On the perception of image quality and the 'Shot on Iphone 6' campaign

RobC · Jun 5, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
If you can't figure that one out, you've never owned anything but a BB gun.

I take that means you've owned a Rhinoserous.

removedacct1 · Jun 5, 2015

eddie said:
I think that's the crux of the responses to your posts.

+1

DREW WILEY · Jun 5, 2015

The greatest advantage of a big camera is not its sheer real estate of film area, which can be a significant plus when it comes to actual
printmaking, but the fact it slows you down and makes you look at things. Even if you primarily shoot small formats and prefer that kind of spontaneity, a few years spent behind a big groundglass is likely to change your whole approach to composition. What one learns is that a sniper with only one bullet is more likely to make a clean kill than someone wildly machine gunning at things simply because they can. And
if you can't see the difference in prints themselves, well, there are plenty of optometrists out there who might be able to help with that
kind of problem.

removedacct1 · Jun 5, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
The greatest advantage of a big camera is not its sheer real estate of film area, which can be a significant plus when it comes to actual
printmaking, but the fact it slows you down and makes you look at things. Even if you primarily shoot small formats and prefer that kind of spontaneity, a few years spent behind a big groundglass is likely to change your whole approach to composition. What one learns is that a sniper with only one bullet is more likely to make a clean kill than someone wildly machine gunning at things simply because they can. And
if you can't see the difference in prints themselves, well, there are plenty of optometrists out there who might be able to help with that
kind of problem.

I'm sensing a lot of gun analogies today.....

RE the magnificence of large format work: show us some proof, sir.

blansky · Jun 5, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
The greatest advantage of a big camera is not its sheer real estate of film area, which can be a significant plus when it comes to actual
printmaking, but the fact it slows you down and makes you look at things. Even if you primarily shoot small formats and prefer that kind of spontaneity, a few years spent behind a big groundglass is likely to change your whole approach to composition. What one learns is that a sniper with only one bullet is more likely to make a clean kill than someone wildly machine gunning at things simply because they can. And
if you can't see the difference in prints themselves, well, there are plenty of optometrists out there who might be able to help with that
kind of problem.

Drew the problem with your philosophy is that for you, it's a perfect choice. But your posts are like evangelists of whatever stripe telling everyone else what to do.

Your fetish for 8x10 is all well and good for you, but what about people who want to photographer sports, or street photography, or photojournalism, or weddings, or children, or aerial photography, or the myriad of other disciplines of photography.

So basically it's rude and arrogant to suggest that because you have a preferred method/style, that everyone should as well, or they are just idiots playing with toys.

I seriously doubt you are that small.

blansky · Jun 5, 2015

paulbarden said:
I'm sensing a lot of gun analogies today.....

If you like I can try to work in another Nazi post. God knows it's not always easy to adapt them in, but can certainly try.

moose10101 · Jun 5, 2015

paulbarden said:
RE the magnificence of large format work: show us some proof, sir.

We're not worthy.

DREW WILEY · Jun 5, 2015

What is rude is discussing imitation ice milk on an ice cream forum.

michr · Jun 5, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
What is rude is discussing imitation ice milk on an ice cream forum.

Where does a purist like yourself buy his glass plates which he then coats himself? Certainly you're not suggesting a little sheet of floppy plastic is real photography!

DREW WILEY · Jun 5, 2015

There are only about six hundred other forums where you can discuss the latest electronic toys. I was under the impression that APUG might be one place we can stick with film. I shoot small film cameras as well as big ones. But anyone who starts talking about Smartphones is
fair game as far as I'm concerned. Go somewhere else to do that or expect negative feedback.

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 5, 2015

michr said:
Where does a purist like yourself buy his glass plates which he then coats himself? Certainly you're not suggesting a little sheet of floppy plastic is real photography!

Careful now, lest you and several others find yourselves washed up as refuse on the shores of reverse-snobbism. You already own the logical high ground on this. Don't overreach and surrender it needlessly. Simply make the point cleanly and without further room to maneuver...

Ken

Nodda Duma · Jun 5, 2015

I have recent proof that the best camera you own is the one you have on you at the time, like when my dog discovered porcupines Wednesday night (it's an awesome picture, but I won't share here because it's digital).

The smartphone camera encompasses all the advantages of an action camera: speed, ease of use, and maintenance of acceptable quality under adverse conditions and/or when you have to move fast.

Eddie Adams' photo of the execution of Nguyen Van Lem is a case in point for the need for fast reactions in photography.

As someone who lives the technical details of imaging systems, I nevertheless appreciate when the technical details get out of the way to allow the photographer to capture an image.

