Is it just me?

[George Kara]

Or is this gentlemen Michael Reichman who owns Luminous landscape, one of the less accomplished professional photographers? He may really know his digital cameras and techie stuff but can't seem to pull out a decent photo from all those expensive high-tech silicon chips.

Even the photo that was intended to be provocative with the name of "lolita" is anything but sexual. It is, in fact, a dreadful photo that is not alluring. For another example look at the home page landscape photo for today (5/18/07) and you will see what Im talking about.

It must be easier to get a name when you have all kinds of money to buy the newest digital backs etc.

About every photo I have ever seen posted on the LF forum is FAR superior both technically and in content to anything that I have seen of his.

I'm not just slamming him, I have never spoken or exchanged a single word with Mr. Reichman and Im sure he is a nice enough fellow. I just dont understand how he has become such a name on the web without any obvious photographic skills?

George

[tim atherton]

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that he made a whole bunch of money somewhere and then decided to turn his hobby into his full-time passion

so essentially the whole Luminous Landscape site, gear and his projects etc are self funded because it's what he enjoys doing

He has the time and money to do it, so he does. I'd probably do the same if I won the lottery...

but the whole Lolita thing did seem to smack of a certain disengenius naivety

http://www.hidinginplainsight.mobi/2007/05/clueless.html

[Marko]

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that he made a whole bunch of money somewhere and then decided to turn his hobby into his full-time passion

so essentially the whole Luminous Landscape site, gear and his projects etc are self funded because it's what he enjoys doing

He has the time and money to do it, so he does. I'd probably do the same if I won the lottery...

I still can't decide what made him such a high profile target by those who lack either his financial or his technological savvy or both - his fascination with digital or the fact that he actually earned his money and even more so that he earned enough to devote his time to his hobby.

If nothing else, he finances and runs his own site to enjoy and promote his own photography. He does not use it to denigrate others, or at least I've never seen him do so. He clearly doesn't need to pander to the peanut gallery.

Many of those who have nothing better to do with their time than to concern themselves with the quality of his photos and political correctness of his writings don't seem to even have a website, much less have something to show on it...

[Bill_1856]

IMO his images are, in general, much better than "average." Paul Strand he ain't -- but then who among us is? Can you name anyone else who does better color landscapes? Okay, there's David Munech and Chris Burkett, maybe even Fatili, but there ain't many others out there working in the briar patch!

[George Kara]

Marko, Im not sure if your posts are veiled comments to my posting so I will assume they are not.

If a person has a website and heavily promotes it, than it is most certainly fair to make comments on it. "He clearly doesn't need to pander to the peanut gallery." I personally have alot of respect for the viewing audience and dont consider their opinions as peanuts.

If you hold yourself out to be an expert than it is reasonable to be treated as such.

As Ive said, he may be a great guy and Im glad he's having a good time. His photography however is in my opinion average at best. Shall I explain why? OK

Predictable composition, limited use of depth of field - either shallow or deep, limited connection with the subject/object. Looking at the photos from the amazon trip did not send me any vibe or sense of the humid, spooky, dangerous, snake infested, canoe log, howling monkey, viscous ardvark, blistering misquito infested decaying place that is the amazon. What do you think?

To use an example, look at todays photo. The composition is in the shape of an L. This shape arrests eye movement throughout the image. You have to force yourself to look at the upper right portion of the image. The most interesting part of this scene may be the subtle variations in the background. The low contrast abstract shapes within the background are lost by the extremely high contrast of the not very interesting middle ground plant. There is no foreground. Compare this to the compositional daring of who I consider as the greatest master of compostion, Tintoretto or many of Sally Manns on the edge ready to fall apart fantastic compositions.

Bill, regarding color vs black and white. To me this isnt an important distinction. If the landscape demands color than use it. If it demands black and white, use it. To repeat, there are numerous photos by the participants here on the LF forum that are absolutely some of the finest photos every shot. Who cares whether the photog is famous, a pro, a novice, gay, lesbian, transexual or blind. Greatness is what it is and has nothing to do with your name.

Perhaps this sounds harsh but believe me, its nothing compared the beating I put myself through everyday Im painting.

[Frank Petronio]

Well as long as he is working up to his potential I think we should give him a social promotion. When I see the photos or the graphic design or the silly writing I might cringe, but he does do some decent "real world" product news and has a few shortcut gems in his digital techniques section. It's like the Lounge on this forum -- don't visit if you don't like it.

[Kevin M Bourque]

Reichman is a regular target for ridicule and I'm not sure why. His site is a pretty good resource. Where he has biases, he's pretty up front about them (being a "shill" for Canon, for instance).

I rather like some of his photos. They're not all great, but neither are mine.

[Marko]

George,

If it were aimed at you, you'd know it, trust me. :) Speaking obliquely is definitely not my strength, generally speaking.

Reichmann's artistic value may be arguable, but there seems to be much more than that - he's been one of the early adopters of digital, in large part due to his financial abilities, and he became one of its first and most outspoken promoters on the Web.

It is very obvious that some people do not like that and are using every possible opportunity to attack him or anybody associated with him in any way, such as Allan Briot.

One of the side effects, just like with any ideologically based campaign, is that rational discussion becomes very difficult at best.

[Kirk Gittings]

Photography is a pretty big tent. Amen.

Reichmann has created an "every man's" photo web hub, defined by real world reviews, a knowledgeable forum and accessible imagery. Strand? No. Sontag? Hardly. But it is the best source for digital capture on the web with a non elitist aesthetic that for many is attractive and attainable.

[Marko]

Well said, Kirk.

[Ken Lee]

I hope we all get the chance to do what we love some day.

If not, it's nice to know that someone has the good fortune.

[Bill_1856]

George, your critique sounds like it could come straight out of PSA guidelines for Camera Club Contest Judging. Great color landscape photographs (if there such things) are a lot more than B&W images with color.

[George Kara]

Hi Bill

Funny, who is PSA and do you pay to have them judge?

[Chris Strobel]

IMO his images are, in general, much better than "average." Paul Strand he ain't -- but then who among us is? Can you name anyone else who does better color landscapes? Okay, there's David Munech and Chris Burkett, maybe even Fatili, but there ain't many others out there working in the briar patch!


Actually, spending some time surfing photo.net will reveal some amateur talent on par with these stated artist I've found.Check out this weekend warrior and his Canon 20d

http://www.photo.net/photos/eff

[Rory_5244]

Wow. One great 'weekend warrior'.

[Mark Sawyer]

I don't think he promotes himself much as a creative photographer, but more as a technical expert of the "Popular Photography" ilk. However, some of his technical pronouncements are just plain wrong, such as his insistance that focal length doesn't really affect depth of field:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

[JW Dewdney]

I really don't think this is anything new. maybe the whole issue could be sidestepped if such people just didn't publish any attempted work - until they get a better hang of it from the aesthetic side. The granddaddy of all such examples, to my mind, would be Bob Shell, the part time editor of shutterbug.... I doubt you'd find persons with so little grasp on the medium anywhere.

I DO think George's point is a valid one, however. I think that if you're going to be discussing equipment - and foisting your opinions on others - it should be demonstrated that you have a good aesthetic grasp as well... otherwise, I don't think one would have the right 'perspective' on the whole equipment game anyway. Again - that's just my opinion. But you tend to find a lot of hacks playing with the most expensive toys...

[Duane Polcou]

Can you name anyone else who does better color landscapes?

Gary Ladd, Tom Till, Carr Clifton, LeRoy DeJolie, Charles Kramer, William Neill, Kennan Ward, David Petit, Larry Ulrich, Pat O'Hara, Joe Cornish, Jack Dykinga, Kathleen Cook,
Nathan Farb, Joel Meyerowitz.

[bobc]

I concur with Mark Sawyer: He promotes himself as a technical expert.

I haven't been to the Luminous site for several years but for a different reason. I had been heavily using his site as a resource for new purchases and then realized that I couldn't keep up. I would buy something and shortly afterwards Reichmann would announce something new and better and discard/point out the flaws of what I had just purchased. He sets a very good example of crazed consumerism and the search for the golden bullet by throwing money at new equipment.

I was also put off by the all too frequent name dropping and the regular appearance of the statement: "My last article has evidently caused quite a bit of discussion around the Internet." I don't know why this irks me but I've decided that it's not worth the energy to figure out whay and I just avoid the site.

[George Kara]

I have no criticism of his website or other business/hobby practices. I was purely discussing his skill as a photographer. It really is like a lounge for the well-heeled doctor set who buy the newest cameras like they buy the newest Mercedes - wait a minute - like they LEASE the newest Mercedes.

