Steven McCurry's camera and film
Steven Woody
does anyone know what camera/lens/film the Steven McCurry prefer to
use? thanks.
-
woody
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
"Steven Woody" <narke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178365874.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Woody,
Ask him
PZ
Alan Browne
Why?
The other night I prepared a wonderful dinner. My guests were very
happy and enjoyed the meal. They asked about the recipe and how I
learned to cook. Why I use so little salt. How I picked contrasts in
herbs, spices and vegtable and fruit flavours.
They didn't ask about the brand of oven or utensils.
Like all great photogs he doesn't talk much about gear, he talks about
his experiences, feeling, approach, problems, frustrations, danger and
rare moments where everything came together because of long hours, days,
weeks and months of toil coupled to personal risk and sacrifice.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Rob Morley
alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...
> Steven Woody wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > does anyone know what camera/lens/film the Steven McCurry prefer to
> > use? thanks.
>
> Why?
>
> The other night I prepared a wonderful dinner. My guests were very
> happy and enjoyed the meal. They asked about the recipe and how I
> learned to cook. Why I use so little salt. How I picked contrasts in
> herbs, spices and vegtable and fruit flavours.
Kinda like lenses, film stock, chemicals ...
>
> They didn't ask about the brand of oven or utensils.
>
That would be like asking a photographer what enlarger and drying
cabinet he uses.
> Like all great photogs he doesn't talk much about gear, he talks about
> his experiences, feeling, approach, problems, frustrations, danger and
> rare moments where everything came together because of long hours, days,
> weeks and months of toil coupled to personal risk and sacrifice.
>
So he likes to talk about himself. Those who excel in his field aren't
generally shy people with low self-esteem.
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:5x1%h.117417$pA6.4...@weber.videotron.net...
That’s a strange analogy. The lens and the film are certainly a part of
the overall recipe.
I suppose if McCurry had snapped The Afghan Girl with a ‘70s era Polaroid,
it still would have made the cover of national Geographic.
Instead of saying, “I don’t know” you tell the man it doesn’t matter.
Well, it does and I am certain that Mr. McCurry has his favorite film
stocks, lenses and camera bodies and would be willing to tell you why if
asked.
PZ
Alan Browne
> Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:5x1%h.117417$pA6.4...@weber.videotron.net...
>
>>Steven Woody wrote:
>>
>>>hi,
>>>
>>>does anyone know what camera/lens/film the Steven McCurry prefer to
>>>use? thanks.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>The other night I prepared a wonderful dinner. My guests were very
>>happy and enjoyed the meal. They asked about the recipe and how I
>>learned to cook. Why I use so little salt. How I picked contrasts in
>>herbs, spices and vegtable and fruit flavours.
>>
>>They didn't ask about the brand of oven or utensils.
>>
>>Like all great photogs he doesn't talk much about gear, he talks about
>>his experiences, feeling, approach, problems, frustrations, danger and
>>rare moments where everything came together because of long hours, days,
>>weeks and months of toil coupled to personal risk and sacrifice.
>
>
>
> the overall recipe.
Not at all. In fact please find on the web where he goes into detail on
equipment. You'll find others talking about his equipment, but not him.
Let's say that the equipment that McCurry uses is the absolute best
technically and for useability.
Now, how many photographers out of 100,000 are going to make photography
of his quality?
I'd guess more than 10, but far less than 100.
> I suppose if McCurry had snapped The Afghan Girl with a ‘70s era Polaroid,
> it still would have made the cover of national Geographic.
He didn't "snap" that photo. He had to convince her to allow him take
it, then he had to do it in a tent. Pose her, etc. To say he snapped
that photo is a bit ... er, nevermind.
Elsa Dorfman produces color portraiture on Polaroid to this day in huge
sizes. And as they are direct original images the resolution is much
higher than even the best LF cameras (although her camera (borrowed from
Polaroid) makes a LF camera look positively portable in comparison).
A SX70 polaroid original (about 3.5" on a side) has more detail than a
35m slide image, so yes, I'd say it is possible if the color is there.
What isn't there is the choice of apertures, exposure speeds and focal
lengths that a PJ needs, so it's very unlikley that a cover (or article
key images) would be from Polaroid.
Magazines, esp. in that era demanded transparency film and therefore
that is what he shot. NG photographers used mostly Nikon, Canon and
Leica 35mm and various MF and LF cameras. Film varied from K-25/64 to
various E-6's from Velvia to Provia100/400, Reala and varieties of
Ektachrome. They are using more and more digital (if it's over 50% now
I would not be surprosed).
He is known to be a transparency oriented shooter. Within that, I doubt
that his favourite pallette is less than 5 films.
NG Photographers (esp. guys like McCurry) rarely saw their photos until
after they were selected and even published. 29,000 frames per article
was the average in the 90's.
3 points about the "Polaroid"
1) I cooked my meal in a regular home kitchen with common kitchen gear,
not in a microwave oven which is a reasonable comparative analogy SLR
v. polaroid to kitchen cooking v. microwave.
2) Professional photographers use Polaroid for commercial work from
verifying studio lighting, to sketchbooking and planning. These have
been supplanted to a great deal by digital, however.
3) McCurry would do better with a Polaroid than most
slap-happy-budget-free SLR shooters can do on their best day.
> Instead of saying, “I don’t know” you tell the man it doesn’t matter.
> Well, it does and I am certain that Mr. McCurry has his favorite film
> stocks, lenses and camera bodies and would be willing to tell you why if
> asked.
You're missing it completely. While he probably does have his
favourites it would not matter a whit to his talent and creative output
because his talent, vision, connection to people, places and events FAR
outweigh equipment considerations by at least 20:1.
I watched a PBS documentary on a rather famous (infamous) photographer
several months back and she used a variety of equipment brands and types
according to the needs of the job. Not according to her "favourites".
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Steven Woody wrote:
>>
>>>hi,
>>>
>>>does anyone know what camera/lens/film the Steven McCurry prefer to
>>>use? thanks.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>The other night I prepared a wonderful dinner. My guests were very
>>happy and enjoyed the meal. They asked about the recipe and how I
>>learned to cook. Why I use so little salt. How I picked contrasts in
>>herbs, spices and vegtable and fruit flavours.
>>
>>They didn't ask about the brand of oven or utensils.
>>
>>Like all great photogs he doesn't talk much about gear, he talks about
>>his experiences, feeling, approach, problems, frustrations, danger and
>>rare moments where everything came together because of long hours, days,
>>weeks and months of toil coupled to personal risk and sacrifice.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Alan
>
>
> to learn as many small detail as one can learn, not to think the equiment
> can make Steven McCurry. Matter fact, I have more than enough lessons to
> learn from my very own errors, and I don't want to be anyone but myself.
There's a fine line between being "molded" to others standards and
mastering technique before developing ones own. Many great artists
learned their masters ways before establishing their own signature.
Georgia O'Keefe was stifled in art school and left, sacrificing learning
to blossom in her own right. Took moretime but she didn't have to
"unlearn" anything.
> Or
> I study the others' strongest and weakest points to adapt and imporve to my
> own style, and err to avoid.
>
> Or if the equipment can turn me into another Steven McCurry then I would
> rather give my camera to my grandkid <bg>
Excellent point, except we should guide our children to development not
hand it to them. (Thankfully, that's not possible in any case).
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
I never said he snapped that photo, I said, "if McCurry had snapped "...
lost in translation...
I understand all of that and do not disagree, with most of it. I do remain,
"The lens and the film are certainly a part of the overall recipe".
