DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> These would score low on DPC
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 37 of 37, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/02/2006 04:44:39 PM · #26
Originally posted by polkop:


Ok hold my hands up the two top photos are ok but still b/w:(


Hehe...Cut Imogen some slack..it was the 1920's/1930's!! I don't think Kodak had Kodachrome Gold yet :-D

Message edited by author 2006-01-02 16:45:18.
 01/02/2006 04:45:14 PM · #27
Originally posted by hokie:
What I'm sorta curious about..in this day and age..would the child nudity be a problem for people?


I wouldn't touch child nudity with a ten foot pole in this day and age. But she shot before Internet predators or pedophiles were an issue. Not that pedophiles didn't exist - they just weren't in the spotlight.
 01/02/2006 04:47:10 PM · #28
DPC teaches you to take technically better photos - is there anyone who wants to argue that Imogen wouldn't take CLEAR photos with a Canon at least? These are good for their time period, but c'mon so was Drew's stop sign - that would get a 4 now, not an 8.
 01/02/2006 04:47:55 PM · #29
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I wouldn't touch child nudity with a ten foot pole in this day and age. But she shot before Internet predators or pedophiles were an issue. Not that pedophiles didn't exist - they just weren't in the spotlight.


That's what I am thinking. Even if they were my own kids I just know I would end up in prison. Heck..I got pictures my mom took of me when I was like 3 or 4 in the bathtub with Mr.Happy ...Mom and Dad would have been prison numbers 11334 and 11335 respectively today.

Message edited by author 2006-01-02 16:48:53.
 01/02/2006 04:51:02 PM · #30
Originally posted by mavrik:
DPC teaches you to take technically better photos - is there anyone who wants to argue that Imogen wouldn't take CLEAR photos with a Canon at least? These are good for their time period, but c'mon so was Drew's stop sign - that would get a 4 now, not an 8.


You know ... that's and awesome thought ... what would Imogen or Ansel Adams for that matter have done with a Nikon D2X or D200?

Message edited by author 2006-01-02 16:51:29.
 01/02/2006 05:02:56 PM · #31
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

You know ... that's and awesome thought ... what would Imogen or Ansel Adams for that matter have done with a Nikon D2X or D200?


They would kick ass so bad!! I am like a dude with a Ferrari that has training wheels. My creative photography took 2 steps back from the shear force of handling so much gear! I needed my camera for work (My clients need certain size files that only a Canon 5D, 1ds or Nikon D2x can provide in 35mm) and it performs awesome when I take my time.

Hi end cameras in the hands of a real pro absolutely smoke!

check out a couple of my favorite photogs today that use the Nikon D2x

Peter Frank

and

David Mendelsohn

David is particularly my favorite...many of his photos have inspired me.
 01/02/2006 05:10:05 PM · #32
My 'real' thoughts - this is just one of those debates. Why would anyone be an "icon" today if they took out of focus, half nasty photos? They wouldn't - they were icons because of the subject, their treatment, their era in photography and because well - they did it! With that crappy equipment obviously. They took photos nobody else took, that's the secret. It's not very GOOD photography by today's standards though. So yes, in the end, these would score low on DPC today - the same as Arthur Ashe in his prime with his equipment would get roasted by any top tennis player today using modern equipment - why in the world would there be improvements if it didn't 'improve' something? Imagine Tiger Woods with 2005 driver & irons vs. Sam Snead and Gary Player with their equipment - no contest. Really. Or a first gen race car driver against Dale Earnhardt in his prime?
01/02/2006 05:17:11 PM · #33
I think it's more about the people that came before you than the equipment even.

Granted, the equipment today makes it a snap. I remember shooting with 400 speed film 20 years ago and groaning about the fact I knew I was going to get grainy shots ( I covered some sports for Va Tech college newspaper).

Today...give me a break...My D2x at 1600 is better than Kodak 400 (although Canon does have an even better edge) so I don't cry about grain or noise like so many newbie photogs using digital.

But....with the internet and the absolute swamp of photography and images...it's more about technique today than breaking new ground in the image and art.

I tip my hat to the real pioneers of yesterday but..heck....they had a lot of new territory yet to discover..much harder to be fresh today.
 01/02/2006 05:31:42 PM · #34
Originally posted by hokie:
I tip my hat to the real pioneers of yesterday but..heck....they had a lot of new territory yet to discover..much harder to be fresh today.


No, we're all riding on technology, now. Really nothing new to be discovered. We can only turn it inward and push our selves to our limits.

Ofcourse, there will come a time when people look back and wonder how we created such beautfiful images with only 12 megapixels. History is a wonderful thing isn't it?
 01/02/2006 05:58:53 PM · #35
You know....I work for a professional photo lab/ commercial photo imaging company and i have learned so much about the state of technology and what can be done.

I am saying this for people who wonder "How many pixels is enough?"

