SlipLive

Ok so recently I have been taking some photographs. Most of the color is taken with out ever taking a class, and only a few of the B/W is from my photo class.

http://picasaweb.google.com/Dannyb123abc/

let me know what you think is best and why then be sure to post a picture of it here


-Dan

this one's quite the nifty little mindfuck:


<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/Dannyb123ab ... 4850"><img src="http://lh3.google.com/image/Dannyb123ab ... ection.jpg">
I think I know where that is too.

what kind of camera do you use?

Pentax Me Super and a Rolleicord III

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/Dannyb123ab ... 6930"><img src="http://lh5.google.com/image/Dannyb123ab ... r.jpg"></a>

no digital for you huh?


I'm beginning to realize that no matter what, digital prints just don't look as good as 35mm......even if you drop mad loot on a digital camera w/a 35mm chip.....

i wouldn't say you can accurately compare the two.

Digital is its own field.

It is the same with a digital video recorder and say 16mm or even 35mm film.

You can totally notice the difference but in the long run film is so expensive and becomes a hassle so is the "film look" worth it when you can get great digital pictures.

personally the dark room is just such a meditating spot to focus your frustration and let it dissolve away.


-dan

as much as I like the film look, digital has its advantage at concerts when you can just snap away to fill up your card to its 200-picture capacity, knowing that of that 200 maybe 40 if you're lucky will be good.

tyler wrote:as much as I like the film look, digital has its advantage at concerts when you can just snap away to fill up your card to its 200-picture capacity, knowing that of that 200 maybe 40 if you're lucky will be good.

agreed

i like the skateboard pic the best. i'd hang that up in my house.

haha 10 bucks for a nice fiber print

headnugg wrote:I'm beginning to realize that no matter what, digital prints just don't look as good as 35mm......even if you drop mad loot on a digital camera w/a 35mm chip.....

and there's no feeling quite like dropping a piece of paper into the developer and watching the image come alive.

ScS wrote:

headnugg wrote:I'm beginning to realize that no matter what, digital prints just don't look as good as 35mm......even if you drop mad loot on a digital camera w/a 35mm chip.....

and there's no feeling quite like dropping a piece of paper into the developer and watching the image come alive.

Also true. which is why I refuse to absolutely pick one over the other.

As a general personal rule: 35mm for b&w and most landscapes, digital for color and "action" situations where shooting like mad has its advantages (concerts, etc.)

tyler wrote:

ScS wrote:

headnugg wrote:I'm beginning to realize that no matter what, digital prints just don't look as good as 35mm......even if you drop mad loot on a digital camera w/a 35mm chip.....

and there's no feeling quite like dropping a piece of paper into the developer and watching the image come alive.

Also true. which is why I refuse to absolutely pick one over the other.

As a general personal rule: 35mm for b&w and most landscapes, digital for color and "action" situations where shooting like mad has its advantages (concerts, etc.)

and you can get SLR's so cheap now too......But it's tough when you're used to Digital....you can see the shot you just took so you can know whether to take the same shot again if it didn't come out....obviously you can pick and choose on the spot and delete what you like.....when you're used to that it makes shooting w/a traditional camera a hassle almost.....

Yes, the printed pictures look MUCH better, there's no comparison.....but what if you go out and take a whole roll of film and nothing comes out? You won't know until you develop it and by that time what you've taken pictures of has passed and gone, there isn't another chance to photo whatever it was.....Like for instance, a few years ago Warren Haynes and Gordo spoke at the Somerville Theater. I specifically brought my parents nice Canon SLR and took a whole roll of film and they came out really crappy.....so I screwed that opportunity up and probably won't have another photo opp like that again.....if I was digital at the time, I could've checked the pics out, made adjustments and started shooting again.....

Then again, I suppose if I had properly known how to use the camera that wouldn't have happened.....

But you see my point....

I do understand what your talking about. When i first discovered the cameras that I use, I had never used an SLR before. Everything was new and i was self-teaching myself. I would take a roll of film and maybe 4 shots were good, and 1 shot very good but the rest were just shit.

Over time as I began to understand "the stop" and the physics to photography it trains your eye how to take photos, the lighting and how that works to change a picture. You can almost visualize how the picture will turn out prior to development.

Digital cameras to a point destroy that trained precision. Instead of carefully making sure each exposure is properly exposed(manual) you can just chow away at picture after picture as if they were meaningless. To me photography its something else. Photographs in my eyes are no longer the images they represent but a photo drawn by silver halide particles. If you look at zack smiths work, he changes the way you would normally view a concert, he makes it unique. Getting upclose to break down the whole picture and find beauty in things like the dancing feet of marc or the strength and force of brad bending his strings on the fretboard. The photograph is a photograph its tangible but its a recorded document of the past. It is no longer brad playing guitar or a car in a drive way. its the image the light drew to the emulsion.

When you can accept this logic and this so called "artistic photo" thats when pictures start having much more depth. Alright ive seen a picture of people on skateboards but the picture of mine. If you look at it deeply you begin to notice somethings. you don't see who is standing on it so that makes you want to know or imagine what he or she looks like. the patterns in the foreground although individually the cracks follow no pattern but as a whole they are all cracked. Now this is the beauty behind the photograph. The subject is standing on the skateboard as if he would be skating however the board is flipped 90 degrees to show the bottom view of the skateboard. This duality of multi perceptions simultaneously was utilized by the famous Picasso. This is known as Cubism.

Im not saying that my photograph embodies all that is cubism but it becomes more then just a kid standing on a Skateboard but it becomes art, something to talk about. and when people can talk about photos thats a good thing.


-Dannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

I think when I go to concerts though, my personal thing is that I'm taking photos almost more from a photojournalist point of view as opposed to that of an artist. I love to document the concerts I've been to and have those pictures to supplement what my brain forgot. it's like a nice visual component to recordings I think. if I had the skill, knowhow, and equipment that people like Zack Smith have, it might be a different story for me. but as it is I take pictures doing my best to document the emotion of the moment.

also, i like a good light show to be present in my photos. they just look cool.