Joe Holmes goes digital

[Doug Dolde]

Joe Holmes has gone digital...

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Exhibitions/Gallery/Joseph%20Holmes/Joseph.html

[QT Luong]

So a P-45 (39 MP) is "very close" to 4x5, but a 5D stitched file of 70MP is like "2 or 3 4x5s" ?

[Ted Harris]

Check he details on Joe's website too .... don't take everything you read on photo-i for granted. Vincent tends to embellish/obscufe sometimes.

Am I missing something??? I don't see where he says he has gone exclusively digital on his site.

[Bill_1856]

Do you mean John Holmes?

[Michael Alpert]

"Joseph Holmes - the Ansel Adams of colour photography"

Really? . . .

[reellis67]

That would be a hell of a thing...

- R

[Gordon Moat]

"Traditional, chemical-only colour photography is inherently incapable of addressing the challenge of rendering a very wide range of subject matter with superb quality, let alone with expressive control which allows for a wide range of artistic interpretations."

So let me see if I understand this . . . Joseph Holmes shoots nature and landscape images, which seems to me to be a limited range of sunject matter . . . yet somehow he makes this statement?

On Tuesday I viewed some large Cibachromes from Christopher Burkett (http://www.christopherburkett.com). While I am not generally a fan of nature and landscape photography, I think Christopher's use of large format cameras and colour films has resulted in some highly compelling images that to me do show expressive control and a wide range of artistic interpretation.

I am more familiar with Joseph Holmes from his work on colour spaces. I also notice that he is still running workshops:

"We usually stay in a room full of computers and for four or five days I talk about how color management works and how to make it work well, how film and digital cameras work, the many finer points of digital image adjustment for printmaking, and so on. The usual idea of my workshops is to help you master the processes of imaging by understanding how they work, not merely by hearing which steps to perform in a given piece of software to get a better print, though I cover that as well."

Considering the post processing bias of his workshops, I am surprised he did not switch to digital capture sooner. However, I see that article and interview at iPhoto more as a marketing piece for workshops, than as a statement for artistic expression.

Whenever I see a posting on a forum about So-and-So Goes Digital, it seems to ask the question: Why haven't you? As if the fact of some known name should be enough to entice people to make the change. Obvioulsy Epson and Canon do believe that, or they would not sponsor some photographers. Also, it should be obvious that it works on many people to read such articles. However, I am not one to succumb to peer pressure, fad, nor current fashion simply for the implied potential of being like some known person. In fact, I could name even more big name (and I might add very well paid) commercial photographers using large format cameras; yet somehow that doesn't fit into the magic bullet idea of gear solving creative problems.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[tim atherton]

"Joseph Holmes - the Ansel Adams of colour photography"

Really? . . .

i remember one photographer who modestly described himself as the Turner (JMW) of colour photography on his website....

[Struan Gray]

"Wagner is the Puccini of music"

[Scott Davis]

"Wagner is the Puccini of music"

LOL.

Isn't that about like saying gasoline is good for putting out electrical fires? Wagner and Puccini in the same sentence. Like Hannibal Lecter would make a good walker for Queen Elizabeth II.

[Christopher Perez]

Joe's work is nice. But he's no Christopher Burkett, let alone St. Ansel "In Colour".


"Joseph Holmes - the Ansel Adams of colour photography"

Really? . . .

I'll readily admit that I'm no Joe Holmes (nor would my wife claim I'm John Holmes either :) ), 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!!! :) :) :)



...Whenever I see a posting on a forum about So-and-So Goes Digital, it seems to ask the question: Why haven't you? ...

[Marko]

Whenever I see a posting on a forum about So-and-So Goes Digital, it seems to ask the question: Why haven't you?

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.

:rolleyes:

[Gordon Moat]

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.

:rolleyes:

Hello Marko,

If you had read a bit further, you would have seen:

I am not one to succumb to peer pressure, fad, nor current fashion simply for the implied potential of being like some known person. . . . . . .

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.
:cool:

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?
:confused:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Dave Parker]

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...

:rolleyes:

[roteague]

I have no idea who Joe Holmes is, and I don't care what he does.

