Antje
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #12 · National Geographic 10D images | |
Imagemaster wrote:
Antje wrote " Ahem - I have to break my promise to ignore your posts and chime in because this is too gross to pass..."
Yeah, well so much for your promise.
I'm so sorry, had you started the thread, I'd never have bothered to look. I'd have known what I was about to see. Do you think I enjoy reading bullshit?
And who is talking about portability/flexibility? The comment I was replying to was "...........and usually use the highest quality film equipment"
I should have known, you didn't get it. I was trying to explain why the statement is true that they take the highest possible quality. You can only do shots with suitable gear. Like I said, 35mm is a trade-off, a compromise, and the best image quality left if you can't get the shot with MF or LF gear. Is and has always been. Image quality isn't as good as MF and LF, but then, there are lots of occasions where you can't get the shot with MF and LF gear and have to use 35mm. Get it now? You lose image quality, you gain flexibility with 35mm. So, it's true, they use the highest quality photos they can get. If you had only once in your life hiked to some remote spot with half of your dad's MF gear on your back, you'd know very well why most shots from remote places are done with 35mm cameras, even though the image quality is inferior. The feature about hawaiian volcanoes - I'd rather not lug a MF camera up there. Snow foxes - there are no telephotos in that range for MF or LF gear and if there were, you'd not be able to carry them.
You can't capture a shy small animal with LF gear because you couldn't carry the lens you'd need to the specific location - if that lens existed at all in the first place. You can't do a stealth shoot with a 3kg Mamiya, but with a small Leica. So, when it's impossible or at least very hard to get a shot with LF or MF gear, they make do with the lower quality 35mm slides. That is, they use the highest quality images they can get.
But man, you should know that! I thought you were an accomplished, published photog!
The highest quality film equipment is not 35mm. What don't you understand about that? NG does not print only images recorded at remote locations or cheetahs chasing gazelles. They have printed thousands of images taken in urban centers which could easily have been taken with MF or LF cameras.
Most of what I've seen is more of the photojournalistic kind, even the ones done in Portland or Berlin. It's not hard to tell if you really care to look! I'd highly recommend taking a closer look, you could benefit a lot. Even in urban centers, speed and stealth required might rule out the use of bulky MF gear. I have only been to NYC once, but I'd rather not set up a tripod with a LF camera on it at Penn Station.  Setting up a tripod is even forbidden in many cities here.
Btw there's series done with this ancient tintype system in the October issue http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature6/zoom1.html, done with a 8x10 view camera. Oh, and after looking for about two minutes, I came up with this series: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0408/feature1/zoom2.html Done with a 6x9 camera. So you not only failed to understand what MF, LF and 35mm can do for you, you're even wrong about your statement "If that were true, why have they exclusively used 35mm and not medium or large format?"
I'm starting to wonder if anything you said about yourself was true...
No gross promises please
Tsk. I told you before you could only benefit from an honest opinion. Why the fear?
Antje
|
By what criteria do you make the statement: "the highest quality equipment is not 35mm?" Do you mean the highest quality portable photo equipment? The highest quality ease of use equipment? Or do you mean the highest quality photojournalism equipment? The highest quality wildlife equipment?
It made me very happy I subscribe to the magazine.