Best Nikon color photographers

[AnselMortensen]

Pete Turner.

...drops mic and walks away.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Paul Simon.

Kodachrome.

Do we know if his mama ended up taking it away or not?

 

[DREW WILEY]

This thread was sure off to a bad start. I won't linger.

 

[drkhalsa]

Can you point me to some of the very best film photograpers using Nikon on color film? Color only please.
I will start the list, although I think he basically only used positive film:

1 Galen Rowell

Joel Sartore at one time worked for National Geographic and used Nikon equipment. Probably Kodachrome, too.

 

[mshchem]

I'm with Matt. Fred Herzog.

Herzog shot Kodachrome, Vancouver, Did Mr. King Sr. develop these films?

 

[MattKing]

Herzog shot Kodachrome, Vancouver, Did Mr. King Sr. develop these films?

Well, Dad didn't do any of the actual developing.
He was Customer Service manager, which meant he and his department had all sorts of dealings with the customers that sent film or cameras for repair to the lab, including those who actually visited the lab, along with the customers of the wide array of Kodak dealers in Western Canada who participated in the system where customers could go into their local store, drop off their Kodachrome for development, go back a day or two later and pick up their developed slides or movies.
As well as the customers who put their exposed Kodachrome into the free convenience mailers included with the film, put some stamps on the mailer, and dropped them in the mail, with the reasonable expectation that they would have the developed slides and movies back to them in a few days, courtesy of Canada Post.
All without additional cost to the customer because, in Canada, Kodachrome was sold with the cost of processing and those other auxiliary handling services included in the purchase price,
Dad and his department handled the dealings with Canada Post too.
In its heyday, we are talking about thousands and thousands of films - much of which was movie film.
A bunch of Ektachrome as well, but the processing of Ektachrome had to be paid for.
Dad did have contact with Fred Herzog though - because Fred Herzog was convinced that the Kodachrome lab in Palo Alto was the very best at developing Kodachrome. So despite all the evidence to the contrary, he did his best to have all his Kodachrome forwarded there.
Which meant interacting with Dad's responsibilities - Fred would bring the film to the lab in North Vancouver where Dad was based and have one of Dad's employees fill out the necessary order form to have it sent for processing in Palo Alto California, to be then returned to the North Vancouver for pickup by Fred.
All without extra charge, I believe.
In case you didn't realize it, if you visited Canada back then and bought some Kodachrome, and then took it back to the USA to have it processed by tour local Kodak lab, they would have also processed it for you without extra charge - the "process paid" status of the film was encoded on the cassette and the film itself.

 

[pierods]

So first of all, thanks everybody for the wealth of information.
So, what do I mean by best photographer?

I am just coming out of the dark tunnel of marketing (you need a Leica, digital is better, look at the MTF etc) having realized that 99% of the photos I took with a Nikon f80 and a 50mm 1.8 are indistinguishable from the ones I took with a Leica (Koraks is very right about that) and half of them I could simply not have taken (too close to the lens or tele lens).

But - and I disagree with Koraks on this part - lenses DO have a certain (admittedly subtle) signature, so I cannot tell if a certain image is from a Leica or a Minolta, but I CAN tell if a certain image looks better or subtly different than another one - but why? Because the photographer has mastered his camera system through work and dedication (and no, buying a Leica or a Hasselblad will not give you that automatically)

So this work involves seeing “samples” of what a certain camera system can do, maybe try to reproduce etc.

So in this context, the best photographers would be the ones that were able to get the best results from their Nikon gear.

It seems to me that most of them were doing positive film. Is it because it is “better”? Or maybe they did not have modern negative emulsions?

 

[koraks]

So this work involves seeing “samples” of what a certain camera system can do, maybe try to reproduce etc.

In assessing these samples, what you'll be looking at predominantly is the talent of the photographer, their personal style, their eye and proficiency in selecting subject matter, lighting, composition and color. Important factors are probably film choice and to a large extent (esp. for color neg film) printing/post processing choices. The list goes on and on. Then, somewhere waaaaay down at the list among the factors having less than 0.00001% influence, you'll find things like 'color rendition of the lens' etc.

The question itself is understandable. It's just not going to result in a meaningful answer as long as it remains focused on "what brand did they use". You said it yourself: by buying into a particular brand, you don't gain proficiency. So the question really is about what areas of proficiency you're interested in.

It seems to me that most of them were doing positive film. Is it because it is “better”? Or maybe they did not have modern negative emulsions?

To an extent this is because positive film was historically (1) more fit for reproduction use and (2) photographers often perceived it as technically and artistically superior to color negative film (whether that's justified or not is another matter).

The question remains what exactly you're trying to accomplish for yourself.
Are you trying to regain inspiration?
Are you attempting to improve some aspect of your photography?
If you're improving, is it a technical aspect of your photography, or is your main concern at this moment on the artistic side - so let's say things like storytelling, concept, composition etc?

