Lawrence I use this shutter everyday for almost twenty years now, you are not really telling that they are not reliable and hard to work with and all that other stuff.
It is an invaluable tool, easy to work with and offers so many more possibilities.
And I do use them every day that I shoot and for almost twenty years.
You're missing out on a lot of opportunities by not incorporating this tool into your approach.
Sory you never learnt about its advantages.
>It is a very old technique and it is tried and true.
Very well, Wade. Show us an example, please?
Jeez Wade. Can you read in context? Lawrence and I were having a discussion about what might be in your head, as you hadn't revealed it at that point. I was SURMISING.
I don't own one of those shutters but I have used them and am familiar with them. I also know that when you're careful, it's easy enough (because I've done it so often) to recock a Copal shutter as many times as you want and not have the camera move. You don't need a self cocking shutter to work your technique, you only need good technique. Do you think you invented this stuff? You sure act like it.
Again, I'm not sure why you're finding this information so threatening. As I've mentioned before, we're here to share information, techniques and images, and help each other, not keep secrets and make others feel inferior. Everyone else seems to be okay with that concept, except, perhaps, you. Why do you suppose that is?
I'm missing nothing, Wade, no thing. No opportunities. No nuttin'!
(I'm absolutely certain that on my deathbed, I will not be saying "I shudda used Press shutters".)
As Peter stated, cocking the shutter is a no brainer. If you mess up my alignment cocking the shutter, I sure would not want you loading the film holder in the back! :D
This sounds like a primal scream.
Not quite, Wade, but keep it up and I may fake it.:D
I've done shots both ways - where I re-cocked the shutter many times as Wade does with his Prontor or Copal "Press", but I've also done quite a few projects where I either moved the same film to several different cameras in order to build the image I wanted, and others where I would shoot part of a scene outdoor, say at dusk, leaving enough unexposed area to expose another image in a studio later. All techniques that are more or less not so important today, but good to know when you think about how to accomplish the same thing digitally. There was even an early Drum! Magazine cover where I photographed Jason Bonham in the studio and photographed a supplied postcard of his dad, John Bonham (Led Zeppelin) and took both images into the darkroom and exposed them one at a time on to a piece of Ektachrome duping film, fading one into the other in a way now seems childishly simple but then was rather unpredictably difficult.
I'm not hearin' any screams here in L.A.
Probably regret this but here goes <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=11DGNlG5ywe1XIlIwFh5Thm7ijEt0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/11DGNlG5ywe1XIlIwFh5Thm7ijEt0_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1JQ0vwmSbrZqrbORz8Xa2PTnhF3yEK0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1JQ0vwmSbrZqrbORz8Xa2PTnhF3yEK0_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br />It is a very old technique and tried and true. Not much to it.
Why would you regret it? If you really want to be helpful to anyone else who might want to know, telling the world what you did might be appreciated. Not for Lawrence or me, but for people lurking through this mess of a thread.
If someone wants to know and asks I will respond
I want to know (although I already think that I DO know exactly!) and I think many others would benefit from understanding what was involved in taking those interior shots.
Actually, you have captured the real-life essence and atmosphere of those interiors which is something that the photographer who we discussed in the other thread does not do.
Well we all see things differently i guess, and who is right or wrong. Wade continually talks down to just about everyone that comes here, and then tries to make it seem like we are all unenlightened and are just not capable of seeing a real artist at work. certainly the other guy referenced was not perfect,but as far as the two shots wade shared, i am not particularly impressed. Now he will come back and rehash how i like perfection and am chasing some elusive dream,but to me those shots are flat and unexciting.
I certainly am not saying they are worthless,but for all the constant reminding we get how great he is and how everyone around the world worships the ground he walks on, i honestly keep waiting to see these jaw dropping shots, and then i see something he finally posts, and i think this is what all the fuss was about?
I must temper my comments with the fact that i have never attempted to do architecture in the sense we are referencing,and would never pawn myself off as someone experienced in that genre, but i know what i like and dont like, and i have seen enough images to know what the cream of the crop are doing,and i cant remember the last time i saw something wade posted,and said holy ****,how on earth did you create such atmosphere and beauty in a room.
Perhaps i should have just stayed away from this forum, but as i have read topics over the past weeks, i find wade berating guys like peter,that i know are tops in the profession,and i think what the sam hill is wrong with this guy that he cant find a way to at least be friendly to the regulars here. He could offer advice in his field of expertise, without trying to belittle everyone else that comes here to interact with like minded creative people. At this point i feel like there must be numerous photographers who would make this place a joy to interact,but who stay away because of his ********. I swore the days of him getting under my skin were over, but he has a knack of not only putting himself on a pedestal,but also trying to minimize every other person who comes along.
Well said, Donald.
Thank you Donald.
Donald neither of those two photographs are jaw dropping.
