Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne

[whitefire]

Ebay, i don't care about your rep or what not.
All i see you do is critique people, and boast about how film is better than digital and blah blah blah check my track record.

$#%@ you.
I was just trying to get some proper C&C but I realized you are kids with minds set on NT > ISS %!+%#@##.

Peace.
You'll see me around.

 

[ebayologist]

I like to share my photograph education with my fellow NT'ers. And an apt photograph for Today.

Jeff Wall "Flooded Grave"

Don't dig yourself one too deep Mr. Surdi

 

[rocsole]

Whatever happened to just giving a little c&c here and there on their photos.

 

[irpstakid]

Originally Posted by NinongBrown

Originally Posted by ebayologist

2. Fall back Mr. "All do I is simulate a stretched tonal ranges and flatten color because my digital camera lacks the range of film and in poor and misguided effort to get that I basically just force contrast to get "interesting" photographs and half the time when I do have middle tones I OD and muddy photographs".

wow, i don't know what any of that means

, but i know that smells like ether

.

That's one of the best responses i've ever seen in my history of NT....
thank you for brightening up my day.

 

[bayest]

lol

 

[ebayologist]

I may have crossed some lines…

Andreas Gursky "EM Arena II"

But what can I say don't box with God…

Andreas Gursky "Klitschko"

I think we should all just chill out/relax…

Andreas Gursky "Ratingen Swimming Pool"

But don't bite the hand that feeds you…

Andreas Gursky "99 Cent II"


Just realized that's like 6 million dollars in 4 photographs. Lot we could all learn from Mr. Gursky.

 

[the sole full 1]

Originally Posted by tony23retro

Wassup WhiteFire! Good stuff everybody.

I like

 

[whitefire]

One more.

 

[dunks r nice]

Originally Posted by RocSole

Whatever happened to just giving a little c&c here and there on their photos.

Same, thats why I don't post on this thread anymore.

Ebay - You know I have nothing against you, I like your stuff, keep doing your thing.
Whitefire - Sup Connor. Don't about that whole NT vs ISS thing. NT hates ISS and ISS hates NT, it's always beenthat way. It's whatever though

 

[dj bana]

damn, thanks for the responses people.

now ive been looking into the tokina, damn! anyone have any pics of stuff taken with it?

so now im having a dilemma, tokina or sigma..... eeek.

 

[whitefire]

www.pixel-peeper.com
Look up your lens there!

 

[ebayologist]

Originally Posted by Dunks r nice

Originally Posted by RocSole

Whatever happened to just giving a little c&c here and there on their photos.

Same, thats why I don't post on this thread anymore.
/blockquote>

I tell you what happen to it.

A: Because really I was the only one that ever did it with any regularity. Some of you who are hobbist turned "professionals" should share thatprofessional knowledge beyond what lenses you like and random technical *%%! that any of us could just look up if we really wanted to. I realize it'shelpful posting it here and I get it, but unless you guys making $$ doing this really are just hacks you know enough to critique some of your fellow NT'erswork.

There's tons of beginner stuff that gets posted in here that the rest of you who've been here a minute should critique. Why would I share my wealth ofknowledge and insight with those who might "know little bit" that aren't willing to share that with others who know little if any.

B: I don't have time to critique a million photographs, I realize I spend a portion of today ripping into someone for what I think is a raping of my craftbut still..

Hence in part (it also takes a million years to load) why I it bugs me that people thinking posting half a dozen plus photographs where theyknow which ones are marginally or even significantly better than the others in stead of ust the one or two they like.

C: There's only so much I can tell you about some random close up of a sneaker or a vinyl toy. And more to the point if I tell you something about onephotograph apply it to others and other people apply it to their own photographs. Why would I tell you something that apparently just goes in one ear and outthe other whether that be a conscious or unconscious decision on your part.

 

[ninongbrown]

Originally Posted by Dunks r nice

Don't about that whole NT vs ISS thing. NT hates ISS and ISS hates NT, it's always been that way. It's whatever though

it's in the archives... http://niketalk.com/topic/13975
basically it was our very own Method Man vs ISS's Steve.

