- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's official... digital is crap...
- Thread starter Pookeyhead
- Start date
PMN
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd love to have my own darkroom and it's something I might look into at some point. I have a high end scanner and good prints from the digital files look great so at the moment I'm achieving what I want to achieve. It isn't a purist 'analogue is better' thing, I just sometimes prefer the look/feel of film for certain things and with careful scanning those characteristics are very much preserved (Acros will look different to HP5 for example). I know there are film emulators but to me they seem like the most pointless things imaginable, if I want something to look like I shot it on PanF then I'll just shoot it on PanF (so I guess in that sense it's a bit of a purist thing). Darkroom printing definitely does interest me though.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Darkroom printing is great when it's going well and very annoying when it's not coming out as you would hope.
There is a lot of time and effort put into each print and it can get disheartening when you are churning out sub par prints.
I can certainly see the attraction of using film then scanning as with the right scanner you can get a lot of detail and dynamic range from the film and a black and white image even scanned from film cannot be matched by one which is digitally originated (in my opinion).
Steve.
There is a lot of time and effort put into each print and it can get disheartening when you are churning out sub par prints.
I can certainly see the attraction of using film then scanning as with the right scanner you can get a lot of detail and dynamic range from the film and a black and white image even scanned from film cannot be matched by one which is digitally originated (in my opinion).
Steve.
Glyn Carnell
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 555
- Name
- Glyn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Totally agree with you Steve..... More frustrating once the chemicals start to take there effect on you in a small confined area.... Oh, fun days (not) but we had no option then
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Most of the calendars on Amazon seem to be quite generic, and probably sourced from stock, or desite being on amazon, self-published by individual photographers. How many they sell is not disclosed. When was the last time you bought a landscape calendar? I'm sure the books on how to TAKE landscape photography are very popular, yes... but that's because they serve a market - amateur photographers who wish to improve their landscape photography, but if the only sustainable market for landscape photography is in book to teach landscape photography, surely at some point that market will just eat itself into oblivion
Why are you assuming that any photography with purpose has to be about the environment or poverty stricken countries? You talk as if that's the only conceivable use for photography with a purpose. I've not made that assumption - it's coming from you.
Again... is that the only other use you can image for photography? Why are you limiting it to images of natural disaster, poverty and environmental issues? Is that how you see photography? Either pretty pictures, or images of death and despair?
Clearly the market for his work is not quarry workers - your point? The uneducated rarely buy art of any form, unless it's a cheap print of an attractive painting to decorate a wall.
Obviously, someone who drives a truck is not his target audience. Again.. is that your idea of a target audience for high end documentary work? The world isn't made up of truck drivers you know. While I hate stereotyping, I reckon most truck drivers have little interest in art.
Define "Masses"? The "Masses" don't really buy photography in that way anyway. They buy it indirectly through whatever publications they buy. Even if he did offer them a picture of them smiling in front of a truck, I bet they'd not be willing to pay anything for it... or next to nothing any way.
But who are the tastemakers? Any market is dictated by a need. If there was no need, no one would publish it.
Legitimate? Who mentioned legitimacy? Things generally have to be new and exciting to appeal, because we get bored of the same old crap over and over again.. which is why peopel complain about repeats on TV, and why we no longer have shows like The Two Ronnies, or Benny Hill. Things change.. we get tired of the same things over and over again. We crave the new, not the old.
Yes, they do... but they aren't willing to pay for it, or buy it. They want to take their own. Fine.. I get it. I really do... but just stop complaining when no one wants to BUY your images. This is why there are so many images exactly the same on Flickr. Everyone wants to take their own... not buy yours. No one is interested in seeing yours except other photographers, and they only want to see it to measure their own against yours.
When was the last time you bought a book of landscape photographs? Be honest.
