Film images in Outdoor Photographer - November issue

[jpeets]

Cover image, 1 of 3 Showcase images,, feature article about Salgado, and location article, and how to article (Guy Tal) all feature film based images. Apart from Salgado's images (35 mm and 645) most (all) of the film images are 4X5.

Seems a bit ironic for a magazine that is such a strident proponent of digital.

Admittedly, many photographers will have an archive of excellent film-based images to draw upon, no matter their chosen medium today. Nonetheless, I suspect that carefully planned and executed 4X5 shots remain tough to beat.

 

[JBrunner]

This is an irony apparent almost everywhere you look, and not just magazines. I am always amused when I am in the big bookstore, because on the row of shelves dedicated to photography books, the "coffee table" books, almost every single one is film originated. On the row of shelves next to it, the how to books on photography, almost every single one is about "how to" digital. You would think the aspiring expressive photography buyers of the "how to" books would notice this loggerhead, but they apparently don't.

It's also ironic how few books there are on the basic principles of photography. The magic bullet philosophy of photo product marketing has all but sealed the delusion that the latest equipment, and powerful computers/software makes a good photographer.

Digital is basically a mass market product. One good reason to participate in hand made photography, not the only reason, but one of them.

 

[Akki14]

I've noticed that change about photography books. I bought a former library book that was produced in the 80s. It focuses more on getting composition right and how to create moods based on composition and various other gubbins (yeah i haven't really read it closely yet). If you open up a digital photography book, it's all about computers and reads like a how-to book for a software programme because that's what it is really. There seems to be something deeper about these older photography books, a higher aim for what your photographs should convey, rather than this is how you get this look, here's the steps to do it.

 

[John Lawrence]

I know very little about digital photography and computers, but I assume that digital photography books more or less have to follow a set of preordained instructions for carrying out operations in photoshop etc. With the older photography books there was always more leeway for interpretation by the author, with different authors naturally favouring different approaches - some more abstract and some more rigid. This led to a greater diversity in the books, and is probably the reason why my bookshelves are buckling!

 

[jpeets]

Most of the books and magazines out there deal with the "mechanics" of photography these days, for sure. It may be that the promoters of digital are implying that the equipment makes the image (which we know is untrue, right???). They now promote smile detection, even landscape detection, of sorts......


OTOH, how many times can you cover rule-of-thirds, perspective, where to place the horizon, etc. etc. and keep it fresh? There are a lot of classics out there ....

I have to admit, my photo book/magazine buying binges are over. The last several books I bought were about lighting, alt process and view camera use - which is basically mechanics.

 

[JBrunner]

Most of the books and magazines out there deal with the "mechanics" of photography these days, for sure. It may be that the promoters of digital are implying that the equipment makes the image (which we know is untrue, right???). They now promote smile detection, even landscape detection, of sorts......


OTOH, how many times can you cover rule-of-thirds, perspective, where to place the horizon, etc. etc. and keep it fresh? There are a lot of classics out there ....

I have to admit, my photo book/magazine buying binges are over. The last several books I bought were about lighting, alt process and view camera use - which is basically mechanics.

I have many books about mechanics, nothing wrong with that, but what I have found, (helping out at a local shop) is that the average customer has no idea how to work the basic functions of their camera in a photographic sense, and most of the books that would cover this are out of print, or not stocked. I actually find myself trying to explain exposure to people that have dumped several thousand dollars into the latest thing, shoot on the green square, and are wondering why the images aren't what they envision. They are usually looking for some piece of gear to solve that for them, no kidding. And a share of them seem aghast that they might actually have to apply themselves to learning something. It's a symptom I tell you....

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't read O/P much, but when I have, this has generally seemed to have been the case--portfolios mostly on film, technical articles all digital.

 

[domaz]

Most of the popular magazines (Pop photo, O/P) are all about How-to. In that sense digital must be a boon for them, it used to just be how they'd write about how-to to make an exposure, now it's all about how to make an exposure AND edit the files digitally. The latter step is infinitely more difficult than people make it out to be and you can write about it ad nauseum a(nd still your printer colors won't match your monitor).

 

[jovo]

In the current issue, late in the interview with Salgado, he is asked if he has considered digital for his work, and his answer is essentially that the digicam doesn't yet exist that can replace his Leicas and Pentax 645. I all but laughed out loud, but I was in a Barnes and Noble (didn't buy the magazine either), and thought better of it. Frankly, if I were flogging something I wanted sold, I'd hire the flacks at OP in a heartbeat...they're relentlessly and doggedly on task in every sentence...the photography just doesn't cooperate as they'd like it to I guess.