[David_Senesac]

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

[Bill_1856]

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.

[Chris Strobel]

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.

[roteague]

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.

[Jack Flesher]

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,

[Doug Dolde]

I never would have posted this if I thought all the vampires and werewolves would come out to attack Joe.

My point was that this is yet another piece of writing on the wall about where the photography world is headed. I suppose the glass plate guys hated tilm when it first came out. (I'm still using 4x5 film but I don't think I will be using it long enough to invest in a high end scanner)

[Jim collum]

have to second what Jack and Doug say. and it's rare for anyone to be able to make a living selling their images.. especially landscape. he's been doing it for quite a while now.

even if i were able to get LF quality images from a canon dslr, i still love the act of shooting with a view camera too much to give it up.

jim

[Rory_5244]

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,

I second that! Lovely work. A lot of his images remind me of Paul Schilliger's work.

[Gordon Moat]

I never would have posted this if I thought all the vampires and werewolves would come out to attack Joe.

My point was that this is yet another piece of writing on the wall about where the photography world is headed. I suppose the glass plate guys hated tilm when it first came out. (I'm still using 4x5 film but I don't think I will be using it long enough to invest in a high end scanner)

Hello Doug,

I guess I have trouble understanding what the expression writing on the wall means; maybe it is because English is my second language. Is the situation so dire that I need to dump my film gear soon? Do most people find that scanned 4x5 provides such inferior quality results that it is not worth continuing to use it? If my commercial work does not bring in enough for me to get a $30K digital back (instead of renting occaissionally like I do sometimes), should I give up on commercial photography as a profession?
:confused:

Seriously, I know of Joseph Holmes from his work on colour spaces, and admire what he has accomplished with that. Glad to read that he sells lots of images, and I hope that continues. I don't intend to attack your friend, but I definitely do not understand his words. That was my point in mentioning Christopher Burkett; and it makes me wonder if people look down at Burkett and his images because he is using film. I do like Burkett's images more, but I do not dislike Holmes' images.

Also, anyone teaching workshops involving lots of computer time probably would be taken less seriously if all they did was use scanned film. I think anyone running computer oriented workshops today needs to be heavy digital capture usage to establish a higher level of credibility with their students.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Ben Chase]

Whenever I see a posting on a forum about So-and-So Goes Digital, it seems to ask the question: Why haven't you?

Everytime someone asks me that question, I ask them to figure in the cost of a comparable digital scanning back (or equivalent back, depending on who you talk to), the cost of upgrading/replacing the technology every 36 months (more or less, again, depending on who you talk to), and the added cost of all of the extra equipment and logistics it takes to carry all that stuff around. I figure that cost is somewhere in the $30,000+ and up range, conservatively. Lets not forget insurance on top of that, as you'd be nuts not to insure that much money in electronics.

My TK45s and all photographic accessories I own cost me less than $6000, and it will last a hell of a lot longer than 3-4 years. I think the number of people who can say that it "makes sense" for them to go digital and maintain the same standard of quality they are used to with 4x5 + drum scanning, they either have a LOT of business and the added speed of the digital capture process equates to more revenue, or they are kidding themselves. The individual has to answer that question for themselves.

I for one, am not fond of taking $30,000+ worth of sensitive electronics into the backcountry where I have to worry about moisture, battery power, temperature, and other logistics I don't have to worry about as much now.

Now I would expect that modern super-high-end digital capture equipment is quite resilient to the elements, but there is certainly something to be said for having to only worry about my meter battery in terms of electricity.

Ben C

[David Luttmann]

Ben,

I'm curious as to why someone who spends $18,000 or $30,000 on a digital back for example, need to upgrade it every 36 months. If you have a back that can provide you with the detail and color you want to produce 30 ro 40 inch prints, why would one need to upgrade it every 3 yrs?

Of course, exposing maybe 500 sheets a year and having them processed is going to run about $2500. Scanning even 50 of those will add another $2500. The cost of film adds up very quick as well.

Of course all this depends on your shooting needs.