DO they? You're also making the assumption that a good photo should speak a thousand words. It's incorrect. They'll speak a different 1000 words to a thousand different people. We bring our own meaning to images. Images needing words is not a sign of a weak image. Images and words are interchangeable, and more often than not, the best work needs both. It's an absolute myth perpetuated by those that do not understand that images and words are ultimately inseparable. This is why anyone who has studied art, media or visual culture will be used to ALL work being called "texts" whether they are words, or images, because they COMMUNICATE MEANING.
So.. what thousand words is THIS saying....
Randomly chosen Cornish image.
Ok.... in your own time... 1000 words... GO!
Oh... and while we're at it... how is it any different or better than a thousand other images of the same damned thing on Flickr. Please, someone justify why Cornish is so highly regarded? There are better landscape photographers in this very forum who regularly post work much better than this.
In fact... search St Michal's Mount on Googlie Images.. hang on, I'll do it for you....
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...safe=off&tbm=isch&q=st+michael's+mount+sunset
Tell me why Cornish is so good? Clearly the world and his dog can knock out image like that in their sleep. It's so commonplace it's worthless.
Last edited:
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It is... hence why landscape... the first port of call for the majority of amateurs, has been utterly devalued by the ease of which it can be produced. It's become so common now, and so repeated, and homogenised, that it's become a parody of itself.
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Because a really beautifully created black and white print utterly knocks spots off even the best digital print/image, that's why.
Even when you scan film, it retains the qualities that make it what it is, which, whether you like it or not, is still WIDELY desired, which is why there's such a market for plug-ins that try to replicate film. I have to chuckle at digital photographers that try to replicate film, when all they have to do is shoot film and they will get the real thing.
They want the LOOK of film, but they don't have the balls, skill or patience to actually use it.
Digital is easier. Too easy. It's kills every market it tries to dominate because it saturates it to the point where it becomes worthless. Gold is only valuable because it's rare. If it was as common as grass.. we'd be trying to find ways to dispose of it all, not invest in it.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
That might be part of the reason why I haven't taken a photograph in the last three months. It's just so easy and accessible to all that I now have a 'what's the point?' attitude to it.
I realise how ridiculous that sounds as I only photograph for myself so what others do should be irrelevant to me... By it's not.
I should just put some film in my Rolleicord and go for a walk.
Steve.
Most of the calendars on Amazon seem to be quite generic, and probably sourced from stock, or desite being on amazon, self-published by individual photographers. How many they sell is not disclosed. When was the last time you bought a landscape calendar? I'm sure the books on how to TAKE landscape photography are very popular, yes... but that's because they serve a market - amateur photographers who wish to improve their landscape photography, but if the only sustainable market for landscape photography is in book to teach landscape photography, surely at some point that market will just eat itself into oblivion
Calendars are still very popular:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14969674
I know I buy a few every year as presents, some of Scottish landscapes, some of animals. With more and more cameras in phones and better optics I can see more people wanting to learn how to get better with these books, not fewer and fewer.
The poverty porn or environmental concerns aren't an exhaustive list, but they do seem to come up time and time again.
Again not an exhaustive list, there is everything in between.
But you said:
"However... good photography appeals to everyone, and what makes photography interesting to those who don't give a crap about photography do you think? Subject... content.. story."
The quarry workers would count as his target if he was targeting everyone. It had all the boxes ticked about subject, content, story and it was still dismissed as not interesting to them. I don't think being uneducated plays much part in it as I'm sure running a quarry you have to be pretty well qualified, but even if you were uneducated that flies in the face of the theory that it is for everyone.
Those workers at the quarry would be part of them, and the people as you say who don't give a crap about photography. He did offer them a picture that they turned down, but they gave him what he wanted anyway and he gave them a picture for their trade show instead. I don't know what a 40x50 Burtynsky print would cost you, but it probably wouldn't be cheap and they still said no thanks.
Probably some influential gallery owners or art collectors or dealers pushing certain agendas.