The OP asked,
>>>does anyone know what camera/lens/film the Steven McCurry prefer to
>>>use? thanks.
You are reading allot into that question. We really have no idea why he
asked it.
From Nikonnet.com
In the Bag
As you can see from his photographs, Steve McCurry likes to work up-close
and in low light, and that calls for short, fast lenses on his two F100 and
two N90s bodies-generally a 28mm f/1.4D or 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor. He also
carries an 85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor and a 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor. He packs
an SB-24 Speedlight for those times when fill-flash is necessary, and almost
always uses a sturdy tripod.
His non-photographic, but absolutely essential gear includes a Swiss Army
knife ("because you never know when a corkscrew might come in handy") and
the all-purpose, all-in-one Leatherman Tool ("more than once my driver has
used it to fix the engine").
From Wikipedia,
Although McCurry shoots both in digital and film, his admitted preference is
for transparency film.
A good read,
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/member/ProPass/advancedAmateur/mcCurry.jhtml
Alan Browne
> I never said he snapped that photo, I said, "if McCurry had snapped "...
> lost in translation...
>
> I understand all of that and do not disagree, with most of it. I do remain,
> "The lens and the film are certainly a part of the overall recipe".
Pls see my remark above about "the best equipment in the hands of 100,000"
> The OP asked,
>
>
>>>>does anyone know what camera/lens/film the Steven McCurry prefer to
>>>>use? thanks.
>
>
> You are reading allot into that question. We really have no idea why he
> asked it.
Oh please.
> From Nikonnet.com
>
> In the Bag
> As you can see from his photographs, Steve McCurry likes to work up-close
> and in low light, and that calls for short, fast lenses on his two F100 and
> two N90s bodies-generally a 28mm f/1.4D or 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor. He also
> carries an 85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor and a 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor. He packs
> an SB-24 Speedlight for those times when fill-flash is necessary, and almost
> always uses a sturdy tripod.
From Nikonnet.
Yeah, right. Funny they don't mention his Hasselblad or other gear.
> His non-photographic, but absolutely essential gear includes a Swiss Army
> knife ("because you never know when a corkscrew might come in handy") and
> the all-purpose, all-in-one Leatherman Tool ("more than once my driver has
> used it to fix the engine").
Yes, he is a frequent reader of my page:
http://www.aliasimages.com/NonPTools.htm
(okay I can't back that up, but he might be).
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
I did read it. I disregarded it. It is your opinion and not a fact. I
would give people more credit than that. even so, the results would be
subjective.
BTW, I like chilly cooked slow in a crock pot over chilly whipped up on the
stove... It's even better on day two.
> Yeah, right. Funny they don't mention his Hasselblad or other gear.
Is that an asuumtion, or can you back it up? Either way it matters not. I
would own one too if I could afford it, But wait, the gear dosen't
matter... after all it is 5% gear and 95% photographer...
http://www.aliasimages.com/Gear.htm
While I don not disagree with the concept I don't think you can apply real
math to it.
Just as Isak Perlman could make a cheap violin sound good, his music will
always sound better on a stradivarius. For the beginner, both would sound
like the death of a cat.
BTW, trouble viewing your galleries...
PZ
Steven Woody
because i want to use McCurry's gear and became another McCurry. one
reason is interesting. when i was looking at his portraits, i thought
what format will produce this level of detail? can a 35mm film or 120
film? or can a dSLR? if that is film, what kind of film can represent
such a superb color? another reason of asking is that geting a bit
more information about those masters is not anyway harmful, is it?
thanks again.
-
woody
Alan Browne
Cripes! I there is one thing about photography that stands the test of
time it is the simple fact that a boob with the best equipment is still
a boob.
> would give people more credit than that. even so, the results would be
> subjective.
>
>>Yeah, right. Funny they don't mention his Hasselblad or other gear.
>
>
> Is that an asuumtion, or can you back it up? Either way it matters not. I
He shoots Hasselblad. He shoots others as well. Dig around. The point
is he rarely mentions what he shoots... it's others who gush over his
gear. Those who get it talk about his approach to photography which has
absolutely nothing to do with gear.
> would own one too if I could afford it, But wait, the gear dosen't
> matter... after all it is 5% gear and 95% photographer...
>
> http://www.aliasimages.com/Gear.htm
>
> While I don not disagree with the concept I don't think you can apply real
> math to it.
The 95:5 is illustrative, not fact. It is to give a notional weight to
the idea.
Why should anyone care what the most accomplished photographer uses for
photography when that accomplished photographers work is centered around
the subject, not the method. Grok that. Other than it being of good
quality and technically meeting the need, there is no need to ask the
best photographers what gear they use. There are a few specialty areas,
indeed, but this does not apply to McMurry for most of what I've seen
him shoot: people and places.
>
> Just as Isak Perlman could make a cheap violin sound good, his music will
> always sound better on a stradivarius. For the beginner, both would sound
> like the death of a cat.
Beginner? Most professional violinists play in the orchestra sections,
not as the soloist just as most professional photographers are not of
McCurry's cloth.
>
> BTW, trouble viewing your galleries...
Taken down.
Alan Browne
Then ask what gets supperb color.
Nat Geo (and McCurry) use mainly transparency films.
Fuji Velvia, Provia 100/400, Kodak E100 series (G, GX).
Mainly 35mm (Nikon, Canon, Leica)
Some MF and LF.
They shoot more and more digital.
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
Who is McMurry?
McCurry on the other hand, Is not a God, he is a man with a craft and the
tools he chooses are an important part of that craft and for others to be
curious as to what the tools are and why he might choose the is perfectly
normal.
Have you spoken to McCurry? Attended a workshop perhaps? Where is the
attribution? Where do your opinions come from? I think they are yours and
not necessarily his.
"Why should anyone care what the most accomplished photographer uses for
photography when that accomplished photographers work is centered around
the subject, not the method."
It is called curiosity; you are the one making the assumption that the
person asking the question is putting the hardware on a higher plane than
creativity. The man simply asked a question. And rather than answering it
you told him his question is not important. Well, it may not be important
to you but obviously it is to the OP or he would not have asked.
"The most accomplished photographer," an accomplished photographer, sure but
certainly not the "most accomplished".
>
> Just as Isak Perlman could make a cheap violin sound good, his music will
> always sound better on a stradivarius. For the beginner, both would sound
> like the death of a cat.
"Beginner? Most professional violinists play in the orchestra sections,
not as the soloist just as most professional photographers are not of
McCurry's cloth"
.
You missed the point entirely.
Respectfully,
Patrick Ziegler
Alan Browne
>
> You missed the point entirely.
Not at all. Get off your equipment focus.
Rob Morley
alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...
> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>
> >
> > You missed the point entirely.
>
> Not at all. Get off your equipment focus.
>
is first necessary to be able to produce technically competent shots.
This is not an "equipment focus", it's just about getting the right
tools for the job.
Alan Browne
People armed with average equipment but with an eye and talent for
photography dance rings around people with the best equipment. My SO is
marginal technically but out-eyes me 10:1 and so produces great visual
statements v. my own. Once I taught her about the limitations of film
and how light and textures interact; warm shooting, etc. her photography
took a triple leap in quality. I just can't get her to use her damned
tripod.
Regarding the OP: he wanted specific equipment data for a specific
photographer. We can all assume that Steve McCurry uses very good
equpment, but whether he uses the best Nikon or best Canon or Fuji or
Kodak really has little to do with the great phototgraphy he makes
becasue of his approach to the subject.
If one has the best Nikon/Canon pack, and McCurry has a consumer,
plastic Pentax SLR with a 28-80 kit lens, he will spank the pants off 19
out of 20 (more like 999 out of a 1000) photogs.