[Marko]

Of course, exposing maybe 500 sheets a year and having them processed is going to run about $2500. Scanning even 50 of those will add another $2500. The cost of film adds up very quick as well.

And that's assuming one image - one shot approach. If one decides that the image is important enough to shoot a backup as an insurance against misjudged exposure and/or error in processing, then the first figure can easily double. This is also not counting polaroids...

[Marko]

Hello Marko,

If you had read a bit further, you would have seen:


I am not one to succumb to peer pressure, fad, nor current fashion simply for the implied potential of being like some known person


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.
:cool:

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?
:confused:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Hey Gordon,

Until I do, hopefully, meet you in person, I can only judge your intentions by the words you write and especially the manner and context in which you do so. So far, and this is not the first time, you seem to exude certain annoyance at bits of information like the one that stared this thread.

Whatever we wanted or wished, photography is undeniably in the state of major technology transition and many people feel interested enough in that process that they pay prompt attention to any new information. So-and-so-goes-digital type of posts simply keep tabs of the latest trends and I don't see where is the pressure there and why pour scorn on people who seem to adopt new technology sooner than others.

Like Dave said, it really does not matter who uses what and what for, as long as it works fine for them.

[rob]

I'm curious as to why someone who spends $18,000 or $30,000 on a digital back for example, need to upgrade it every 36 months.

Computer interface becomes obsolete quickly. You want to upgrade your bayer sensor when a comparable 3-layer RGB sensor is available, don't you? Battery form can get obsolete, too. I'm sure if one uses their digital back very hard, and in harsh environment, it will require repairs, and eventually one wants to replace it, because the newer back will cost less.
I'm a computer geek, but I don't want electronic technology to put pressure on my photography, that's why I love film. For me film is permanence, I have a hard time keeping up with digital image back-up.

[roteague]

Computer interface becomes obsolete quickly. You want to upgrade your bayer sensor when a comparable 3-layer RGB sensor is available, don't you? Battery form can get obsolete, too. I'm sure if one uses their digital back very hard, and in harsh environment, it will require repairs, and eventually one wants to replace it, because the newer back will cost less.
I'm a computer geek, but I don't want electronic technology to put pressure on my photography, that's why I love film. For me film is permanence, I have a hard time keeping up with digital image back-up.

I don't believe scanning backs use bayer sensors, however, I could be mistaken on that point.

FWIW, I agree with you about film. I'm a professional programmer and I don't want to turn my passion over to a computer.

[Jim collum]

i've had my scanning back since 2001.


Ben,

I'm curious as to why someone who spends $18,000 or $30,000 on a digital back for example, need to upgrade it every 36 months. If you have a back that can provide you with the detail and color you want to produce 30 ro 40 inch prints, why would one need to upgrade it every 3 yrs?

Of course, exposing maybe 500 sheets a year and having them processed is going to run about $2500. Scanning even 50 of those will add another $2500. The cost of film adds up very quick as well.

Of course all this depends on your shooting needs.

[Jim collum]

I don't believe scanning backs use bayer sensors, however, I could be mistaken on that point.

FWIW, I agree with you about film. I'm a professional programmer and I don't want to turn my passion over to a computer.

correct.. they've been true color since they started.

[Gordon Moat]

Hey Gordon,

. . . . . So-and-so-goes-digital type of posts simply keep tabs of the latest trends and I don't see where is the pressure there and why pour scorn on people who seem to adopt new technology sooner than others.

Like Dave said, it really does not matter who uses what and what for, as long as it works fine for them.

Hello Marko,

Okay, well stated, so my mistake, and I apologize. I will in the future treat these types of postings as news releases. Look forward to meeting you in person sometime.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Jack Flesher]

correct.. they've been true color since they started.

And -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but the same back has been "upgradeable" to current specs, at reasonable costs, and as desired durig that entire time?