But you always have the classics, the Only Fools, Morecambe and Wise, Porridge etc. They'll still be playing in 50 years, quality never goes out of style. There are new and supposedly exciting shows on just now that don't come close to shows made 40 years ago. I'd rather watch a repeat of OFAH than the dreck on BBC3.
But who is complaining nobody wants to buy them? The teaching route through books or workshops seems popular now which is a different revenue stream rather than selling prints. I read an interview with Joe Cornish where he said it wasn't actually that well paid doing workshops but he liked to pass on his experience and help people achieve better shots which is what I think it should be about.
I think the last books I bought were Genesis by Salgado and Africa by Salgado.
DO they? You're also making the assumption that a good photo should speak a thousand words. It's incorrect. They'll speak a different 1000 words to a thousand different people. We bring our own meaning to images. Images needing words is not a sign of a weak image. Images and words are interchangeable, and more often than not, the best work needs both. It's an absolute myth perpetuated by those that do not understand that images and words are ultimately inseparable. This is why anyone who has studied art, media or visual culture will be used to ALL work being called "texts" whether they are words, or images, because they COMMUNICATE MEANING.
So.. what thousand words is THIS saying....
Randomly chosen Cornish image.
Ok.... in your own time... 1000 words... GO!
Oh... and while we're at it... how is it any different or better than a thousand other images of the same damned thing on Flickr. Please, someone justify why Cornish is so highly regarded? There are better landscape photographers in this very forum who regularly post work much better than this.
In fact... search St Michal's Mount on Googlie Images.. hang on, I'll do it for you....
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=st+michael's+mount&safe=off&biw=2444&bih=1449&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8i8r0ptLJAhXHcBoKHW_pDpIQ_AUIBygC&dpr=0.9#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=st+michael's+mount+sunset
Tell me why Cornish is so good? Clearly the world and his dog can knock out image like that in their sleep. It's so commonplace it's worthless.
He's probably good at landscape shots as he practices a lot.
I look at photos like this:
http://www.spruethmagers.com/bilder/works/gursky_00162.jpg
The description: "In Niagara Falls (1989), a boatload of tourists, draped in black rain gear, appears to be heading directly into a section of the falls where the white crashing water has obliterated any legible detail. Niagara Falls might be an overexposed tourist destination, but Gursky discovers a peculiar mood there. A boat transports its human freight, entranced by a white abyss, to an uncertain fate. Yet we know that these tourists won’t get swamped by the falls, however precarious they look in the picture. Moreover, the overall calm and balance of the composition has the power to counteract any overwhelming sense of threat."
It was estimated to make $350,000 to $450,000 dollars at auction and realized $181,000. Now type in Maid of the Mist Niagara Falls into Google and you'll find thousands of those photos, probably hundreds of thousands over the years in albums. Is that new and exciting? Can't anyone and his dog knock that out?
Here's another:
http://www.phaidon.com/resource/spruth-magers-london-andreas-gursky-alba-jpg.jpg
The description: "In Alba (1989) the landscape is similarly ageless: a river, barely a ripple in its surface and framed by a dark forest, trickles over a stony riverbed as it has for centuries. Fishermen, dwarfed by the artist’s sweeping view of the site, wade into the water.
Gursky’s early landscapes provide the viewer with the concrete experience of a specific place as well as what Martin Hentschel has called a ‘mental image … that has been passed down to us by the history of painting and inscribed into our collective memory’. The pictures conjure both a topography and a structure.
Likewise, even while Alba taps into our deepest sense of what a landscape might express, from ancient idylls to Caspar David Friedrich, the photograph also depicts a mundane evening in Italy. The landscape is at once itself, a specific time and place, and also something otherworldly: a picture that transcends the basic conditions of its creation."
