Awesome, I wonder if he uses something nuclear for a flash

Cableaddict wrote:
Lazy art is still art, but it doesn't impress me quite as much as art that's made to the best of the artist's abilities.

Lazy? That guy is putting more work into making a single image than most digital users would put into a hundred images.

In a way, light meters, automatic cameras and so on are the lazy way. We don't really have to think about exposure. Oh, that image is blown? Dial in some comp and re-take it. It costs us a few seconds. It costs him a day, a lot of work, and probably a good bit of money. The fact that this guy is basically guessing at exposure and manually blocking parts of the image to avoid blowout (with his hands!) and still getting images of that quality is pretty impressive to me. It's not conventional... it breaks the rules... but who cares? He's doing the work and he's the only one that has to enjoy it unless he's trying to sell them.

I can tell you - I far prefer the lazy way myself: DSLR's, autofocus, light metering, Lightroom for development. No way in hell I'm dragging that thing around and rolling stuff around in a giant pipe for development

I enjoyed watching this most interesting video. It brought to mind past memories.
A few years ago I had the opportunity of visiting Clyde Butcher (The Ansel Adams of the Everglades) in his gallery, some 25 miles west of Miami.
He gave me a tour of his darkroom and he showed me his old cameras, mostly 8x10 from the beginning of the last century. "Cameras are boxes to which the photographer attaches a lens" He was using Schneider lenses in those old cameras. His work has always been confined to b&w photography and his prints sell very well, some of them for over $5000.
Do we really have anything simpler than an ancient, cumbersome film camera and a hand held exposure meter? Still, such primitive gear finds new life in the hands and eyes of this great photographer who has dedicated his life to photograph the wilderness of the scenery in the Everglades National Park.
No matrix metering, no instant view in a LCD, no means to delete anything in camera and only one shot at a time. His gallery, out of Hway 41 West, has many of his beautiful work which can also be seen throughout Florida.
Yes, modern cameras are simply awesome work of art and technology but it is still the photographer the main ingredient for taking the pictures.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

Very cool video.

And "testament" was technically the correct word, though it is usually used in that context to refer to an attribute or direct object rather than a person. e.g., "His results are a testament to the amount of time he spends on his craft."

In any case, "testimony" is incorrect.

Hey thanks for the link I really enjoyed the video.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Instead of buying new camera, from now on, I will save it in order to buy an old M1 tank, which I will convert the artillery barrel to a zoom lens and the turret to shoot (with or without pun intention) pano. Damn! it would be awesome!!!!

Antje wrote:
Wow, that was impressive! Thanks for sharing this!
Glad you liked it

voodoo1694 wrote:
Great stuff. Pretty inspirational. Thanks for posting this Sam.
no problem ...glad you found it useful...

I think I saw a direct print button on the side of that thing. Yea, its right there next to the car jack and the whole day of setting up for one shot.

I loved this video, thanks for sharing.

EOS20 wrote:
Shouldn't this video be posted over on the alternative forums?


Very interesting video!




I was going to do that. but it just wouldn't have gotten as many hits. it would have died pretty quickly lol

No auto focus, no metering, no 6.5 fps, no PS, no automatic sensor cleaning....just talent and a will to create art. What a concept!

Charlie

moondigger wrote:
Very cool video.

And "testament" was technically the correct word, though it is usually used in that context to refer to an attribute or direct object rather than a person. e.g., "His results are a testament to the amount of time he spends on his craft."

In any case, "testimony" is incorrect.


An interesting subtopic in this thread. My undergraduate degree is in English Literature and I have been involved in a very grammar/syntax/word intensive profession for 30 years. Our language and communication skills are our bread and butter. While this word could certainly be utilized in the context you have suggested, I would opine that there is no such concept as a word being "technically" correct. It is either correct as used or not. One might argue that there may be a better choice of word, but that is another issue.

Like you say (said)..a very cool video...