The site is reasonably well organized and is friendly towards digital enthusiasts.

What would be good is a website that discusses the two year + old digital products in the context of todays market place. Often, after a product has been updated, the discussion stops on previous version.

[Brian C. Miller]

Sontag?

Yeah, Sontag? :confused:

What did Susan Sontag photograph? All she did was write a weird book that really had nothing to do with photography. She's regarded an an "intellectual," to wit, she produces nothing and shoots her mouth off about everything.

At least Michael Reichmann actually photographs.

(Personally, I prefer reading books is by Bill Jay, with a couple co-written with David Hurn. Both are photographers and speak knowledgeably about photography.)

[Rider]

"his insistance that focal length doesn't really affect depth of field" is correct, last I checked. In the small format world, only magnification and f-stop affect depth of field. Or do the rules change with large format?

[tim atherton]

Yeah, Sontag? :confused:

What did Susan Sontag photograph? All she did was write a weird book that really had nothing to do with photography. She's regarded an an "intellectual," to wit, she produces nothing and shoots her mouth off about everything.

At least Michael Reichmann actually photographs.

(Personally, I prefer reading books is by Bill Jay, with a couple co-written with David Hurn. Both are photographers and speak knowledgeably about photography.)

:confused: only photographers are allowed to write about photography? :confused:


Can you name anyone else who does better color landscapes?

almost anyone who can click a shutter... :)

[Rory_5244]

If Michael's pictures looked better I might have bought a digital camera a long time ago.

[JW Dewdney]

Yeah, Sontag? :confused:

What did Susan Sontag photograph? All she did was write a weird book that really had nothing to do with photography.

I can't think of a book which is more innately ABOUT the very ESSENCE of photography - even more so than anything ansel adams ever produced! May I ask you what on earth you're talking about?? It also seems her major interests about the medium are being tapped into... as seen on this site even (you know - the petzval thread... and the interest in 'retro' optics, etc...! may I suggest you read the wrong part of it..?? (like maybe the printing information next to the ISBN number or something?

[JW Dewdney]

What would be good is a website that discusses the two year + old digital products in the context of todays market place. Often, after a product has been updated, the discussion stops on previous version.

THAT is the sh*t to buy, if you're in need of digital gear. If you actually step back, you'll realize that the people who are paying TOP dollar - are actually doing so - PURELY for the need to feed their own egos. You can still do amazing, and at LEAST as good work (if not better, probably) than people with the very latest stuff.

[JW Dewdney]

That wasn't him who did the demo pictures of the Horseman SW612 on the luminous site, was it?? Those were absolutely DREADFUL..! I was a bit shocked...!

[amilne]

Yeah, Sontag? )


Yeah, I'd like to also point that out. There isn't a book more about photography. Have you even read the thing? Theres no way it could have been written by a photographer, it's just too good. A photographer attempting the same material would have a conflict of interest.
It's not technical, sure. But equiptment isn't photography it's... just go read the book. And if you already have read it again, this time with a dictionary on hand.

[Mark Sawyer]

"his insistance that focal length doesn't really affect depth of field" is correct, last I checked. In the small format world, only magnification and f-stop affect depth of field. Or do the rules change with large format?

The rules change with the focal length. As Jeff Conrad explains in his article "An Introduction to Depth of Field" on the large format home page, "The DoF depends on the CoC, the lens focal length, the object distance, and the lens f-number."

Shorter focal length lenses have more DoF at equivalent f/stops and distances. Photo 101.

[Brian C. Miller]

I can't think of a book which is more innately ABOUT the very ESSENCE of photography - even more so than anything ansel adams ever produced! May I ask you what on earth you're talking about??

Honestly, JW, I can't think of anything in that book that I would consider innate about photography. Inane, yes.

"To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed."

She goes on like that, applying it to people, as if you can own a person through a photograph. That people are violated when they are photographed. "...to photograph someone is a sublimated murder." Come on! Book goes back to library, and I will never buy a copy for my shelf.

I compare this to books by Bill Jay, of which I have a collection. I sincerely recommend Negative / Positive, On Looking at Photographs, and On Being a Photographer. "I have attempted to demonstrate that the ultimate goal of all photographers is to become great human beings and incidentally great photographers." (Negative / Positive, p.103)

Now, which to you aspire to: greatness or murder?