Grok it. Spend some time in the vast photos of photo.net. A lot of the
great photos there come from photogs with the great equipment. But a
lot of great photos there come from very ordinary equipment including
cheesy P&S digitals. The reason the best equipment shows up is becasue
the better photogs eventually equip themselves with the best tools.
This does not include a great number of photogs from making great photos
with limited tools.
If you shoot within the limits of the gear, then you are the limitation,
not the gear.
Cheers,
Alan.
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
Please, I'll focus on what I think is important and not what you think. I
really do not need you to teach me anything about focus, equipment,
composition or any other aspect of photography. I do quite well, thank you.
"Regarding the OP: he wanted specific equipment data for a specific
photographer. We can all assume that Steve McCurry uses very good
equpment, but whether he uses the best Nikon or best Canon or Fuji or
Kodak really has little to do with the great phototgraphy he makes
becasue of his approach to the subject."
You really do sound like a broken record. Everybody understands what point
you are trying to make but what you are not understanding is, The OP JUST
ASKED A FUCKING QUESTION. You turned into the whole philosophical thing
about how the question was unimportant.
You have not a clue what the OP saw in McCurry's work and wanted to
understand. You are insulting the OP's and everybody else's intelligence by
harping on this same point over and over again.
Quoting the OP,
"i asked the original question is not
because i want to use McCurry's gear and became another McCurry. one
reason is interesting. when i was looking at his portraits, i thought
what format will produce this level of detail? can a 35mm film or 120
film? or can a dSLR? if that is film, what kind of film can represent
such a superb color? another reason of asking is that geting a bit
more information about those masters is not anyway harmful, is it?"
His question deserved an answer, not a smart-ass, "Why" and a tale about the
dinner you made the night before.
Patrick Ziegler
Scott W
wrote:
> If you shoot within the limits of the gear, then you are the limitation,
> not the gear.
gear. But I will give a couple of examples and perhaps you would
like to comment on them.
I recently got a 300mm prime lens with image stabilization and over
night I started getting better photos of a type that I like to shoot.
Now perhaps someone with more talent or a more artistic eye could do
better with less, but for me the lens made a huge difference.
I also saw a large improvement in my indoor shoots when I got a 28mm
prime and started using that instead of a slower zoom lens.
When I was shooting film I got way better results using Kodachrome 64
then when I was forced to use Kodak Gold 400.
I get far better shots using my 350D then I do when I use my F828.
But I am sure there are photographers that can do far better with a
F828 then I can with my 350D, but then these same photographers don't
tend to own an F828 because they find that they can do far better yet
with something like a 1Ds III or 5D etc.
>From what I have seen that is no such thing as "shooing within the
limitation of your gear" What I have seen is that the camera matter,
the film matters and maybe more important the lenses matter. And what
I have seen is that any photograph will see an improvement in their
photographs if they use better film, in the case of digital a better
camera and in both cases better lenses.
The problem as I see it is not that people believe that better gear/
film will produce better photos, there is only a problem if people
believe that only the gear matters. The OP has given no indication
that be believes this to be the case.
I like to give an analogy that deal with juggling since I like to
juggle. I can juggle far better with cheap tennis balls then most
people and juggle with good juggling balls. I could make the case
that talent if far more important then what juggling props you choose
to use. But this would be very wrong, if you are going to take up
juggling you want the best juggling balls you can find since everyone
will do better when using good props. If you want to know what
juggling ball, clubs, etc. to buy look at what the pros use and get
that same gear, you will be spending your money well. The point here
is that in juggling both the gear and the talent matter, I believe
photograph is no different.
Scott
Alan Browne
> You seem to forget that in order to produce artistically great shots it
> is first necessary to be able to produce technically competent shots.
> This is not an "equipment focus", it's just about getting the right
> tools for the job.
These are not the "right tools for the job" but the photographers vision
seemed to work in any case... I doubt that McCurry would use such
cameras for "serious" work (or at all). But these photographers, using
modest equipment are lightcatchers, not gearheads.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1783895 (Nikon coolpix)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928936 (Lumix)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5933264 (Nikon D50)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5931740 (Coolpix)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5930144 (Sony 717)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5935319 (Minolta DiMage A200)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928141 (Sony DSC-V3)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5930556 (Sony A100 [DSLR
that everyone thinks is crap!])
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5927952 (Nikon D50)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5933765 (Canon Powershot A610)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5933765 Oly SP-510 UZ (P&S)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5935071 Sony 717
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928011 Panasonic Lumix
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5924487 Minolta Dynax 5 with
Sigma lens (snicker, yeah, snicker away).
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928233 (4 mpix Oly P&S))
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5926603 Canon powershot
... and so many more. It is the photogs vision that made these shots,
not the equipment.
And a lot of great photos at photo.net don't even have the camera marked
as if the shooter is embarrassed or more importantly because it doesn't
matter at all if you have a good eye for shooting.
Cheers,
Alan
Scott W
wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > You seem to forget that in order to produce artistically great shots it
> > is first necessary to be able to produce technically competent shots.
> > This is not an "equipment focus", it's just about getting the right
> > tools for the job.
>
> These are not the "right tools for the job" but the photographers vision
> seemed to work in any case... I doubt that McCurry would use such
> cameras for "serious" work (or at all). But these photographers, using
> modest equipment are lightcatchers, not gearheads.
>
> that everyone thinks is crap!])http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5927952(Nikon D50)http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5933765(Canon Powershot A610)http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5933765Oly SP-510 UZ (P&S)http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5935071Sony 717http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928011Panasonic Lumixhttp://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5924487Minolta Dynax 5 with
> Sigma lens (snicker, yeah, snicker away).http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928233(4 mpix Oly P&S))http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5926603Canon powershot
>
> ... and so many more. It is the photogs vision that made these shots,
> not the equipment.
>
> And a lot of great photos at photo.net don't even have the camera marked
> as if the shooter is embarrassed or more importantly because it doesn't
> matter at all if you have a good eye for shooting.
it look more like an exercise in Photoshop then photography, nothing
wrong with that but not what everyone is after.
Your model seems to be that until you get to a certain level of
proficiency the gear does not matter, this is just not right IMO.
Again I refer you to my analogy with juggling, I can most likely
juggle far better using tennis ball (which are really bad) then you
could using the more expensive juggling balls available. Does this
show that my quality of the ball does not matter, not at all if you
were to want to learn juggling I would say get the best juggling balls
you can find as everyone one does better with better gear.
You of course use a MF camera from time to time, if the gear really
counts for so little why go through all the bother of lugging the
thing around, or for that matter the expense of your Coolscan 9000?
You are fast to call other gear heads but it seems to me you are not
exactly lacking in gear yourself.
Scott
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1783895 (Nikon coolpix)
Over manipulated
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928936 (Lumix)
Interesting but nothing special, distracting bkgnd and too centered
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5933264 (Nikon D50)
Well-done, good glass
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5931740 (Coolpix)
Not original, lacking strong element
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5930144 (Sony 717)
No comment
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5935319 (Minolta DiMage A200)
Does nothing for me
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928141 (Sony DSC-V3)
IR is always fun, But what else is special here?
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5930556 (Sony A100 [DSLR
that everyone thinks is crap!])
Photoshop?
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5927952 (Nikon D50)
some funky things going on in the blacks, some overexposed areas, I have
problems with the bckgrnd.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5933765 (Canon Powershot A610)
Interesting but signs of obvious manipulation.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5933765 Oly SP-510 UZ (P&S)
Haven't I seen this before?
