Yes, this has been one of the most inspiring threads ever and probably exactly because of not being a simple critique forum.

Cheers,
J

(ps. I believe the op is here and posting but under a different name...)

Witz,

I enjoy your 'wide-view'. This is not a plug for Leaf, however, your work did open my eyes to the possibilities with an AFI 10. Thanks,

David

Another forum I frequently visit has a photo thread with a simple rule: every post must contain an on-topic photo otherwise it is deleted by a moderator. That prevents thread melt downs like this one. Should we start a new photo thread with this rule? It would help to have a moderator on-board.

Llama and Lake Titikaka, P25/35mmMamiya

The other image --under exposed by error-- is with the 150mm f/3.5

An honest and thoughtful post witz. It will be a shame if you decide to leave over this, but I can understand it if you do.



Rob C:
Whatever your arguments/philosophies/opinions/whatevers, about not posting your work - until you do then you will continue to be seen as a gobby trouble maker.
I actually agree with aspects of some of your arguments, but I'm afraid I cannot be bothered to engage with someone who is all mouth & no trousers - whatever you doth protest.

Witz (and anyone else who has been contributing their work to this amazing and incredibly inspirational thread, but is suddenly realizing it has gone tragically off course),

please don't leave!!

The only way to truly deal with trolls in a forum like this is to ignore them and carry on with the discussion, no matter how tempting it might be to respond to their gibberish.


To that end, it may be helpful for some people to know that this forum comes equipped with a fantastic Ignore User feature. To 'Ignore' a particular user whose views you are not interested in reading, simply do the following:

• click on their User Name, which appears in the upper-left corner of every post they make. You will be re-directed to that user's Profile page.

• click on "Ignore User" in the Profile Options section which appears at the top of this page. You will be re-directed to your own Control Panel's "Ignored Users" section, and the user's name will already be entered into one of the fields for you.

• click on "Update Ignored Users", and the user will be added to an "Ignored User List" for you.

After following those steps, whenever an "Ignored User" makes a post, you will instead see a small message informing you that they are on your ignore-list, and will be given an option to reveal the post if you wish to read it for some reason. You also have the option to "Un-ignore" the user if you'd like.

It would be great if the feature could be enabled on a thread-by-thread basis, but it's forum-wide. Still, it can really cut down on the signal-to-noise ratio, and it's easy enough to reveal hidden posts in those threads where these Ignored Users are actually making a genuine contribution.

If, in fact, they ever do.

Back to sharing.

A scan from a recent session with Carlies.
Scanned directly from Astia slide film, shot with the RZ67 ProII.
No photoshop or whatever.

Good to see some more natural skin...

All you would need to do is take the lines off the neck.. instead of that Super Plastic filter you usually use...:+}
Looks good
Snook

Yes, and make the neck slimmer as well coz she looks like a horse right now.

Done, although the horse remark is a bit brute

Hi Frank,

Just curious -- why do you opt for film over digital in some situations?

Witz, just ignore these kind of commets. This forum can be a great place if you know how and when to step back a little.

Still, I don't understand how and why it's allowed for certain people to regulary poison fabulous threads with very unexperienced, unfounded opinions and never showing their own work...

Anyway, great work! Don't leave the forum.

/Samuel

@Bob,
It's actually not what you think.

I don't prefer film over digital because it's better, actually it isn't (when compared to a good MF back that is).

I do prefer it SOMETIMES for the look it gets.
Also the workflow in photoshop is much faster, with digital there is so much detail in the skin that I most of the time have to retouch, finding the balance between keeping detail and getting a smoother skin is often a trade off, and in the internet conversion almost all fine detail is lost.
With film the files are straight out of the camera different.
The skin is much smoother while the eyes etc. are still sharp enough (although not as defined as with digital).

I find myself with film often a traditionalist, trying to scan it and change as little as possible, with digital I will work on the files much more, and the work I do is always skin and sometimes toning.
With film I like the look I get from the scan, I try to find the film I like for the look I want.

At the moment I love the Ektachrome 64 and the Astia, but that can change over time of course.

So a short answer.
Film scanned is for me a final product (or almost final), digital it's were I really dive into it.

