Nikon D2X: Dave Black's Indoor Sports Photography Workshop

"Walt Hanks" wrote in message
...

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...

He discredits himself right away by saying goofy **** like, "For sometime
now I have wanted my images to enter the fine art print gallery market
place
and I believe that the Nikon D2X will enable me to do so with
confidence."
I mean, c'mon, fine art has been produced with film for over 100 years.
It's not like anyone needs to be waiting on the latest generation of
digital
camera. Same goes for his statement that the camera would allow him to
take
on bigger/better jobs. I've no doubt that digital makes some jobs
easier,
but I don't know of a single job that can be done with digital that
couldn't
have been done with film. This guy's talking out his arse right from the
get go.

--

As much as I like Nikon, I have to agree. This review was poor, to say
the least. If you read his client list, Nikon is down several times. He
is an instructor for them, as well as providing images for them. And the
inability to see any image at any size bigger than a thumbnail makes the
whole exercise useless.

Walt


Whaddya mean "useless"???
I think the images served his purpose admirably. I interpreted his purpose
as to express his opinion in prose with snippets of images to help those of
us reading come to grasp what he felt about the D2X.
For gearheads, or those more interested in arguing hypotheses instead of
coming from personal experience, as he appears to be, nothing will ever
suffice.
Because, don't you know, the arguments could then stop.
Bob

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
Matt Clara wrote:

Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or just
adding
some comments of your own.

I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting) that
"fine art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I
apologize.]

It certainly is the current medium of choice, but with digital cameras
getting better, printers, papers and inks getting better and the software
in between getting better, I don't believe that the
fine-art-photos-are-from-film argument holds anymore.

Fine. And so, a fine art digital image can be fine art photography period
if they find that kind of a client. Your statement seems to imply that as
its been 100 years or so on film, thus it must remain.


You might as well say I'm indicating that fine art has _only_ been created
with film, and that's just as goofy as the review I'm ripping up on, and
clearly not what I was trying to say. Frankly, that's how you argue.
Strawman.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com



"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..

Matt Clara wrote:



He discredits himself right away by saying goofy **** like, "For

sometime

now I have wanted my images to enter the fine art print gallery market

place

and I believe that the Nikon D2X will enable me to do so with

confidence."

I mean, c'mon, fine art has been produced with film for over 100 years.

What was fine art produced with before film?

As previously discussed, art is not bound by the medium.


I believe that's my point, but I kept it to the realm of photographic
images, as that's really what's being discussed.


Traditions will
remain, but new ground will be broken. If anyone has sold "fine art
photography" taken digitally, then that ground has been broken.


That's where you're just adding comments of your own, or you are implying
that I somehow indicated digital images can't be fine art, which I did
not.

Then I misunderstood your "100 year" statement. Sorry.



shoot

ends and his participation ends there except for the mailing of the

invoice.

I believe that's the exception rather than the rule. Still you have a
point
that digital cameras offer a turn around in some niches where film simply
can't compete. I hear some sport shooters are having their images
uploaded,
edited and sent to production as the sporting event continues to unfold.
If
this guy is that kinda shooter, then I stand corrected. Hey, it's

As the fellow told the story, the shoot was booked for a full day and they
wrapped it by lunchtime. (All the models, clothes, designers, makeup
people, etc. were there so he just kept the pipeline full until the job
was done.) They were actually taken aback when he plopped the CD's into
their hands and said so long. (He showed these images and they were not
very complex by any means and all used the same lighting and there were
few props, so this made things go lickity split. The photos were pure
catalog).

possible--why else would you drop $5000 on a digital camera? Yet it's
obvious that for the greater part of the photographic jobs out there,
there's no need to wait on the latest greatest digital camera to get the
job
done, and to me that's what his statement seemed to imply. Hey, maybe
I'm
just ornery today... ;-)

Aren't we all.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Matt Clara wrote:

You might as well say I'm indicating that fine art has _only_ been created
with film, and that's just as goofy as the review I'm ripping up on, and
clearly not what I was trying to say. Frankly, that's how you argue.
Strawman.

It would behoove you to read my entire reply, not just the part that
grates on you.

Cheers,
Alabn


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
Matt Clara wrote:

Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or
just adding
some comments of your own.

I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting)
that "fine
art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I
apologize.]


Photography isn't art, cannot be art, let alone 'fine art'.

wrote:

Photography isn't art, cannot be art, let alone 'fine art'.


Only to a mindless drone like you.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

Matt Clara wrote:


Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or

just adding

some comments of your own.

I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting)

that "fine

art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I

apologize.]


Photography isn't art, cannot be art, let alone 'fine art'.

You're clueless Mikey.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

Matt Clara wrote:


Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or

just adding

some comments of your own.

I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting)

that "fine

art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I

apologize.]


Photography isn't art, cannot be art, let alone 'fine art'.

You're clueless Mikey.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

Matt Clara wrote:


Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or

just adding

some comments of your own.

I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting)

that "fine

art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I

apologize.]


Photography isn't art, cannot be art, let alone 'fine art'.

You're clueless Mikey.




Mikey isn't clueless, he just enjoys making silly statements to see what
reaction he gets. So far, he's the only true troll who resides outside of
my kill file, because I derive an equal enjoyment from seeing how stupid he
is willing to make himself look, just to get a rise out of the rest of us.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:33:25 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
Matt Clara wrote:

Fine. And so, a fine art digital image can be fine art photography period if
they find that kind of a client. Your statement seems to imply that as its been
100 years or so on film, thus it must remain.

A digital image will probably not be fine art for a long time to come.
A print made from an image captured with a digital camera could probably
be fine art, but not the digital image itself. Much in the same way a
negative is rarely sold as fine art.

I know it seem like a subtle distingtion, but it's one that most people
miss and one that annoys me. When people are talking digital vs. film
they are often really talking about inkjet printers vs darkrooms or
sensors vs scanners or something similar. Most people don't shoot
digital because they need data to fill their harddrives with much like
people don't shoot film simply because they want to fill a shoebox with
negatives.

Dag

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:33:25 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:
Matt Clara wrote:

Fine. And so, a fine art digital image can be fine art photography period if
they find that kind of a client. Your statement seems to imply that as its been
100 years or so on film, thus it must remain.

A digital image will probably not be fine art for a long time to come.
A print made from an image captured with a digital camera could probably
be fine art, but not the digital image itself. Much in the same way a
negative is rarely sold as fine art.

I know it seem like a subtle distingtion, but it's one that most people
miss and one that annoys me. When people are talking digital vs. film
they are often really talking about inkjet printers vs darkrooms or
sensors vs scanners or something similar. Most people don't shoot
digital because they need data to fill their harddrives with much like
people don't shoot film simply because they want to fill a shoebox with
negatives.

Dag