Now I'm sure if Joe Cornish was part of the contemporary art scene and had the right connections with curators or collectors they could call his work 'a concrete experience of a specific place' or 'tapping into our deepest sense of what a landscape might express' and reference a painter here or there, but it really reads like a big con to me. 21st century snake oil salesman trying to part fools with their money.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its not easy and accessible to do it well though - which is why the "thousands of shots" that david mentions on flickr don't compare well to Cornish's work up close (also ironically to this discussion most of cornish's work isnt digital - he's shooting on a 5x4 , although he is using an' LX mirrorless for record and visualisation' these days )
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not doing much photography at the moment because so many other people are.
That's clearly complete nonsense as a reason as it should make no difference to me - especially as the majority are digital users and I use film. That in itself should make me feel that it's worthwhile and should continue. I usually need something to give me a boot up the a*se to get going again.
I should finish my 5x4 camera. That should get me going again.
Steve.
That's clearly complete nonsense as a reason as it should make no difference to me - especially as the majority are digital users and I use film. That in itself should make me feel that it's worthwhile and should continue. I usually need something to give me a boot up the a*se to get going again.
I should finish my 5x4 camera. That should get me going again.
Steve.
jerry12953
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,421
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
I haven't studied them all obviously but there's one thing that strikes me about that vast number of images of St Michaels Mount.
And that's how different they all are.
You can hardly blame landscape photographers for going to a place with such potential.
And that's how different they all are.
You can hardly blame landscape photographers for going to a place with such potential.
jerry12953
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,421
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
So true. For some reason Andreas Gursky is considered worthy of a critical response and Joe Cornish (for example ) just isn't.
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Who said he was targeting them. I said good photography appeals to everyone, but there's still a wide range of good photography. Not getting the approval of a quarry worker is hardly an exhaustive test of whether a piece of work is good or not
Are you suggesting Burtinsky is not a good photographer? Fair enough if you are, but I think you'd need more than the fact that a quarry worker wasn't interested to convince anyone.Of course.. the conspiracy theory. All art is a con. Yeah, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better about things.
Yes, and you'll always have the Adams, and Westons, and Horsts.... but they're CLASSICS... no one makes NEW versions of the TV shows you're talking about because that would be ridiculous... so why keep making the same old landscape crap?
In your opinion perhaps. The ratings would suggest otherwise however. I promise you, if a show like the Two Ronnies would get the ratings, it would be made. I love the Two Ronnies... and Porridge. But I love them as classic programmes from the past. I wouldn't want the same stuff being made now. Who would want that?
Maybe you're just stuck in your ways with conservative tastes? Derek was utter crap though, I'll give you that. Ricky Gervais has long since stopped being funny any way... not that he ever was... IMO. However, if I had to watch a repeat and it was OFAH vs. something like The Mighty Boosh I know which I'd be watching. One is still fresh and clever. While the writing for OFAH is superb in every way.... it's getting a bit tired now.. but it's now becoming historical too... which gives it a different appeal and makes it hard to compare them. The fact is though... you couldn't keep MAKING OFAH now. Not only because everyone is too old, but because it's run its course. It's had it's day and people want new things.
Having said that... TV itself is getting boring. I don't actually have a TV any more.
Landscape photographers are. Seen several blog posts, articles and musings about this. No one seems to buy landscape and there's a feeling that it's being unfairly dismissed by galleries and publishers. I think they have a point though.. it is being dismissed, I know that for a fact, as I've been told so by several gallery owners, critics and curators I know. It's over-saturated, tired and all the bloody same these days, so they're ignoring it. Galleries and publishers, like broadcaster, want new and exciting things, not the same stuff we've had for decades already. Trends come, trends go.... and publishers move with the flow. Landscape is stale... it needs a radical shake up, and it will not come from anyone who reads Digital Photography, that I promise you.
I know... that's exactly what I wrote. This is almost certainly why landscape is so crap these days, as it all looks the same. Everyone is just recycling the same stuff over and over again in a torrent of articles, books, workshops, YouTube videos etc... all the same... it all... looks... the same!! Can't you see that?
