Eggleston/Goldin/McGinley/Shore/Parr using Fuji X

[thejameskendall]

Not sure if ever everyone seen this but Fuji gave a load of photographers their X camera for an exhibition. The Eggleston shots are his first ever digital photos. They all look good from the pics here, especially Ryan McGinley's.

http://fujifilmxseries.wordpress.co...ographer-x-fujifilm-x-series-the-photographs/

 

[jsrockit]

Where is the physical show located?

I wonder who will continue to use the Fujis.

 

[philipb]

They gave the photographer of the framed prints a Panasonic GF-1!

 

[Steveh]

Interesting to see, thanks for posting. Martin Parr's shots are the standouts here to my eye but I'm a fan of his anyway. I like McGinley's too. Somewhat underwhelmed by the Egglestone and Shore photos - how many comments would any of them get on the RFF gallery do you think?

 

[paulfish4570]

thanks for the link. i much like the first one by eggleston, and the fifth one by shore.

 

[nightfly]

Very hard to judge from the photographs of the photographs, bad reflections and all.

Surprised Fuji isn't highlighting this on their site.

Would like to see in person, nothing really grabs me from this even though I like pretty much all the photographers.

 

[jsrockit]

Somewhat underwhelmed by the Egglestone and Shore photos - how many comments would any of them get on the RFF gallery do you think?

Not sure what that would matter though... it's not like RFF is full of high level critics.

 

[totifoto]

NICE!!! thanx for posting. 🙂

 

[cosmonaut]

Wow, thanks for sharing. Eggleston is Eggleston digital or film.

 

[2WK]

This part of the show looks kinda neat, each photographer's x-camera set up...

 

[v_roma]

I quite liked the Eggleston photos. By the way, some are NSFW!

 

[FalseDigital]

Very hard to judge from the photographs of the photographs, bad reflections and all.

Surprised Fuji isn't highlighting this on their site.

Would like to see in person, nothing really grabs me from this even though I like pretty much all the photographers.

I feel the same way.
I enjoy these photographers work generally, however this exhibit feels dry to me. There's not a single piece in it that I actually like. It seems rushed to me...

Like "HERE TAKE THESE CAMERAS, YOU HAVE 2 WEEKS TO SHOW SOMETHING THAT YOU TOOK WITH THEM!!! GO GO GO!!!"

 

[furcafe]

Wish I had time to go to NYC to see the exhibit for myself, but it closes this weekend.

 

[Lflex]

- how many comments would any of them get on the RFF gallery do you think?

Now - lets imagine they or didn't; what would that mean? - a good thing or bad?

 

[Fabio Ruffet]

great photos

this confirms that the camera used is pretty much irrelevant. talent isn't

 

[jsrockit]

Wish I had time to go to NYC to see the exhibit for myself, but it closes this weekend.

Where is it in NYC?

Oops... http://www.aperture.org/contact/

 

[nightfly]

Might have to try and get to Aperture tomorrow.

Some better versions of the photos here:

http://www.aperture.org/2013/01/photography/

I have to say I'm not sure the camera/film isn't relevant.

I don't think you can separate Eggleston's work from the incredible dye sub prints or Stephen Shore's from the subtle color of the 4 x 5 film he used. For me the look of these two photographers in particular is very tied up in the medium they chose.

 

[benlees]

I better go out and buy one!

Edit: How many people here are guilty of photographing one those Uniglory containers?

 

[benlees]

They gave the photographer of the framed prints a Panasonic GF-1!

Don't know what to say about that.

 

[jsrockit]

I don't think you can separate Eggleston's work from the incredible dye sub prints or Stephen Shore's from the subtle color of the 4 x 5 film he used. For me the look of these two photographers in particular is very tied up in the medium they chose.

But Eggleston's been using ink jet prints for some recent shows and shore's early work was with a Rollei 35. I think it is hard to judge a lifetime of film work vs. a few weeks with a digital camera.