Great photograph

My "film budget" for the Monterey weekend used to be 50 rolls of 35mm 36 exp. and 12 rolls of 2-1/4 24 exp. Film and processing costs were close to $1K for the weekend. (Yikes!)

To me, one of the great values of digital is the ability to experiment and virtually no cost. Often in the past I would try something different and burn 2 or 3 rolls in the process and get maybe 1 or two usable shots.

Cheers,
Kurt O.

 

I really didn't mean to insult you, but if you like digital over film, I guess it is personal preference.

 

Whoa. I never meant to infer that. See my Kodachrome reference above.
I shoot digital these days for the convenience. I still have my SLRs and lenses for the serious stuff.
What I need is a decent scanner and about six months to copy my slide collection.

 

You can pay people to do that. Let me know if you need the name of a good company.

 

It's all about the moment and the light. Henri's moment was perfect except for those guys running down the left side. And he was shooting into the sun, which he could not help.

No disrespect to Henry's photo intended.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Ansel Adams did it with a box and some glass plates, now thats Art. Still a very nice picture!

 

Neanderthals did it with caves does that make them greater artists?

Its not the medium, its the expression through the medium.

BTW I have the greatest respect for Adams. He not only took some absolutely beautiful stuff that redefined the genre carrying all that heavy stuff miles through the wilderness to do so, but was also a car guy who was a major fixture in the early days at the Pebble Beach Concours.

 

I learned something today on Fchat I did not know that about Adams. While we are on the subject what sort of cars was he into?

 

The tools evolve, and the 'new tools' are always looked down on by the previous generation. 'Twas alway so, and always will be.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, and a beautiful shot, regardless of the equipment, is something to appreciate. The debate is a distraction.

Compose beautiful pictures, and share them. I don't care what you shot them with. Talent can create beauty with an iPhone and an idiot can waste film or bits with great equipment.

I love photography, and always find these debates a bit disappointing.

 

+1, totally agree.
How do we know that Paul-Henri Cahier didn't make adjustments on his camera to counter act the light at the time?. In doing this, is the picture a true image of what he was actually looking at?.
Surely the photographic image produced is only as good as the printing process used to make the photograph?. How do we know that the colours seen are true to real life?. The camera doesn't set that, the printing process does and all manner of adjustments during the printing process have been possible for decades!.

As for:

The camera is just a tool that a photographer uses. If you had the opportunity to show the greatest photographers of all time a digital camera, I suspect they would all marvel at it and what it can do and want to use it. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of professional photographers make full use of digital SLR camera's these days, it's called progress.

Based on what's being said in this thread, the only real photographers must be those still using glass plates who are asking their subjects to remain still for minutes at a time!.

 

Sure thats a T78? Doesn't look like one to me as the nose profile, sidepods, rear wing placement as a couple reference points match up to a T77 instead. For example, the T78 had elongated sidepods with some partial ground effects and the T77, like in your picture, doesn't have them.

 

That photo is worth more than a 1000 words!

Thank for sharing!

 

No I am not sure, you may well be correct.