woos wrote:
Cool, checked out his stuff. I like some of his black and white stuff. Color stuff doesn't interest me at all, but that's fine, if he makes good money off of it who cares what I think that's for sure.
When I look at an ansel photograph though, it resonates with me, that's for sure--completely different--
Diado's stuff to me just looks like snapshots, but to someone else might be completely different.
Ditto
Exdsc wrote:
This video shows Diado Moriyama shooting with a P&S, which is a Nikon S9100 that only shoots jpg.
It makes one feel really silly to think how much obsession there is for gear and yet here is one of the best happily shooting with a jpg-only zoom P&S.
telyt wrote:
Having zero interest in this style of photography I fail to see why the camera he uses should in any way influence my own equipment and workflow choices.
I hate to even chime in, but it kind of reminds me of how a nerdy musician, like myself, might view someone like Bob Dylan. I don't find him particularly good at singing, playing instruments, and maybe even arranging songs, but he was there at the right place and right time doing his thing, and many people love his work. I'd consider his work important and relevant, whether or not I love listening to it very often, personally.
Eggleston is also a pretty divisive figure in photography, but it's hard to emphasize how it important it was that he ushered in the idea that color photography could be considered fine art, by showing the first color photography exhibit at MOMA in the 70s...plus, it didn't hurt that he was a pretty surly and interesting character, which can certainly make a difference.
woos wrote:
When I look at an ansel photograph though, it resonates with me, that's for sure--completely different--maybe because I just love landscapes, and love the american west, and I think damn someday I hope to capture a scene 1/100th as good as he was able too, and I'd be satisfied with that, lol. Diado's stuff to me just looks like snapshots, but to someone else might be completely different.
I'm a huge fan of Ansel Adams, in fact I'd much rather shoot Ansel Adams style stuff, but I don't have access to such scenery as he did.
douglasf13 wrote:
Eggleston is also a pretty divisive figure in photography, but it's hard to emphasize how it important it was that he ushered in the idea that color photography could be considered fine art, by showing the first color photography exhibit at MOMA in the 70s
S Dilworth wrote:
Poor Ernst Haas. Everyone forgets about him.
Oh man, I don't think anyone forgets Ernst Haas, although I did forget that he had a color MOMA exhibit in the 60s. For whatever reason, it took another decade for Eggleston and a few other guys to get color into the contemporary art mainstream, but Haas was a big deal.
RustyBug wrote:
No trees, leaves, rivers, streams, mountains, rocks, towns, people, churches, roads or snow in Canada, eh?
I think he probably means: no Yellowstone or Yosemite in Canada. Of course, there are other, similarly spectacular parks, especially around where Paul lives. But there is of course no such terrain in southern Ontario, for example. There you have to find other vistas. Manitoba is even worse.
A funny thing about an artist, their art and people's opinion about their art,
The artist will create something to express a thought/feeling/etc...
People will then comment on it, but their opinions don't really matter because it is art,
it's the fact you formed an opinion that matters.
douglasf13 wrote:
Oh man, I don't think anyone forgets Ernst Haas, although I did forget that he had a color MOMA exhibit in the 60s.
Sure, I wasn’t being serious. But does anyone know why Eggleston is so often credited with that first show of colour photography at MoMA? Was it just a question of scale, or was it advertised as the first, or what? It’s intriguing!
Sidetrack: " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">William Eggleston in the Real World is unmissable for anyone who likes Eggleston or just photography. You can get the DVD on eBay, but no matter what the seller says, it’s only available as a Region 1 disc (which is difficult to play in Europe).
carstenw wrote:
I don't know, a shotgun is way better for truly empty mind.
The analogy of P&S = shotgun is very fitting, as a shotgun is truly "point and shoot" (you do not "aim" a shotgun).
However, I think your statement comes dangerously close to inferring that shotgun users are empty-minded. Many of them are, to be sure, but certainly not all.
The same is true with P&S cameras. Many empty-minded shooters, but not all. Oddly enough, I do not think there are many "intentionally empty-minded" shotgunners. In that case it seems to be more of a genetic thing.
