Need some critique

[Rollinhofuji]

Hi folks,

somehow inspired by this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?110076-Your-cocktail-host-asks-quot-What-is-Large-Format-quot-amp-your-reply-is I finally wrote my first article for my homepage (which usually only shows my pictures). Since I´m not a native speaker, I would be very happy about some critique or suggestions (regarding my use of language, but of course also on the content). Please keep in mind that this is strictly my personal view, nothing general...

The article can be found here: http://www.keyling.com/?p=438

Looking forward to your open words!

Best regards,
Jan

[smithdoor]

Looks great on larger format

Dave


Hi folks,

somehow inspired by this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?110076-Your-cocktail-host-asks-quot-What-is-Large-Format-quot-amp-your-reply-is I finally wrote my first article for my homepage (which usually only shows my pictures). Since I´m not a native speaker, I would be very happy about some critique or suggestions (regarding my use of language, but of course also on the content). Please keep in mind that this is strictly my personal view, nothing general...

The article can be found here: http://www.keyling.com/?p=438

Looking forward to your open words!

Best regards,
Jan

[Rollinhofuji]

Sorry Dave, not sure if I get the point...you mean I should increase the font size?

[DannL]

Here's a question . . . Why do so many folks feel the need to rationalize and justify why they use a certain process to create photographic images? And, as usual, it's film. It just seems that everyday someone feels the need to fabricate rationale on an internet forum for why they're using film. I don't believe this is necessary or healthy. When asked, simply tell them that you "enjoy the process of making photographic images by hand". Just like cabinet makers enjoy making furniture, painters enjoy making paintings, printers enjoy making prints, potters enjoy making pots, etc, etc. They don't need to justify why, and nor do you . . . That is, unless you "don't" enjoy the process. My two pesetas on subject. Dann

[smithdoor]

It reads and looks good I do not know who is reading this article
Some may need more detail other groups would need less detail.
The font size (11 to 12pt) is good for up to age 45 if you going in to late 60's and try a 14 or 16pt if they over 80 use a 18pt.

Dave


Sorry Dave, not sure if I get the point...you mean I should increase the font size?

[Rollinhofuji]

Thanks, Dave!

Dann, in principle you are completely right. But in fact I hate to give this explanation again and again. It´s not about justification or something - people really ask me why I do it. And I´m tired of explaining, it always leads to boring discussions (boring to me and to the people who ask). Thus my written statement... I will tell the ones who ask me to read it, if they really want to know, and will only give them a very short verbal explanation.

[John Olsen]

You've written a nice statement - I even learned a new word, haptics. Some people may take issue with film vs. digital quality comparisons, but you made reasonable concessions while expressing your own opinions.

[Pawlowski6132]

Here's a question . . . Why do so many folks feel the need to rationalize and justify why they use a certain process to create photographic images? And, as usual, it's film. It just seems that everyday someone feels the need to fabricate rationale on an internet forum for why they're using film. I don't believe this is necessary or healthy. When asked, simply tell them that you "enjoy the process of making photographic images by hand". Just like cabinet makers enjoy making furniture, painters enjoy making paintings, printers enjoy making prints, potters enjoy making pots, etc, etc. They don't need to justify why, and nor do you . . . That is, unless you "don't" enjoy the process. My two pesetas on subject. Dann

Because most people think it's stupid and a waste of of time and money considering the digital options.

So, people that shoot film are responding to all the cocked heads and questions.

[Rollinhofuji]

Thanks John and Pawlowski!
John, I know that some hardcore digitalists would regard some of my words as extremely offensive - to some degree, this is intended :p
Anyway, glad you say that it is clearly presented as my personal opinion. Technical "quality" is only one small aspect of photography, I think. Especially the digital shooters / computer scientists / pixel counters forget about all other aspects easily.
The first time I really understood what huge difference haptics makes was when I touched a Leica MP for the first time. Simply uncomparable and probably one of the reasons why Leica is Leica...
Definitely, I never got any kind of good feeling like that when using a digital camera (including the sexy Fuji X series and many others)...it´s simply not there! At least for me.

Pawlowski, you are right. This is really what a lot of ignorant people actually think. Makes me angry, somehow. Sure, it shouldn't be important what others think about you, but anyway, I have to admit that I care about it, sometimes.

[Pawlowski6132]

Pawlowski, you are right. This is really what a lot of ignorant people actually think. Makes me angry, somehow. Sure, it shouldn't be important what others think about you, but anyway, I have to admit that I care about it, sometimes.

