shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
As for the topic at hand.
I happen to think that using digital camera *can* make street photography too easy, if you just "spray and pray."
At least you can't do that with film. Not easily or cheaply that is.
I happen to think that using digital camera *can* make street photography too easy, if you just "spray and pray."
At least you can't do that with film. Not easily or cheaply that is.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Will,
There's also the point that we can learn what not to do by looking at others' work. I always say that while I'm far from the best photographer in the world, I'm not one of the worst either, and because I try to explain how I do things, people can try to emulate whatever is good, or better still, improve on it, using similar techniques; or, if they really hate it, they can learn some of the things to avoid.
(Incidentally, I don't know who Eric Kim is either. But then, I doubt he knows who I am).
Cheers,
R.
DamenS
Well-known
Interesting theory. That would mean that only someone who has proven themselves to be "good" TO the unwashed masses and ACCORDING to each unwashed mass, could state other people are "bad" - only those who are "loved" by the people could have a "voice". Do you see any problem with this, or is this exactly what you want and believe ?
Actually, why am I trying to use logic against yet another unthinking "internet voice" ? Because this is the internet and they DO have a voice ... I'm Old School I guess, I expect some sort of logic in an argument - and that is both my fault and my problem. You are right. Only the best photographers can criticise anyone else or anyone else's photography - good point - well done, Shadowfox !!
Now, if only we enaged our brains rather than our mouths ...
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
You were not critiquing Eric Kim, if you were, you'd say that photo looks bad because... that one is good because....
Instead you put a label on him and basically said if it's from him, it's not worth looking. That speaks loudly about your attitude.
That's a prideful attitude, Damen.
Engaging our brain without being balanced with a good attitude will end up making us look like, sound like, and may eventually turn us into an arrogant person.
Or is that exactly what you want and believe?
DamenS
Well-known
Eric Kim ? No, I'm not critiquing him, nor have I said that if it is Eric Kim, you must not look. I have said that I will not look if it is Eric Kim, and if you believe that this personal preference is somehow indicative of a defective attitute or is an indefensible position of mine, then I would suggest your attitude is clearly one of believing you can control my personal preference and my ability to voice said preference.
What I DID critique however, was your "logic" when you stated "Sometime I really wish to see some of the members here who post highly critical statements about others would show us how good they really are... y'know, with pictures, not mere words".
As I pointed out, this is an incredibly arrogant (prideful) attitude in which only someone whose photography has "merit" (presumably assessed by you), is able to express an opinion. This is elitist and dangerous and is clearly illogical, as it would lead to a veritable cornucopia of ridiculous situations if actually applied in real life (you can only say you don't like a movie on a forum once you have submitted a movie you have made which proves you worthy to make any assessment. You can only criticise a baseball batsman after showing how adept you are at facing a fastball yourself). The fact that you would suggest opinions are invalid without the provision of evidence of a person's "worth" in an allied field is, as I said, elitist and wrong in my opinion. If you believe my disagreeing with you is evidence of arrogance and pride, then so be it.
What I DID critique however, was your "logic" when you stated "Sometime I really wish to see some of the members here who post highly critical statements about others would show us how good they really are... y'know, with pictures, not mere words".
As I pointed out, this is an incredibly arrogant (prideful) attitude in which only someone whose photography has "merit" (presumably assessed by you), is able to express an opinion. This is elitist and dangerous and is clearly illogical, as it would lead to a veritable cornucopia of ridiculous situations if actually applied in real life (you can only say you don't like a movie on a forum once you have submitted a movie you have made which proves you worthy to make any assessment. You can only criticise a baseball batsman after showing how adept you are at facing a fastball yourself). The fact that you would suggest opinions are invalid without the provision of evidence of a person's "worth" in an allied field is, as I said, elitist and wrong in my opinion. If you believe my disagreeing with you is evidence of arrogance and pride, then so be it.
jky
Well-known
The only way to become a better street photographer is to go out and shoot.
emasterphoto
Established
Not to be an Internet Champion of Justice or anything, but I think you're really mis-interpreting the comment Damen made. When I read it I took it as a stated opinion of Eric Kim which implied that it was based on some personal experience with Kim's work. I don't see anything arrogant about it at all; it simply implies a negative impression of Mr. Kim which is perfectly fine and within Damen's right to state.
For what it's worth though, I agree with Damen. Eric Kim is basically the Ken Rockwell of street photography - a guy who quit his day job to become a "Professional Street Photographer", which from looking at his output to date means that he spends his days writing blogs and trying to get people to attend his workshops. He does shoot obviously, but it's pretty mediocre work I feel. He basically regurgitates forum rhetoric like this article that appeals to the masses of wannabes and generates hits on his site and workshop signup page. I mean, his article stated that one of the benefits of film was that it allowed him to get "much more saturated colors which look natural", yet the included pics are all fairly desaturated and lacking adequate contrast.
By contrast, lower-key photogs like the self-labled "alcoholic photographer" Yamasaki Ko-ji are producing better and more fascinating street work everyday, with less gear, and even lesser fanfare.
That said, Kim's probably a decent guy, but his reknown I think has more to do with his web marketing than photogrpahic skill.
