Nikon D2X: Dave Black's Indoor Sports Photography Workshop
deryck lant
Matt Clara
news:200503011...@deryck.com...
He discredits himself right away by saying goofy shit like, "For sometime
now I have wanted my images to enter the fine art print gallery market place
and I believe that the Nikon D2X will enable me to do so with confidence."
I mean, c'mon, fine art has been produced with film for over 100 years.
It's not like anyone needs to be waiting on the latest generation of digital
camera. Same goes for his statement that the camera would allow him to take
on bigger/better jobs. I've no doubt that digital makes some jobs easier,
but I don't know of a single job that can be done with digital that couldn't
have been done with film. This guy's talking out his arse right from the
get go.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Alan Browne
> He discredits himself right away by saying goofy shit like, "For sometime
> now I have wanted my images to enter the fine art print gallery market place
> and I believe that the Nikon D2X will enable me to do so with confidence."
> I mean, c'mon, fine art has been produced with film for over 100 years.
What was fine art produced with before film?
As previously discussed, art is not bound by the medium. Traditions will
remain, but new ground will be broken. If anyone has sold "fine art
photography" taken digitally, then that ground has been broken.
> It's not like anyone needs to be waiting on the latest generation of digital
> camera. Same goes for his statement that the camera would allow him to take
> on bigger/better jobs. I've no doubt that digital makes some jobs easier,
> but I don't know of a single job that can be done with digital that couldn't
> have been done with film. This guy's talking out his arse right from the
> get go.
Time waits for no man. Digital has not just had an impact on photographers, but
on their commercial clients as well. Expectations are for fast turnaround from
session to workable images. As I've stated in the past, one PJ I've met
occasionally freelances studio work. He delivers the CD's on site as the shoot
ends and his participation ends there except for the mailing of the invoice.
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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Matt Clara
some comments of your own.
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:8N0Vd.54486$044.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
>
> > He discredits himself right away by saying goofy shit like, "For
sometime
> > now I have wanted my images to enter the fine art print gallery market
place
> > and I believe that the Nikon D2X will enable me to do so with
confidence."
> > I mean, c'mon, fine art has been produced with film for over 100 years.
>
> What was fine art produced with before film?
>
> As previously discussed, art is not bound by the medium.
I believe that's my point, but I kept it to the realm of photographic
images, as that's really what's being discussed.
>Traditions will
> remain, but new ground will be broken. If anyone has sold "fine art
> photography" taken digitally, then that ground has been broken.
That's where you're just adding comments of your own, or you are implying
that I somehow indicated digital images can't be fine art, which I did not.
>
> > It's not like anyone needs to be waiting on the latest generation of
digital
> > camera. Same goes for his statement that the camera would allow him to
take
> > on bigger/better jobs. I've no doubt that digital makes some jobs
easier,
> > but I don't know of a single job that can be done with digital that
couldn't
> > have been done with film. This guy's talking out his arse right from
the
> > get go.
>
> Time waits for no man. Digital has not just had an impact on
photographers, but
> on their commercial clients as well. Expectations are for fast turnaround
from
> session to workable images. As I've stated in the past, one PJ I've met
> occasionally freelances studio work. He delivers the CD's on site as the
shoot
> ends and his participation ends there except for the mailing of the
invoice.
I believe that's the exception rather than the rule. Still you have a point
that digital cameras offer a turn around in some niches where film simply
can't compete. I hear some sport shooters are having their images uploaded,
edited and sent to production as the sporting event continues to unfold. If
this guy is that kinda shooter, then I stand corrected. Hey, it's
possible--why else would you drop $5000 on a digital camera? Yet it's
obvious that for the greater part of the photographic jobs out there,
there's no need to wait on the latest greatest digital camera to get the job
done, and to me that's what his statement seemed to imply. Hey, maybe I'm
just ornery today... ;-)
Alan Browne
> Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or just adding
> some comments of your own.
I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting) that "fine
art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.]
It certainly is the current medium of choice, but with digital cameras getting
better, printers, papers and inks getting better and the software in between
getting better, I don't believe that the fine-art-photos-are-from-film argument
holds anymore.
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:8N0Vd.54486$044.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
>>Matt Clara wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>He discredits himself right away by saying goofy shit like, "For
>
> sometime
>
>>>now I have wanted my images to enter the fine art print gallery market
>
> place
>
>>>and I believe that the Nikon D2X will enable me to do so with
>
> confidence."
>
>>>I mean, c'mon, fine art has been produced with film for over 100 years.
>>
>>What was fine art produced with before film?
>>
>>As previously discussed, art is not bound by the medium.
>
>
> I believe that's my point, but I kept it to the realm of photographic
> images, as that's really what's being discussed.
Fine. And so, a fine art digital image can be fine art photography period if
they find that kind of a client. Your statement seems to imply that as its been
100 years or so on film, thus it must remain.
>>Traditions will
>>remain, but new ground will be broken. If anyone has sold "fine art
>>photography" taken digitally, then that ground has been broken.
>
>
> That's where you're just adding comments of your own, or you are implying
> that I somehow indicated digital images can't be fine art, which I did not.