For the moment, your question is very similar to contacting someone who shares a lot of interesting travel stories about people they meet in far-away countries etc and then asking them what brand car they prefer to rent on their travels. It just doesn't matter all that much.

 

[pierods]

In assessing these samples, what you'll be looking at predominantly is the talent of the photographer, their personal style, their eye and proficiency in selecting subject matter, lighting, composition and color. Important factors are probably film choice and to a large extent (esp. for color neg film) printing/post processing choices. The list goes on and on. Then, somewhere waaaaay down at the list among the factors having less than 0.00001% influence, you'll find things like 'color rendition of the lens' etc.

The question itself is understandable. It's just not going to result in a meaningful answer as long as it remains focused on "what brand did they use". You said it yourself: by buying into a particular brand, you don't gain proficiency. So the question really is about what areas of proficiency you're interested in.


To an extent this is because positive film was historically (1) more fit for reproduction use and (2) photographers often perceived it as technically and artistically superior to color negative film (whether that's justified or not is another matter).

The question remains what exactly you're trying to accomplish for yourself.
Are you trying to regain inspiration?
Are you attempting to improve some aspect of your photography?
If you're improving, is it a technical aspect of your photography, or is your main concern at this moment on the artistic side - so let's say things like storytelling, concept, composition etc?

For the moment, your question is very similar to contacting someone who shares a lot of interesting travel stories about people they meet in far-away countries etc and then asking them what brand car they prefer to rent on their travels. It just doesn't matter all that much.

My question for you is, are you old enough to have lived the golden age of color film? What is then the matter with positive film being perceived as superior? Was it justified? Kodak had a ton of color negative films (vericolor, gold, kodacolor...) and probably tens of others were available from other brands.

 

[pierods]

Joel Sartore at one time worked for National Geographic and used Nikon equipment. Probably Kodachrome, too.

thanks

 

[pierods]

No-one has really asked what the OP's purpose is in asking the question, have they? Andeas might have come closest to doing so when he asked what the OP understood to be the best photographers which I assume to be: What defines a photographer to put him into the "best " category

So can I ask:"pierods can you give us more details, if you are willing, on why Nikon film cameras in association with colour film?

pentaxuser

because I have a Nikon camera

 

[pierods]

it's not the camera...

thanks for your opinion but to some extent it is, otherwise Tichy would look just like Gursky, and Gursky would look just like Robert Capa. Cameras are tools and all tools are not the same, even after marketing BS.

What do you think about the fact that most Nikon photographers used positive film?

 

[pierods]

Larry Burrows did some of the best color work during the Vietnam war, he shot with both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Steve McCurry who shot the Girl with Green Eyes for Nat Geo used Kodachrome. Kodacrhome is no longer made and old rolls can not longer be processed as color film. Rowland Scherman shot Bob Dylan with a Nikon with 200mm lens on Kktachrome high speed.

thanks

 

[pierods]

By the present tense "using" do you mean still using colour film currently or used (as in the past) I had heard that for instance Steve McCurry had switched to digital a good number of years ago

pentaxuser

any

 

[pierods]

Larry Burrows did some of the best color work during the Vietnam war, he shot with both Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Steve McCurry who shot the Girl with Green Eyes for Nat Geo used Kodachrome. Kodacrhome is no longer made and old rolls can not longer be processed as color film. Rowland Scherman shot Bob Dylan with a Nikon with 200mm lens on Kktachrome high speed.

thanks

 

[pierods]

That really is a good question Andreas.
In general i'm not a huge colour photography fan. Galen Rowell was widely published and gained renown IMO because he photographed adventure that most people don't experience. As a photographer, of mountains he certainly is not in the same class as Vittorio Sella, Bradford Washburn or Ansel Adams. Rowell's highly saturated images almost pre-saged the HD stylings of the digital era.
As far as colour photographers Elliott Porter and any number of photographers working with the dye-transfer process produced more compelling work.

thanks, I am interested in photographers using Nikon cameras.

 

[pierods]

Fred Herzog:

Courtesy of his friend, Bruce Stewart.
Although he used a variety of other cameras as well. And mostly Kodachrome.
In case you are not familiar with Fred Herzog: https://www.equinoxgallery.com/our-artists/fred-herzog/

it appears that fred herzog used many brands of cameras, not prevalently Nikon

 

[Don_ih]

to some extent it is, otherwise Tichy would look just like Gursky, and Gursky would look just like Robert Capa

Sorry, but that's mighty dismissive of individual talent and style. Are you saying I can hand you a Leica M3 and you'll become Cartier-Bresson? Or are you saying all you need to take photos just like Steve McCurry is the right film to put in your Nikon?

A good photographer can use any camera and get photos that are examples of his or her vision and style.

