Okay, I'm finished blushing now, so all I can say is thanks to Moose for his
rather detailed opinion of my work, as seen with nose pressed to glass rather
than on itsy-bitzy monitor. It means a lot of me to hear what he has to say,
and it should go without saying that I was a little astonished to be put in the
same sentence with the f64 Group. That exhibition is on my must-see list.
It is true that for me, it's all about the print. Well, it's about the whole
process, but my process ends with a print and I typically prefer it to be a
good one. I spend lot of time toward that end, and have used more than my
share of ink and paper to realize what I think I was trying to see when I
pressed the shutter.
It so happened that all of this came under one of those film v. digital
discussions that gets fired up from time to time. I wish it hadn't, because in
Ken's lengthy reply to Moose's post it seemed to me that it suddenly became
about me and my Nikon D3. And while the eye behind the viewfinder is critical,
I'm not sure where the critical line lies in the sense of equipment. Certainly
the D3 is a fine piece of work. No finer, in my estimation, except perhaps for
the D3s. <g> But then we just had a post about two wedding shooters armed to
the teeth with the latest, greatest Canon gear, who couldn't shoot their way
out of paper bags with AK-47s. So it's not so much the gear. In fact, past a
certain point, it's not the gear at all. And when you add intention into the
equation, it becomes even less about the gear. Well, scratch that. Depending on
your intention, the gear might be critical. (I've been reading books on quantum
theory and my head's not quite right. But you knew that, d
idn't you, Boris?)
Nor, do I think, is it really about film or digital. Maybe it is in some cases
with some subjects, but on the whole I'm not sure there's much of a real
argument there to pursue. Simplistically put, pictures is pictures. Film,
digital, whatever. Sure, you can find a thousand reasons why you should go with
one over the other, but you can also find a thousand reasons to pick up what
you got and get out of the house, 'cause you ain't gonna get squat lying in
bed. Well, not photographically anyway.
It was also suggested that perhaps my work suits Moose's taste perfectly, and
therefore he said what he said because I do what he likes. I'd like to disavow
anyone of that notion right here, right now. In the first place, I haven't even
been to California since 1976. I don't have a clue what a California approach
is. I've heard the term West Coast Landscape photography before, but most of
what I've seen as examples has bored me to tears after about the fourth
example. And considering the rather animated discussions Moose and I had during
his visit, I'd say we've got a lot of ground we see the same way, and a lot of
ground we don't. But we have a good time covering it, and like Moose said, Joan
and Carol hit it right off and pretty much ignored us when the talk got too
technical. Frankly, I prefer a little disagreement, as long as it's amicably
discussed and the beer is good. You learn more that way.
I suppose it's too much to hope for that we could just put the whole
digital/film thing to bed and say "to each his own." That's not how humanity
works. I've reached a point where I actually prefer digital, even though I
still have a 4x5 and all the accoutrements lying around here somewhere. I keep
saying I'm going back out with it, but I know I probably never will. I'm glad I
had it. I'm glad I used it as much as I did. It taught me things I never would
have learned otherwise. I highly recommend anyone with the time and inclination
to do a little large format work. Heading out in the morning with six sheets of
film instead of 100 Gbs of CF card space can teach you the meaning of economy.
And planning. And figuring out just what in the hell you really want to take
pictures of.
Truth is, I'm still working on that last one. I know what I'm attracted to, and
I know what I can shoot well, but lupines, lighthouses and lobster boats are
starting to wear a little thin now and I'm not sure exactly where I'm going.
But it's a hell of a lot of fun wandering across the white spaces on the map.
(I'm thinking of fine-art nudes next. My printing skills ought to serve me well
there. <g>)
I think if John got a thump in his heart when he looked at film scans, he ought
to go with it as hard and fast as he can. Don't let those ah-ha! moments
languish. When you get that kind of reaction, there's usually a reason. I'm
sorry I made light of it by talking about shooting similar shot with digital
and having a shootout with printers. There's a lot of work between scanning a
piece of film and producing a finished print, but then what else do we have to
do? Why else are we here? Besides, don't tell anyone I said this, but I think
it's the process that's most important. The product of the process is just a
bonus we get to hang on the wall.
Again, thanks to Moose and Ken for the nice words about my work. And just for
the record, those of you within driving distance might want to load up your
checkbooks and credit cards and head up to Round Pond. If the word gets out
there's a guy who does work that stands up beside the f64 Group, this might be
your last chance at some real bargains. <wink>
Peace!
--Bob
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|