12 megapixel cameras produce 10" x 14" photos at 300 dpi. That is a helluva photo!

Our lightjet uses lasers to burn images directly onto photopaper and we tell anybody that an image can be turned out at 100 dpi final resolution that cannot..even under a loupe...be distinguished from the the best photos.

That means a 12 megapixel camera could produce a 30" x 42" image that is indistinguishable from a 3" x 5" in quality at hand held distances. We have a half a dozen photos hanging in our lobby that are even bigger...printed at about 52 dpi and ..even from about 2 feet away...look like a 3" x 5" in resolution.

My point....very few people (as in 1 in a 1000) produce prints bigger than 16" x 20"...many people can't produce an image out of their camera WORTH printing bigger than that.

We are..for all intents and purposes..at the limit of useful pixels for output. Of course the more pixels you have the more you can crop and that is where I see photography going in the near future. BUT.....the 35mm lenses we have today cannot resolve much more than 20 megapixels and the pixels will get so small that you will need a lot better technique and equipment.

The next frontier is a real change in the very design of 35mm format and 12 megapixel D2x's for about $1,000..woohoo!!!!
 01/02/2006 06:19:41 PM · #36
Personally, Hokie, I think you are very correct.

I believe however, that the cameras will get smarter, making it easier for the user to get technicals right every time. I alos expect exposure lattitude will increase dramatically.

Perhaps, with the development of more sophisticated AI, they will even point out errors in composition for us.
 01/02/2006 06:28:42 PM · #37
Getting back on track, it is interesting to look at Cunningham's earliest images in that comprehensive gallery, which were firmly rooted in the prevailing misty, "pictorialist" tradition, and watch the evolution of the work from there. She was a foundewr, along with Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, of the group "F/64" which spearheaded the move away from painterly pictorialism into a more natural photographic ethos.

On November 15, 1932, at the M. H. de Young Memorial Museum in San Francisco, eleven photographers announced themselves as Group f/64: Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham, John Paul Edwards, Preston Holder, Consuelo Kanaga, Alma Lavenson, Sonya Noskowiak, Henry Swift, Willard Van Dyke, Brett Weston, and Edward Weston. The idea for the show had arisen a couple of months before at a party in honor of Weston held at a gallery known as "683" (for its address on Brockhurst Street in San Francisco)—the West Coast equivalent of Alfred Stieglitz's gallery 291—where they had discussed forming a group devoted to exhibiting and promoting a new direction in photography that broke with the Pictorialism then prevalent in West Coast art photography. The name referred to the smallest aperture available in large-format view cameras at the time and it signaled the group's conviction that photographs should celebrate rather than disguise the medium's unrivaled capacity to present the world "as it is." As Edward Weston phrased it, "The camera should be used for a recording of life, for rendering the very substance and quintessence of the thing itself, whether it be polished steel or palpitating flesh." A corollary of this idea was that the camera was able to see the world more clearly than the human eye, because it didn't project personal prejudices onto the subject. The group's effort to present the camera's "vision" as clearly as possible included advocating the use of aperture f/64 in order to provide the greatest depth of field, thus allowing for the largest percentage of the picture to be in sharp focus; contact printing, a method of making prints by placing photographic paper directly in contact with the negative, instead of using an enlarger to project the negative image onto paper; and glossy papers instead of matte or artist papers, the surfaces of which tended to disperse the contours of objects.

Such methods transformed the role of the artist from printmaker to selector: it was the photographer's choice of form and his or her framing of it that made the picture. The use of a view camera enabled the photographer to preview his scene on the ground glass (a flat pane of glass on the camera that reflected the scene from the point of view of the lens), the view camera's equivalent of the viewfinder in the 35mm single-lens reflex camera, before he snapped the shutter and developed the print, and the extensive employment of this device was a hallmark of Group f/64. Weston dubbed its effective use "previsualization." Group f/64 photographers concentrated on landscape photography—notable examples include Adams' Winter Yosemite Valley (49.55.177) and Weston's Dunes, Oceano (1987.1100.129)—or close-up images of items from the natural environment, such as plants and pieces of wood, subjects that highlighted the photographer's creative intuition and ability to create aesthetic order out of nature's chaos. In addition, a significant number of Group f/64's photographs were of industrial structures, quotidian objects from the modern world (such as Weston's Bedpan [1987.1100.134]), and nudes (particularly exceptional ones exist in the oeuvres of Weston, [Nude, 1925; L.1995.2.220], and Cunningham). While at first glance, these subjects seem to have nothing in common, Group f/64's photographs of them do. The photographers' meticulous concern for transcribing the exact features of what was before the camera bound them together and rendered the emotional experience of form the primary feature of their photographic art.

(from //www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/f64/hd_f64.htm)

Robt.

Message edited by author 2006-01-02 18:30:53.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 11:00:53 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 11:00:53 AM EDT.