I can understand that of course, and I have no problem with that ethos. After all, it's all that's stopping me from walking away from education at the moment since Gove, and now that mad bitch Morgan are slowly ruining higher education in this country. I love teaching photography. I can't comment on how much he earns from his workshops, but he charges a lot, and always seems to be running them. In fact... I'm surprised he has any time to make any more work.. which is why there hasn't been much from him lately. That's not my criticism of him any way. I wish him good luck. After all, most of my income comes from teaching it rather than doing it too. I just wish someone would explain why he is regarded so highly when there's utterly identical stuff on Flickr by the bucket load? No one ever can, or does though.
Hardly the kind of work we're discussing here though is it. That's a proper book by a properly talented photogapher, AND.. you hypocrite... it's dealing with serious issues. Something you have just tried to convince me no one wants to buy.. LOL. Make your mind up. It's not Landscape, and it's a million miles away from the type of work we're discussing here. Have you actually got teh book? Are we talking about teh same book here? Africa?
THIS book?
http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/photography/all/01373/gallery.sebastio_salgado_africa.htm
How in the name of all that's green and good can you say that's a landscape book? You do realise I asked you what the last Landscape book you bought was don't you? ..and that Salgado is not a landscape photographer?
It has a whiff of poverty porn about it too.
It's collectable because it's a Gursky. It's neither new, nor exciting, no. It's a fairly old image. Clearly it's YOUR idea of new and exciting though, or you wouldn't have tried to use it this context
I've already told you the type of work I'm referring to, and given you examples, but as usual, you trot out Gursky because it suits your needs, just like always happens in these debates. At least it wasn't Rhein II this time... that's a relief.
No... because when he hit the scene, he was a big deal actually, but unfortunately, he's a one trick pony, and the rest of the world has caught up, and now he's making things that are identical to what you see on Flickr, except what you see on Flickr is often actually better.
Last edited:
It's collectable because it's a Gursky. It's neither new, nor exciting, no. It's a fairly old image. Clearly it's YOUR idea of new and exciting though, or you wouldn't have tried to use it this context
I've already told you the type of work I'm referring to, and given you examples, but as usual, you trot out Gursky because it suits your needs, just like always happens in these debates. At least it wasn't Rhein II this time... that's a relief.
No... because when he hit the scene, he was a big deal actually, but unfortunately, he's a one trick pony, and the rest of the world has caught up, and now he's making things that are identical to what you see on Flickr, except what you see on Flickr is often actually better.
It was more the silly meaning and flowery language attached to the Niagara Falls picture that made me laugh and become sceptical. If Joe Cornish had taken it you'd have filed it under complete rubbish saying that anyone and his dog could churn it out. A famous artist anointed by the tastemakers, then no, it's critically acclaimed, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and he's giving us a 'concrete experience of a place' with his work, whatever that means.
Does it ever get to a point where you look at something and think, hold on, that's a bit s***, but you can't say it because you might be labelled 'stupid' for not getting it or chucked out of the intelligentsia club?
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What a great thread 
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not a sycophant that heaps praise on anything called art and if I'm honest, I don't see a great deal in that Gursky shot that makes it that great, but at least he has something to say about the image.. he's taken time to put his thoughts down as to why he took it. It's not that I think Joe Cornish is RUBBISH... I just think what he does is now utterly ordinary, easy to achieve by almost anyone who puts a bit of effort in, and because it's so ubiquitous and common, it's redundant and pointless.
Not for me it doesn't no. I'm critical of all manner of work, no matter where it comes from, which is exactly why I AM critical of Cornish. I could level the same accusation at you lot, who defend him despite his work being utterly average when you compare it to almost identical images by the thousands on Flickr. You dare not criticise it though, because it's JOE CORNISH
Last edited:
Ed Sutton
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,556
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
jerry12953
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,421
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Interesting. I was just beginning to search out an article in Onlandscape by David Ward in which he discusses a photograph by Thomas Struth (I think) taken in Yosemite. It had just sold for a huge sum of money , if I remember correctly.