I have been photographing modern dancers for my personal work for years, these are two relatively recent ones both shot with a phase back on Hasselblads.
thanks
David

papas.com

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Some recent photographs:

Sorry for the long post. I don't have much time to post right now...


















/Samuel

Greetings to all from london with a night scene shot out of the studio window ....

H3D 31 and 50-110m zoom

[quote=witz,Aug 21 2008, 01:45 PM]
. I have trouble reading your criticisms without seeing your work.... ( put up or shut up )

I wore this camera out until I bought my 1st hasselblad.
.
.


.
.
.



Witz

On that basis, you might as well close down every arts magazine, every movie review, every fashion magazine - almost anything visual that you care to think about unless the editor happens to be the photographer too.

The Rollei I had before my first 500C was already worn out when I got it- the first 500C was not. Neither was its later companion, the CM. Guess I was doing something right too.

Very nice shot you posted - I can see why you are proud if it. Unfortuntely, it does not show me why you feel you should quite the LuLa. Neither does it show me which photographer had been dissed - if that´s the current buzz word in these parts. But then, when folks get their knickers in a twist they sometimes think somebody else did it to them - just read the invective in these later posts. It´s quite ammusing to see how many pots there are around here calling a single - oops, make that two - kettles black. A lesser mind might even think it as a case of bullying, perish the thought. Bullying, I understand, is when the numbers in a struggle are unequal... oh well, just a thought, as I said.

Stay or leave, it´s up to you. I simply don´t see how it is relevant to an argument that has been developed by people who seem incapable of understanding what is written and is right there under their noses for them to check out if they fail to understand first time around. But then, that would take effort.

Ciao

Rob C

hi Rob C

Interesting note: Springs a small city near Jhb has the 2nd most number of Art Deco Buildings in the world after Miami. Springs was a booming mine town in the 30's. stagnated after that, perhaps the reason why these buildings are still here, but with a patina of decay.

Boemelaar is afrikaans for people living on the streets and (mainly) begging for a living.

this boxer of my just recently ate my brand new panama hat! Still keep the tatters in my office - to remind me of what might have been!

Wedding dress was made in Fairview, a disadvantaged area of Jhb. this girl asked me to photograph her in her wedding dress. the wedding never happened but she kept the dress. Have been told by other photographer that it is 'erotic' I dont do erotic but I suppose veryone sees different things.

Regards, Ivan

[quote=Rob C,Aug 21 2008, 04:33 PM]
[quote=witz,Aug 21 2008, 01:45 PM]
. I have trouble reading your criticisms without seeing your work.... ( put up or shut up )

I wore this camera out until I bought my 1st hasselblad.
.
.


.
.
.
Witz

On that basis, you might as well close down every arts magazine, every movie review, every fashion magazine - almost anything visual that you care to think about unless the editor happens to be the photographer too.

The Rollei I had before my first 500C was already worn out when I got it- the first 500C was not. Neither was its later companion, the CM. Guess I was doing something right too.

Very nice shot you posted - I can see why you are proud if it. Unfortuntely, it does not show me why you feel you should quite the LuLa. Neither does it show me which photographer had been dissed - if that´s the current buzz word in these parts. But then, when folks get their knickers in a twist they sometimes think somebody else did it to them - just read the invective in these later posts. It´s quite ammusing to see how many pots there are around here calling a single - oops, make that two - kettles black. A lesser mind might even think it as a case of bullying, perish the thought. Bullying, I understand, is when the numbers in a struggle are unequal... oh well, just a thought, as I said.

Stay or leave, it´s up to you. I simply don´t see how it is relevant to an argument that has been developed by people who seem incapable of understanding what is written and is right there under their noses for them to check out if they fail to understand first time around. But then, that would take effort.

Ciao

Rob C

[/quote]

Rob,

I perused many of your posts from back to when you joined the forum to recent... and I must say that you are a talented writer. I've never been much good at it... possibly a little dexlexia or just lack of muscle in that part of my brain. I'm sorry we got off on a bad start.... It began when you commented that a few of my photographs left you cold. I responded that I could see how that could happen to you ( I was agreeing with you as there purpose was to not be warm and fuzzy ) and you freaked out at me..... you missinterpretted me..... so I apologize for setting you off. was not my intent. But... you can't put the genie back in the bottle can you? I also apologize to you for the "put up or shut up" remark to you.... it was unfair. You have every right to protect your vision from the big bad world.