Last edited:
bfjr
New to RF Just Not New
I said this on another thread but will say it again here.
I shoot Film because I like RF cameras and can't afford RF digitals, that's all.
Saving for an X100 maybe?
I shoot Film because I like RF cameras and can't afford RF digitals, that's all.
Saving for an X100 maybe?
japancamerahunter
Established
To be fair guys, he is young (only 23) and has a lot to learn. Eric is a good mate and I will be doing a workshop with him in Tokyo in December. He does say and write some silly things sometimes, but what he lacks in knowledge he makes up for in boundless enthusiasm and energy. I have never met anyone who is so excited about street photography.
I think that honestly he is going to improve a great deal over time, so I take some of what he writes with a pinch of salt.
Thanks
Japancamerahunter
I think that honestly he is going to improve a great deal over time, so I take some of what he writes with a pinch of salt.
Thanks
Japancamerahunter
HHPhoto
Well-known
Thanks for the background information!
I wish you good luck for your japancamerahunter website ( I visit it regularly....
).Greetings from Europe, Jan
jky
Well-known
Nice response.
To be honest I'll be the first to give him a hand on his enthusiasm and web savviness in marketing himself. Although I do believe his images can (and no doubt will) improve, what he's doing is spreading that drug we call street photography to others new to the genre.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Damen,
It is wrong of me to think I can make someone realize how they come across in an internet forum. And I am including myself in the that statement
Rather than fanning the flame, I apologize for my sharp reply and hopefully we both can walk out of this without hard feelings.
Thank you for the lesson.
Last edited:
bulevardi
Established
I always thought, the more digital, the better.
The higher the megapixel, the better the streetphotographer
The higher the megapixel, the better the streetphotographer
_mark__
Well-known
Shooting film will make you a better lover!
bulevardi
Established
Anyway, whatever camera you use, film or digital.
It's not always the result that counts, it's the use of the camera you have to like, if you're zen with camera X, keep using that camera.
And photography is all about the journey, not only the destination counts.
It's not always the result that counts, it's the use of the camera you have to like, if you're zen with camera X, keep using that camera.
And photography is all about the journey, not only the destination counts.
Swamiji
Newbie
Two reason film is better than digital.
1) Greater Dynamic range (other than slide film)
2) No Chimping (You have to learn your craft)
Out side of that there the same, SLR vs DLSR, RF vs DRF, same.
1) Greater Dynamic range (other than slide film)
2) No Chimping (You have to learn your craft)
Out side of that there the same, SLR vs DLSR, RF vs DRF, same.
celluloidprop
Well-known
I was shooting 95% digital since a D70 circa 2004-5 until recently, now I'm still heavily on the digital side but I've got 70 rolls of Tri-X, HP5 and Neopan 400 around to work my way through. Bought a Epson V700 and set it up this week to start digitizing negatives, will probably get a Plustek down the road to get more out of 35mm.
But I have to say, I still firmly appreciate digital. It's a sunk cost, meaning that every frame from purchase onward is essentially free for experimentation. That doesn't mean using a high-end dSLR and cranking up fps to shoot everything willy-nilly, but I take chances in digital that I don't with film, where each frame ranges from $.35 to $1 or so (6x9). And there is something to be said about extra free 'coverage' - different angles, moving around a subject to try different light/compositions/etc..
Digital also comprises a fast feedback loop - I can see images in Lightroom minutes after shooting, start editing, etc.. And I'm sure it's partially my scanning process and intimacy with the digital process, but I simply have more control over my images using LR/PS/Silver Efex Pro/Color Efex Pro than I do scanning in B&W film. I'm also not sure the V700 ultimately has the dynamic range to make scanned film that much superior to contemporary digital in highlight/shadow detail.
If I had access to a darkroom at home and an easy way to develop my own film here (I was seriously considering a new drying cabinet from B&H or somewhere...), reducing costs and giving me more direct control over the process in a traditional manner, I could see getting to a 50/50 split digital/film - but so long as I don't, I imagine myself leaning heavily digital.
But I have to say, I still firmly appreciate digital. It's a sunk cost, meaning that every frame from purchase onward is essentially free for experimentation. That doesn't mean using a high-end dSLR and cranking up fps to shoot everything willy-nilly, but I take chances in digital that I don't with film, where each frame ranges from $.35 to $1 or so (6x9). And there is something to be said about extra free 'coverage' - different angles, moving around a subject to try different light/compositions/etc..
Digital also comprises a fast feedback loop - I can see images in Lightroom minutes after shooting, start editing, etc.. And I'm sure it's partially my scanning process and intimacy with the digital process, but I simply have more control over my images using LR/PS/Silver Efex Pro/Color Efex Pro than I do scanning in B&W film. I'm also not sure the V700 ultimately has the dynamic range to make scanned film that much superior to contemporary digital in highlight/shadow detail.
If I had access to a darkroom at home and an easy way to develop my own film here (I was seriously considering a new drying cabinet from B&H or somewhere...), reducing costs and giving me more direct control over the process in a traditional manner, I could see getting to a 50/50 split digital/film - but so long as I don't, I imagine myself leaning heavily digital.