Brent Ward wrote:
I wouldn't judge him by some low res web shots. How about a 40x50" print (that he printed) compared to your best?
I think's it's very arrogant (or a matter of self inflated importance) to say your better then he is...
This will be the last post I make on this topic as we are taking this thread away from its intended subject. I own an epson 9800 and regularly print 40x70 40x60 prints. I could print bigger but my printer wont allow that. My 16bit tif files are anywhere from 800meg to 2000meg in size. I have 80,000 pictures on my server many of which are used to make large panos 2x14 3x11 4x10 rows of images stitched. I sometimes use 3 different Lee ND grads to get the results I need. If your going to bash someone please take the time to investigate before you start spewing rubbish. Condemnation before thorough investigation as they say. Ansel Adams was good for his day, he was a pioneer. But what you are saying is that no other person can ever be better.
Tell me something are Orville and Wilbur Wright still the best Pilots? Is the Wright flyer still the best airplane?
Edited by madmax200 on Aug 23, 2007 at 06:39 AM GMT
RalphJ wrote:
(Still want to stick with that measure of "a good photograph"?)
yes. just because it takes less time to process our photos because of advances in technology, we still have to wake up before dawn and hike that same 3 miles to get those sunrise shots from certain locations, IF we're willing to take that time.
Mark Adamus regularly hikes into places upwards for 40 miles, in the winter to get one, maybe two shots. you're going to tell me that because he shoots digital that degrades his photography? his compositions and the dramatic feel of the scenes he catches blow Ansel away. why? because he's taking the time to go to places under conditions that no one else is willing to do.
madmax200 wrote:
This will be the last post I make on this topic as we are taking this thread away from its intended subject. I own an epson 9800 and regularly print 40x70 40x60 prints. I could print bigger but my printer wont allow that. My 16bit tif files are anywhere from 800meg to 2000meg in size. I have 80,000 pictures on my server many of which are used to make large panos 2x14 3x11 4x10 rows of images stitched. I sometimes use 3 different Lee ND grads to get the results I need. If your going to bash someone please take the time to investigate before you start spewing rubbish. Condemnation before thorough investigation as they say. Ansel Adams was good for his day, he was a pioneer. But what you are saying is that no other person can ever be better.
Tell me something are Orville and Wilbur Wright still the best Pilots? Is the Wright flyer still the best airplane?
Edited by madmax200 on Aug 23, 2007 at 06:39 AM GMT...Show more →
I did look at your site first...never said that there wasn't anyone who was better than him.
Just saying your not.
You have good work, but better then AA is a stretch. That would be like me saying I'm better then him. My ego isn't that big. If others say your better then him then fine.
Sorry, file size, bit depth, image quantity, and the width of your printer cant compare to the 30 or 40 years Ansel would take to produce the "perfect" print of one image. Ansel contributed more to photography and to conservation than you can imagine. His work, like all great art, is timeless. To say "in his day" is just ignorant.
Brent Ward wrote:
I did look at your site first...never said that there wasn't anyone who was better than him.
Just saying your not.
You have good work, but better then AA is a stretch. That would be like me saying I'm better then him. My ego isn't that big. If others say your better then him then fine.
I for one would like to go back to steam powered cars. I think the whole hydrogen fuel cell technology idea is poppycock.
I looked at your landscapes as well. . I'm sorry but I refuse to Drink the Ansel Adams Kool-Aid. I will say Im grateful for his help in establishing the National Parks. He has contributed much to our Nations outdoors. Its his pictures that just dont do it for me. There are people on this forum who shoot beautiful pictures that I feel are better.. I never was a fan of black and white. Many of AA's pictures are clipped in the shadows and blown in the highlights. I never see his pictures anywhere but in cheap calendars that are given out for free at Christmas time
What you are seeing on my site is less then 1% of my older work. Your not seeing the newer work. Your also are not seeing the prints. Most of those shots were uploaded from my the hotel room or camp site. Not a lot of work went into refining them. Colors are not right etc. People steal my work off my website so I refuse to post color balanced newer pictures. The prints are a completely different story. There really is no comparison. Much more time goes into the final work. Like I said I have over 80,000 pictures on my server. If you saw my prints hanging on the wall you would understand (maybe).
I also think that some of Q T Luong's work surpasses AA's work as well.
madmax200 wrote: I think maybe I opened a can of worms on this one.
Max (you have some great images on your site btw) and all clickers who believe themselves better than AA please heed this:
You have the endowed right to think you are the best photographer in the world. Unfortunately, the viewing PUBLIC, not photographers, are the ultimate judge over whose photographs are the best, are the most valuable to have hanging at home or work. Adams did not make a ton of money while he was alive. And that may/may not be currently the case with you photographers that think old AA was a dud
But right now, a large AA signed print of one of his special images fetches more than $100,000. I think Weston's are in the same ball park. In future years those prices will continue to rise. Time will tell if a madmax or other's prints will fetch that amount. So you have two choices: increase the price of your signed exhibition prints to $100,000 to see who sells more - AA or you - or kill your selves now and see if photographic history will remember you like it does AA, Weston, etc.