This was most impressive, thanks for posting.

chas wrote:
No auto focus, no metering, no 6.5 fps, no PS, no automatic sensor cleaning....just talent and a will to create art. What a concept!

Charlie

rubbish! everybody knows without the latest and greatest technology there is no art!!

John Power wrote:
moondigger wrote:
Very cool video.

And "testament" was technically the correct word, though it is usually used in that context to refer to an attribute or direct object rather than a person. e.g., "His results are a testament to the amount of time he spends on his craft."

In any case, "testimony" is incorrect.


An interesting subtopic in this thread. My undergraduate degree is in English Literature and I have been involved in a very grammar/syntax/word intensive profession for 30 years. Our language and communication skills are our bread and butter. While this word could certainly be utilized in the context you have suggested, I would opine that there is no such concept as a word being "technically" correct. It is either correct as used or not. One might argue that there may be a better choice of word, but that is another issue.



I think there is more to language then one interpretation. Mine differes from yours in this case. That doesn't make me unduly uncomfortable nor needy of Google's help in search of all possible word derivatives from "testes" and some such.

It's also nice of Moondigger to let us know that he has an opinion on the subject.

chas wrote:
No auto focus, no metering, no 6.5 fps, no PS, no automatic sensor cleaning....just talent and a will to create art. What a concept!

Charlie

Yes, but should we really assume that simple technologies are predestined to automatically generate "art" ?

If his images were produced by a 1DsMkIII and posted on this forum, what would the majority's reaction be ? Yeah, that.

stanj wrote:
This was most impressive, thanks for posting.

PetKal wrote:
If his images were produced by a 1DsMkIII and posted on this forum, what would the majority's reaction be ? Yeah, that.



I personally would still like the images. Especially based on his explanation of the 'dreamy kind of memory' he was trying to convey. I have seen images of this nature elsewhere and appreciate their place in the art world. The tool he uses adds to the story behind the story and that is always valuable in the art world (picasso?).

John Power wrote:
My undergraduate degree is in English Literature and I have been involved in a very grammar/syntax/word intensive profession for 30 years.

My undergraduate degree was also in English literature, with a writing concentration. I currently make my living as a professional computer geek, but have at various times over my career been a technical writer and science editor.

While this word could certainly be utilized in the context you have suggested, I would opine that there is no such concept as a word being "technically" correct.

When I say "technically correct," I mean only that it is not grammatically incorrect. I was defending your usage.

One might argue that there may be a better choice of word, but that is another issue.

Again, I was defending your usage of the word, while at the same time pointing out a more common usage. I'm sure you know that there are more- and less-common usages of a given word or phrase.

Petkal's suggestion to substitute "testimony" for "testament to" was incorrect.

I could use that if I could get more than 1 frame per day. That is one slow shooting speed!!!

Very cool. Not for me but wow.

Makes me wish I had more time to devote to photography in general. I sometimes only have time for one shot per day, even though my one shot only takes a minute or two.

The magic of these images is that they can be beautiful, even if they are not technically perfect. So often in photography we focus on technical perfection, but that is not always what makes a great image.

Thanks for this video - I've sent the link to a number of photographers.

Admittedly, I would never go to these lengths to capture an image, it did bring to mind the whole aspect of what photography is about and what part we play in making an image. It is easier these days to take an excellent image partly due to the technology that we have available to us - but in many ways we are also removed from the process of creating an image. Now, we turn dials, select commands and press buttons in order to make an image. Hopefully for most of us we also consider such things as light and composition before pressing the shutter.

Back in the day I went out for a weekend trip with only 2 rolls of 35mm film. My entire weekend was governed by the 72 shots that I could take. Now I go around with 10 gigs of cards in my camera.

I do not miss the years of smelling developer, stopbath and fixer - the hours of mixing chemicals. I DO miss the magic of watching the image come up in the developer, the tactile sense that came with rubbing the paper to help etch out that last bit of detail in a highlight - there is no magic in pressing the "print" button.