 

[ebayologist]

Probably the most NT friendly way I know to get my feelings on the critiquing or lack there of I'd like to get my James Lipton on and recite a part ofscene from the NT classic "Paid in Full".

Mitch: Yo! l'm tired of seeing you comin' through them doors, man. You in here, livin' off my moms, you gettin' high in front of Sonny, man?!Don't @%#%*!# come back no more! You understand that?!

Ice: Hey, baby, you the one sold me the drugs l'm gettin' high on. Come on.

Mitch: Yo, don't @%#%*!# walk away from me. l sold you those drugs so that you could make money, you forgetful mother #$!*!#! You got high, so you %*!+%@up.

end scene.

So I would be Mitch and a lot of you guys are on that Ice steez, I sold (gave) you drugs (photographic knowledge/insight) and instead of selling (passing iton) you just got high off of it and once the high was gone (any particular set of photographs critiqued) you were no better off…

(I have the script bookmarked incase anyone is wondering, its quite useful.)

 

[dunks r nice]

Originally Posted by NinongBrown

Originally Posted by Dunks r nice

Don't about that whole NT vs ISS thing. NT hates ISS and ISS hates NT, it's always been that way. It's whatever though

it's in the archives... http://niketalk.com/topic/13975http://niketalk.com/topic/13975
basically it was our very own Method Man vs ISS's Steve.

I still find it whatever though. I like both NT & ISS.

 

[dj bana]

yes i use that site, i just wanted personal opinions and pics from other members too.

i havent posted any new pics because ive been using a 35mm and printing in a darkroom.. im having tons of fun with it, but im taking a lot less digital pics..lol. here are a few i took over the past week, there has been some nice sunsets... most of these are me in a car or parking lot, blah..
ignore all the crap in the pics haha

 

[SVNTI]

Man... Is the Film vs. Digital like Canon vs. Nikon?

... I like Autofocus...

 

[dj bana]

no its not.. i just havent had time to scan my prints.

i like shooting in b/w film, especially if im printing the pics, its an entire different way of taking pics and its so much fun. you have to deal with gettingthe negatives, and just being super careful with everything, youre limited to a certain amount of exposures, so it really makes you analyze how youre gonna useyour film.

 

[alljayevryjay]

is it just me, or do most, if not all, pictures look 100x better when they're less than 800 pixels wide each way?

 

[ebayologist]

Originally Posted by SaNTi0321

Man... Is the Film vs. Digital like Canon vs. Nikon?

... I like Autofocus...

But more so. Literally on all the photography message board/forum sites there's endless arguments for one or the other. But the fact of the matter is otherthe instant gratification of digital (which can be compensated for with a Polaroid back) and the obvious cost of film both in $$$ and time. Film is vastlysuperior in the technical sense of greater resolution, sharpness, tonal range, contrast range, etc… I'll agree that there digital suited photographyapplications i.e. like event photography or anything like that where a fast turn around is a necessity. There is nothing that even competes in the digitalworld from a technical aspect with digitally scanned medium and large format film. Now can those to differences especially in certain applications can beeasily spotted by the average eye? For the most part no… But fact remains the same, if you get an 4x5 large format camera you're talking over 100megapixels, you could print easy 4ft x 5ft @ 300+dpi there's not a digital camera in the world that can give you a print size like that. And while digitalis getting better B/W digital is gross, the contrast range is night and day and color there's a reason people who digital try to simulate the tonal rangeof film yet no one who shoots film would even think to do the opposite. And lastly they wouldn't continue to make film and people still wouldn't shootfilm if it wasn't better… It costs me depending on the film $9 to $15 to shoot 12 shots, people wouldn't put up with a cost like that if it didn'thave a pay off.

 

[baller mayo]

@ the ether comment

 

[165kicks]

Originally Posted by ebayologist

Originally Posted by SaNTi0321

Man... Is the Film vs. Digital like Canon vs. Nikon?