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5935071 Sony 717
Again, the pasted bird..
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928011 Panasonic Lumix
Scary but not impressive
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5924487 Minolta Dynax 5 with
Sigma lens (snicker, yeah, snicker away).
Un original
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928233 (4 mpix Oly P&S))
I am getting sleepy now
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5926603 Canon powershot
Interesting, file under, "What is it"
All in all these do not help your argument. Amateurish photos at best.
Just being honest, call em as I see em...
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
DBLEXPOSURE
Patrick Ziegler ImageQuest Photography
"Joel" <Jo...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:acjs33luhg646im7n...@4ax.com...
Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I looked at three random photo from your list above, from these three
> it look more like an exercise in Photoshop then photography, nothing
> wrong with that but not what everyone is after.
I haven't looked at any of the list, but I have finally installed the
Flash Plug-in (for firefox) to be able to enter Steve McCunny site to view
some of his works. Yes, I do like his captures (like I have mentioned in
quite a few msgs that portrait is one of my favorites), and like I have
mentioned in one message responsed to the Iraq Slideshow that I would tade
heaven for the chance to photograph in those countries (especially in war
time which could bring back my old memory), and I do like the post
processing too. But that type (many or most) of post processing I usually
do on art not for normal portrait.
One of my favorites is funeral (I do photograph funeral) and this is when
I can turn many headshots into art, and I even go further by turning
headshot into digital painting.
P.S. I just checked *few* and I agree with you that they are post
processing style which I am more than capable of doing those (and I enjoy
doing those as well), and the Hi-Key is one I use pretty often, and most
people love Hi-Key style.
Joel,
There is no doubt; McCurry has assembled quite a collection of work over the
years. I always wonder how many exposures didn't make the cut. Wouldn't it
be fun to browse through those?
It is nice to know that your thoughts where provoked by my Iraq slide show.
I too hope to return there some day. However, it is a big planet and there
is so much to photograph. Well, if the opportunity arises, I'm sure I will
take it.
Patrick Ziegler
Noons
> hi,
>
> does anyone know what camera/lens/film the Steven McCurry prefer to
> use? thanks.
>
> woody
Nikon
Alan Browne
> All in all these do not help your argument. Amateurish photos at best.
Yet far better than 99% of people who pick up a camera (and several were
better than many so called pros ever do). For that matter, there are
many amateurs who consistently out do pros as pros have to make a living
and deliver those bread and butter missions.
I really don't think you get it. At all.
Alan Browne
> You are fast to call other gear heads but it seems to me you are not
> exactly lacking in gear yourself.
We weren't talking about me. See the OP.
Asking what gear McCurry uses is the same as asking what bat McGuire
uses. It ain't gonna get ya there.
Alan Browne
This is why I answered the way I did. He not only uses Nikon, but
several other camera, lens, formats and sensors.
And NONE of those make HIM a photographer.
Grok?
Alan Browne
> "DBLEXPOSURE" <cels...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>> A little further? I may use Dodge/Burn on the horses. Just something
> different, and I would make the horses (muscles) to be the strongest focus
> point
>
>
>>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5928936 (Lumix)
>>
>>Interesting but nothing special, distracting bkgnd and too centered
>
>
> done with Photoshop (or similar)
>
>
Not the point (all the photos) but that the photos were the product of
the photographer ... not the equipment.
Noons
wrote:
>
> This is why I answered the way I did. He not only uses Nikon, but
> several other camera, lens, formats and sensors.
>
> And NONE of those make HIM a photographer.
>
> Grok?
>
couldn't care less. I just answered the original question.
Don't think the OP asked for a dissertation on photography.
Alan Browne
> On May 8, 9:29 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>>This is why I answered the way I did. He not only uses Nikon, but
>>several other camera, lens, formats and sensors.
>>
>>And NONE of those make HIM a photographer.
>>
>>Grok?
>>
>
>
> couldn't care less. I just answered the original question.
No you didn't, because McCurry uses Leica, Hasselblad and other cameras
as well.
> Don't think the OP asked for a dissertation on photography.
He didn't get one. A dissertation is much longer.
Cheers,
Alan.
Scott W
wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > You are fast to call other gear heads but it seems to me you are not
> > exactly lacking in gear yourself.
>
> We weren't talking about me. See the OP.
>
> Asking what gear McCurry uses is the same as asking what bat McGuire
> uses. It ain't gonna get ya there.
The point is that what gear you use does matter a great deal and you
believe this yourself or you would not be using the gear you do.
No one is saying that all you need it good gear to be a good
photographer, but what a number of us are saying is that good gear is
part of the equation and to ignore this is folly. And once again I
must point out that you really do believe this, otherwise why do you
use MF when 35mm is so much easier? The answer is simple, in many
cases you can get results with MF that you either can't get with 35mm
or would me much harder with 35mm.
And to use my analogy once more, if you were to go out and buy the
best juggling balls available you won't find that you are all of a
sudden a proficient juggler, but you will have a lot easier time
getting their then if you use crap balls.
Do you really think that what film a photographer uses does not
matter, or what format he or she shoots?
If I use B/W film with a 8 x 10 camera I will likely not get the same
images that AA did. but if I were to try and get anything even close
to what he did using 400 ISO Kodak Gold and a 35mm point and shoot I
would fail to even start.
The style of photography that McCurry does might be a lot less
dependent on the equipment but the OP saw something in the technical
quality of the photographs that he liked and asked what. You took his
enquiry to mean that he was looking to talk photos like McCurry, but
the OP specifically said that this was not the case.
Scott
DBLEXPOSURE
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
Give it up you are wrong, 99% could do just as well. Those shots are
nothing special and show me not an ounce, less two of them, of any
originality, or artistic thought.
And I would like to see you try and take away McGuire's bat. Or for that
matter Tiger's driver, that is just dumb.
And sense you like to apply meaningless numbers like 99% or 10 out 1000 etc
etc, with no real math to back it up, The guy with shit gear might get
lucky and produce an exceptional photo 1 out of 500 times while the same
guy's odds will increase as the quality of his equipment increases.
I can see where one might think as you do if all you are doing is shooting
flower macros in the back yard or taking snaps of the kids at the ball park
to post on photo.net or pbase but when you have to deliver or go hungry you
learn pretty fast the shit gear will fuck you out of lunch more often than
not.
I suppose you could do ten weddings with that 4MP P.O.S. that Best Buy is
pushing in this week's Sunday flyer and not get sued. NOT. You ever talk
to an angry bride? Hell hath no fury like the chick who's wedding album you
just fucked up. She wanted the BIG portrait to hang over the mantel and you
shot it the 4MP P.O.S. mentioned above and tried to tell her the
pixelization was for artistic effect.
When its Denali, or Iraq, or front row seats a NASA, or the arrival of a
president, or a horned owl going face first into the snow pack after a
mouse, you take the good stuff. And if your shooting film, especially
transparencies, you take what you know is going to do what you want.
And now when you are on the once-in-a-liftime shoot, you can free your mind
of most of thechnical stuff and compose.
Like I said, "Perlman will allways sound better playing a Stradivarius"
So go for it, quite the J.O.B. and take that fine gear out (
http://www.aliasimages.com/Gear.htm ) and earn your keep with it; then we
can talk. Who knows, maybe you'll get a NatGeo cover.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
DBLEXPOSURE
"Noons" <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1178580858....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Exactly! Hooahhh! to that.
Hey Alan, tough to be a photogrpaher with a bucket of paint and a brush and
an artistic vision.... Go make us a photograph...
