Joe's work is nice. But he's no Christopher Burkett, let alone St. Ansel "In Colour".
I'll readily admit that I'm no Joe Holmes (nor would my wife claim I'm John Holmes eitherOriginally Posted by Michael Alpert
), but I see no reason to do something just because someone else is doing it. In fact, there's a small stack of Ilford full plate film waiting for me down at the local photo supplier. Take that! Joe. LOL!!!
Seems to ask? So let me make sure I understand this correctly: are you actually saying that somebody is exerting peer pressure on you by not specifically asking any particular question but simply by stating a fact you consider unpleasant and/or unwelcome?
Personally, the fact that my neighbour drives a Prius and the one next to him a hugely oversized all-terrain monstrosity with wheels taller than my garage door does not affect me the least bit in either way, I'm still very happy with my standard-issue SUV. If I thought their choice of car made me hear unspoken questions about mine, I think I'd be seriously worried, and I wouldn't blame them for that.
Hello Marko,Seems to ask? So let me make sure I understand this correctly: are you actually saying that somebody is exerting peer pressure on you by not specifically asking any particular question but simply by stating a fact you consider unpleasant and/or unwelcome?
Personally, the fact that my neighbour drives a Prius and the one next to him a hugely oversized all-terrain monstrosity with wheels taller than my garage door does not affect me the least bit in either way, I'm still very happy with my standard-issue SUV. If I thought their choice of car made me hear unspoken questions about mine, I think I'd be seriously worried, and I wouldn't blame them for that.
If you had read a bit further, you would have seen:
I will let your reading interpret whatever you want from that. I find nothing unpleasant about digital imaging; quite simply these are tools. Besides, if I did not like digital imaging, I would not be involved in my current line of work.
If you ever met me in person, or spoke to me in person, you would not have asked your question above. Does renting a Contax 645 and PhaseOne back, or using a Nikon D2X, D1X, D100, or Kodak DCS, or being a PhotoShop user since version 2.0 make me anti-digital? Somehow I wonder if that is the impression I give here?
Now if I am wrong about the reasoning behind other people submitting "So-and-So Goes Digital" types of postings on LF Forum, I will admit my error. Maybe it is simply a news release. Perhaps these posts are intended to mock or satyrize the individuals mentioned. Or some other reason for these types of posts?
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Last edited by Gordon Moat; 8-Feb-2007 at 15:54. Reason: corrections
Really, and it is just me, I could really care less who goes digital, I shoot film and I own a digital camera that gets used for work as well..
To each his own, it don't affect me...
I have no idea who Joe Holmes is, and I don't care what he does.
At a certain point increasing resolution on an image file in order to make larger and larger prints has little practical purpose or market unless one has very special customers in mind. To whom is one going to sell highly detailed 8x10 foot prints? Actually when I Lightjet print my 4x5 Provia transparencies images that have been Tango drum scanned, I limit the print file sizes to 30x38 inches because one needs to potential consider mat and framing limitations. Standard mat sheets are 32x40, 40x60, and 48x96 inches. The later are excessively expensive to both buy and ship unless one is a large framing shop with customers that actually require such mats. For my 30x38 inch prints a mat size with modest 5 inch sides would require a 40 by 48 inch sheet. Hence would be cut from a 40x60 inch sheet. Any more height and one would have to mount matless on a big Gatorfoam board with problematic archival issues of some ghastly overcoat spray. After a 2400 dpi drum scan, my output files are at the 120cm per dot output resolution that is near the visual limit for human viewing at close distances. Not a lot more one could squeeze out at that size.
Now there is some considerable improvement left to evolve with issues of image fidelity. What I'm talking about is being able to capture images as close to our eyes experience them and then be able to like print them out so. Although the best scanning backs with the best software and color management tools can deliver something that film has more difficulty with, that is not something that has dribbled down to the pro-consumer level. Heck on another serious internet photo site, I tossed out a thread not too long ago asking if anyone bothered to calibrate any of their high end digital cameras. Very few responded and those that did were hardly doing more than occasional white balancing. Thus none mentioned the pricy X-Rite spectrophotometer, Eye-One commercial software, with a 237 color patch Getag-McBeth chart that is really required to get that gear normalized. In fact most piped up essentially saying they could care less. Instead they were more interested in adjusted all the hard to figure complicated image controls to something that produced images that looked good with little regard to whether that reflected reality.
So now JH is spouting about the vast range of digital and how it somehow offers so much more. For who? Someone rich enough to toss $30 around with little care? As for the comments about him being the new color Ansel, well??? Lets just consider the source of that pronouncement. I'm sure JH knows he has some superior knowledge of many post production aspects of printing and gear knowledge but would more modestly assess his own body of work. Just perused his gallery again and don't see anything to change my former assessment. Personally I'm not a fan of overly saturated landscape work whether due to use of saturated films like Velvia or in post production contrast and saturation control happiness. Just my style and what I personally prefer. .
As for the stiching stuff, there are some that have gone far beyond what JH is doing:
http://www.xrez.com/index.html
But how is that going to freeze a passing cloud, be able to take a lake reflection, or stop an animal passing through one's frame?
..David
I hereby tender my apology for the irreverent comment about Joe Holmes without first viewing his gallery, which I have now done.
IMO he does, indeed, do excellent ANG color landscape work, but it's more like Eliot Porter material shot on Velvia than like Christopher Burkett or St. Ansel.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Just got done checking out JH site.Impressive work.But where are the stiched 5D images?Looks like all film work to me.The newest work He has there is an image made in 2003 unless I'm missing a link.
I went to look at his site. I'm not impressed, although I didn't get very far into it. His site seems to be as much about his political views as it does his photography, and since I don't happen to agree with much of his political views, I saw no reason to look around further.
Joe is first and foremost, a really nice guy. Secondly, he has forgotten more about color management than most of us here will ever know...
As respects his images, everybody is clearly entitled to their own opinions... That said, IMHO he does excellent work. I think most folks would be quite happy showing a portfolio comparable to his - check it out: http://www.josephholmes.com/gallery01.html
Cheers,
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks