 10+ times what I shoot. But then so many of yours are
event, portraits and such.
> It's inevitable. But at the same time, I've
> discovered that for my own artistic expression that I've
> exhausted my old thoughts and visions. Finally, I'm starting to
> get the urge to break free from the bonds of my photographic
> history and express myself in new uncharted territories. This
> is exciting and refreshing. Just as Bill Barber has
> rediscovered photography through pin-hole cameras, I'm seeking a
> look which is both unique and refreshing--putting the emphasis
> on form and shape, light and dark and eye-flow. I want the
> picture to be "music to the eyes". An experience, not just
> something to "look at" but to draw you in with your emotional
> being.
>
That's very exciting! I'm looking forward to the results!
> This is my goal for 2007--to create and implement this new
> "vision" and to have a gallery showing of it by year's end. This
> is both attainable and reasonable. My travel plans will be
> influenced by this as well as other aspects of my personal and
> professional life.
The very best of luck with this!!!
> Meanwhile, I must not look down on my
> previous work because it doesn't fit my new current vision.
>
Indeed. There is a Buddist idea of the manure field of life; that what
has gone before, no matter how much I may think of it as sh*t now, is
the manure without which the new could not grow. I wasn't wasting my
time, just preparing the field.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|