And I hate to say it, but the camera phone is the evolutionary descendant of the rangefinders of the 50s/60s, and the 35mm SLR's of the 70s/80s: Small, portable, everywhere, and quick on the draw.

eddie · Jun 5, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
The greatest advantage of a big camera is not its sheer real estate of film area, which can be a significant plus when it comes to actual printmaking, but the fact it slows you down and makes you look at things.

I think there's a legitimate case to be made for this. The cost, and limited amount of exposures available, make me more circumspect in what I'm shooting in large format. I'm not sure I work any faster with roll films, though I may make some exposures which I consider "maybes".

I think the issue, concerning you, is your criticism of anyone who doesn't share your methods. If you think superb work can't be done with a digital camera, you really don't know how to look at photographs (or are so close minded that you won't even look at them). It's also the outrageous statements like peering under your dark cloth has caused people to throw away their digitals. You are almost inherently dismissive of famous photographers, almost always self-improving on your state of the art darkroom equipment, and almost always know someone "very well known" in whatever subject which comes up. I think these things, as well as not sharing your work, have created a lot of skeptics (here and elsewhere).

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 5, 2015

eddie said:
I think these things... have created a lot of skeptics...

The 50% claim is what struck me. Nazis aside, that's simply another variant of the Wilt Chamberlain denominator assertion that immediately makes one grin from ear-to-ear and reach for the nearest calculator...

:eek::eek::eek:

Ken

eddie · Jun 5, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
...the Wilt Chamberlain denominator assertion that immediately makes one grin from ear-to-ear and reach for the nearest calculator...

:eek::eek::eek:

Ken

I've heard it was 2.3/day, from the time he was fifteen until he stopped keeping track.

removed account4 · Jun 5, 2015

michr said:
Where does a purist like yourself buy his glass plates which he then coats himself? Certainly you're not suggesting a little sheet of floppy plastic is real photography!

its hard to shoot color glass plates, drew does a lot of color work, or his olde website displayed a lot of it.

there is no such thing as being a photography-purist.
photography is a few decades short of 200 years old,
there are countless styles, camera types, formats, media
that are all as pure as the next. its just about reflected light and capturing its likeness
whether it is made into a tangible artifact as a 1st step or a 2nd or 3rd step, or carbon and a heater ..
not much difference except for people who can only see how things are different, instead of similar ...
large cameras, small cameras, who cares.
apple has billboards of iphone pictures .. great, more images to look at .. some good some bad.
its really not the end of the world.

blansky · Jun 5, 2015

I really think we are spending way too much time on his opinion.

He can use what he wants.

It's like debating a fanatical Christian or any other religion for that matter.

Waste of time. At this point he's pretty much just trolling.

Throwing crap at people just for a reaction.

DREW WILEY · Jun 5, 2015

I have yet to see any alleged smartphone, dumbphone, or just plain phone that uses film. Not roll film, not sheet film, not home-made glass
plates either. So take your beloved gadgets to Starbucks and talk about them there, not here. This is APUG isn't it???????????????????????

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 5, 2015

eddie said:
I've heard it was 2.3/day, from the time he was fifteen until he stopped keeping track.

Or 1 every ~10¼ hours for a denominator calculation? And I'm not sure that accounted for 8 hours of sleep per day either, which surely he would have needed, so it may indeed be worse than that.

Ken

Theo Sulphate · Jun 5, 2015

blansky said:
If you like I can try to work in another Nazi post. God knows it's not always easy to adapt them in, but can certainly try.

Did you know Leni Riefenstahl used a Leica?

blansky · Jun 5, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Did you know Leni Riefenstahl used a Leica?

Good job.

moose10101 · Jun 5, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
Or 1 every ~10¼ hours for a denominator calculation? And I'm not sure that accounted for 8 hours of sleep per day either, which surely he would have needed, so it may indeed be worse than that.

Ken

Maybe he was a multitasker.

removed account4 · Jun 5, 2015

moose10101 said:
Maybe he was a multitasker.

mentalfloss goes into details ..
he was an insomniac .. and ...
http://mentalfloss.com/article/12310/did-wilt-chamberlain-really-sleep-20000-women

georg16nik · Jun 5, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Did you know Leni Riefenstahl used a Leica?

She also used Parvo and most likely shot a lot more frames with it.

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 5, 2015

moose10101 said:
Maybe he was a multitasker.

For 49 years non-stop? Be still my fluttering heart...

Ken

On the perception of image quality and the 'Shot on Iphone 6' campaign

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency