The switch from a full MF kit to Prosumer DSLR, is it worth it?


Status
Not open for further replies.
mattlock said:
is the art behind photography the process or is the art behind photography the image?
Do you take the viewpoint of photography more as a film or more as a material like a fabric?
One watches a film and can tell whether it's good or not depending on whether it affects them through the story, and the quality of the film stock is secondary. Star Wars on its old film stock and graininess does not make it any less a great film
A great story on 16mm film or digital is still a great story, what material its printed on is a secondary issue (still important of course but secondary)

if you take the viewpoint of a fabric then that's understandable, silk feels much lovelier than satin, there are differences in texture and colour

The post production issues of photography are not the true process of photography, you can still go out there and take a beautiful photo using your old school techniques (the way digital filmmakers still have old school film production values)
Unless you live by Ansel Adams' rules, the art of photography is in much more than the material quality of a print.
Also note that photoshop does what film does but gives you more flexibility
you choose different films based on their curves, their contrast, their colour preferences (fuji goes greener kodak goes more yellow)
All photoshop does is give you much more flexibility in your ability to control these elements. You get more variables. it is a tool. as with any tool, it does not create the image but the person behind the tool creates it.
and if you don't have a unique vision in your work using either film or photoshop will do nothing for you
Darkroom techniques are also just tools, just like photography is a tool to get the image you want. Darkroom techniques for some photographers are what makes the image for them, for others it is the photography itself, and not the darkroom.......to me personally PS is also just a tool for my photoimages, which can be also the centerpoint, just like darkroom is for some imagemakers......just depends on the person, there are no fixed rules for all this......I know people who are drooling in front of a perfect print, but the image itself doesn't say much....the other way around also exists, in those cases I won't look at the printing techinque, I just look at the image and let i work on me (off course, better prinitng echniques may increase the image power, but as long as you are aware of that, you can see through it).

Hong Sien
 

Barret said:
Digital being digital there is less dynamic range than negs especially b&ws, so you really cannot expect very much out of a digital black and white, When i said very very good i meant visually appeling. After dark room techniques, dodging and burning, typically subtle shadows are loss.

but comparing a print from a slide to a print from the scanned slide, there is some loss od detail still.

But that could just be my scanner.

by the way instant digital is located at

60 Robinson Rd
01-00 OUB building
singapore 068892
Tel: 63230111

Very professional, but rather expensive for small prints, only large prints are worth it there, talking larger than S12Rs

they also do a good deal in seond hand dslrs, they sold off a 1Ds at 9k brand new and a kodak Pro N at 6 k, a few months ago. so they are good!

missed out on that pro N really, i went in just a few mins late!
Thanks! Will drop by today.........any ideas where to find a used Sinarback 54H/ Will also check with them......
 

Good Stuff, so we have established that if you are a hobbilist then sticking with film might be the way to go. especially so for MF cameras; for the learning curve and for the trill of photography in general.

Good Luck finding sinar back 54, how much is that anyway 8k? second hand
I remember seeing some on E-bay.

tell us how your trip to instant digital goes!
 

a 22megapixel back that costs $28000 US won'tbe 8k sadly....even second hand

I don't see many exhibitions using iris prints anymore here in new york..but I may be mistaken
I actually managed to grab 10 boxes of iris paper from a photographer who was moving out eeeehahahae
I have no idea what to do with it

anyway, material IS important to me
I like the feel of fiber vs RC paper, and the tonalities it gives
but it's also really easy to fall into the trap of the material quality of a work vs the point of a piece of work
there's a lot of work whose whole premise is based on an exploration of material itself, but that's an area I'm not too familiar with

the thing is, if I can take a picture that has something good to say or something worth thinking about, it'll still mean something, if I can print it well then it'll be even better
but if my picture is boring and has nothing interesting to say printing it well will just make it look prettier but there's no way you can salvage the content
(unless you stick a few naked women in there....in photoshop!that always works)
the art of photography and the craft of photography is really quite different...
I guess it depends on how you define a photographer then
well think about it!
 