I'm going to be traveling for a few weeks on a big project and will try not to visit this forum.... maybe when I get back all will be pleasant again. If not then I guess I should just move on.

It might be the heat, certainly the humidity doesn´t help, but I think we might be talking at cross-purposes here.

The pictures that left me "cold" if memory serves, were not yours at all. I was, as far as I know, writing about Frank´s work (you are not also Frank, by any chance - if so, I must be losing it big-time) and I had seen one of his images (Post 524, April 25th, 08.29pm) which is of a woman leaning back. It´s a moody backlit shot looking across her chest and throat, and her head is pointing upwards. That single photograph says everything good that can be said about female attraction in its most pure form. As I remarked at the time, it was one of those I wish it were mine moments.

Now, the remark about being left cold. That was not intended as any put-down either. Frank´s photographs display a fantastic control of lighting, far more than I have ever had in studio work - I was able to do it to an extent, had to, but never enjoyed it very much as I like the great outdoors, especially anything to do with the sea and sand. Those elements and women make great chemistry.

And that´s why I found no personal reaction to them. As clever as they are, they are not my bag, as it were, so why pretend to rave over something that does nothing for me? I never said they were not good - let me re-state that here. The reaction that seems to have spun out of control from that point on has amazed me.

How to put this? It reminds me of a village in Transylvania (no, please, nobody lives there, and here, now?) where the people have just burned the little old lady with the cat because the village idiot told them that she was a witch, using, for fuel, all the books in the library that they were unable to read; all the pretty girls who refused the advances of the priest have been branded whores and driven into exile; the blacksmith´s alsation has just had its throat slit because the postman said that it was really a warewolf. So, an ethnically cleansed desert remains, a smouldering emptiness with nothing to hinder the journey of the eye as far as it can range.

Good. Now, in all this new emptiness, perhaps some of the more insane on this little thread will have their view unblinkered - will not be able to hide behind any bushes and claim to see what is not out there. That being so, and with a brand new piece of free screen before them, now would be a good time for one of them to actually quote the page number, post number and line where Rob C, rest his patient soul, actually took down, mocked, spat upon or otherwise disrespected any person´s image on this thread.

Rob C

Seems fair enough to me - there is no obligation to feel otherwise.

All I ask is that what I WRITE be read, not that some idiot refer to the last mistaken post in his line of sight and then take off from there as if that misreport or quotation was the real deal. All it would have taken was a minute or so of attention, but I guess that in an age where even a three-minute mind like mine is too long...

However, I have no idea where you live, but should you be travelling in my area do give me a buzz - I would like to put a pair of trousers around my modesty, my mouth can take care of itself - and there´s no question that I would enjoy showing you my personal take on what I did/do/still like and thus I extend the invitaion to you too. As with the invitations to others, no pressure to buy.

Rob C

Hi Ivan

Thanks for clearing up what boemelaar means. No way would I have guessed.

Something I should have said in my original note was that it´s nice to see somebody doing the sort of photjournalism that you do without being in the least condescending, critical or otherwise pejorative of the subjects. Their reactions must reflect the way you approach them. Also, it probably demostrates the difference between somebody who flies into a situation and another who lives there and knows the realities.Well done and more power to your elbow.

Rob C

I don't visit this thread often because there are too many commercial-type images which don't interest me much. I'm more into fine art, and I use the word 'fine' in its proper context, meaning art which is an end in itself, not necessarilly art which is excellent by anyone's standards.

Having just read the recent criticisms of Rob's very reasonable comments about this thread being in danger of becoming a mutual admiration society, I'm dismayed by the response of some of you. At the same time, I shouldn't be surprised.

I wonder if most of you MFDB owners consider yourselves prima donnas, like ballerinas or opera singers. The slightest criticism seems to send you into paroxysms of rage.

OK enough please!

This has been the best "photography" thread on the internet in any forum I have ever seen.

So could we remember what this thread is about; and that is the posting and discussion of MFDB images.

We have managed to keep most of the other arguments out and have kept the discussion respectful.

Here in this thread we have seen some extraordinary work and have kept the attention of some top professionals. Personally I have learned a great deal from it.