To you those re both rather flat valid criticism that's they way you see it.
To Peter and Lawrence neither one of you have ever used a press shutter, and fooling anyone.
Noir do you understand the technique, at all. And Lawrence should be familiar with it.
Jaw dropping is not some you or anyone else is going to obtained, it is a dream and you are only confirming to yourself that your frustrations come from not being able to realize this elusive dream.
You can confirm it as being a dream go and research all the masters of photography or if you wish ten great master of photography.
And then select from their work one photograph that actually is jaw dropping,.
Yes Surprise there are none!
But good luck Donald in your quest, I hope you do realize this goal of yours at least in your dreams. You will definitely at least feel better.
But I have to admit that yes you have taught me something here on the forum, it wasn't what i thought I would get out of the forum, but I did actually learn some very valuable things.
I thank you all.
Donald, I agree with you. 100%
In my opinion, the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him.
Agreed. I've deleted my comments here.
Can't stand it anymore ... coming out of lurk mode ...
As I've said before, talk is cheap. You're not going to impress me with obscure technical jargon wrapped around an indecipherable post. SHOW ME that you know what you're talking about photographically and you'll gain my photographic respect. In 7-8 years, our resident legend-in-his-own-mind has yet to do that. Not once.
The two images that are supposed to illustrate to us mere mortals what we can't possibly understand? WEAK! For all the posturing and talk of self-cocking shutters, the lighting in the living room shot is terrible. Not just flat, but BAD. And what the heck is that dark mess on the left? The bathroom image is marginally better but I suspect that's only because there was benefit of spill because of the close quarters (or lots of natural light). Even so, the point where Wade called it done would have only been the beginning for a any photographer with a decent understanding of light. Both of those images could have been vastly better with an experienced DSLR shooter who knows light.
While some of the work of the photographer referenced in the other thread is a bit gawdy for my taste (some of it I really like), it's quite evident he could light circles around our resident architectural "expert". While I might not care for the treatment, I can still respect the knowledge required to achieve the results.
Wade trying to teach Peter something about photography ... LOL ... that's a good one!
Thanks wade, i will keep trying to get better and consider the endeavor of trying to do my best and do photography that people can appreciate and enjoy,as being a character trait i can be proud of. You seem to imply that a person who strives to do the best they can at whatever point they are at photographically, is something to be apologetic for. Most normal people try to be cordial with people they interact with on a regular basis, but for some unknown reason,you seem to not be interested in doing that.
One could ignore your posts,but then lurkers would come to believe everything you say as correct,because no one disagrees. With all the endless rambling you do about using your prehistoric equipment and using techniques that no digital system could ever replicate, i find you to be about the most one dimensional photographer i have seen in a long time. Here is a news flash for you, THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU OR ARCHITECTURAL PHOTOGRAPHY.
Maybe you need to spend a few months abroad were you are more appreciated, according to you of course. maybe the fresh spring air in paris will allow you to clear your head and you can return here to contribute some good ideas for a change.
I had a feeling you'd chime in sooner or later. All along I had hoped that Wade would give examples that would help anyone who was interesting in WHY you might use a particular technique or piece of equipment and show how it actually improved the image. So far I've seen nothing that approaches that. To show an image and claim that it could only be made by using a certain technique, without showing the same (presumably inferior) image made without is asking the veiwer to make a leap of faith, and that's a pretty big leap in this case. The opportunity was there for Wade to actually redeem himself and share some useful information and he let us down with insults. I'm inclined to think that he feels threatened by the fact that several of us actually do understand what he's doing (or at least trying to do) and that it isn't all that unique. It then becomes easier to tell us that we can't possibly understand or know, without actually understanding or knowing what we do know.
FWIW, I just finished the '08 version of the Manhattan Beach Wine Auction poster and when I get back in the studio and can pull a composite version I'll post it, as it's a fun image that I think everyone will enjoy.
Does it come with some wine?:D
Please do post it Peter. Always a pleasure seeing your work.
I will Nick. I'm going to try and organize it in a way that will help people thinking about trying those types of images. It's actually one that when I look at the final result and think that if asked to reproduce something similar, I might say no, and yet, it doesn't look all that complicated at first. Okay, enough tease, gotta go wash the little white car now.
I am looking forward as well.
Stravinsky's portrait by Newman is excellent
but this is jaw dropping:
(and there are other pictures that I like even more)
[but some are mine :]
>You can confirm it as being a dream go and research all the masters of photography or if you wish ten great master of photography. <br />And then select from their work one photograph that actually is jaw dropping,. <br />Yes Surprise there are none! <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=14vCZyWhE1NLf8BWKSBHDbOqSOmRSL0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/14vCZyWhE1NLf8BWKSBHDbOqSOmRSL0_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1H9icnSus56fHboBAsRQdVecGxkt2e1" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1H9icnSus56fHboBAsRQdVecGxkt2e1_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br />Perhaps it's just me, but that's some pretty jaw-dropping ****! (Pardon my French.) <br /> <br />Credit: The late, great Eddie Adams
Excellent use of uplight to communicate the sinister.