It doesn't bother me at all. I'm very evangelical when it comes to film photography. Most people are ignorant and I like talking about this and educating them. I haven't converted anyone yet but, I at least most of them get it and just move on.

[djdister]

I understand why you wrote the article, and you wrote it well, but it hasn't been a problem with me. I usually have to make a point of telling what I shot it with, if I feel like it, but in general people looking at my work don't know and don't care how I shot it, or what I shot it with. I'm just as happy if they can't tell whether I shot it on a Canon 5D, a Hasselblad, or a 5x7 camera, and like I said, they rarely ever ask what I shot it with or why.

[DannL]

Thanks, Dave!

Dann, in principle you are completely right. But in fact I hate to give this explanation again and again. It´s not about justification or something - people really ask me why I do it. And I´m tired of explaining, it always leads to boring discussions (boring to me and to the people who ask). Thus my written statement... I will tell the ones who ask me to read it, if they really want to know, and will only give them a very short verbal explanation.

So, to further my investigation into why you feel you must explain yourself. When these people are asking you "why?", have you considered showing them a side-by-side comparison of two photographic prints that will prove beyond a doubt that one method of making photographic prints is better than another method. If you can do that, I also would find it very interesting.

[Rollinhofuji]

Thanks Dan - well, somehow it is important to me that people know how I work. I think there is a huge difference between film based and digital photography, at least for me. The reason is that people tend to assume that I work like many others do it: Shoot thousands of pics a day and do a lot of photoshop voodoo to get the look they want, remove/edit/add objects in their images and so on. It's important for me that this is not the case - that I usually make exactly one shot of a subject, and that's it.
The whole "hassle" and "inconvenience" of LF photography forces you to work that way, simply because it takes much more time and effort. I think this deeply influences my style and attitude. And if people are interested in my images, they should also know how I created them - at least that's my opinion.

Dann, in fact not - simply because I exclusively shoot LF now (so I can't directly compare it). But as I wrote above, apart from the technical aspects the whole "way of LF" and the influence on my work is the most important thing for me.

Gents, thanks for your help and comments!

[DannL]

Jan, As you may have noticed, I'm not very good at playing the part of Devil's Advocate. But for some reason I feel that I must. 45 years of using film and 18 years using digital have diluted many of the biases that I may have once possessed.

As you stated, there is a huge difference between digital imaging and traditional photography. In fact, they have almost nothing in common. So, here's a something to consider . . . What would happen to the context of your statement if all references to "digital imaging" were removed from the text? In other words, would your message loose it's meaning when not comparing traditional photography to digital imaging? Could you still "justify" your use of film and view cameras if it weren't for the existence of modern digital imaging equipment?

[Drew Bedo]

Rollin:


The font is fine, the language is fine . . .the content is YOURS. Say what you want. As yourfirst post points out, this is your first article. You felt the need to write the thoughts you have. Continue to express your self.

I am sure that the discussion about the medium of expression goes nack to when some cave artist discovered that there were other pigments besides charcoal (the first color vs monochrome controversy).

[Rollinhofuji]

Dann, in fact your questions help me a lot!
I can definitely say that the view camera approach would still be the right one for me (assuming it would use a digital back for example), as it forces you to work in a special way.
I do not think that I would be patient enough to transfer this working style to another system, may it be film-based or digital.

Aapart from all technical stuff which influences the look of the final image, I love film because you can NOT see your image at once, as you can with digital cameras. If it would be a viw camera with a digiback without any preview function, my working style would be essentially the same. This sounds stupid to many people, but it helps me to concentrate.

I shot digital for maybe half a year or so, but then moved back to film just because of this. I need to work precisely to get a decent image. With digital, I just adopted a sloppy attitude: shoot, check it on the display, shoot again and again and again, and then decide to "fix it in photoshop" and move on. As a result, I got hundreds of mediocre shots, of which not a single one could be "fixed in PS" to a great one.
Maybe I would be more disciplined today...but the fun and "thrill" is bigger with film, at least for me.

So, in conclusion, it´s two things combined: First, I prefer the view camera over other camera systems. Second, I prefer film over digital for several reasons. I am not a dinosaur living in the past, I think I have some "hard facts" which underline or justify my decision. In my experience, many people are not aware of these facts.

Drew, good point :-) The truth always lies in beneath...