Cheers,

[QT Luong]

I've interacted with Joe only by email, but I'll second nevertheless what Jack said about him. Is he the Ansel Adams of color ? At this stage this seems unlikely that he would stand out as much as Ansel Adams did, but that's probably because there is now more excellent photographers, however there are a few parallels. Ansel had a great knowledge about B&W tonality and formalized this knowledge in a system used by a great many photographers. Joe has a great knowledge of color and digital imaging, and among other contributions, defined one color space that has become quite popular (both the labs I use, Calypso and WCI use it as default). Both photograph the natural landscape, and both are active conservationists. This is of course personal, but I value the work of both equally.

As to the relevance of the news, one is certainly free to ignore what others are doing, but when someone that I admire endorses a method/process, I do pay a bit of attention (although it would be more convincing if this was on Joe's website). In this case, this means getting a better image quality than 4x5 with a camera that costs $2500 (not $30,000) and fits in your hand, at the expense of about 12 clicks per image, and postprocessing. As much as I like LF, I am not always able to lug the LF gear for a variety of reasons.

[Ted Harris]

Tuan, I agree. My point has always been, as others have already stated, that each of cameras and lenses we use, as well as all of the processing and post processing techniques are just tools .... with a bit of experience and luck we can pick from an ever growing tool chest to assist us in producing the best possible image.

[roteague]

Tuan, I agree. My point has always been, as others have already stated, that each of cameras and lenses we use, as well as all of the processing and post processing techniques are just tools ....

And, I couldn't disagree more. The camera is an important part of the process, IMO. There is a physical connection to a transparency or negative that just doesn't exist with a digital file. As for Joe Holmes, as far as I'm concerned "Joe, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

[Edwin Beckenbach]

And, I couldn't disagree more. The camera is an important part of the process, IMO. There is a physical connection to a transparency or negative that just doesn't exist with a digital file. As for Joe Holmes, as far as I'm concerned "Joe, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Wow! Why are you so unfriendly toward someone you don't even know? Joe really is the nicest guy you could ever hope to meet. He once took the time to help me, a total stranger, with several technical issues just because I asked. Evenmore, he seemed to be truely happy to be helpful. Most anyone could learn a lot from him. Given the chance I wouldn't let him out the door.

[Ted Harris]

And, I couldn't disagree more. The camera is an important part of the process, IMO. There is a physical connection to a transparency or negative that just doesn't exist with a digital file. As for Joe Holmes, as far as I'm concerned "Joe, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Not sure I understand your point, if you mean a physical connection between the photographer and his/her camera that could be but it is in the mind of the photographer not necessarily in the results.

For the amateur or the hobbiest process is important, often even more important than the end result. For the professional the only thing that counts is the final image. My work, both personal and commercial, is far more film than digital in terms of capturing the image but when the cost/profit/job type dictates I don't hesitate to pickup a DSLR. In fact when digital backs for 4x5 field cameras improve a bit more in output and drop another notchor two in price I can't say what the mix will be. Same holds for format decisions. I have a lot of work I do with a Noblex because nothing else except a swing body banquet camera could do the job; for most of my personal work I shoot 5x7.

[Scott Davis]

Looking through his portfolios, I see a high degree of technical execution, but it all leaves me emotionally cold.

[adrian tyler]

i would tend to go with what mr homes is saying, a friend has a canon d5 and i was very impressed, infact it was very tempting.

stitch 12 of those images together and you have a lot of information, certainly going to compete with a 4x5, and in the right hands blow it away, sorry, and comparitively the canon d5 is not an expensive camera to boot...

[David_Senesac]

Another advantage of taking 12 exposures with a d5 might be in a situation where a deer was chewing grass here and there on a meadow. By time one finished taking the 12 exposures, one might have a more impressive herd. ;)

[Gordon Moat]

Lowest cost stitching capture set-up I saw was six Motorola camera phones on a common board. The board was a sheet of plastic bent in such a way to hold all the camera phones together, and allow for a slight overlap of each image file. There was also a manual trigger arrangement to fire all the Motorolas at the same time. The results were surprising.

I think going with four compact digital P&S cameras on a similar board could be really interesting. Using a 7 MP to 10 MP compact for around $500, one could get stitched 25 MP to near 40 MP images for under $2000. Plus the weight would be nearly nothing, and the only bulk would be the board to locate the four cameras in proper orientation.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[rob]

Stitching or scanning back is limited to take picture of still objects. Even in landscape, the clouds move. I use a homebuilt 120-film 360 deg swing camera (based on Larscan) with nikkor PC 28mm to take panoramic pictures on the street. Try that with digital stitching. Digital capture has its own use, but for me it's way beyond my budget. I'm waiting for the time when the Chinese starts mass producing good quality CCD sensor, then I will join the digital club. Until then, film gives me more freedom. BTW, the thread becomes more and more out of Holmes topic :confused:

[Bill_1856]

"Color photography has come of age as an art form, rivaling the finest painting and exceeding the standards set by the finest traditional black & white photography..."

This quotation is from Mr. Holmes website. Were he and Fatali separated at birth?

[David Luttmann]

And, I couldn't disagree more. The camera is an important part of the process, IMO. There is a physical connection to a transparency or negative that just doesn't exist with a digital file. As for Joe Holmes, as far as I'm concerned "Joe, don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Oh brother. When he shoots film he's an artist....when he converts to digital, he's a nobody lacking a connection with his gear. Odd, I never felt an emotional connecting with a sheet of film any more than I do my CMOS sensors. How silly!

That's the most shallow thing I've read in a while.

[Michael Alpert]

As in many threads on this forum, there are several discussions going on at once. I don't see any reason to attack this photographer for doing whatever he does. He and his photographs are clearly liked by many people. But he is not important to the history of the medium in the way Adams is; that kind of stature can only come with a lifetime of exceptional work. What I question are the claims made in the article and on this fellow's website. The path of self-promotion has brought him to a wilderness of language, so to speak, where claims are made that serve his reputation not at all. (I may have the metaphor backwards; I think "wild" places are good.) I hope he reads this thread and is able to reconsider some of the language on his website. Apart from this problem with language, I am sure that most everyone here wishes him well.

[Rory_5244]

I do get the gist about what Robert is trying to say. I quite hated taking pictures with a digital camera. It wasn't fun: too easy, and, to me, photography just lost its mystique. Looking at 8x10 slides on a light table thrill me far more than slogging through a few hundred RAW files on a monitor. If someone took away my LF camera and gave me a new Canon digital 'whatsit', I would probably stop taking pictures. I like old stuff. Taking pictures with 'old stuff' makes me appreciate what I'm photographing more, as I stare at the scene on a ground glass. I feel like a paparazzo when I use a digicam, snapping machine-gun style at a piece of nature that took millions of years to get there. I feel irreverent. I tried using the slow, 'contemplative' approach with a Canon DSLR but I felt rather ridiculous in the end. And, the most important advantage of using an 8x10 (to me)? All those damn thieves got to think twice before they run off with 15lbs of metal monstrosity. :D

[Kirk Gittings]

I am a big fan of the contributions that JH has made to digital art, but anyone who states

"Joseph Holmes - the Ansel Adams of colour photography"

has precious little understanding of AA's place in photographic history. That title is an embarrassment.

[KenM]

That title exists not on Joseph Holmes site, but on the photo-i gallery site.

In other words, I doubt if he tittled the article.

[chris jordan]

Rory, that's one thing I lament about going digital myself. It seems like I'm always getting further and further away from the tactile feeling of being an artist working with materials. I envy painters and potters and wood workers because they get gunk on their hands and sawdust in their hair. Digital feels sterile and clinical by comparison, and going from LF film cameras to digital SLR's is another step in that direction. I am willing to make the sacrifice because my work is about the results, but it's not an easy sacrifice to make. I feel like a racing car driver who is giving up a beautiful old bugatti in favor of the newest indy car. Yeh, it is faster, but those old leather seats sure did smell nice...

[Ted Harris]

You can bet that Vincent authored and titled the article and, as I mentioned above,he can be over enthusiastic at times. It would be interesting to see waht JH has to say about digital. If in fact he REALLY has gone 100% digital.

[Kirk Keyes]

I feel like a racing car driver who is giving up a beautiful old bugatti in favor of the newest indy car. Yeh, it is faster, but those old leather seats sure did smell nice...

Not after a couple of spin-outs! And carbon-fibre cleans up much easier. ;^)

[roteague]

I am willing to make the sacrifice because my work is about the results, but it's not an easy sacrifice to make.

Obviously, you don't feel that you can get the same results using traditional or traditional/hybrid methods.

[Ralph Barker]

. . . I am willing to make the sacrifice because my work is about the results, but it's not an easy sacrifice to make. . . .

I understand your decision, Chris.

I do this for fun now, so I'm as much or more interested in the process than the results, as I don't make any effort to sell anything. Does that make me the Anti-Chris? :eek:

[Chris Strobel]

Digital feels sterile and clinical by comparison, and going from LF film cameras to digital SLR's is another step in that direction. I am willing to make the sacrifice because my work is about the results, but it's not an easy sacrifice to make.

Huh?I don't get it.I own both a Canon 20D and 5D along with several L primes, but since getting into 8x10 last year with a C1 and some good glass, the results are much better with my large film.You must be talking about stitching together many digital images right?
Also my dslr's don't feel any more sterile to me than my old Nikon bodies.I just feel like I'm shooting 35mm when using my Canon's.

[roteague]

Huh?I don't get it.I own both a Canon 20D and 5D along with several L primes, but since getting into 8x10 last year with a C1 and some good glass, the results are much better with my large film.You must be talking about stitching together many digital images right?
Also my dslr's don't feel any more sterile to me than my old Nikon bodies.I just feel like I'm shooting 35mm when using my Canon's.


They fell sterile to me as well, kind of a plastic like feeling.

[Jim collum]

They fell sterile to me as well, kind of a plastic like feeling.

i don't understand... the dslr i have has exactly the same type body construction as the top level canon film cameras... the 5D has the same as the midlevel cameras. there's no way you could feel a sensor from the outside of the body (vs a film plane)

[Chris Strobel]

They fell sterile to me as well, kind of a plastic like feeling.

Well I guess I can sorta relate, my Nikon F100 feels sorta plastic like compared to my older F2

[Dean Jones]

Guess I don`t understand why anyone would 'go digital'. Why not stick with film for some occasions? Why not utilise the merits of both media? I have an old 10D that works for me, especially when shooting live bands in low light. Film hasn`t a chance in this environment....too slow, too grainy, too awkward. Now for a choice landscape or a natural portrait that doesn`t look photoshoppy, 4x5 kills a digital image even with dust and scratches...bit like a vinyl recording... ;)

Some days I need to photograph a large poster, like a Simon Wincer directed movie poster, so what do I use? a Canon 5D of course...it kills everything else. I use it like a big scanner. For difficult shots, the big sensor of a 5D rocks. For a wedding I wouldn`t have the courage to use 35mm film anymore.
For shooting many frames with convenience, with confirmation that you have it in the bag, a DSLR is tops. For sheer pleasure and experience of the actual science, use film. I`m talking 120 or 4x5, as 35mm went south long ago......Plasticky feel of a digi doesn't matter too much either, so long as the final result is right, who cares? :)

[JBrunner]

Joe's work is exceptional, and I have no doubt that he will continue to be a master at using whatever tools he chooses.

What I do wonder, as my artistic work continues to gain in popularity, and (God or whatever willing) reaches the point where I can give up commercial work, and thereby digital (which I find to be boring and tedious)... will there be a thread:

"J Brunner dumps digital, goes film!"

I think my PR lady will have a tough time selling it, but who knows.

[Michal Makowski]

We must remember that a photograph can hold just as much as we put into it, and no one has ever approached the full possibilities of the medium. -Ansel Adams, "Photographers on Photographers (Aperture Vol 151)" by Helen Levitt, Gordon Parks, Eikoh Hosoe, ISBN: 0893817732

[pablo batt]

is that a real photograph, oh never mind im not interested in inkjet prints

[Doug Dolde]

My Leaf Aptus 75S will make a 24x32 print at just over 200 dpi. Seems more like a good scan from a 6x7 transparency in terms of resolution but with 12 stops dynamic range.