Guest Xing Posted January 20, 2009 Share #21 Posted January 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's not about "what it's shot on", it's about shooting his images in a media he values. Anyone who got better than a C- in Semantics 101 can see the glaring flaw in your statement. Most photographers of note care about what equipment they shoot with and particularly what materials they use. Well since you brought it up...Most photographers "of note" today shoot digital, including the chap Pres. Obama chose as official WH photog to document his entire reign. Being "more about the image" is a statement that is typically made by a new starter, IMO. So then you're saying it's mainly old guys who put the gear before the picture? OK, I'll agree with you there This may very well be true if you've never shot Kodachrome. I have shot Kodachrome, and it's still true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Hi Guest Xing, Take a look here The inauguration on Kodachrome.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
garyp Posted January 20, 2009 Share #22 Posted January 20, 2009 Daniel I very much look forward to seeing your photos; take lots ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted January 20, 2009 Share #23 Posted January 20, 2009 I have shot Kodachrome, and it's still true. Perhaps it's true for you, but I find the specific medium you choose can have a significant impact on the final image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Luis D Posted January 20, 2009 Share #24 Posted January 20, 2009 I find the specific medium you choose can have a significant impact on the final image. I will agree that. For example, colour v. black/white, grainy v. not grainy, et cetera. I donot argue that the medium can affect the character of the image, it certainly can. What only I find objectable is phrasing it such that, for some reason an auspicicous event such as this innaugration, will be a shame if not shot on Kodachrome, implies that there is something auspicious about Kodachrome also. It is just a film. In the end it will be the faces and poses and decisive moments that will matter most. I believe that the picture(s) from this innauguration that become someday iconic, will not be because of what kind of film or digital was used to make them. I wonder if in Janurary of '61some photographer said "The innauguration of JFK will be a shame if it is not shot on wet plates" that anybody would clap hands and cheer for him, as people are doing on this thread for Kodachrome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 20, 2009 Share #25 Posted January 20, 2009 My observation is that you have only words to offer. Name one respected photographer that doesn't regard his equipment and material as being important. I really don't mind whether someone uses film or batteries, but I do respect a guy electing to use his favorite K'chrome. I presume yours was a gift from your school. Well since you brought it up...Most photographers "of note" today shoot digital, including the chap Pres. Obama chose as official WH photog to document his entire reign. So then you're saying it's mainly old guys who put the gear before the picture? OK, I'll agree with you there I have shot Kodachrome, and it's still true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xing Posted January 20, 2009 Share #26 Posted January 20, 2009 My observation is that you have only words to offer. Name one respected photographer that doesn't regard his equipment and material as being important. More important than the image? I can't think of any except a few who hang out on gear forums, where they are admittedly respected, by like-minded gear fanatics. I really don't mind whether someone uses film or batteries, How magnanamous of you but I do respect a guy electing to use his favorite K'chrome. Me too. What I don't respect is the implication that historical events ducumented on other media are somehow lesser. I presume yours was a gift from your school. Ah, snark...in other words, you've got nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Luis D Posted January 20, 2009 Share #27 Posted January 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) What I don't respect is the implication that historical events ducumented on other media are somehow lesser. Yes! This is my feeling also what I was trying to express. Now that the ceremony is finished, we will wait some years to see if it will be film or digital image what will become remembered as a symbol of the moment. Or if anybody cares or remembers what camera or capture was used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 20, 2009 Share #28 Posted January 20, 2009 More important than the image? I can't think of any except a few who hang out on gear forums, where they are admittedly respected, by like-minded gear fanatics. The medium _is_ the image. Shoot Tri-X and it looks different from FP4, which looks different to Digital. Some people pick the one they prefer, which may no necessarily be the most popular or latest kid on the block. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xing Posted January 20, 2009 Share #29 Posted January 20, 2009 The medium _is_ the image. Shoot Tri-X and it looks different from FP4, which looks different to Digital. Some people pick the one they prefer, which may no necessarily be the most popular or latest kid on the block. Your point is well taken, albeit a bit overstated. Today people shoot (often pushed) Tri-X for the "gritty look" of 1960's photojournalism, but at the time, photogs shot it for the speed but wished there was something they could do to lessen the gritty look. I bet if you could go back now with a D700 and hand it to anyone shooting JFK's inaugural, they'd gladly swap you for their Leicas all the Tri-X (or Kodachrome) in their bag. But unlike you who makes a valid argument, when some goober proclaims: Iong live Kodachrome!__________________ "Digital is like shaved legs on a man it's awfully hard to take him seriously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 20, 2009 Share #30 Posted January 20, 2009 More important than the image. "More important than the image" How can you state that ? Can't agree with you there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted January 20, 2009 Share #31 Posted January 20, 2009 When you get back can you post a quick pic of your softbox too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted January 20, 2009 Share #32 Posted January 20, 2009 Jimmy Pro has got under the wire again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
antistatic Posted January 20, 2009 Share #33 Posted January 20, 2009 I bet if you could go back now with a D700 and hand it to anyone shooting JFK's inaugural, they'd gladly swap you for their Leicas all the Tri-X (or Kodachrome) in their bag. I found the RAW conversion on a slide rule less than satisfactory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share #34 Posted January 21, 2009 I am back to where I am staying in DC now. I would love to write a lot more, but let's just say this experience was beyond incredible and the tremendous support and admiration for the Kodachrome Project by other photographers and people, humbling. There are so many great stories to tell, but they will have to wait, I am typing this on an iPhone and my pizza is here. I need to eat and rest, I have gotten only 10 hours of sleep in the past 72 hours. By the way, for those of you who discount the importance of choosing Kodachrome for this historic event, Kodachrome is more than a film, it is brilliant era spanning over 7 decades with many iconic images. This is why I am meeting with the Libeary of Congress tomorow, to seek out more support for a cause I sincerely believe in. Go-Bama! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted January 21, 2009 Share #35 Posted January 21, 2009 Well done Daniel! I wish you and your project all the best. Kodachrome, besides being an artistic choice, has proven to produce images that are very long lasting. That alone would make this effort worthwile. (I'm curious where those D700 files will be in 200 years time...) Cheers, Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 21, 2009 Share #36 Posted January 21, 2009 (I'm curious where those D700 files will be in 200 years time...) The same place as most film. Landfill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted January 21, 2009 Share #37 Posted January 21, 2009 The same place as most film. Landfill. Where would that be, Steve? I Googled it, but couldn't find relevant links. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 21, 2009 Share #38 Posted January 21, 2009 landfill - Google Search= Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted January 21, 2009 Share #39 Posted January 21, 2009 It's like Maria Callas on the last vinyl...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted January 21, 2009 Share #40 Posted January 21, 2009 landfill - Google Search= Oh I get it... I thought you meant a facility like this: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/corbis/Corbis_WashPost_Text_Only.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.