... I like Autofocus...

But more so. Literally on all the photography message board/forum sites there's endless arguments for one or the other. But the fact of the matter is other the instant gratification of digital (which can be compensated for with a Polaroid back) and the obvious cost of film both in $$$ and time. Film is vastly superior in the technical sense of greater resolution, sharpness, tonal range, contrast range, etc… I'll agree that there digital suited photography applications i.e. like event photography or anything like that where a fast turn around is a necessity. There is nothing that even competes in the digital world from a technical aspect with digitally scanned medium and large format film. Now can those to differences especially in certain applications can be easily spotted by the average eye? For the most part no… But fact remains the same, if you get an 4x5 large format camera you're talking over 100 megapixels, you could print easy 4ft x 5ft @ 300+dpi there's not a digital camera in the world that can give you a print size like that. And while digital is getting better B/W digital is gross, the contrast range is night and day and color there's a reason people who digital try to simulate the tonal range of film yet no one who shoots film would even think to do the opposite. And lastly they wouldn't continue to make film and people still wouldn't shoot film if it wasn't better… It costs me depending on the film $9 to $15 to shoot 12 shots, people wouldn't put up with a cost like that if it didn't have a pay off.

Ebay - Whats your opinion comparing 35mm to digital, the difference in image quality can't be that big? At least not if you use a FF DSLR?..I've been looking to maybe get an Canon EOS 1V (35mm film camera) as you get such a nice camera for a very nice price but then you get all extra costs forfilm and developing plus you can't see the results until a week later when you get the prints from the lab... so I think maybe not...

 

[djbooduh2o9]

ebay is correct in every way on film vs. digital. Film is always going to be WAYYYY more superior then digital in resolution, sharpness, tonal range, contrastrange, etc… as stated from ebay. Digital i repeat digital will never past that level. When you print big you will understand. I guess the people that onlyshoot digital and only post online will never understand how much better quality film gives.

Nice seeing hearing you develop your own film bana!! I got like 5 rolls of 120 film i need to develop still :/

 

[ebayologist]

^^It's definitely significantly closer comparison when it comes to FF DSLR and 35mm and is dependent on a lot of things rather just being basically for themost part cut and dry is it is with Medium and Large Format film cameras.

For starters there's vast difference in lens quality, film quality, scan quality, etc. That are all highly determinant in what you can get out of 35mmfilm. There are some pretty crappy 35mm cameras as well as medium format (i.e. Holga, Lomo, Diana) where you have like plastic lenses and ridiculous cheapbuild quality. And there's vast differences in like off brand drug store film and professional film. And then you can get film scanned a like CVS where thewhole roll is scanned for a few dollars or you could get it professionally drum scanned where scanning of single negatives might be upwards of $8-10. So thereare quite a few variables at play.

But given an ideal situation, a well built camera with a prime lens with good sharp glass, some reasonably slow/high dynamic range film like a 100VC Kodak orlike Fuji Provia 100F, either a drum scanner or simulated drum scanner. You could scan at like 4000dpi and I seriously doubt you'd pick up grain atleastwith color film and you're talking like equivalent of 21 Megapixels. And the dynamic (tonal/contrast) range of film I seriously doubt digital will evertruly rival it.

The reality of it is the only people who shoot film other than hobbyist who like film (for various reasons) and the super high end commercial photographers whohave the money and time to shoot film (some of whom are also art photographers) are art photographers where things like dynamic range that really you needtrained eye to see matter and print size where the average commercial photographer never gets an image printed larger than maybe large magazine spread thatmight be 12x20 @ 180-240 dpi.

Btw, I haven't been in a darkroom in maybe 6 months and actually processed B/W film in maybe 9-10 months, been shooting B/W with B/W CN Kodak, it's B/Wcolor processed film. It's kinda interesting stuff, it's grainless B/W film (for those who don't know B/W film usually even in low iso has avisible grain to it).

 

[whitefire]

Hmm.. I know nothing about film.
Thanks for the education.

In Japan.