[JW Dewdney]

Brian - I think you're taking her sentiments as an attempt to establish fact. Don't take it so literally. You don't find there to be a 'memorial' aspect to, say, the typical B&W photograph?? That's all she's saying - she was just trying to probe more deeply into the medium. Specifically - she's saying that you're FORCING your memory of a given tableau (what you're photographing) into the past and therefore permanently destroying that 'moment' - the camera just forces you to be conscious of that fact. You could derive the same thing by staring at the second hand of a watch, obviously - but you wouldn't have the consciousness of the person or moment any longer. But the big irony she was also trying to point out is that the actual moment, in being memorialized, is also being created - according to the projections of the (photographer).

I'm guessing the thing you're having a hard time with is relating to her style of thinking/expression. I, for one, found the book incredibly interesting and to the point. It's brought a real depth to the way I see the medium - and my role in it. I can only guess that most people who dislike the book - pick it up because they're expecting it to be a 'stupid technical manual' such as the adams books...(??)

All this recent interest in using old lenses, with 'old lens bokeh' and aberrations seem, to me, like a direct reaction to EVERYTHING she tried to capture in that book. Just perhaps, not in the words that you might choose.

I should also mention that, to me, the quote you've provided doesn't mean much. It could be a good book for all I know... I'm not familiar with it. Giving the reader a little (fake) ego-boost maybe?? What are you supposed to do with THAT information?

[Rider]

"The DoF depends on the CoC, the lens focal length, the object distance, and the lens f-number."

Shorter focal length lenses have more DoF at equivalent f/stops and distances. Photo 101.

Yeah, but magnification for a given format is determined by focal length is determined by focal length and object distance.

Hence, Dof depends on: magnification and f-number.

I ain't no physicist, but that's what I've read.

[Brian C. Miller]

JW, part of Negative / Positive was reprinted in Lenswork magazine. I don't remember the issue number. Since the book is no longer in print, I recommend that you get that back issue, or else buy the book itself from a used book seller, or at least use inter-library loan to get a copy.

Negative / Positive (A Philosophy of Photography) isn't a technical manual by any means. It is about philosophy, and the value of idealism.

Jay references Abraham Maslow and Viktor Frankl. I have read for myself Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. One book that I found to be an excellent book for a photographer is Ray Bradbury's Zen in the Art of Writing: Essays on Creativity.

Negative / Positive
Table of contents:
The Failure of Photography
Naturalism vs Humanism
Humanism in Retreat
From Humanism to Heroism
The Mechanics of Purpose
The Viewer as Humanist
Conclusion


I have called this a philosophy of photography. It deals with ideals, the fundamental issues that I believe must be faced by every photographer in the medium. I have no stylistic axe to grind; greatness can be expressed in the wildest, most bizarre multi-media mix or in the simplest direct confrontation between mind, camera, and reality. It is not the appearance of the image that matters but the spirit that moves the individual mind. I have attempted to express a fraction of my thoughts in the simplest, clearest way I know how. It matters not a jot that phtographers reach different conclusions. The issues must be engaged. Photography is too important to leave it in the hands of photographers devoid of ideals.

If you don't want to investigate Jay's other books for yourself, that's your choice. The books are cheap and available from Lenswork and Amazon.

[RDKirk]

The rules change with the focal length. As Jeff Conrad explains in his article "An Introduction to Depth of Field" on the large format home page, "The DoF depends on the CoC, the lens focal length, the object distance, and the lens f-number."


Yeah, but magnification for a given format is determined by focal length is determined by focal length and object distance.

Hence, Dof depends on: magnification and f-number.

Folks, it's an equation of relativity that ends in a true/false response to the question of, "Will the human eye fail to resolve the blur circles in the final display image as distinct from true points?" If the answer is, "True," then the image is "sharp." If the answer is, "False," then the image is "unsharp."

Change any one factor--desired CoC (itself based on expected magnification and viewing distance of the final display image), focal length, distance, relative aperture (itself based on physical aperture and focal length), actual magnification to the final display image, actual viewing distance of the final display image--and you change all the relationships.

But if you change two factors complementarily, you can retain all the other relationships.

[Kirk Gittings]

[QUOTE=Brian C. Miller;243184]Yeah, Sontag? :confused:

You actually think that Michael Reichmann is a essayist on photography (or anyone else on LL) on the level of Susan Sontag. Really.

I went to school with Bill Jay (he was a gs in history of photo, I was merely an undergraduate in studio). Interesting guy, good writer, ok photographer, not on my short list of profound writers on photography.

[Merg Ross]

And he (Bill Jay) still owes me four issues of his defunct Album Magazine from 1970. I have been leery of start-ups, ever since subscribing to his efforts at marketing a good photography magazine, which it was. His writings, however, leave me amused but never enlightened.

[Doug Dolde]

The Eichmann saga continues....what a plick

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17034

[Roger Krueger]

But if you change two factors complementarily, you can retain all the other relationships.

Not true. If you change the focal length and the subject distance to maintain composition at the subject plane you change the DOF.

For many situations you make an unnoticable 0.000001% change. But if you are reasonably near the hyperfocal distance for the wider lens you can end up with a very large difference between a wide and tele. When you're actually at hyperfocal for the wide the difference is by definition infinite.

But hey, don't believe me, there are a ton of decent DOF calculators around, give it a try. Near hyperfocal=big difference. Significant distance from hyperfocal=very little difference.

In any event, that's not even the really egregious problem with the Reichmann DOF article in question. He compared subject space resolution, which has nothing-nothing-nothing to do with DOF. In fact, if you have the same subject-space resolution of items portrayed at different sizes on the film, you by definition have different resolution at the film, and thus different DOF.

He's made errors on film vs. digital comparisons too, where stupidity is a very charitable theory of what went on. Twice he's had film vs. digital comparisons where he shot a reduced-format back on a body, then shot film in the same body without recomposing, just cropping the film to the digital's format for the comparison.

An especially funny one was where he took a 4x5 and scanned at (and/or downsampled to) the same pixel count as a P45 back--well under 2000dpi for the film. He then used this to come to the conclusion that the P45 had as much resolution as 4x5 film. Gee, using that methodology I can beat 4x5 with a cell-cam.

The thing that makes this all really smell is that he admits that Phase One's VP of Marketing is a buddy and a shooting partner. Hello?!?! Don't pretend you're doing objective tests of a company's products when a senior executive is a personal friend. That's just slimey, even if you do fess up to it eventually.

[JW Dewdney]

Negative / Positive (A Philosophy of Photography) isn't a technical manual by any means. It is about philosophy, and the value of idealism.

It wasn't my intention to imply that it was. I was talking in relation to Sontag's book - not this one - at this point. I was just hypothesizing that most people don't expect to find what they find there.




If you don't want to investigate Jay's other books for yourself, that's your choice. The books are cheap and available from Lenswork and Amazon.

if it came out in the 70s... then I probably at least skimmed it. I've read or inspected just about everything the main library had on photography around 1980 (no joke! I'd be there every NIGHT for about three hours after school!). The title sure seems reminiscent of a book I've seen from that period. But there could have been others. Judging from everything I've seen/heard here - it really sounds like it's not quite my 'speed' or 'thing' but I'll certainly thumb through it if I come across it - so, thanks for the suggestion.

[Doug Dolde]

Another line of BS from Reichmann's latest article on the Seitz Roundshot :

"But I was fortunate in being able able to find a Hasselblad Flextight 343 scanner for $3,995 from Calumet. (It appears, alas, that Calumet has now sold the last of the US inventory of this scanner). A search of the web and some phone calls failed to turn up any remaining stock anywhere else.)

The 343 is essentially the same scanner as the Imacon Photo which I owned and sold some years ago, except that it has a Firewire interface and comes with updated software. At this price I didn't hesitate, since in essence I was getting the equivalent of my Imacon Photo back, but for a thousand dollars less that I had sold it for several years ago because of the SCSII limitation."

Why do I say it's BS? Because I bought that old battered Imacon Photo from him for $1500 a couple years ago. He clearly is not to be listened to regarding much of anything.

[Ted Harris]

Two points: 1) Just one more in an enending string of examples of slick websites that need to be thoroughly researched and evaluated before taking everything you find there as TRUTH. One of the very first things I tell my graduate students is that if they are going to use internet resources as references in researchpapers they need to carefully check the sites to see tehat the owner/writer/etc. really has some credentials that make them worth quoting.

2) Don't trash the entire site and everythign written on it just because the owner leaves something to be desired ... there is some useful material there.