Barret said:
Good Stuff, so we have established that if you are a hobbilist then sticking with film might be the way to go. especially so for MF cameras; for the learning curve and for the trill of photography in general.

Good Luck finding sinar back 54, how much is that anyway 8k? second hand
I remember seeing some on E-bay.

tell us how your trip to instant digital goes!
They didn't had used digitals at the moment......found several digital backs on eBay, but the prices.....found the Dicomed interesting (at eBay going for USD 1500-1975), but it is a scanback. Thinking about it, scans can take several minutes I think.....need it for architecture, so may be suitable. Anyone has experience using these Dicomed Fieldpro's? What is the typical scan time for outdoor in daylight?....they almost cover 4x5' which is very interesting for me!

Hong Sien
 

Several digital backs on eBay for USD 10500-20000.....these are for used current models. Just wait another year :-)

HS
 

Although scanbacks are cheaper i doubt they would be suitable for my useage. Even landscapes might look weird on those guys. I remember seeing some '6MP' old Digital backs on ebay for 8k a while ago.

So how do we really define a photographer? by the images he produces, his/her knowledge of the craft, or both? Maybe as long as the image produced has mass appel, one is considered as a real good photographer?

Iris prints are still favourable by advertising photographers and photomanipulators. I know Jeff schewe and John Paul Caprinegro favour them.

I was at anthony's collection today, even a massive film supported like him is moving to digital systems, like a D2h. Not even touching MF digital. maybe he has just played with film for the longest time and thinks he has made a statement about his workflow by now. No idea. Well, first time i have talked to him in a long long time!
 

anthony's collection ??
i tot he closed down and set up a studio instead ?
anyway,he is more of a camera collector than a photographer to me..
 

nah he moved to level 7 and started a studio there. alot of us thought he kinda closed down. Didn't see how he made anymoney with his orginal shop anyway.

I have seen some of his work, its okay really.

hes one sly sales man though
 

Barret said:
Although scanbacks are cheaper i doubt they would be suitable for my useage. Even landscapes might look weird on those guys. I remember seeing some '6MP' old Digital backs on ebay for 8k a while ago.

So how do we really define a photographer? by the images he produces, his/her knowledge of the craft, or both? Maybe as long as the image produced has mass appel, one is considered as a real good photographer?

Iris prints are still favourable by advertising photographers and photomanipulators. I know Jeff schewe and John Paul Caprinegro favour them.

I was at anthony's collection today, even a massive film supported like him is moving to digital systems, like a D2h. Not even touching MF digital. maybe he has just played with film for the longest time and thinks he has made a statement about his workflow by now. No idea. Well, first time i have talked to him in a long long time!
Think it all depends on peoples attitude towards photography. Here in Singapore and Asia in general, photography is not (yet) considered an art like painting, sculpture, dance......another aspect is that there are not many photo image collectors around, like in the US and Europe. I heard one guy in Singapore telling me that since photographs don't make much money, he is not going to collect them! So, art here must make money first, if it does, it is considered an art to be reckoned with......similar to the fact that expensive brands like Gucci, Rolex has to be expensive as it is an image that they are selling, not so much the content (no doubt they are good watches, but are they really ten times better than a Seiko?)......so does art depends on photo image buyers alone?

As for photography: if it is your work, then you need some craft in the first place as a basis,and it is up to you whether that can help you in getting the images done that your client wants.....in many cases it is also the client that restricts the photographer in what or how to take the image...in that sense it is up to the photographer to show/convince the client that your view is better.....personally, I find photography to be just a tool/techinque, learn the most of it, and use it to get what you want in the final product. But it is not the ultimate goal, it is just the road to your goal......one can harp so much about which camera to buy, or get the latest model, but in the end, is it going to change the way you see? You only support Nikon/Canon etc.....which is also good lah! (I have some Nikon shares).....

Hong Sien
 

another thing: for me, if I am happy with a certain image, then to me it is considered a good image.........but it may or may not be for another person. Anyway, certain photo's I make for myself and not for others, so its ok...if others like it, its a bonus....if you have to survive on photography then you obviously have to conform abit....although many artists expect the other way around.....some do show us a different point of view, which is good to think about...

