Ross and Vitali

[chris jordan]

Too bad neither of these guys uses their great big cameras to take photos that are worth a damn. For really gorgeous ULF work, check out Massimo Vitali-- a member of this forum. His 11x14" work is simply incredible; he raises the bar on all the best LF color photographers in the world. His new book published by Steidl (available on Amazon but sent to me by a dear friend in Italy) is the most beautiful color photographic book I have ever seen. For any photographic book collectors out there, this is a must.

And by the way, the newest LF digital scanning backs from BetterLight (www.betterlight.com), when used along with the bitchin panning panoramic feature (which laces together multiple exposures), can produce digital images that will be WAYYY higher resolution than anything from a 9x18 camera. Check out their website and zoom in on the little detail of the Golden Gate Bridge, and see if that doesn't make you say "whoa," nonchalantly like Keanu Reeves in The Matrix when that other guy jumped over to the other building.

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Bruce E. Rathbun]

Chris,
Does Massimo Vitali have a web site? I shoot 11x14 B+W and would be interested in seeing his work. Thanks.

-Bruce

[Oren Grad]

Bruce -

Here's a sample:


http://www.consarc-ch.com/galle/vitali2.html

[Christian Olivet]

Chris, please tell me how is his work amazing. I have never seen color prints more washed out than those I have just seen on the monitor. I really hope it is a monitor thing.

[JohanHB]

...I'm with Christian

[Tony_5130]

Never mind the washed out print, where's the content?

[paulr]

On Massimo Vital's work, why are people jumping on him based on looking at a few pics on a website?
I'm not sure he "raises the bar" for color large format work ... I think I'd still spend more time with Stephen Shore's or Mike Smith's work ... but the few pictures I saw on that site were very, very good. Certainly more subtlety and depth than I see in the camera club type images shown by most people who call themselves "large format photographers."
Other than that, I'm not going to judge someone's printing abilities, color or otherwise, from a website.

[Frank Petronio]

If I only saw a few 200-pixel wide jpgs of Eggleston's or Shore's pictures, I'd think they suck too. This is probably a failure of website design and not making the images big enough. Because they fear somebody will steal a properly sized 700-pixel wide image, they put up tiny 200 pixel wide images that are worthless.

[chris jordan]

Massimo's book is on sale at Amazon. It is simply amazing; anyone who is interested in color photography should have this one. I've been a big fan of Stephen Shore for years also, along with Misrach, Sternfeld, Gursky, etc. In my opinion this book raises the bar on them all.

For the guys who don't "get" his images, I understand the reaction. What I do when I don't get someone's work is to give it another chance; try a little harder. All good art requires some patience and some affirmative effort on the part of the viewer; the reason it is good is that it pushes a boundary somewhere, and in the pushing of the boundary, it causes you to see something in a way you haven't seen before, which is not always easy or comfortable. Some people's work is simple and sugary and you get it instantly; the work of some others is more sophisticated and requires some sitting through until you get the more complex message. Massimo's is in the latter category. Be willing to have some some faith in all the people who think he is one of the world's great photographers; consider the possibility that they are seeing something that is worth seeing, and so try working harder at discovering what it is. With his work it doesn't take long, especially when you are looking at his incredible book. I can't comment on how his JPEG's look on uncalibrated laptop monitors, but considering that his originals are 11x14 (and in some instances three 11x14's side by side) and his prints are 6x7 feet, it's probably fair to say that 24k JPEG's don't do them justice.

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Why is it that every time a photographer makes an onrdinary picture of an ordinary subject and prints it big we are told it is great and we just dont "get" it?

When I view a print on a monitor I give the photographer the benefit of the doubt and preffer to think of the prints as perfectly printed. In this case, I am thinking the prints have incredible subtle tonalities not apparent on the monitor. That the colors are in some parts vibrant and striking and in some parts are incredibly subtle pastels with gorgeous detail. Even so, I dont want to see 6'x7' vacation shots.
As one magazine editor told me, being a technically exceptional printer does not make you a photographer.

I dont get this idea that just because the print is big and technically well printed it is a "great" picture. Nor do I buy the idea that just because it was done with a big camera and was perhaps a difficult shot that it is good.

As far as I can see, these are not very hard shots to make even with an 11x14. Slap a 400 speed color film, focus on far subjects so you dont have to use extreme DOF and you are capable of using very fast speeds, specially in sunny weather...I know, I do it all the time with my 12x20.

Most confusing to me is this notion that one has to "work" at "getting" some art.....is there really something speciall in this prints? or is it just the case that because these prints are huge people are refusing to see that the king is really naked?......IMO it is the latter....