I don't remember it being a color print.
I saw a video of that shooting not long ago. It was just as horrifying, but maybe because I knew the still i was pre-conditioned.
shep, to me (from a photographic point of view) the pictures you posted are not better than puppy shots.
the subject matter is jaw dropping for sure
(but not the photography)
[which is good, but not more than that]
I feel the same way. they were taken under extraordinary circumstances, which certainly makes for some dramatic images, but i would not say its amazing photography. just a terribly sad moment captured on film. I wonder how one finds themselves in that situation and actually shoot that shot,knowing whats going to happen.
maybe E.Adams knew the real story
(not the one about the children)
[they should never be the subject of violence, whatever the "story']
the other one
On Nguyen Ngoc Loan and his famous photograph, Adams wrote in Time :
The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths.
What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?' 
Adams later apologized in person to General Nguyen and his family for the irreparable damage it did to Loan's honor while he was alive. When Nguyen died, Adams praised him as a "hero" of a "just cause".
> Manhattan Beach Wine Auction poster
If you could start a new thread for your poster, that might be nice.
>Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world.
No, they are not. If they were, they could kill war. Or the politicians who conjure it up.
Sorry, that's another subject for another time. But, for anyone interested in the Viet Nam war, I highly recommend "Dispatches", by Michael Herr. I did a tour in Nam, as an air traffic controller, not infantry, but his prose rings true.
"In a historic shift in 1986, the Communist Party of Vietnam implemented free-market reforms"
>shep, to me (from a photographic point of view) the pictures you posted are not better than puppy shots.
>I feel the same way. they were taken under extraordinary circumstances, which certainly makes for some dramatic images, but i would not say its amazing photography.
I only have a moment for a brief response here right now---perhaps I can expound tomorrow.
I understand both of your points, LT and Donald. But my (perhaps knee-jerk) response was to Wade's assertion:
>And then select from their work one photograph that actually is jaw dropping,.
Those *are* photographs and they made my jaw drop. We can of course get into the minutiae of what actually constitutes the meaning of "jaw-dropping"---different things to different people.
Many of you have probably seen Lawrence's photo of Mt. St. Helens; I find that quite jaw-dropping, both for the event itself and how well he captured it. I guess I'm more subject or story oriented than I am wowed by technique. More interested in how the camera is used a social documentary tool than one for recording pretty pictures.
Not that I think there's anything wrong with pretty pictures. I'm not that close-minded; in fact the two can co-exist within the same frame. But I find myself much happier with "The Americans", by Robert Frank in my lap than any of Ansel Adams landscape books. I know I'm in the minority, at least here, but it's not a matter of right and wrong or good and bad thing. Rather what interests an individual.
Some people like the Beatles, some like Beethoven. I like both.
Some folks love and find themselves moved by nice pics of flowers and such---again don't get me wrong---I can certainly enjoy them too. On the flip side, while some have said she was exploitive of her subjects, I can see the beauty in and find myself deeply moved by many of the photographs of Diane Arbus. Much of her work was the anti-thesis of "high technique"---being hard-edged, direct flash on camera.
The same can be said for the (non-fashion) portrait work of Richard Avedon. For the most part, it cannot be considered "flattering, classic" portraiture. In fact some of it is down right disturbing and can be difficult to view but to me, I don't think the power of it can be denied. Although, it is well done technically as well---he was a pro, he knew what he was doing.
It's all a journey and we all take our own paths in our own way and hopefully learn something along the way.
So much for my "brief" response. Gotta go. More later, perhaps.
or less? : )
(if you do, consider the picture taking vs. making angle)
[I make pictures, I'm a creator; and while some takers are fun, others are thieves : ]
Just so there's no misunderstanding, the reason I mentioned another thread is so that when you post your images, I don't want to see them get lost in this or another thread. With some images, yours in particular, I often like to come back and find them again. Also, I think your images will provide a level of discussion that will deserve it's own thread.
After I last posted I thought it could be misunderstood, so I debated on whether to post again to explain. Hope this makes sense.
Don't worry. I was going to make a new thread. I just want to pull the elements together. Hopefully tomorrow.
The same can be said for the (non-fashion) portrait work of Richard Avedon. For the most part, it cannot be considered "flattering, classic" portraiture. In fact some of it is down right disturbing and can be difficult to view but to me, I don't think the power of it can be denied. Although, it is well done technically as well---he was a pro, he knew what he was doing. Bucks County Real Estate
It's all a journey and we all take our own paths in our own way and hopefully learn something along the way.
So much for my "brief" response. Gotta go. More later, perhaps.