DBLEXPOSURE
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178584621....@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Roger that Scott, but you can talk till you are blue in the face and this
guy won't budge. He's all philosophical about it, like it is some sort of
religion. Now if he was putting out some stellar pics, I'd sell my gear and
go in for a Canon PowerShot. Hell, it fits in you pocket and you never have
to change lenses and I can be just as productive. What the hell have I been
thinking?
Sorry, but it is getting time for sarcasm.
Out!
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:bBO%h.48386$1%4.68...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
>>DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All in all these do not help your argument. Amateurish photos at best.
>>
>>Yet far better than 99% of people who pick up a camera (and several were
>>better than many so called pros ever do). For that matter, there are many
>>amateurs who consistently out do pros as pros have to make a living and
>>deliver those bread and butter missions.
>>
>>I really don't think you get it. At all.
>>
>>
>>--
>>-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
>>-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
>>-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
>>-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
>
>
>
> Give it up you are wrong, 99% could do just as well. Those shots are
> nothing special and show me not an ounce, less two of them, of any
> originality, or artistic thought.
Hogwash.
>
> And I would like to see you try and take away McGuire's bat. Or for that
> matter Tiger's driver, that is just dumb.
Can you read? This is what I wrote:
""Asking what gear McCurry uses is the same as asking what bat McGuire
uses. It ain't gonna get ya there. ""
I never said anything about taking anything from anyone.
> And sense you like to apply meaningless numbers like 99% or 10 out 1000 etc
> etc, with no real math to back it up, The guy with shit gear might get
> lucky and produce an exceptional photo 1 out of 500 times while the same
> guy's odds will increase as the quality of his equipment increases.
I stated somewhere in this silly thread that those people who shoot more
consistently better photography do of course acquire "appropriate"
photographic gear for (usually) the right reasons.
But again, a boob with the best Nikon is still a boob with a camera.
> I can see where one might think as you do if all you are doing is shooting
> flower macros in the back yard or taking snaps of the kids at the ball park
> to post on photo.net or pbase but when you have to deliver or go hungry you
> learn pretty fast the shit gear will fuck you out of lunch more often than
> not.
>
> I suppose you could do ten weddings with that 4MP P.O.S. that Best Buy is
> pushing in this week's Sunday flyer and not get sued. NOT. You ever talk
Don't suppose what I would do.
The point of all those images was to show that people get their images
from their vision. Not from their cameras. When you figure that out
you'll be very happy.
> to an angry bride? Hell hath no fury like the chick who's wedding album you
> just fucked up. She wanted the BIG portrait to hang over the mantel and you
> shot it the 4MP P.O.S. mentioned above and tried to tell her the
> pixelization was for artistic effect.
Where did I say that? I showed a few images where people got very nice
results with cameras that McCurry would not bother with. On the other
hand, most beginners could not approach McCurry's work with the best.
Maybe the odd gifted person, but not many.
As to weddings there are enough disasters with people with ALL the right
gear AND ALL the right training in any case who manage to raise the ire
of Bridezilla.
> Like I said, "Perlman will allways sound better playing a Stradivarius"
And not even the first section of the orchestra will come close to
Perlman or Mutter if they are given Yamaha's and the 1st section are
given perfect strads.
> So go for it, quite the J.O.B. and take that fine gear out (
> http://www.aliasimages.com/Gear.htm ) and earn your keep with it; then we
> can talk. Who knows, maybe you'll get a NatGeo cover.
You continue to not get it and have turned this into an ad hominem attack.
I have no illusions about my photography. I'm an amateur. I do it for
my enjoyment. I've had pros hire me to fill in for the mundane. I've
had portraits purchassed and articles use my photographs. I've shot
people's portraits and recorded their children't key points in life.
You're attacking me because I simply turned the question around to the
essentials:
The best camera gear does not a great photographer make.
You can play your tiny minded games and find the mundane photos I've
posted here and there for whatever reason they are posted. There are
some posted as well that have technical or artistic merit...
occasionally both at the same time. I don't claim to be any better or
worse than anyone else even if I shoot the same gear as some notable
photographers as I certainly do not have their photographic skill or
vision. That is a journey.
That is why when somebody asks what does <insert great photo here>
shoot? I answer the way I do... because you cannot acquire somebody
elses vision with MasterCard.
Cheers,
Alan
Noons
wrote:
>
> No you didn't, because McCurry uses Leica, Hasselblad and other cameras
> as well.
and a pinhole camera when he feels like it.
and primarily Nikon gear, when he's using 35mm.
check his own words at Kodak.
>
> > Don't think the OP asked for a dissertation on photography.
>
> He didn't get one. A dissertation is much longer.
>
could have fooled me...
Alan Browne
> On May 7, 1:29 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>Scott W wrote:
>>
>>>You are fast to call other gear heads but it seems to me you are not
>>>exactly lacking in gear yourself.
>>
>>We weren't talking about me. See the OP.
>>
>>Asking what gear McCurry uses is the same as asking what bat McGuire
>>uses. It ain't gonna get ya there.
>
>
> The point is that what gear you use does matter a great deal and you
> believe this yourself or you would not be using the gear you do.
No. The point, as you very well know, is that the gear does not make the
photographer. Why do I have the gear I have? 'Cause I've been shooting
for 20 years with few breaks. And I've sold a lot of gear that I don't
need and I'm trying to sell some that I no longer need. Still, a few
lenses I won't ever sell, and a few lenses I still desire.
> No one is saying that all you need it good gear to be a good
> photographer, but what a number of us are saying is that good gear is
> part of the equation and to ignore this is folly. And once again I
> must point out that you really do believe this, otherwise why do you
> use MF when 35mm is so much easier? The answer is simple, in many
> cases you can get results with MF that you either can't get with 35mm
> or would me much harder with 35mm.
>
> And to use my analogy once more, if you were to go out and buy the
> best juggling balls available you won't find that you are all of a
> sudden a proficient juggler, but you will have a lot easier time
> getting their then if you use crap balls.
And if you're totally incompetent at juggling (lord knows I am) then it
won't make a real difference. And this represents at least 1/2 of the
20D owners I've ever seen (and at least one so-called pro I saw working
in Ottawa a couple weeks ago).
As long as OP gets a decent camera system, he will be as much as he can
be. Period. 'Cause it ain't never 'bout the equipment. (Although the
advertisements do like us to think so ... of course the advertisement
enticements are shot by talented marketing phototgraphers.
> Do you really think that what film a photographer uses does not
> matter, or what format he or she shoots?
Since the OP didn't state what he wanted to do (until a seperate post)
that is really what he should have begun with. I suppose I should have
simply asked "why".
Lord knows I don't care if a poster asks a naive or ignorant question...
I like to think of myslef as blissfully ignorant and naive... it's the
only time you learn anything.
> If I use B/W film with a 8 x 10 camera I will likely not get the same
> images that AA did. but if I were to try and get anything even close
> to what he did using 400 ISO Kodak Gold and a 35mm point and shoot I
> would fail to even start.
Well this is where people on NG's should reply correctly. And correctly
is not with a nauseating list of part numbers. If somebody wants to be
the next Ansel, Henri or Steve, then all the power to them, but they
should be asking about photography, not equipment.
> The style of photography that McCurry does might be a lot less
> dependent on the equipment but the OP saw something in the technical
> quality of the photographs that he liked and asked what. You took his
> enquiry to mean that he was looking to talk photos like McCurry, but
> the OP specifically said that this was not the case.
He said so after the fact as a result of me rowing against the current
of the usual CW.
I will not change stripes on this. Equipment does not make a
photographer anymore than tools make a mechanic.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
> religion. Now if he was putting out some stellar pics, I'd sell my gear and
> go in for a Canon PowerShot. Hell, it fits in you pocket and you never have
> to change lenses and I can be just as productive. What the hell have I been
> thinking?
>
> Sorry, but it is getting time for sarcasm.
Yes, sarcasm is useful for you. Scott, while holding a different view
is at least polite about it.
I never proposed that anyone get a PowerShot. I simply pointed out that
photography does not start with equipment. To believe so is silly.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
> Hey Alan, tough to be a photogrpaher with a bucket of paint and a brush and
> an artistic vision.... Go make us a photograph...
Again, you resort to the ad hominem... very poor form.
Will these do? They're not great, but I like them and so do others.
Most were shot with a mid range zoom. Some of course with a macro lens,
and some with tele's. There is nothing here that could not be done with
a Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Yashika... whatever. The equipment really did
not play that much of a part. One or two of these were on MF but could
have been shot 35mm for the size their shown here (feel free to stretch
that point as most images as shown are less than 1 Mpix...)
Most of these are old as I haven't posted much new in the last year or
so. For privacy reasons I no longer post portraits but I have shot a
lot and continue to do so both in natural light and the studio.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1112201
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pinhole
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/22166131
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23362147
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23534028
a pro I know despises this.
He said, "It has to be ALL in focus or it won't sell."
Like I care?
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/25049065
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/25250889/original
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/26507814
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/33170478
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/36669126
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/37709986
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/42526132
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/44374694
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/48370148
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/65496085
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3220494
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2867355
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1560145
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1534252
I just couldn't let your remarks about "flower macros" slide by.
Cheers,
Alan
Scott W
wrote:
> I will not change stripes on this. Equipment does not make a
> photographer anymore than tools make a mechanic.
Tools might not make you a mechanic, but if you are aspiring to be a
mechanic
it might be a good idea to have some good tools and not some K-Mart
crap.
Same thing with photography, if you are aspiring to be a photographer,
and you are
going to use film (which is another whole issue) then you would be far
better off using
a good film. The same can be said for lenses, a good prime will give
far more satisfaction
then some cheap zoom.
The OP might be a bit uneducated as to what all goes into making a
good image, but to say that the gear does not matter is simply wrong.
This is particularly true of film choice, which in my younger years I
often made bad choices and suffer from it now when I go to scan film
that I never should have used.
Now to get way back to your original response to the OP, I like to
cook as well and one of my tools is a wok. For the last few years I
have been trying to make a wok with a Teflon coating work, it simply
does not work at all well since with a Teflon pan you simply can't get
hot enough for many kinds of cooking. A few months ago I switched to
a high carbon iron wok and I believe many of the meals I cook with it
taste better. Does having a iron wok make it a good cook, of course
not. But using the Teflon coated one made it much harder to get good
results. Having a good pan will not make you a good cook, but if you
want to be a good cook it is well worth getting a good pan, IMO. I
also have a very large gas burner to go with my wok.
Scott
Noons
wrote:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23534028
> a pro I know despises this.
> He said, "It has to be ALL in focus or it won't sell."
> Like I care?
LOL!
Good point, agreed 100%.
DBLEXPOSURE
> essentials:
>
> The best camera gear does not a great photographer make.
>
> You can play your tiny minded games and find the mundane photos I've
> posted here and there for whatever reason they are posted. There are some
> posted as well that have technical or artistic merit... occasionally both
> at the same time. I don't claim to be any better or worse than anyone
> else even if I shoot the same gear as some notable photographers as I
> certainly do not have their photographic skill or vision. That is a
> journey.
>
> That is why when somebody asks what does <insert great photo here> shoot?
> I answer the way I do... because you cannot acquire somebody elses vision
> with MasterCard.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Tiny minded, should be hyphenated, tiny-minded. Did you mean somebody
else's? "..." is an Ellipsis and is used to replace words that have been
deleted from within a quoted passage.
Now I generally don't pick on people's writing skills; I happen to have
lousy skills when it comes to that, but three in one paragraph, I could not
bite my lip.
> That is why when somebody asks what does <insert great photo here> shoot?
> I answer the way I do... because you cannot acquire somebody elses vision
> with MasterCard.
You make the assumption that the OP thought he could be like McCurry if he
only had the same lenses and used the same films.
He wasn't asking about vision, he was asking about film and lenses. You are
the one who keeps turning things around. You insulted the OP's intelligence
by assuming he/we don't understand photographic vision.
When I mentioned this early on my comment was met with a condescending, "Oh
Please."
A few posts later the OP comes back with, "I asked the original question not
because I want to use McCurry's gear and became another McCurry. One
reason is interesting. When I was looking at his portraits, I thought
what format would produce this level of detail? Can a 35mm film or 120
films? Or can a DSLR? If that is film, what kind of film can represent
such a superb color?"
Hmmm.
Well, the OP had enough vision to see that as well as a great eye McCurry
was using quality gear/film and was naturally curious and wanted to know
what gear might such a visionary use and how McCurry achieved the appealing
pallet found in much of his work.
Myself as well as everybody else in this thread has said along the way that
we agree that gear doesn't make you a great photographer but you continually
keep telling us, "we don't get it" another insult to our intelligence.
We get it. As a matter of fact we get it to the point that it goes with out
saying.
That is why when somebody asks, "what does <insert great photographer here>
shoot?" We answer directly or to the best of our ability to find out or
point them in the right direction to find the answer.
My final comment, Technical photographic skills, knowledge and ability are
just as important as vision & composition not to mention research an
opportunity. The list of unseen elements that go into a great photo and a
great photographer are endless.
There is a sea of choices to make when it comes to cameras, formats, films,
papers, lenses etc. The journey of photography is a search for personal
style and when you see another's works that compels you, do the research
find out what gear he or she uses, what film or what DSLR.
The equipment does make a difference. No, it alone will not make anybody
great but it can help make you better.
Some people refer to others without skills as boobs and say things like, a
boob with good gear is still a boob, (paraphrasing here Alan, notice the
lack of quotation marks).
I say a novice who shells out the dough for a good camera body and some
decent glass is new photographer eager to learn so if he asks you a question
about lenses or film, please don't tell him about the dinner you cooked for
friends last night.
Patrick Ziegler
Alan Browne
> could have fooled me...
I doubt it takes much.
Alan Browne
>>You're attacking me because I simply turned the question around to the
>>essentials:
>>
>> The best camera gear does not a great photographer make.
>>
>>You can play your tiny minded games and find the mundane photos I've
>>posted here and there for whatever reason they are posted. There are some
>>posted as well that have technical or artistic merit... occasionally both
>>at the same time. I don't claim to be any better or worse than anyone
>>else even if I shoot the same gear as some notable photographers as I
>>certainly do not have their photographic skill or vision. That is a
>>journey.
>>
>>That is why when somebody asks what does <insert great photo here> shoot?
>>I answer the way I do... because you cannot acquire somebody elses vision
>>with MasterCard.
>
>
> Tiny minded, should be hyphenated, tiny-minded. Did you mean somebody
> else's? "..." is an Ellipsis and is used to replace words that have been
> deleted from within a quoted passage.
The 2 last refuges of the loser in an NG argument is spelling/grammar,
etc. (And I'm not sure you're right at that, but I won't belabour it.
The other refuge I won't mention.
<rest snipped, too busy>
But I do rest on the unalterable fact: photography is made by
phtographers, not gear.
DBLEXPOSURE
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
------
<snip
The 2 last refuges of the loser in an NG argument is spelling/grammar,
etc. (And I'm not sure you're right at that, but I won't belabour it.
The other refuge I won't mention.
>
Now wait, Spelling and Grammar are two, are you messing with the numbers
again, Alan?
Reading, writing & arithmetic, the 3 R's Lol.
And BTW, "The two last... ARE..."
It seems you need to work on your singulars and plurals as well, (Note the
perfect ellipsis, x2).
And, If you open with a parenthesis you should close it. And you said I had
bad form.
And no, its not a refuge it is the extra point after a score.
Grok that!
Out.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
DBLEXPOSURE
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> Noons wrote:
>
>> could have fooled me...
>
> I doubt it takes much.
Talk about, "Last refuge"
ROFLMAO
Rob Morley
alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...
<snip>
> But I do rest on the unalterable fact: photography is made by
> phtographers, not gear.
>
/might/ be justified in spewing your spiel, but face it: this
particular rant of yours was altogether irrelevant to the original
question, you were not able to judge the OP's intent in asking it, and
it's really time you got off that hobbyhorse.
Noons
> "Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
exactly.
it's so funny how these "pbase users" are sooooooo
quick at switching to "art by itself" when talking
about a good photographer who uses anything
other than canons. suddenly the gear becomes
"unimportant".
one wonders how many canon sales points
are they pining for...
Scott W
that the gear does not matter, and I believe he shoots with a Nikon.
Scott
Alan Browne
I shoot Minolta and Hasselblad, actually. With the "great" Hasselblad,
gear matters much less than with the Minolta.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
> it's so funny how these "pbase users" are sooooooo
> quick at switching to "art by itself" when talking
> about a good photographer who uses anything
> other than canons. suddenly the gear becomes
> "unimportant".
>
> one wonders how many canon sales points
> are they pining for...
I don't shoot Canon, nor do I have a pbase account.
And you continue to really not understand that whether McCurry shoots
Nikon, Canon, Leica, 'blad, Minolta, Rollei, Horseman or Pentax he will
shoot them as a photographer, not as a camera-brand-driver. If Nikon
fell of the edge of the universe he would shoot whatever suited him and
still produce his brand of photography.
Don't worry, it will hit you one day in spades. The equipment does not
make the photographer.
--
Alan Browne
> And no, its not a refuge it is the extra point after a score.
That's "it's" and you left out a comma.
The point is that correcting the odd spelling or grammar mistake is
really poor NG form. The 2nd "refuge" is not worth mentioning.
DBLEXPOSURE
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
That depends on your meaning of the word "odd", If you mean occasional then
your argument doesn't apply.
Comma use to separate dependant clauses is not obligatory.
Do you really want me to dig through all of your posts and point out all of
the, "odd spelling or grammar mistakes"?
I use to get offended when people pointed out my mistakes, now I appreciate
it.
Noons
>
> Who are you referring too? I believe Alan is the only one maintaining
> that the gear does not matter, and I believe he shoots with a Nikon.
'sOK, Scott. this is apparently on "what photography is all about".
instead of the simple question asked at the start.
BTW, fuji MUST have changed superia 400: the darn thing
is definitely less grainy than last time I used it a coupla years ago.
Almost as good as their 100asa stuff and definitely better than
most 200asa I've tried. Superb, vibrant colours too.
Dunno what these guys are doing with film but it's definitely
changing
by stealth of late. Kodak's UC100 is nearly grainless and scans
a beauty, although not as colour saturated as fuji's.
darn, even xp2 and bw400N scan different now!
Makes it a RPITA to stick to one emulsion or film: I'm finding it
a balance act between three or four emulsions in colour
negative and 2-3 in slides.
ah well: who said film choice was limited?
Oh yeah almost forgot, tried one of those light seal kits
from epay: recovered the FM2 that someone gave me,
will give it a spin on the next roll, darn nice camera.
and finally got all the backs light tight for the rb67, so
it's gonna be 6x7 for a little while with a sprinkling
of all manual 35mm.
too much fun, there must be a storm waiting somewhere...
I suspect canon will replace the 1dsm2 soon, probably
right after nikon finaly releases the d3. that 22MP will
definitely kill 35mm film if its priced in the normal
atmosphere...
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:YcK1i.4481$vz.5...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
>>DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And no, its not a refuge it is the extra point after a score.
>>
>>That's "it's" and you left out a comma.
>>
>>The point is that correcting the odd spelling or grammar mistake is really
>>poor NG form. The 2nd "refuge" is not worth mentioning.
>
>
> That depends on your meaning of the word "odd", If you mean occasional then
> your argument doesn't apply.
>
> Comma use to separate dependant clauses is not obligatory.
>
> Do you really want me to dig through all of your posts and point out all of
> the, "odd spelling or grammar mistakes"?
Yes! Please do!
[comment: it's your time.]
> I use to get offended when people pointed out my mistakes, now I appreciate
> it.
I always benefit from it, however, NG's are a conversation. Chat for
the patient if you will. So not much point in getting bogged down over
spelling or grammar (unless it really mangles the _meaning_ of a post
and that is rare enough).
As you may konw the oderr of lretets in wrdors dno't mtaetr taht mcuh as
lnog as tehy are all psenret and the fsrit and lsat lretets are in the
rhigt pclae.
Scott W
wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > On May 13, 2:31 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>On May 11, 4:13 pm, "DBLEXPOSURE" <pzi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"Alan Browne" <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:EcO0i.44251$An1.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> >>>>Noons wrote:
>
> >>>>>could have fooled me...
>
> >>>>I doubt it takes much.
>
> >>>Talk about, "Last refuge"
>
> >>>ROFLMAO
>
> >>exactly.
>
> >>it's so funny how these "pbase users" are sooooooo
> >>quick at switching to "art by itself" when talking
> >>about a good photographer who uses anything
> >>other than canons. suddenly the gear becomes
> >>"unimportant".
>
> >>one wonders how many canon sales points
> >>are they pining for...
>
> > Who are you referring too? I believe Alan is the only one maintaining
> > that the gear does not matter, and I believe he shoots with a Nikon.
>
> I shoot Minolta and Hasselblad, actually. With the "great" Hasselblad,
> gear matters much less than with the Minolta.
>
Ah yes, you are a have a Minolta, I don't keep track very well of who
has what.
So the gear does not matter so much, as long as you have great gear?
I have recently been spending time cataloging my photos, this shows
pretty dramatically that at least for me the gear matters a great
deal. I have photos that would have been very nice, if I had shot
them with Kodachrome 64 instead of ASA 400 print film. I have photos
that would have looked great shot with an 8 MP DSLR instead of the 3.1
MP I was using at the time. Sure I am glad I have the photos even if
they were not taken with the best great, but I sure can tell the
difference.
I am sure you have photos that you wish you had taken with the
Hasselblad instead of a
35mm camera. And I would be surprised if in your total photo
collection there are not some
photos you wish you had used a different film for.
Scott
Scott W
> On May 13, 10:51 pm, Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who are you referring too? I believe Alan is the only one maintaining
> > that the gear does not matter, and I believe he shoots with a Nikon.
>
> 'sOK, Scott. this is apparently on "what photography is all about".
> instead of the simple question asked at the start.
>
> BTW, fuji MUST have changed superia 400: the darn thing
> is definitely less grainy than last time I used it a coupla years ago.
> Almost as good as their 100asa stuff and definitely better than
> most 200asa I've tried. Superb, vibrant colours too.
>
> Dunno what these guys are doing with film but it's definitely
> changing
> by stealth of late. Kodak's UC100 is nearly grainless and scans
> a beauty, although not as colour saturated as fuji's.