So I am not going to participate in this current odd conversation that has popped up and if the rest of you avoid doing the same we can keep this thread as valuable as it has been.

recent work ( it is commercial... but I don't see it as NOT being art.... to me )

1 minute exposure with multiple pops from various strobes... some with diffusion in front of the lens, some without.

Lexmark tag line for print ad was " save a bunch of clams "

.
.
.
.


.
.
.
www.witzke-studio.com

p.s.
my personal definition of good art is.... something I don't want to stop looking at.

An aerial view of Denali National Park - Mamiya AFD II/P30+ and 75-150 lens. May not be the pick of the litter but I am surprised at the image especially since they wouldn't let me open the door!


Click to view attachment

don

Some people may see this as art and may wish to hang it on their wall. I personally would not like to hang this image on my wall. We are all different and all have a different perspective, to some extent.

But it might be the case, I've simply missed the symbolism of this image. Please explain it to me. I might change my mind .

Here's another image from the same flight all in Deanli National Park

Click to view attachment

don

I do like it, love the contrast and the shells, very nice.

WITZ,

Very creative!

Okay - were do you have to go to find clams like this?

Very nice

don

It grabs attention with a "WTF is that"...perfect for an ad...You(?) did well for your client. (From reading some other comments, I think it will only work in the US..I would think the "tag line" and symbolism are not known outside the US)

Steve

Very nice!!!

I would love to know how to process my files to look like that, only everybody is so cryptic about their techniques....

This was taken in the Homer area. Mamiya AFD II P30+ w/15-150 at 75mm.

Click to view attachment

don

some of the layouts the art director has are also US type puns....

save a bunch of bucks

... bunch of dough

... bunch of dead presidents

but the bunch of clams seemed to work the best....

for those of you not familiar with the American expressions.... means " save some money"

I love photography. It's a real, a big passion. Vital. Essential.

I love to work in photography to feed my family. And I give the best to my clients.

But it's very important, FOR ME, to make a distinction between my personal work and the commercial. The confusion between both of them is a source of debility.

For me.

PdF

Normally I don't do alot of glamour, but today an exception.




Greetings,
Frank

Taken near Anchor Point Alaska. Mamiya AFDII/P30+ and 28mm lens.



Hope you enjoy it.

don

I see. I was actually thinking of something else, but saving money can be good, depending upon circumstances. Thanks for elaborating on that.

Strange triple internetz postings!

More mountain roads.
RZ/65mm/A65s

Click to view attachment

Here's something that I've just finished (at least for now). Not sure if it's successful as the 37 Puegeot but I kind of like it. Any comments? Jim



Click to view attachment

Nicely done, but if I just had a quick look at it I would called it animation and not a photo. Of course the lines are blurring more every day....

Mike.

Here's another approach to the shot. I think it defines the vehicle a little better, although it's not far from a series of shots I took of Chevrolet's Mako Shark. Jim


Click to view attachment

nice image

Thierry

Yes, this one I do enjoy!
I realy like the "clean" foreground and the dramatic sky.
The composition gives the photo a lot of depth.
Very good!

Ray

Hi Jim

Why does part of the car make me think of the Stingray of Route 66 fame?

Ah yes, probably just my cursed long memory.

Rob C

Jim-
I'm quite partial to the first image. Something about the juxtaposition of era from the car to the futuristic surface really works. At first, I thought that you had the car floating slightly, but then noticed that the black tread isn't really visible outside the whitewall of the tire, and came to the conclusion that you placed the car in the right spot after all. Perhaps a subtle highlight on on one edge of the tire would help with that, if it isn't just me, that is.
I notice that in both shots, the shadow seems to vary in sharpness across the rear of the car. Was this like that in the original car shot, or did you create the shadow from scratch? The lighting on the car makes me think that you were using a silk or shooting on a filtered light day, so my guess is that you had to build it.
Thanks for sharing your automotive work. I"m not normally much of a fan of car shots, but appreciate creative images of all kinds.
-Ron H.
PS: What is that surface, anyway?

Don,

Great image! I am curious how you handle your white balance. The slight color cast in the sky is very dramatic. I would normally neutralize my white balance using the clouds which gives them a colorless gray.

Example of one of my images with dark clouds:



Your image using my white balance method:



Ed