This is to your question for mass appeal in pics?


Hong Sien
 

I have decided to stick onto MF.

Coming to Mass appeal in photography; I generally manage to take 2 types of photos, photos which appeal to everyone, and photos which appeal only to photographers. Judging from the reponses of my last few exhibitions, the photos which were highly saturated and insane contrast appealed to most people, but personally i found these images lacking in many aspects, technically highlights were blown and shadows were burnt and composition wise it wasn't exactly superb. But still most people liked it.

If a photo has mass appeal, maybe photographers like us should look at photography from a consumers approach, which is the target audience we will eventually shoot/exhibit for.

Unless we only shoot for our personal pleasure then perhaps its best to dwell into the technicalities of it all.
___
Photography should be about capturing moments rather than checking for highlight and shadow detail right? those are just extra perks. so in otherwords all special moments might inherantly make great photos.
___

I do agree that in singapore photography is not yet considered an art, but we have to take into consideration that photography as 'art' even overseas is very subjective. while the purist might argue that only silver prints enlarged through traditional dark room processes count as art. others would say that even archival inkjet prints count as art (epson 2000P ink which lasts 200 years).

What i have noticed in sinagpore is that it doesnt matter on the printing process or the development process. but what defines photos as works of art is the image its self.
typically its some abstract, weird, horrible(in my opinion) photos which actually get categorised as art. Maybe they tell a story maybe they evok emotions. i dont know, all i know is that the whole idea of art in singapore has been adulterated into something else.

I have long belived that art is in anything which would make a person happy once looked at and/or an image/work which can be intepreted differently by every single person.

Whats your take on it?
 

Barret said:
I have decided to stick onto MF.
Good on you!

Barret said:
What i have noticed in sinagpore is that it doesnt matter on the printing process or the development process. but what defines photos as works of art is the image its self.
typically its some abstract, weird, horrible(in my opinion) photos which actually get categorised as art. Maybe they tell a story maybe they evok emotions. i dont know, all i know is that the whole idea of art in singapore has been adulterated into something else.

I have long belived that art is in anything which would make a person happy once looked at and/or an image/work which can be intepreted differently by every single person.

Whats your take on it?
Agree on this too! I am not sure if it is only here in Singapore, but people tend to regard anything 'Art' as long as it is not conforming the majority......some in my eyes weird, not easy to understand images/performances are considered art....or anything weird is called 'art'......art apparently is very subjective isn't it? :-). But to me as long as the message/feeling is not transferred to the audience, it shouldn't be called art, since art should be about conveying a message, the artist has something to tell about the society, or whatever. If this doesn't come over, the artist has failed in my opinion.....or maybe the other way around, the audience/society failed to understand the artist ????? ...Anything is possible :-)

In a professional way: many artist had to work according to what the art director wants or what the clients wants, in that sense there is little freedom for the artist, one becomes a technician.....but then again, they bring bread and butter to your table......mostly, I prefer to look at an artist free work, not his/her commercial work.
 

Barret said:
...............If a photo has mass appeal, maybe photographers like us should look at photography from a consumers approach, which is the target audience we will eventually shoot/exhibit for................
Don't become a slave of the audience! Don't take pics for others, but for yourself first, you have to be happy with it.....also, develop your own style, I think this is important.....I haven't seen your pics (sorry about that, I didn't know there was an exhibition, I am in the middle of a moving house, and some shoots for my own portfolio)....BTW: here are some pics of mine, will make my own website when I have the time for it.