Then I misunderstood your "100 year" statement. Sorry.
> shoot
>
>>ends and his participation ends there except for the mailing of the
>
> invoice.
>
> I believe that's the exception rather than the rule. Still you have a point
> that digital cameras offer a turn around in some niches where film simply
> can't compete. I hear some sport shooters are having their images uploaded,
> edited and sent to production as the sporting event continues to unfold. If
> this guy is that kinda shooter, then I stand corrected. Hey, it's
As the fellow told the story, the shoot was booked for a full day and they
wrapped it by lunchtime. (All the models, clothes, designers, makeup people,
etc. were there so he just kept the pipeline full until the job was done.) They
were actually taken aback when he plopped the CD's into their hands and said so
long. (He showed these images and they were not very complex by any means and
all used the same lighting and there were few props, so this made things go
lickity split. The photos were pure catalog).
> possible--why else would you drop $5000 on a digital camera? Yet it's
> obvious that for the greater part of the photographic jobs out there,
> there's no need to wait on the latest greatest digital camera to get the job
> done, and to me that's what his statement seemed to imply. Hey, maybe I'm
> just ornery today... ;-)
Aren't we all.
Walt Hanks
"Matt Clara" <no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote in message
news:3q0Vd.3437971$B07.5...@news.easynews.com...
>
> He discredits himself right away by saying goofy shit like, "For sometime
> now I have wanted my images to enter the fine art print gallery market
> place
> and I believe that the Nikon D2X will enable me to do so with confidence."
> I mean, c'mon, fine art has been produced with film for over 100 years.
> It's not like anyone needs to be waiting on the latest generation of
> digital
> camera. Same goes for his statement that the camera would allow him to
> take
> on bigger/better jobs. I've no doubt that digital makes some jobs easier,
> but I don't know of a single job that can be done with digital that
> couldn't
> have been done with film. This guy's talking out his arse right from the
> get go.
>
> --
As much as I like Nikon, I have to agree. This review was poor, to say the
least. If you read his client list, Nikon is down several times. He is an
instructor for them, as well as providing images for them. And the
inability to see any image at any size bigger than a thumbnail makes the
whole exercise useless.
Walt
Brian C. Baird
says...
> As much as I like Nikon, I have to agree. This review was poor, to say the
> least. If you read his client list, Nikon is down several times. He is an
> instructor for them, as well as providing images for them. And the
> inability to see any image at any size bigger than a thumbnail makes the
> whole exercise useless.
Well, the whole thing reads like a Nikon ad. At least he's not making
declaratory statements on performance versus model X.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Matt Clara
>> possible--why else would you drop $5000 on a digital camera? Yet it's
>> obvious that for the greater part of the photographic jobs out there,
>> there's no need to wait on the latest greatest digital camera to get the
>> job
>> done, and to me that's what his statement seemed to imply. Hey, maybe
>> I'm
>> just ornery today... ;-)
>
> Aren't we all.
>
Maybe you think I'm implying something in the same way I think he's implying
something!
Implications within implications, as it were.
Robert Brace
"Walt Hanks" <walt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lZGdnRU7p6M...@comcast.com...
Whaddya mean "useless"??? ;)
I think the images served his purpose admirably. I interpreted his purpose
as to express his opinion in prose with snippets of images to help those of
us reading come to grasp what he felt about the D2X.
For gearheads, or those more interested in arguing hypotheses instead of
coming from personal experience, as he appears to be, nothing will ever
suffice.
Because, don't you know, the arguments could then stop.
Bob
Matt Clara
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
>> Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or just
>> adding
>> some comments of your own.
>
> I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting) that
> "fine art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I
> apologize.]
>
> It certainly is the current medium of choice, but with digital cameras
> getting better, printers, papers and inks getting better and the software
> in between getting better, I don't believe that the
> fine-art-photos-are-from-film argument holds anymore.
>
> if they find that kind of a client. Your statement seems to imply that as
> its been 100 years or so on film, thus it must remain.
You might as well say I'm indicating that fine art has _only_ been created
with film, and that's just as goofy as the review I'm ripping up on, and
clearly not what I was trying to say. Frankly, that's how you argue.
Strawman.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
>>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:8N0Vd.54486$044.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>>>Matt Clara wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He discredits himself right away by saying goofy shit like, "For
>>
>> sometime
>>
>>>>now I have wanted my images to enter the fine art print gallery market
>>
>> place
>>
>>>>and I believe that the Nikon D2X will enable me to do so with
>>
>> confidence."
>>
>>>>I mean, c'mon, fine art has been produced with film for over 100 years.
>>>
>>>What was fine art produced with before film?
>>>
>>>As previously discussed, art is not bound by the medium.
>>
>>
>> I believe that's my point, but I kept it to the realm of photographic
>> images, as that's really what's being discussed.
>
>
Alan Browne
> You might as well say I'm indicating that fine art has _only_ been created
> with film, and that's just as goofy as the review I'm ripping up on, and
> clearly not what I was trying to say. Frankly, that's how you argue.
> Strawman.
It would behoove you to read my entire reply, not just the part that
grates on you.