2 mins 30 secs approx. ; Joe Cornish, "Everybody who critiques a picture....... comes with baggage"
2 mins 30 secs approx. ; Joe Cornish, "Everybody who critiques a picture....... comes with baggage"
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Famous building (apparently... and now I want to know more). Photographer chose to shoot it in a very different light (so he says) and what is discussed? Blades of grass and the shape of a blade of grass! Really? Sorry.. got annoyed and stopped watching after 12 minutes. I wanted to know about the place in order to to understand why he shot it after I got a tantalising glint of information at the start, yet all I got was a debate about pieces of grass and talk about composition which didn't help me understand the place or why it was taken in the slightest. They were describing the image, that's all. I didn't need that, I can see it for myself I didn't need to sit and listen to two blokes discuss why the positioning of blades of grass was important when it's blatantly not important at all. I;d have read the image the same way whether that piece of grass in the bottom left was there or not. It was an irrelevance.
I'm very disappointed that two big names in Landscape photography have so little to say about their work other that sitting there and describing it. I saw the first bit on the second image, and heard them compare it to a 19th century painting, and thought "Yup"... and switched off.
If I gave crit like that my third year students would hang me.
I have to say though, David Ward's images kick the **** out of Joe Cornish's
I'm very disappointed that two big names in Landscape photography have so little to say about their work other that sitting there and describing it. I saw the first bit on the second image, and heard them compare it to a 19th century painting, and thought "Yup"... and switched off.
If I gave crit like that my third year students would hang me.
I have to say though, David Ward's images kick the **** out of Joe Cornish's
Last edited:
Ed Sutton
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,556
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
From round about 8:20 the 'art market' and it's aesthetic gets discussed.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IghiWY0WmTU
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep.. being different. Which is what I'm saying here. Landscape has become a parody of itself these days, as so few people are doing anything different because of the glut of processes by which people learn to operate with landscape. It end up looking the same as everyone else's hence redundant.
Cheese Scientist
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 584
- Name
- Amanda
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Assuming NO sampling bias, and that 'quality' of the photographs are normally (or an approximation to) distributed as robust parametric analysis is only applicable to such data???
(NB - I take no responsibility for my comment if it turns out to be nonsense
)
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I thought David Ward's were quite good, especially that first one. Just a pity he had so little to say about it.
I think David Ward is excellent personally, he has a very interesting way of seeing things. The first one is, I think, a commonly photographed area of the Tetons called Mormon Row. Do a google for 'grand tetons barn' and you will probably find a large number of similar looking photos from a different angle. I had not seen one like this before which I why I liked it a lot when I first saw it.
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Gursky is always rolled out in the arguments. I like some of his, don't like others , but because it's gursky it's bought by investors. Surprised no ones mentioned Simon Norfolk, his afganistan work I quite liked,. Kander Yahtzee river, brassii' Parisian urban landscapes,
I kinda know what PH is saying, even been guilty of it myself. You're heading to an area, check out the photos for the must see or visit places and end up taking very similar images. For me that's ok if they are memories, but for many it's a tick box of look what I've shot.
Thee are some interesting landscape artists, especially urban
Michael summers london images
http://www.canonsnapper.com
Thibaud Poitier
http://www.thibaudpoirier.com/#welcome
I like his use of colour, the series being more than just the single image.
as for salgado, I saw his work in venice, stunning, not only the images but the processing, printing, images that you just sit and examine for ages.
I kinda know what PH is saying, even been guilty of it myself. You're heading to an area, check out the photos for the must see or visit places and end up taking very similar images. For me that's ok if they are memories, but for many it's a tick box of look what I've shot.