Angkor Wat:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=209954

Older pics taken in Europe:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=25167

Hong Sien
 

Barret said:
What i have noticed in sinagpore is that it doesnt matter on the printing process or the development process. but what defines photos as works of art is the image its self.
typically its some abstract, weird, horrible(in my opinion) photos which actually get categorised as art. Maybe they tell a story maybe they evok emotions. i dont know, all i know is that the whole idea of art in singapore has been adulterated into something else.
I noticed this too, and I believe this is because Singapore visual arts other than painting is rather young, and people tend to copy work fromother countries (especially the West). I have seen work from Chinese young photographers who are much more independent in this....just a matter of time...seen it in some video art....as longas it is weird, it can be called 'avant garde'''which apparently sounds 'cool'.........nothing against avant garde, but if you just mimick others, it is weak.........I grew up in Holland, there we are taught to be different, to develop your own style, think that's important.....but in order to learn the basics one needs to look at others work first, learn how they do it, and develop that further for yourself...it's getting late, going to sleep.........good night!

Hong Sien
 

uh oh this is going into an art topic again
heh heh
I don't think many artists think of what they're doing as art, rather they feel like they have something to say and it's for people to categorise it as art if they want. There's alot of bad work out there and pretentious work but that's to be expected, at least there's some good stuff among the sea of crap.
it's really funny talking about art where I am because my friends are involved in the fields of arts and the price of a person's work is never the way they judge the value of a person's work. we all know that the art collector market is an artifical construct, and if some matron who lives on the Upper East Side and has 10 servants decides to blow $100 000 on a Terry Richardson piece, that's her problem, that doesn't mean it's a better piece of art than a student's work

anyway take a look at Wolfgang Tilmans
his images seem really boring but there's a lot of thought going on
many times it's important to know the context and thought process the photographer is going through when making an image and then applying it to the image to try and see what the person sees, rather than expecting to understand it straight away. it's interesting that if you take the time to try to get into the artist's mind you get to learn something at least, seeing new things that you never noticed.
Juergen Teller's current campaign for Miu Miu and Terry Richardson in general might be fun to look at just to see what they think of the "technical" aspects of photography
http://www.terryrichardson.com/pictureoftheweek.html
direct flash, underexposed film, weird ass composition and subject matter, you name it.

And yeah gotta agree with Barret to a certain extent...shooting purposely to please an audience is a recipe for boredom
after all, the audience is usually stupid and doesn't know what they want, which explains the state of american television and cinema ;)
 

anyway I just was told something interesting about photography as a medium of art over here in the US
Ansel Adams was making thousands of prints of his famous piece Moonrise over (someplaceIcan'tremember) for like $50 a pop and selling it to anyone who wanted it
and an art dealer had to tell him to just make a museum collection of his images, and make no more pictures out of those negatives, and he did that, and the value of his work rose a lot

Photos in art galleries on sale are printed in editions of varying number, and then no more prints are supposed to be made from those negatives ever again
That's how value is created for photographs to be treated as "art"
Don't get hung up on what makes a piece "art", those terms are thrown about to create some sense of superiority. personally some of my favourite photographers are commercial photographers who aren't exhibited in art galleries but who I deem "artists" for what their images teach me and show me
 

mattlock said:
Ansel Adams was making thousands of prints of his famous piece Moonrise over (someplaceIcan'tremember)

I deem "artists" for what their images teach me and show me

1 I think the palce is called "Hernandez" (hope the spelling is correct)

2 I actually do not worry so much whether something is called art or not. What is more important to me is what as you said "teach and show".
 

From a person who have hasselblad, rollei, mamiya and LF. I manily shoot with my fuji s2 pro now.Why you might ask? Workflow, turn around time, creative possibles and no need to worry about mistakes with film (not eough of it, too many that they might expire, careless handing and archiving film is not a joyful thing.) For high resolution job I will stick to LF. Otherwise it is digital. Shoot as much as you can creatively without the burden of film cost and development cost.
 

singscott said:
From a person who have hasselblad, rollei, mamiya and LF. I manily shoot with my fuji s2 pro now.Why you might ask? Workflow, turn around time, creative possibles and no need to worry about mistakes with film (not eough of it, too many that they might expire, careless handing and archiving film is not a joyful thing.) For high resolution job I will stick to LF. Otherwise it is digital. Shoot as much as you can creatively without the burden of film cost and development cost.
This is true, but the dark side of digital is that you now have to do all the editing yourself, which previously was done by the printer.....good point is that one can show and discuss the result real-time with the client....
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top