Cheers,
Alabn
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Alan Browne wrote:
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
> > Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or
just adding
> > some comments of your own.
>
> I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting)
that "fine
> art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I
apologize.]
Photography isn't art, cannot be art, let alone 'fine art'.
Sander Vesik
Only to a mindless drone like you.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Alan Browne
Skip M
> uraniumc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Clara wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or
>>
>> just adding
>>
>>>>some comments of your own.
>>>
>>>I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting)
>>
>> that "fine
>>
>>>art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I
>>
>> apologize.]
>>
>>
>> Photography isn't art, cannot be art, let alone 'fine art'.
>
> You're clueless Mikey.
>
>
>
Mikey isn't clueless, he just enjoys making silly statements to see what
reaction he gets. So far, he's the only true troll who resides outside of
my kill file, because I derive an equal enjoyment from seeing how stupid he
is willing to make himself look, just to get a rise out of the rest of us.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Dag
> Matt Clara wrote:
>
> Fine. And so, a fine art digital image can be fine art photography period if
> they find that kind of a client. Your statement seems to imply that as its been
> 100 years or so on film, thus it must remain.
A digital image will probably not be fine art for a long time to come.
A print made from an image captured with a digital camera could probably
be fine art, but not the digital image itself. Much in the same way a
negative is rarely sold as fine art.
I know it seem like a subtle distingtion, but it's one that most people
miss and one that annoys me. When people are talking digital vs. film
they are often really talking about inkjet printers vs darkrooms or
sensors vs scanners or something similar. Most people don't shoot
digital because they need data to fill their harddrives with much like
people don't shoot film simply because they want to fill a shoebox with
negatives.
Dag
Alan Browne
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:33:25 -0500, Alan Browne <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Matt Clara wrote:
>>
>>Fine. And so, a fine art digital image can be fine art photography period if
>>they find that kind of a client. Your statement seems to imply that as its been
>>100 years or so on film, thus it must remain.
>
>
> A digital image will probably not be fine art for a long time to come.
> A print made from an image captured with a digital camera could probably
> be fine art, but not the digital image itself. Much in the same way a
> negative is rarely sold as fine art.
Yes. It is the print in the gallery that counts, not the camera, the
film or the CD-ROM.
>
> I know it seem like a subtle distingtion, but it's one that most people
> miss and one that annoys me. When people are talking digital vs. film
> they are often really talking about inkjet printers vs darkrooms or
> sensors vs scanners or something similar. Most people don't shoot
> digital because they need data to fill their harddrives with much like
> people don't shoot film simply because they want to fill a shoebox with
> negatives.
Yep.
One current issue with digital workflow, is that current printing, using
normal inkjet type printers, cannot create the hard blacks that are
essential to some fine art B&W work. The prints don't have that high
contrast 'flavour' where it's needed. So the B&W print from the
darkroom is favoured.
This is both a valid point and a false flag.
It's valid only if the measure is "must resemble a darkroom B&W print."
It's a false flag from an art POV. Art uses a wide array of media to
express an idea, and can't do more or less than the media. A fine art
photographer who intends to print on an inkjet, should do his art
according the capabilities and limitations of the media in use. If he
really needs those hard blacks, then use film and the darkroom and the
right papers and so on. If he doesn't then he should be happy with digital.
As printers improve and come down in price, there will be more and more
B&W fine art digital origin prints that are not distinguishable from a
darkroom print except by very close examination.
Brian C. Baird
alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...
> As printers improve and come down in price, there will be more and more
> B&W fine art digital origin prints that are not distinguishable from a
Speaking of which, I keep forgetting to order some 8x10s from that place
that develops B&W resin-coated paper on the lightjet.
One of these days!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Pete McCutchen
<alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Matt Clara wrote:
>
>> Alan, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or just adding
>> some comments of your own.
>
>I'm disagreeing with the notion (that I believe you're supporting) that "fine
>art" photography is bound to film. [If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.]
>
>It certainly is the current medium of choice, but with digital cameras getting
>better, printers, papers and inks getting better and the software in between
>getting better, I don't believe that the fine-art-photos-are-from-film argument
>holds anymore.
I'm not Matt, but I don't think he said what you think he said. He
ridiculed the notion that having a D2x would allow the author of the
review to enter the fine art print gallery market with confidence.
It's a notion well worth ridiculing, not because one cannot produce
gallery-worthy images with the D2x (one probably can), but rather
because it's silly to think that such a machine is a necessary
prerequisite for entering that market.
I've seen images in galleries that were produced with fairly
inexpensive 35mm film cameras. For that matter, I've seen great
images produced with $15.00 Holgas. The D2x is undoubtedly a
wonderful camera, but it won't turn you into a great photographer,
whose work is worthy of being hung in a gallery. I mean, it's just
goofy to say "now I have a D2x; I feel confident entering the fine art
gallery market!" If his work wasn't good enough before, with whatever
camera he was using, it probably won't be good enough with his new
D2x. Maybe it's well worth purchasing, but if you cannot produce good
enough images with an N80, you probably can't produce good enough
images with a D2x.
--
Pete McCutchen