A particular camera won't give anyone vision or style.

An expert chooses good tools to facilitate their work. Good tools don't make someone an expert.

 

[pierods]

Sorry, but that's mighty dismissive of individual talent and style. Are you saying I can hand you a Leica M3 and you'll become Cartier-Bresson? Or are you saying all you need to take photos just like Steve McCurry is the right film to put in your Nikon?

A good photographer can use any camera and get photos that are examples of his or her vision and style.

A particular camera won't give anyone vision or style.

An expert chooses good tools to facilitate their work. Good tools don't make someone an expert.

thanks. Why do you think positive film was so frequently used?

 

[Pieter12]

thanks for your opinion but to some extent it is, otherwise Tichy would look just like Gursky, and Gursky would look just like Robert Capa. Cameras are tools and all tools are not the same, even after marketing BS.

What do you think about the fact that most Nikon photographers used positive film?

Positive (reversal) film is/was the standard for reproduction before the widespread use of digital. With positive film, the photographer, editor and client all know what the image looks like. Negative needs to be printed, mostly out of control of the photographer, giving varying results and entailing longer time to deliver (think deadlines). Today, with digital scanning and most photographers shooting digital anyway, reversal film no longer has as much advantage—especially with the demise of Kodakchrome.

 

[koraks]

My question for you is, are you old enough to have lived the golden age of color film?

Irrelevant for your question. Also, 'golden age' is undefined. Arguably, the golden age of film is...right now.

What is then the matter with positive film being perceived as superior?

Nothing wrong with that perception (which is a different matter from whether the perception was objectively justified, as that would depend on the specific products being compared and the exact criteria they would be compared against). You asked why it was used so much.

My questions to you remain unanswered, which makes it unclear what you're looking for and what it'll bring you. I say this in the full appreciation of the fact that there's amusement/entertainment value in thinking about which famous photographers used which brand of camera or film and whether they preferred a neck strap or a wrist strap, a backpack, a messenger bag or no bag at all, and whether they preferred dry paper or wet wipes. It's all fair & square, but how much it all has to do with photography, is quite debatable.

 

[pierods]

Positive (reversal) film is/was the standard for reproduction before the widespread use of digital. With positive film, the photographer, editor and client all know what the image looks like. Negative needs to be printed, mostly out of control of the photographer, giving varying results and entailing longer time to deliver (think deadlines). Today, with digital scanning and most photographers shooting digital anyway, reversal film no longer has as much advantage—especially with the demise of Kodakchrome.

Got it thanks.

 

[Don_ih]

My questions to you remain unanswered

It all feels like a bit of a spoof, actually...

 

[pierods]

As an addendum, developing the negative/postiive side, I got this from AI :

are there photographers famous for shooting color negative film?

• William Eggleston: Eggleston primarily used color negative films like Kodak Vericolor and later Portra for his prints. His work, such as the vivid, everyday scenes in William Eggleston’s Guide, showcases the muted yet rich palette of color negative film, which was key to his pioneering color photography.
• Stephen Shore: Shore extensively used color negative films like Kodak Vericolor and Fujifilm stocks for his Uncommon Places series. The film’s dynamic range and subtle color shifts helped him capture the American landscape with a documentary-like clarity and warmth.
• Joel Meyerowitz: Meyerowitz often worked with color negative films such as Kodak Ektacolor (not to be confused with Ektachrome) for his street photography and Cape Light series. These films allowed for the soft, natural tones that defined his exploration of light and color.
• Nan Goldin: Goldin’s raw, intimate images in The Ballad of Sexual Dependency were shot on color negative films like Kodak Portra and Fujicolor, which gave her work its characteristic grainy texture and saturated, emotional hues.
• Alec Soth: Known for his large-format work in projects like Sleeping by the Mississippi, Soth used color negative films (e.g., Kodak Portra 400) to achieve the lush, detailed tones that define his lyrical documentation of American life.

tell me for each of those photographers what was their camera of choice (this one I asked to annoy people who don't want brands mentioned ) Eggleston's Canonet is da bomb...

• William Eggleston:
  • Camera: Leica M-series rangefinders (notably Leica M3 and M4) and Canonet G-III QL17.
• Stephen Shore:
  • Camera: Rolleiflex 2.8F (medium format) and later a Deardorff 8x10 large-format camera.
• Joel Meyerowitz:
  • Camera: Leica M-series rangefinders (primarily Leica M4) and Deardorff 8x10.
• Nan Goldin:
  • Camera: Leica M-series (often Leica M6) and Nikon FM2.
• Alec Soth:
  • Camera: Deardorff 8x10 and later a Mamiya 7 II (medium format).

So mostly no Nikon for negative film...uhhmmm

 

[koraks]

So you've got your money in the wrong brand. I think you need to give up photography.