> darn, even xp2 and bw400N scan different now!
who are processing your film are doing a better job now then before.
I know that it is possible to really mess up a roll of film with bad
processing, I suspect that there is a large range of grain visible
depending on just how fresh the chemicals are that they use at the
time.
Scott
DBLEXPOSURE
>
> As you may konw the oderr of lretets in wrdors dno't mtaetr taht mcuh as
> lnog as tehy are all psenret and the fsrit and lsat lretets are in the
> rhigt pclae.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
I strongly disagree, All you have in here are your typed words, get them
right! or you will look like a fool to the world. If it is worth talking
about, it is worth taking the time to check the spelling. Your words are
your credibility, how are we to take you seriously if you are not serious
enough to check your work?
Do not take the English language for granted! We are raising a nation of
illiterates, don't and to trouble.
For Christ's sake Alan, most of you errors would be fixed if you only read
your work before you posted it, Why look illiterate? Why give me the
ammunition?
Here is a gift, F7
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
Rob Morley
alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...
> And you continue to really not understand that whether McCurry shoots
> Nikon, Canon, Leica, 'blad, Minolta, Rollei, Horseman or Pentax he will
> shoot them as a photographer, not as a camera-brand-driver. If Nikon
> fell of the edge of the universe he would shoot whatever suited him and
> still produce his brand of photography.
>
Even with grainy black and white negs and a soft lens? I don't think
so.
Alan Browne
>>As you may konw the oderr of lretets in wrdors dno't mtaetr taht mcuh as
>>lnog as tehy are all psenret and the fsrit and lsat lretets are in the
>>rhigt pclae.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Alan
>
>
>
> I strongly disagree, All you have in here are your typed words, get them
> right! or you will look like a fool to the world. If it is worth talking
> about, it is worth taking the time to check the spelling. Your words are
> your credibility, how are we to take you seriously if you are not serious
> enough to check your work?
Time for you biennial humor checkup. The above is a famous example
about how people read: very fast and very visually. They don't
interpret every letter of every word in casual reading.
Again, nettitquette/NG's: spelling/grammar are not rigorous requirements
and to point it out is wasting bandwidth _unless_ the splelling/or
grammar error seriously messes up the message.
> Do not take the English language for granted! We are raising a nation of
> illiterates, don't and to trouble.
Then go read the history of the English language. That of 350 years ago
you'd have a hard time reading.
> For Christ's sake Alan, most of you errors would be fixed if you only read
For His sake, stop wasting bandwidth on this silliness.
> your work before you posted it, Why look illiterate? Why give me the
> ammunition?
To use ammunition you have to have some talent at aiming it, so I have
little to fear from your pointless use of it.
Alan Browne
You're distorting the purpose of my message. The original was "no
equipment choice will make <insert name> a Steve McCurry."
Had the OP decided to be a Canon shooter with whatever pallette of film
he chose, then the limitations in becoming a "Steve McCurry" class
shooter would be the person, not the equipment.
And if her were 1/4 the shooter that SM is, then equipment that is 100X
better would still not help.
Alan Browne
If Nikon disappeared and every existing Nikon lens and body with it,
there would be more than enough other choices to replace them. Nikon
have played a good/dirty trick on the Nikon crowd: "backwards
compatibility" ... to a limit. Canon and Minolta said, "screw it, let's
restart". This had limited results for Minolta (Excellent lenses, just
not as many) and great results for Canon (a line that out does Nikon in
all but a few lenses).
If McCurry suddenly got the hots for Canon nobody would be able to tell
offhand from the shots published in NG.
Cheers,
Alan.
DBLEXPOSURE
> Time for you biennial humor checkup. The above is a famous example
> about how people read: very fast and very visually. They don't interpret
> every letter of every word in casual reading.
>
> Again, nettitquette/NG's: spelling/grammar are not rigorous requirements
> and to point it out is wasting bandwidth _unless_ the splelling/or grammar
> error seriously messes up the message.
Wasting Bandwidth, "Oh Please!"
Seriously off topic here, Bad form indeed.
Anyway, Wrong, Wrong Wrong, cheap cop-out at best. There is no excuse.
Your, ahem, example makes the reader stop and think WTF. To leave it go is
rude to your reader and makes you look stupid.
I guess if you don't mind looking that way; rock on with your bad self.
"Stupid is as stupid does..."
I can't believe you read Heinlein, he would crucify you for bad spelling
and grammer.
Grok that.
Now, I have photos to edit, leave me be.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
Scott W
wrote:
> You're distorting the purpose of my message. The original was "no
> equipment choice will make <insert name> a Steve McCurry."
And the OP said that he was not looking to be another Steven McCurry.
> Had the OP decided to be a Canon shooter with whatever pallette of film
> he chose, then the limitations in becoming a "Steve McCurry" class
> shooter would be the person, not the equipment.
Again the OP liked the look of the prints and was not looking to
become a Steve McCurry.
> And if her were 1/4 the shooter that SM is, then equipment that is 100X
> better would still not help.
So if he is does not take photos like SM does this mean that good gear
and good film won't help
his own style of photography look better?
Speaking for myself I don't try and emulate any other photographer, I
photograph what I want to photograph and how I want to photograph
it. And I should come as no surprise that when I shoot with better
gear I get photos that are much more to my liking.
Nobody in this thread has suggested that if you shoot with the same
gear as a given photographer you photos will look like his or hers.
Scott
Rob Morley
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > In article <vaK1i.4465$vz.5...@wagner.videotron.net>, Alan Browne
> > alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca says...
> >
> >
> >>And you continue to really not understand that whether McCurry shoots
> >>Nikon, Canon, Leica, 'blad, Minolta, Rollei, Horseman or Pentax he will
> >>shoot them as a photographer, not as a camera-brand-driver. If Nikon
> >>fell of the edge of the universe he would shoot whatever suited him and
> >>still produce his brand of photography.
> >>
> >
> > Even with grainy black and white negs and a soft lens? I don't think
> > so.
>
> If Nikon disappeared and every existing Nikon lens and body with it,
> there would be more than enough other choices to replace them. Nikon
> have played a good/dirty trick on the Nikon crowd: "backwards
> compatibility" ... to a limit. Canon and Minolta said, "screw it, let's
> restart". This had limited results for Minolta (Excellent lenses, just
> not as many) and great results for Canon (a line that out does Nikon in
> all but a few lenses).
>
> If McCurry suddenly got the hots for Canon nobody would be able to tell
> offhand from the shots published in NG.
>
>
Nikon versus Rollei versus whoever pissing contest - did you not for a
moment think he might be asking about formats and features rather than
brands and models? So a reasonable answer might be something like "35mm
SLR with a fast manual focus prime lens, hand-held with available light
and slow colour transparency film" rather than a Canon this or a Pentax
that.
Alan Browne
> The OP asked what camera, lens, film and you immediately assume it's a
> Nikon versus Rollei versus whoever pissing contest - did you not for a
> moment think he might be asking about formats and features rather than
> brands and models? So a reasonable answer might be something like "35mm
> SLR with a fast manual focus prime lens, hand-held with available light
> and slow colour transparency film" rather than a Canon this or a Pentax
> that.
When anyone asks what a specific photographer uses it can reasobably be
presumed they mean the brand.
My original reply had nothing to do with brand, format or anything.
Since McCurry uses a variety of brands, formats and films it would be
pointless to get into that.
The rest of this thread has been a somewhat entertaining pissing contest.
And I restate my main theme:
McCurry class photography ain't about the equipment he uses. Not by an
extremely long shot.
Cheers,
Alan