Duck Figital

Someone here thinks that ink jet prints are better than Silver prints. huh?

Ever have to answer this question? I had to answer this tonight. I went on a tangent trying to explain how horrible digital has been for artists and how it's taking our tools away. It's such a bummer that the 2 mediums cannot coexist without killing one another. GRRRRRR

Iconic ... Over-zealous police, councils and life-savers might need to take an art lesson. Picture: Max Dupain
Dupain beach snaps draw police attention
By D.D. McNicoll
December 09, 2006
THE 1937 photograph of a bronzed sunbather by Max Dupain is the most famous image of Australia's beach culture - but so suspicious have authorities become of cameras on beaches that his photographer son, Rex Dupain, was threatened with arrest while working on a new book about Bondi.

After pulling out his $8000 Hasselblad to snap a couple of backpackers sleeping on the sand, Dupain - one of Australia's most celebrated photographers - found himself surrounded by four police officers who confiscated his camera.

Although it is legal to photograph anyone in a public place, Dupain found himself questioned for 25 minutes by the police.

"Lifeguards and the police are taking the law into their own hands and they regard anyone with a camera as a potential pervert," Dupain said yesterday.

"We sit at home and watch the close-up of people's lives on disturbing television reality shows but someone taking pictures at the beach is seen as a threat. Our days as a free society are completely over."

Dupain started taking shots at Bondi three years ago for his new book, The Colour of Bondi, and wanted to capture the authentic look of the beach by photographing people who were relaxed and unaware they were being snapped. He was questioned by lifeguards and the police on at least half a dozen occasions while working on the project, but said the final confrontation was the most disturbing. "They thought the Hasselblad was some sort of trick camera because they couldn't find a display screen," he said. "They wouldn't believe it wasn't a digital camera."

The photographer said catching people unaware was "how we learn about ourselves".

Dupain approached the local Waverley council for a permit of the type issued to people filming television commercials so he would not be harassed. "They said, 'Sure, it will only cost you $160 an hour'."
_____________________

Here's a little more about Rex Dupain, an excellent Australian photographer!
Rex & Matt Dupain

Luminous Landscape touches on one more thing I must comment on about file sizes with their P45 tests. 220 megs - big deal. I can get over 400 megs with medium format film on my Epson 3200. That's scanning at 2400 dpi. And with my Type 55 4x5 film I can get up to 1000 megs. easy. So, I don't know what they are on about. Other than trying to convince the world that they are almost as good as photographers who shoot film, but they will never be AS good.

Yes. I support that, especially when it comes to WHAT TYPE OF FILM I USE. Some people are happy with any old thing, they don't care about utilizing the films advantages or disavantages to their advantage. Photographers like that SHOULD shoot digital, but in shooting digital our choices are being taken away. Freedom of Choice will be a fairy tale sooner or later. Photographer's will say... film will always be with us. Yeah, to a certain extent. But, the films that artists love to use most are likely to disappear since not everyone is an artist.

Man, rubberstamp can't help you now!
Pixel Zap? You have got to be kidding!

Tawbaware
The digital images are completely blurry and lifeless here, even when photographing text! He also neglects to include what ISO speed of film he is using when he blabs on and on about grain. Is he using 80 ISO, 100, 200, 400, 1800, 3200? What? He obviously doesn't know shit about what kind of grain you get with different film speeds. But, no matter what kind of digital camera you use to snap your picture... you'll get the same kind of pixels! Meaning that Kodak grain is different to Ilford grain, and Ilford grain is different to Polaroid grain... all pixels are the same. You do get MORE pixels if you use a 20 "megapixel" compared to a 6 "megapixel" camera... but the FEEL of the images structure is the same.

Luminous Landscape - are these guys on drugs?

Funny how these guys are going on and on about how these P45s are almost as good as 4x5. Maybe they can't see? I mean how bad can your eyesight be when you can't even see the difference in detail between the difference in mediums?

They certainly can't take a good photograph. Why would anyone waste a piece of sheet film for these pictures? I know they're running tests, but why SNAP with a 4x5? Why SNAP at all?

Luminous Landscape - are they just assholes?
Ok, first off, why the hell are you going to give ISO information, camera information and lens information knowing that if someone would go to that same location and do everything you just stated you did that they in no way would EVER get the same results? This kind of stuff really irritates. And secondly... they are talking about SCANNING not photographs! They are comparing a scan of a film image to a image off of a computer chip. BONKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Truly bonkers. Twisting information to make people believe that there is no difference between film and digital and that "it's all good." WHATEVER!

Comparing a scan to a digital computer chip image is talking apples and oranges. They are comparing grain to pixels. You can't compare the two!

I can't believe these guys actually have people believing their blah blah.

Walked into a photo store today, one of the big one's in LA and saw a bunch of camera gear in cases. NICE hassleblads, mamiya's (who is ceasing production of their cameras), nikons, etc... reminded me of an old car junkyard where one goes to fish for spare parts. Looked down at the price of a very polished new looking Hassleblad and noticed it was selling for $650.00, picked it up, no scratches, clean lens, no mold...

What the hell is going on? Not that I mind a Hassleblad for $650.00, but jeesh! This is getting ridiculous. Fine products being replaced by cheap plastic digital things that make cool noises. Twirly tops instead of actual airplanes. WTF?

If there wouldn't have been a pile of Type 665 (discontinued) film sitting on a shelf (30 boxes) I would have sprung for the Hassy, but I need my 665.

$700.00 later... here I am looking online for another refridgerator to store all this discontinued film.

Arizona Highway's - Film Vs. Digital

Photo.net - Film posting

I found this thread on Photo.net and the disturbing trend of photographers saying, "it's just business," is appalling to me. What business is it of the corporations to tell us what we should shoot and what we shouldn't? Photographers are being sucked in by MARKETING and not by QUALITY. And the disturbing trend of the apathist with stary eyes and a drooling tounge for something new is gross.

"In our time there are many artists who do something because it is new.. they see their value and their justification in this newness. They are deceiving themselves.. novelty is seldom the essential. This has to do with one thing only.. making a subject better from its intrinsic nature." -Henri de Toulouse Lautrec

Killing an art form is not business. It is greed.