Some new photos at my website, if anyone is interested

[StuartR]

Hello all,

I just spent a few hours updating my website, adding some photos to my Hokkaido 2005 section, and added a new section for people photography. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions people have. I must admit that it is optimized for faster computers with larger displays, but it should work with most people's browsers.

The main page is here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com/page2.htm

 

[Ergo]

1 word...WOW

 

[sf]

You have some nice shots there. Like the Iceland section.

 

[jano]

Stuart, wonderful images. I don't know if you remember I had written you months ago asking about iceland, I still haven't made my trip out yet 🙁

 

[ch1]

I dwelt on the differences b/w the digital and film shots.

As one who still prefers film but also shoots digital - your shots reminded me of the difference.

While "Birch and Vine" taken near Abashiri demonstrates all of the intense "detail" one can obtain from digital media - I much preferred "Orange Flower at Hokkaido" taken with Velvia 100.

Digital accentuates "sharpness" - I'd want the format to be used to xRay my broken bones.

But the Velvia has an element of both focused sharpness and gentle OOF that is, to me, exquisite.

Since both were taken with the R9 using the Leitz lens - it's not simply a matter of "bokeh". There is a richness to film that just cannot be denied!

[Oh, and yes, I realize that all I viewed had been "digitally manipulated" in the sense it was put into a media form to be uploaded.]

Very fine pics - including, BTW, the XP-2 shots which I just "glanced" over.

 

[StuartR]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate the comments.

George (copake ham) -- Once you set aside all the film versus digital wars, there are really some interesting differences in the two media. The crispness of high end digital is nothing short of amazing. I have shot film (Velvia 100) versus digital (10mp DMR) in the same camera, and the differences are interesting. The level of detail rendered is very similar, but digital wins in terms of clarity. That said, I think film has a certain something that makes it more natural. I don't know if I can really define, it, but perhaps it is just that it is closer to how our eyes see the world. I am really not sure. Both are great options, and I sincerely hope that both will be available to photographers in the future. I am reminded of the difference between LP's and SACD's. Both sound extraordinary at their best, but there is still a notable difference.

As for Iceland, I was only there for five days, but I fell in love with the country so deeply, that this summer I am taking an intensive Icelandic language program, and will be studying the language for about 9 weeks this summer, 6 of which will be in Iceland itself. I am hoping to be able to assist for some Icelandic photographers, and the best case scenario would be to do so for people like Ragnar Axelsson, Sigurdur Sigmundsson and Pall Stefansson. Even if I am not able to, I look forward to learning the language and making it one of the main countries I focus on, along with Russia and Japan.