Thee are some interesting landscape artists, especially urban
Michael summers london images
http://www.canonsnapper.com
Thibaud Poitier
http://www.thibaudpoirier.com/#welcome
I like his use of colour, the series being more than just the single image.
as for salgado, I saw his work in venice, stunning, not only the images but the processing, printing, images that you just sit and examine for ages.
Last edited:
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep... done a fair bit of Pretty Pictures myself. I'm not after banning it or anything
Just saying that digital has pretty much ruined landscape as it now all looks the same.... Increased shadow detail, reduced highlights, bit of clarity.... voila! Instant Flickr likes.
jerry12953
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,421
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Very interesting interview. Course it helps if you're a professor of photography.......
David Ward is one of the most erudite landscape photographers around although I believe he no longer consider himself a landscape photographer.
Jem Southam quite revealingly says he made a conscious decision to make something different. His first book "The Red River" certainly was different to mainstream landscape photography, with a very strong documentary element to it. I seem to remember it created quite a stir when it was published. It could be argued that in order to distinguish himself from Joe Cornish and his comrades he actually took a fair number of deliberately bad photographs and included them in the book. Sloping horizons, blurred foregrounds, poor light, that sort of thing. It made his name within the arts elite and he's obviously never looked back.
- Messages
- 11,730
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Now you've sparked off a thought Ashley, perhaps there should be tests for mental fitness before buying a digital camera...
- Messages
- 49,339
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Long before digital there were tripod dents in the layby near Black Rock Cottage and many other cliché spots but far fewer people were subjected to the results. As David said, we've all got some of those sorts of shots kicking around in drawers or albums!
AshleyC
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,956
- Name
- ...
- Edit My Images
- No
Now you've sparked off a thought Ashley, perhaps there should be tests for mental fitness before buying a digital camera...
its easy with film , after sniffing fixer fumes, we have none to worry about and get in the way
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
. I'm critical of all manner of work, no matter where it comes from, which is exactly why I AM critical of Cornish. I could level the same accusation at you lot, who defend him despite his work being utterly average when you compare it to almost identical images by the thousands on Flickr. You dare not criticise it though, because it's JOE CORNISH
As i said on the other thread you thinking his work is utterly average doesnt make it so ... also picking him as an example of why digital is crap just looks foolish as 99% of his work is shot with film.
As to finding anything to say about the work - great work doesnt require a page of pretentious bolllocks to justify it, wheras mediocre work accompanied by a load of cobblers is still mediocre
Last edited:
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
LOL @ 99%
Digital capture isn't the problem I'm discussing any way unless you hadn't noticed, it's digital post processing that is. That's what is making all these landscapes look the same. Then there's also the other part of the digital equation - the dissemination of the images. So not only is work over processed, but is everywhere you look. The camera is the least important part of the problem. It is most definitely digital that has killed landscape.
That's probably because you think "a great picture speaks a thousand words, and a bad one needs a thousand words", right? So in recent threads you've managed to let us know that you judge the worth of things by their commercial success, and now you obtain your wisdom from old sayings and psuedo-axioms? Do you also forecast the weather by "Red sky at night....."? I know you've trotted out "Emperor's new clothes" a fair few times, and the old, "Those that can do, and those that can't teach" too.
If great images need no words, how come Cornish and Ward managed to sit there for an hour talking about their pictures?.... and why did you watch it? All pictures need words Pete. If the author provides none, the viewer does. Perhaps you'd understand that more if you actually took any photographs
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
OP
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I wish Pete would. Always in these threads banging on about how images speak for themselves, yet he's posted no images whatsoever despite having over 22K posts in here. I wouldn't mind if he put forward any really interesting academic arguments., but he's hardly Roland Barthes or Terry Barrett in his approach...
Hate armchair photographers.
Last edited:
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,982
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
that's not strictly accurate David...
I can think of a few threads...
This, this, this and a few in the 52's for example... I can certainly think of members on here that have posted fewer images. And, while it's great if members DO share their stuff, there's no absolute requirement for them to do so.
Last edited: