I don't know...it's labeled as a satire, but it seems like a perfectly straightforward, accurate description to me, except maybe that crack at the end about never joining a site with numerical scoring...thanks!
<<(You should join photography clubs, but never camera clubs or any clubs that try to score art, since art is entirely subjective and cannot be scored numerically.)>>
<<(You should join photography clubs, but never camera clubs or any clubs that try to score art, since art is entirely subjective and cannot be scored numerically.)>>
LOL, interesting read. I guess that describes most of us here. The part a out joining groups that give numbers to photos, well, funny! Anyway, I'm more of a point-and-shoot type, taking photography as a casual activity. But with DPChallenge, I get comments on my shots, and that helps me improve in some way. Thanks y'all.
It's a satire -- the guy doesn't respect Professional photographers much as he puts it down a 3..... His "How to make great photograph" in his links is very well written :)
Originally posted by shadow:
LOL, interesting read. I guess that describes most of us here. The part a out joining groups that give numbers to photos, well, funny! Anyway, I'm more of a point-and-shoot type, taking photography as a casual activity. But with DPChallenge, I get comments on my shots, and that helps me improve in some way. Thanks y'all.
That's interesting:
at the end of Rockwell's article he links to one forum that he considers not a waste of artistic time. So i went there and it was at photonet discussing .... Rockwell's article. One Alex Shishin (a photography critic???) said about Rockwell's own photography: he's technically very good, but he plays it "safe" and his photographs are predictable; they lack "soul".
So i visited several of Rockwell's galleries and looked at maybe 10 pictures (France, New Mexico, and one other one) and got tired of it. Yeah, the guy definitely has technique down pad but you do discern the formula. Got rapidly tired that all the pictures i saw had intense, highly saturated colors. Not a single one made my heart jump or moved me deeply or allowed me to emotionally connect with them. I guess they do lack soul. By his own definitions then Rockwell is a whore!
His images are quite good in the sense that he waits for the right time, the right light, and captures it well.
The reason why it's saturated a lot is beacuse he uses Velvia film (ISO 50) which is arguably the best slide films for outdoors, which Fuji has taken the crown of slide films from Kodak and Kodak is still trying to play catchup, even today.
I wouldn't say it lacked soul though. Some of them are really interesting. Some aren't.
I think people get used to seeing "digital camera produced images", which are not the same as film. I like film colors a lot, but digital cameras came nowhere near film. Even Adobe RGB is still not as vivid as film can capture. His after dark images are just gorgeous, IMHO, the slow exposure types.
Originally posted by Journey:
That's interesting:
at the end of Rockwell's article he links to one forum that he considers not a waste of artistic time. So i went there and it was at photonet discussing .... Rockwell's article. One Alex Shishin (a photography critic???) said about Rockwell's own photography: he's technically very good, but he plays it "safe" and his photographs are predictable; they lack "soul".
So i visited several of Rockwell's galleries and looked at maybe 10 pictures (France, New Mexico, and one other one) and got tired of it. Yeah, the guy definitely has technique down pad but you do discern the formula. Got rapidly tired that all the pictures i saw had intense, highly saturated colors. Not a single one made my heart jump or moved me deeply or allowed me to emotionally connect with them. I guess they do lack soul. By his own definitions then Rockwell is a whore!
Ricky, we would all like to be whores if we could :)
Paganini, it isn't so much that my eyes are color polluted. I had just been looking at a photog book and pretty much all pics shot with Fuji Velvia. Great colors. With Rockwell i find them overall just a little too intense. There are some very nice pictures though. It's all a matter of personal taste.
I just wish my 10D can produce Velvia like effects without having to go through a ton of photoshop stuff :)
In general digicams are still clipping too much on the highlights.
With slide film, you can overexpose and still recover the image. It's too much of a S curve and not enough dynamic range on the upper end for digicams.
Originally posted by Journey:
Ricky, we would all like to be whores if we could :)
Paganini, it isn't so much that my eyes are color polluted. I had just been looking at a photog book and pretty much all pics shot with Fuji Velvia. Great colors. With Rockwell i find them overall just a little too intense. There are some very nice pictures though. It's all a matter of personal taste.
Don't know if you have seen it or rather, USE it. It's not the same. You can turn on saturation, adjust exposure and won't get het same results.
Also, you can't simulate reciprocity failure when the slide film is exposed for more than a second :) sorry, just not possible without a ton of PS work later.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
gee, pag. i guess i've never seen velvia film since you said so ;)
lol. ok. you just keep on going ahead and believing what you want ... ;)
Originally posted by paganini:
Don't know if you have seen it or rather, USE it. It's not the same. You can turn on saturation, adjust exposure and won't get het same results.
Also, you can't simulate reciprocity failure when the slide film is exposed for more than a second :) sorry, just not possible without a ton of PS work later.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
gee, pag. i guess i've never seen velvia film since you said so ;)
Prove me wrong then :) Shoot a subject with Velvia and one with Canon 10D with in camera settings and show me it produces Velvia-like results.
(Do you even know what reciprocity failure is??)
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
lol. ok. you just keep on going ahead and believing what you want ... ;)
Originally posted by paganini:
Don't know if you have seen it or rather, USE it. It's not the same. You can turn on saturation, adjust exposure and won't get het same results.
Also, you can't simulate reciprocity failure when the slide film is exposed for more than a second :) sorry, just not possible without a ton of PS work later.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
gee, pag. i guess i've never seen velvia film since you said so ;)
pag. why do you assume everyone else knows nothing? it's a little bit frustrating because it makes it impossible to communicate with you. Yes, I know what RF is and it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with this conversation or the desirable attributes of velvia film.
when i said i can get velvia like results wiht my camera, a normal person would have said 'oh really? what type of settings?" instead of "no you can't, no one can, you've never even seen or used velvia."
Either post your photos that shows your results matches velvia, or i am not going to spend time arguing with you :)
RF is not possible to simulate in the camera by itself. It's a chemical process that leads to color shifts massively. Unless you want to play with white blance (in otherwords, you're spending time like you would in Photoshop, as i claimed before), you're not going to get anything near that and I don't think you can get it by simply using a white balance adjustment. It's a COLOR(s) shift specifically.
Furthermore, even with Adobe RGB space, it's still not covering what Velvia sees. No amount of processing can get you there.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
pag. why do you assume everyone else knows nothing? it's a little bit frustrating because it makes it impossible to communicate with you. Yes, I know what RF is and it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with this conversation or the desirable attributes of velvia film.
when i said i can get velvia like results wiht my camera, a normal person would have said 'oh really? what type of settings?" instead of "no you can't, no one can, you've never even seen or used velvia."
