Maris in f11 online magazine

[Maris]

http://www.f11magazine.com/ features me in their latest issue. This is an unexpected step for a magazine based essentially on digital content. The editor Tim Steele assures me that the elegant but virtual pages of f11 can accommodate even a trenchant promoter of pictures made exclusively out of light-sensitive materials.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You go, chemical rays of light!



Ken

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Just "flipped through" the article. Looks great! Can't wait to spend some time with it this week.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Way to go! Congratulation.

 

[SMBooth]

Great piece.

 

[Toyo]

The article is quite inspirational.
Thank you Maris for sharing your expertise and your philosophy in this way.
Tom

 

[winger]

Great article! Maris, you're one of my favorite photographers and I always look forward to seeing what you've done recently.

 

[DWThomas]

Thank you for this -- your writing is as clear and illuminating as your photography.

 

[pentaxuser]

It's unusual to get as long and as in-depth an article as this on a current photographer so f11 is to be commended

Someone however has got his maths wrong. Maris is quoted as saying that he shot 10,000 negatives in his first year of photography with a 35mm camera and that was only 1 36 frame roll a day. I make that to be about 1,300 negatives

So was it about 7.5 rolls a day which is absolutely phenomenal both in shooting and processing terms or should the quote have been 1,000 negatives which is still no mean feat

pentaxuser

 

[moose10101]

It's unusual to get as long and as in-depth an article as this on a current photographer so f11 is to be commended

Someone however has got his maths wrong. Maris is quoted as saying that he shot 10,000 negatives in his first year of photography with a 35mm camera and that was only 1 36 frame roll a day. I make that to be about 1,300 negatives

So was it about 7.5 rolls a day which is absolutely phenomenal both in shooting and processing terms or should the quote have been 1,000 negatives which is still no mean feat

pentaxuser

36 x 365 = 13,140.

I think you lost a decimal point.

 

[JPJackson]

Excellent article and wonderful images; thank you!

 

[doughowk]

Good article and an informative discussion. And images wherein beauty is the smile of truth.

 

[pentaxuser]

36 x 365 = 13,140.

I think you lost a decimal point.

You are quite right. It was maths. Despite this I then managed to get the second part right which is that this is shooting a little over 7.5 cassettes a day. Taking and processing over 7.5 rolls a day is really phenomenal and might be a record unless someone here has done more ?:confused:

pentaxuser

 

[OptiKen]

Very interesting article interview of someone who really 'gets' photography and large format. I can't afford the time to study all of the photographs at work, however briefly looked at them when I finished the article - pausing for only a second or two on each picture.
Funny thing, when I came to one called Australian Icon <?> with a stand of trees on VERY flat land with massive clouds in the sky, I smiled. After clicking to the next picture I had to click back (sort of wondering why I smiled) and smiled again. It's true that Clouds are one of my favorite subjects (or rather, favorite accents) but the feeling of pleasure/peace I felt seeing that picture was strange. It was more like I smiled without knowing why I smiled. Somehow it touched something below the surface that I am not fully conscience of yet it still brings me pleasure.

Interesting.

 

[pbromaghin]

Maris, it was nice to read your photographic philosophy in an extended form and in your own words. We've only seen small, occasional snatches of it in you posts here on apug.

 

[winger]

You are quite right. It was maths. Despite this I then managed to get the second part right which is that this is shooting a little over 7.5 cassettes a day. Taking and processing over 7.5 rolls a day is really phenomenal and might be a record unless someone here has done more ?:confused:

pentaxuser

No, the second part is not right - it's not 7.5 rolls a day. 36 exposures (ie 1 roll) X 365 days = 13,140 exposures

 

[moose10101]

You are quite right. It was maths. Despite this I then managed to get the second part right which is that this is shooting a little over 7.5 cassettes a day. Taking and processing over 7.5 rolls a day is really phenomenal and might be a record unless someone here has done more ?:confused:

pentaxuser

36 exposures/day x 365 days/year = 13,140

36 exposures = 1 roll, not 7.5 rolls

 

[removed account4]

http://www.f11magazine.com/ features me in their latest issue. This is an unexpected step for a magazine based essentially on digital content. The editor Tim Steele assures me that the elegant but virtual pages of f11 can accommodate even a trenchant promoter of pictures made exclusively out of light-sensitive materials.

THANK YOU !

 

[MattKing]

36 exposures/day x 365 days/year = 13,140

36 exposures = 1 roll, not 7.5 rolls

Unless he was shooting 828

 

[Alan Klein]

Great article and photos. Thank you. Curious about you opinion of the RB67 and Tmax 100 which there were quite a number of prints shown in the article. When do select your 8x10 and when the 67mm and why Tmax 100 vs. others?

 

[Bill Burk]

Maris,

Wonderful article, congratulations and bravo for spreading the word...

I especially like the attitude that you treat your prints "as-if" they might be art.

Just in case.

 

[MattKing]

I was finally able to read the article on a decent screen, and I am glad I did.

A great article, and great work.

And absolutely consistent with the "Maris" we see here on APUG.