Jack Dykinga: another one bites the d

[Miguel Curbelo]

This thread is becoming embarrassing.

[Frank Petronio]

Gee I dropped out about 3,893 screen inches ago. I can't believe you old ladies are still bickering and no longer even close to the original topic.

Meanwhile, Jack Dykinga has probably shot hundreds of excellent images, sold a few to big ad agencies, and totally overlooked this because, maybe, just maybe... he has a life?

[Henry Ambrose]

Gee I dropped out about 3,893 screen inches ago. I can't believe you old ladies are still bickering and no longer even close to the original topic.

Meanwhile, Jack Dykinga has probably shot hundreds of excellent images, sold a few to big ad agencies, and totally overlooked this because, maybe, just maybe... he has a life?

Heck, I didn't even read the whole thread. I just popped from first couple of pages to the end, recognized this for what it is and threw in my $.02. And it is embarrassing that we have yet another thread of this.

There's just nothing like walking up to a group at a party, interrupting their conversation and taking off on your own preferred subject. They'd look at you funny. Here we just have to use words. Otherwise we could roll our eyes and exchange knowing glances.

[D. Bryant]

Like moths to the flame ...

[Sideshow Bob]

Maybe we should also debate which is better, MAC or PC for working on digital images. :-)

Gale

[Jim collum]

"Them" ? One is only a photographer if one makes photographs, those using digital recording devices are welcome to use the nomenclature "Digital capturist". I have no problem with this term

Given that the paying public, museum curators, gallery owners and 99.999% of the photographing public know that digital cameras produce photographs.... I guess we'll let those using film still call what's being shot with film as a photograph as well (instead of 'analog' or 'chemical capture')


tongue-in-cheek (well.. mostly)



re: Frank...
ok.ok.. i got suckered in to the thread as well..
i guess, Frank, that unlike Jack D.. I don't quite have enough 'life' yet to distract me ... but i'm workin on it.

[Ed Kelsey]

I wonder if the glass plate photographers resisted film back in the days.

[Marko]

Maybe we should also debate which is better, MAC or PC for working on digital images. :-)

Gale

That largely depends on whether your small camera is a Canon or a Nikon...

[Greg Blank]

[QUOTE=Jim collum;563938]Given that the paying public, museum curators, gallery owners and 99.999% of the photographing public know that digital cameras produce photographs..../Quote]

Simply put, "so what".

[QUOTE=Jim collum;563938] guess we'll let those using film still call what's being shot with film as a photograph as well (instead of 'analog' or 'chemical capture')/Quote]

I am glad they have you as a spokesman I have no problems ID-ing traditional photography as "Analog".

[George Stewart]

Rest assured, another one has not bitten the dust. I shot with Jack on a 10-day Grand Canyon rafting trip back in September 2009. The only camera he brought was his Arca-Swiss, along with many boxes of Velvia Quickloads. He had indicated that he was already doing stitching with his D3 and Nikon TS lenses. Obviously not on that trip.

I was one of just a few photographers on that expedition that shot film (4x5 B&W) plus digital. Almost every one else including those that shot primarily LF, brought a DSLR only. Besides LF I brought a D3x and made my own stitched images. Almost immediately after seeing some of my D3x images, Jack sent me an email indicating that he was buying the D3x. He further indicated, after several emails about photography and Phase One's 60MP back that 'with the quality of 35mm digital stitching one did not need MF digital.'