Erwin Puts On Modern Kit Lenses

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message

This is where I disagree with Erwin. One could indeed use a D-SLR to "take
pictures". Just because the image could be manipulated or adjusted in a
computer does not mean it needs to be done that way. The approach to
imaging could be exactly the same using both technologies.


That scenario may be a bit of an exception. One of digital's advantages is
that the photographer can manipulate the image in ways that were previously
unavailable. I think Puts was making the case that the use of the digital
camera was only one step in a longer workflow chain, as opposed to analog
slide film images, where the camera was the only step ("making images vs.
taking pictures).

Digital involves a different mindset. Puts makes the argument that it is
precisely that difference in mindset and workflow that will keep film
photography alive.

Personally, I am put off at the prospect of shelling out money every 2-3
years to replace equipment and lenses that have been eclipsed by more
up-to-date replacements. But, regardless of what position one takes, at
least Puts adds depth to the debate. I'm tired of the same old "Film vs.
Digital" debates. We can all recite the advantages and disadvantages of
each style, while in our sleep.

"Jeremy" wrote:

I'm tired of the same old "Film vs. Digital" debates. We
can all recite the advantages and disadvantages of each
style, while in our sleep.

Amen to that...

It's one reason the ranks of film users have thinned out here and moved
elsewhere. After several years of online presence APUG is still adding
hundreds of new users per month. (Not directed at you. I know you already
know this.)

Ken

Jeremy wrote:
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message

This is where I disagree with Erwin. One could indeed use a D-SLR to "take
pictures". Just because the image could be manipulated or adjusted in a
computer does not mean it needs to be done that way. The approach to
imaging could be exactly the same using both technologies.



That scenario may be a bit of an exception. One of digital's advantages is
that the photographer can manipulate the image in ways that were previously
unavailable. I think Puts was making the case that the use of the digital
camera was only one step in a longer workflow chain, as opposed to analog
slide film images, where the camera was the only step ("making images vs.
taking pictures).



That is to me more illustration or design than photography. Take a look
in my design portfolio, and you will see an image of a poster of a band.
A few of the heads were removed, and shirt collars put in place of the
missing heads. The original image was on a Kodachrome, then drum
scanned, then into PhotoShop for the changes. While it started on
Kodachrome, I consider that image as photo-illustration (or design)
because it is altered. My drawing skills made it work more than my
knowledge of PhotoShop. It should be noted there is not yet a "Remove
Heads" Filter in PhotoShop, though maybe in one of the future releases. ;-)



Digital involves a different mindset. Puts makes the argument that it is
precisely that difference in mindset and workflow that will keep film
photography alive.



I saw similar comments from a few other published sources, one of those
the designer of the Nikon F6. He stated something to the effect of film
photographers having "respect for the image". Unfortunately, without
reposting that entire interview, the implied message in that will likely
be lost on some here.


Personally, I am put off at the prospect of shelling out money every 2-3
years to replace equipment and lenses that have been eclipsed by more
up-to-date replacements. But, regardless of what position one takes, at
least Puts adds depth to the debate. I'm tired of the same old "Film vs.
Digital" debates. We can all recite the advantages and disadvantages of
each style, while in our sleep.



Well stated. I find it interesting that when an advertising agency or
art buyer reviews a portfolio, it is extremely rare that they ask how
the images were created. The contrast of that might be many amateur and
enthusiast photographers who state or list all their gear on their websites.

I always have the approach that I am providing a service and creative
solutions, rather than attempting to be a gear rental outlet. While I
have used specific gear at clients requests, those are the rare exceptions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
\


I always have the approach that I am providing a service and creative
solutions, rather than attempting to be a gear rental outlet. While I have
used specific gear at clients requests, those are the rare exceptions.



You make your living from creating images, and one would expect that people
in your position would be oriented more toward image creation than "taking
pictures."

I have an entirely different orientation, for what I believe are perfectly
valid reasons. I am an amateur. I shoot for my own pleasure. I work in an
industry that is totally unconnected with photography, art or design. When
I shoot, it is not because I am on assignment, or because I must try to
please an editor or because I am hoping to add to my stock of photographic
images in the hope of future sales.

And, after over 2 decades of being in denial, I now have come to grips with
the fact that I am no artist and never was one. My particular skill set
lies in other directions. That is how I was "wired." So I no longer try to
create images that consist of what I sometimes mockingly refer to as
"interesting shapes and colors."

Instead I utilize photography as a tool to preserve historic images of
things that are in a state of change. I shoot lots of areas that are
undergoing urban renewal. Like trolley car routes that are being replaced
by busses. Last year I did a series of shots of those bright red fire call
boxes that were mounted on poles throughout my home town, and that were
being decommissioned after 100 years, because now people can call the Fire
Department on their cell phones. I am currently working on a project of
creating photos of a group of municipal buildings that are scheduled to be
torn down to make way for luxury condos. The municipality has purchased a
large parcel of land and is now building all new Police and Fire
headquarters, municipal services buildings, a high school and other
facilities. In two years, none of the current buildings will remain.
Nobody else has even thought of saving images of those scenes.

There are places all across America that have never been photographed. I
got my inspiration for this work from seeing a series of books from Arcadia
Press called "Images of America," with each book featuring one town or one
neighborhood of a large city. When I saw the book on my own home town, with
photographs and paintings of places that were familiar to me--some of which
went back many decades--I became hooked. I was fascinated by seeing how
places used to look--places that I grew up in.

So for me the key word is "Realism." I do not want to manipulate an image
in any way. I want it to look just as it did when I snapped the shutter.
That means no attempt to use angles that flatter the location, such as
avoiding litter on the street or buildings in decay. I use the normal lens
almost exclusively, because I want to minimize the effects of apparent
perspective distortion. Perhaps I'm being overly flattering in my
estimation of the value of my work, but I do believe that my images will
have a great deal of historical value many decades from now. Too bad I
won't be around to find out for sure.

Manipulated images don't offer any spark for me. In fact, I find many
advertising shots to be boring, even though they may have been created using
cutting-edge techniques. But I could spend hours at flea markets going
through boxes of old photos. Looking at the clothing people wore, the cars
they drove, the buildings they worked in, the old street signs, the old
uniforms.

I spend many hours with the National Geographic CD collection--the one that
has every magazine they ever published. The old ads are fascinating. Some
people may find this all boring, but I am mesmerized by that stuff.

Given the type of slow (some might say "plodding"), intuitive kind of
photographer that I am (I routinely use tripods, lens hoods, cable
releases), the kind that takes several minutes to set up the shot, the kind
that goes to some pains to be sure that the horizon is perfectly level in
the viewfinder, the kind that brackets--can you see how, when someone posts
that I ought to get with the times and use equipment that will let me take
400 shots per session--that I just look back and say, "So what?"

Even on my digital camera I usually shoot while on a tripod, and I use the
camera's remote control as a cable release. If I shoot 80 images in one
day, that is a lot. I am just not oriented toward taking tons of shots, and
hoping that a few of them will be keepers.

Over the past two years I "updated" my equipment and have added 4 Pentax "P"
Series bodies and a couple of normal lenses from the "A" series--twenty
years old, and for me it is a big update! I probably should do large-format
photography, but I don't like the idea of lugging that equipment around, and
of paying a lot for a single shot. So I continue to use 35mm, but I operate
my equipment more like it was 4x5 than 35mm. The stuff I photograph isn't
moving. And I don't have to meet a deadline by which the images must be
ready for publication or broadcast. I can wait a few days to get my slides
or prints back.

I'll leave it to others to make images of "Interesting Shapes And Colors."

"Jeremy" wrote in message
news:ZB2lg.1022$DI2.17@trnddc05...
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
\


I always have the approach that I am providing a service and creative
solutions, rather than attempting to be a gear rental outlet. While I
have used specific gear at clients requests, those are the rare
exceptions.



You make your living from creating images, and one would expect that
people in your position would be oriented more toward image creation than
"taking pictures."

I have an entirely different orientation, for what I believe are perfectly
valid reasons. I am an amateur. I shoot for my own pleasure. I work in
an industry that is totally unconnected with photography, art or design.
When I shoot, it is not because I am on assignment, or because I must try
to please an editor or because I am hoping to add to my stock of
photographic images in the hope of future sales.

And, after over 2 decades of being in denial, I now have come to grips
with the fact that I am no artist and never was one. My particular skill
set lies in other directions. That is how I was "wired." So I no longer
try to create images that consist of what I sometimes mockingly refer to
as "interesting shapes and colors."

Instead I utilize photography as a tool to preserve historic images of
things that are in a state of change. I shoot lots of areas that are
undergoing urban renewal. Like trolley car routes that are being replaced
by busses. Last year I did a series of shots of those bright red fire
call boxes that were mounted on poles throughout my home town, and that
were being decommissioned after 100 years, because now people can call the
Fire Department on their cell phones. I am currently working on a project
of creating photos of a group of municipal buildings that are scheduled to
be torn down to make way for luxury condos. The municipality has
purchased a large parcel of land and is now building all new Police and
Fire headquarters, municipal services buildings, a high school and other
facilities. In two years, none of the current buildings will remain.
Nobody else has even thought of saving images of those scenes.

There are places all across America that have never been photographed. I
got my inspiration for this work from seeing a series of books from
Arcadia Press called "Images of America," with each book featuring one
town or one neighborhood of a large city. When I saw the book on my own
home town, with photographs and paintings of places that were familiar to
me--some of which went back many decades--I became hooked. I was
fascinated by seeing how places used to look--places that I grew up in.

So for me the key word is "Realism." I do not want to manipulate an image
in any way. I want it to look just as it did when I snapped the shutter.
That means no attempt to use angles that flatter the location, such as
avoiding litter on the street or buildings in decay. I use the normal
lens almost exclusively, because I want to minimize the effects of
apparent perspective distortion. Perhaps I'm being overly flattering in
my estimation of the value of my work, but I do believe that my images
will have a great deal of historical value many decades from now. Too bad
I won't be around to find out for sure.

Manipulated images don't offer any spark for me. In fact, I find many
advertising shots to be boring, even though they may have been created
using cutting-edge techniques. But I could spend hours at flea markets
going through boxes of old photos. Looking at the clothing people wore,
the cars they drove, the buildings they worked in, the old street signs,
the old uniforms.

I spend many hours with the National Geographic CD collection--the one
that has every magazine they ever published. The old ads are fascinating.
Some people may find this all boring, but I am mesmerized by that stuff.

Given the type of slow (some might say "plodding"), intuitive kind of
photographer that I am (I routinely use tripods, lens hoods, cable
releases), the kind that takes several minutes to set up the shot, the
kind that goes to some pains to be sure that the horizon is perfectly
level in the viewfinder, the kind that brackets--can you see how, when
someone posts that I ought to get with the times and use equipment that
will let me take 400 shots per session--that I just look back and say, "So
what?"

Even on my digital camera I usually shoot while on a tripod, and I use the
camera's remote control as a cable release. If I shoot 80 images in one
day, that is a lot. I am just not oriented toward taking tons of shots,
and hoping that a few of them will be keepers.

Over the past two years I "updated" my equipment and have added 4 Pentax
"P" Series bodies and a couple of normal lenses from the "A"
series--twenty years old, and for me it is a big update! I probably
should do large-format photography, but I don't like the idea of lugging
that equipment around, and of paying a lot for a single shot. So I
continue to use 35mm, but I operate my equipment more like it was 4x5 than
35mm. The stuff I photograph isn't moving. And I don't have to meet a
deadline by which the images must be ready for publication or broadcast.
I can wait a few days to get my slides or prints back.

I'll leave it to others to make images of "Interesting Shapes And Colors."

I do much the same thing, but I am not so careful. (read: - I am sloppier
than you are) But I take pictures for much the same reason as do you. I do
scan them and crop them sometimes, in Photoshop, if I see something
interesting in them. But there is nothing wrong with this....Realism is
"art" too......

Jeremy wrote:
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
\


I always have the approach that I am providing a service and creative
solutions, rather than attempting to be a gear rental outlet. While I have
used specific gear at clients requests, those are the rare exceptions.



You make your living from creating images, and one would expect that people
in your position would be oriented more toward image creation than "taking
pictures."

I have an entirely different orientation, for what I believe are perfectly
valid reasons. I am an amateur. I shoot for my own pleasure. I work in an
industry that is totally unconnected with photography, art or design. When
I shoot, it is not because I am on assignment, or because I must try to
please an editor or because I am hoping to add to my stock of photographic
images in the hope of future sales.

And, after over 2 decades of being in denial, I now have come to grips with
the fact that I am no artist and never was one. My particular skill set
lies in other directions. That is how I was "wired." So I no longer try to
create images that consist of what I sometimes mockingly refer to as
"interesting shapes and colors."