Arguement over, lets get back to the battle of the FFs.
madmax200 wrote:
He was good for his day but I see many many photographers that blow his work away. I know without a doubt I can surpass his work.
youre a clown
and then you post WEB pics of Ansel Adams prints to prove your point All you did is prove what a %^@$@#( you are. Apparently you missed the whole point being the quality of the *prints*
madmax200 wrote:
Like I said I have over 80,000 pictures on my server.
yeah you keep saying that like its supposed to be impressive or something. Ive got 100,000 so I must be better than you (actually I have way less as I prefer quality over quantity)
Many of AA's pictures are clipped in the shadows and blown in the highlights. I never see his pictures anywhere but in cheap calendars that are given out for free at Christmas time
exactly!!!
you havent even seen the proper prints, you just admitted that
so how on earth do you feel you can judge his work
youre experience is web shots and calendar pics....
the whole point of his work is the prints, so you are clueless
therefore, your comment that If your going to bash someone please take the time to investigate before you start spewing rubbish. Condemnation before thorough investigation as they say. has got to be the most ironic thing ive read in weeks.
The prints are a completely different story
for your work. but apparently not his...
stanj wrote:
Not to defend anyone, but as a 1Ds and 1Ds2 owner, I can say that the improvements are far less impressive than the last time around, at 50% more time. The only reason I can think of is that they are holding back because they have no competitor, which is why I hope that Nikon will come up with something nice, soon. Just like they did with the D200 - and look at the 40D.
I agree 100%. Now, some of the wonderment that might've accompanied this release is probably lost on account of the fact that the usability improvements were already released on the 1D Mark III... this just ports those enhancements over to the 1Ds. That said, given Nikon's entry into the FF market with their D3, I hope that Canon may see fit soon to either make major price adjustments on this model, or contemplate a merger of the segmented lines into a single EOS-1 camera model. Of course, that's at least 3 years away. Barring such a segmentation, my next camera may be the successor to the 5D (if they make it cheaper and weather seal it).
Still love my old 1D Mark II, but it's starting to feel a little heavy.
lordarka wrote:
I agree 100%. Now, some of the wonderment that might've accompanied this release is probably lost on account of the fact that the usability improvements were already released on the 1D Mark III... this just ports those enhancements over to the 1Ds. That said, given Nikon's entry into the FF market with their D3, I hope that Canon may see fit soon to either make major price adjustments on this model, or contemplate a merger of the segmented lines into a single EOS-1 camera model. Of course, that's at least 3 years away. Barring such a segmentation, my next camera may be the successor to the 5D (if they make it cheaper and weather seal it).
Still love my old 1D Mark II, but it's starting to feel a little heavy.
You know, I was just thinking that all of these mint 1dsmk2s that will be selling for $4,500 to 5,000 are looking really sweet right now. Canon will not lower the price of the 1dsmk3 as the Nikon FF will not compete against it, but more against the 1DMk3.
lordarka wrote:
[snip]That said, given Nikon's entry into the FF market with their D3, I hope that Canon may see fit soon to either make major price adjustments on this model, or contemplate a merger of the segmented lines into a single EOS-1 camera model. Of course, that's at least 3 years away. [snip]
Arka C.
Agreed. I had really hoped Canon would make the 1D3 a 16mp FF sensor with a 10mp crop (and priced about 1k higher than it is now). I am now content enough to ride by 1Ds2 for the next three years in the hopes they do merge the 1-series line (or at least produce a FF and high speed camera).
Madmax - When you can go out with the same exact cameras, lenses, meters, films, papers, darkroom equipment and chemicals as A.A. and produce shots better than his we'll talk :-)
D3 vs 1D3 - As a Canon user, I'm happy Nikon has hopefully caught Canon with their pants down for competition purposes. Canon said they needed an APS-H in order to do 10fps and Nikon proved them wrong (9 is close enough and without AF tracking it'll do 11). I don't think that Canon is going to be inspired to lower prices since the D3 is more expensive than the 1D3 but they will definitely have to up the ante with the next round of cameras or they are going to end up giving back some of the pro market.
The interesting time will be when Nikon announces the D3x to compete with the 1Ds3. I have a feeling that there will be a few unhappy faces at Canon when that happens.
I've invested many a dollar in Canon lenses and have learned that the body will more often change than lenses overall and believe Nikon's advancements will not cause many to change over just with the collection of new lenses needed, thus the holding price of 8K with no reservation where Nikon is in my outlook.
Will see that day where the flagship will start at a lower price but not now, an unspoken fair-trade standard that many a company follow.
6.5K sounds like a better starting point or for me a used 1Ds2 in the mid 4K and won’t need CS3 for a while
. I'm sorry but I refuse to Drink the Ansel Adams Kool-Aid. I will say Im grateful for his help in establishing the National Parks. He has contributed much to our Nations outdoors. Its his pictures that just dont do it for me. There are people on this forum who shoot beautiful pictures that I feel are better.. I never was a fan of black and white. Many of AA's pictures are clipped in the shadows and blown in the highlights. I never see his pictures anywhere but in cheap calendars that are given out for free at Christmas time
I think maybe I opened a can of worms on this one.
All you did is prove what a %^@$@#( you are. Apparently you missed the whole point being the quality of the *prints*