Moose wrote:
> Now that the flame war partially sharing this thread name has
> been quenched (for which, thanks):
Fortunately it has moved "off-list". I'm sorry, I didn't move
it there sooner.
> Goodness! Are your standards so high? Or mine so low? :-)
Neither. I realize that so many of my pictures are
"experimental" and part of the continual growing process. Even
today, when working a scene, I'll shoot maybe 10x the pictures
than the actual "keepers" because I'm working the scene. Take,
for example, my little photo essay of the Farm Implement. If
I'm lucky, there might be one picture in that set which has
enough gumption to be considered "worthy", but it took an entire
set of pictures to get to that point. What I found when looking
through the old pictures is that I'd work the scene, but would
give up before getting the most important shot. Other times,
I'd immediately identify "The Shot" and would go right to it,
but since I didn't work the scene, I missed out on the slight
angle change or nuance which would have caused the photo to
transcend to another level. Case in point:
In the UP last year, Joel and I were working the last falls on
the Presque Isle River. I saw my composition, shot it and was
more than satisfied. However, I also continued to shoot, but
felt that I had the shot in the can. Joel kept shooting and
kept moving farther up the river. Now, you have to understand
that this is where I bashed my E-1 up with the rock avalanche.
Had I managed to actually get to where Joel was, I might have
seen what he saw, but I consider Joel's picture to be the
definitive shot of that location/time. Why did he get it and I
didn't? Because I had immediately concluded that I had nailed
the shot and lost interest in further image pursuit.
> something that will make a gallery goer say with positive
> intonation "That's a Schnozz!" without seeing the credit tag.
BINGO! That's exactly what I've been seeking. I want the image
to have en eye-flow, contrast, and emotional statement which
immediately connects with the viewer and the viewer knows
without hesitation who the artist is. In the last several years
there has been such a proliferation of "landscape" images
(everybody with a digital camera fancies themself a landscape
photographer), that I'm needing to break clean from the masses.
I believe that I've achieved that with my B&W work, but the
color work needs a kick in the shorts.
> On the other hand, we seem alike in another way. Although I
> appreciate it when others like or even occasionally praise my
> images, my primary source of evaluation is internal.
Somewhat true with me. But I'll admit that I'm insecure enough
that I need the "stroking" from others. It's tough when I put
up some new images and there's nary a word said about them. I
probably hide it well, but it really bothers me when I don't get
positive feedback on my work or my writings. However, I know
that I'm horrible at praising others.
And it really grouses me to no end when a personal favorite
hangs in the gallery for years without budging, but what I
consider to be a "pedestrian" photo sells the day after getting
hung. I think my biggest seller (quantity) in the past two
years is a rather lame picture of a wagon in front of a barn
buried in weeds.
> I just don't see the OMs as capable of matching what I'm
> getting from the 5D for most of my uses. I still love them,
> but the areas where they are competitive are limited.
The only area where I see film being absolutely superior to
digital is in B&W where the tonalities are unattainable in
digital.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|