Instead I utilize photography as a tool to preserve historic images of
things that are in a state of change. I shoot lots of areas that are
undergoing urban renewal. Like trolley car routes that are being replaced
by busses. Last year I did a series of shots of those bright red fire call
boxes that were mounted on poles throughout my home town, and that were
being decommissioned after 100 years, because now people can call the Fire
Department on their cell phones. I am currently working on a project of
creating photos of a group of municipal buildings that are scheduled to be
torn down to make way for luxury condos. The municipality has purchased a
large parcel of land and is now building all new Police and Fire
headquarters, municipal services buildings, a high school and other
facilities. In two years, none of the current buildings will remain.
Nobody else has even thought of saving images of those scenes.

There are places all across America that have never been photographed. I
got my inspiration for this work from seeing a series of books from Arcadia
Press called "Images of America," with each book featuring one town or one
neighborhood of a large city. When I saw the book on my own home town, with
photographs and paintings of places that were familiar to me--some of which
went back many decades--I became hooked. I was fascinated by seeing how
places used to look--places that I grew up in.

So for me the key word is "Realism." I do not want to manipulate an image
in any way. I want it to look just as it did when I snapped the shutter.
That means no attempt to use angles that flatter the location, such as
avoiding litter on the street or buildings in decay. I use the normal lens
almost exclusively, because I want to minimize the effects of apparent
perspective distortion. Perhaps I'm being overly flattering in my
estimation of the value of my work, but I do believe that my images will
have a great deal of historical value many decades from now. Too bad I
won't be around to find out for sure.

Manipulated images don't offer any spark for me. In fact, I find many
advertising shots to be boring, even though they may have been created using
cutting-edge techniques. But I could spend hours at flea markets going
through boxes of old photos. Looking at the clothing people wore, the cars
they drove, the buildings they worked in, the old street signs, the old
uniforms.

I spend many hours with the National Geographic CD collection--the one that
has every magazine they ever published. The old ads are fascinating. Some
people may find this all boring, but I am mesmerized by that stuff.

Given the type of slow (some might say "plodding"), intuitive kind of
photographer that I am (I routinely use tripods, lens hoods, cable
releases), the kind that takes several minutes to set up the shot, the kind
that goes to some pains to be sure that the horizon is perfectly level in
the viewfinder, the kind that brackets--can you see how, when someone posts
that I ought to get with the times and use equipment that will let me take
400 shots per session--that I just look back and say, "So what?"

Even on my digital camera I usually shoot while on a tripod, and I use the
camera's remote control as a cable release. If I shoot 80 images in one
day, that is a lot. I am just not oriented toward taking tons of shots, and
hoping that a few of them will be keepers.

Over the past two years I "updated" my equipment and have added 4 Pentax "P"
Series bodies and a couple of normal lenses from the "A" series--twenty
years old, and for me it is a big update! I probably should do large-format
photography, but I don't like the idea of lugging that equipment around, and
of paying a lot for a single shot. So I continue to use 35mm, but I operate
my equipment more like it was 4x5 than 35mm. The stuff I photograph isn't
moving. And I don't have to meet a deadline by which the images must be
ready for publication or broadcast. I can wait a few days to get my slides
or prints back.

I'll leave it to others to make images of "Interesting Shapes And Colors."

To all that you have said here I say right on. I also have the
National Geographic CD collection and love to look back at old photos
of either where I live or where I have visited.

As for you photos be of value you better start on that right now.
Things are not the same as 100 years ago where there were very few
photos. We have many billion a year now and unless you do something
yours will not stand out above the rest. My suggestion is to take the
very best photos around you town now and in 20 to 30 years contact the
local historical society and see if they are interesting in them. But
they better be well documented, particularly the date and place. And
be prepared that in 20 years from now you may find that they would
rather have digital files then negatives or prints.

For myself I am working with our club's (canoe club) historian and
getting her a bunch of photographs, for which she is delighted.

I am also trying to get very high-resolution photographs of our town.
I live in a tourist town and so there are about a million photos taken
of it every day. So if I want my photographs to be more then just a
few more out of of millions I need to get photos that others are not.
I also am photographing a lot of areas others are not, the vacant lots
and farmer's fields that will all too soon be gone.

Don't make the mistake that because historians are interested in a
given type of photo from 100 year ago that they will be at all
interesting 100 years from now in the same type of photo taken today.

Scott

Recording history is a very valid and noble use of photography. I had
once thought of being a photojournalist, though unfortunately in my path
through college it became evident that it was an extremely tough career
path with a questionable future. Not to state that creative imaging is
better, or not difficult, but the large conglomeration of news
organizations has somewhat diminished photojournalism.

Your imaging of buildings and changes can be a significant reminder of
history. I applaud your efforts.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com