As to image quality, I worked for years as a lab technician for a premier production house in London back in the height of film days, 90's. For commercial use IQ was important, and finesse in production was vital in the art/creative market. E6 transparency film was judged in 1/4 stop increments, which one became very proficient at recognising small exposure/tonality adjustments or for increase in contrast and saturation etc. In the art world it doesn't have to be sharp or in focus on the other hand, it's all about the context, content, emotion and process etc. It took me years to give up film. Now my eyes have accustomed to digital capture and I really enjoy it. IT's different and in some ways harder, some easier. The ability to manipulate an image is beyond anything from film days and we are redefining what photography can be. There are so many amazing image makers out in the world which is revealed by the internet, and somehow standards are being maintained albeit in very different industries and ways. It's inspiring to see but also makes me see how bad my own work is and how far I have to go still.
Ansel Adams lives in poverty for decades as he built his prolific skills and library of photographs. It was late in life that someone helped him turn his archive into a business. He toiled up and down mountains by mule and foot with heavy loads to find his compositions. Perhaps that deep toil with no reward in sight other than the reward of a brilliant print aided him to keep going. I believe his first devotion was art which very often gives us very little reward for our work. I enjoy your channel and fell on it by chance. These are very relevant discussions to have especially now. To be an artist is a long and difficult journey with nothing promised in return, other than the journey itself.
Cameras like Leica or Hasselblatt are not tools ….. they are a piece of art to enjoy the PROCESS of taking photographs. The reason lots of photographers go back shooting film is because of the PROCESS of taking a picture. As for UA-cam influencers getting free gear ….. they are doing what is necessary to get some bread and butter on their table. It’s their job. Mads Peter Iverson, Roman Fox and James Posyps shared their experiences with the Haselblatt and admitted that while it is a masterpiece of equipment and very enjoyable to use, they can’t consider it for their day to work because of its inherited drawbacks like file and physical size …. Use what floats your boat and beware of GAS
All the UA-camrs getting free gear make 10K a month... I think "bread on the table" is something they don't worry about at all. Mads, Roman and James have integrity.
LOL. If every camera company sent every UA-camr shill a free camera and lens, how would they differentiate which one was any good, or better than the rest?
After a good day of photography, I'm sitting in my cabin in the Norwegian wilderness and looking at my waterfall pictures. How boring would it be if I had only taken all the pictures with one program. No wet feet and no good pictures. Greetings from Blefjell in Norway. Great video.
I agree with what you are saying. Personally I grew up shooting film and still love the look and the process so I almost never shoot digital these days. I only shoot it if the turn around is too fast or people have to see the results as we shoot. For what I shoot landscapes, places, people, travel etc modern digital cameras are complete over kill. I enjoy capturing the subject in camera where only very minimal post work is needed. I think it makes a person a better photographer to work that way. What I do not like is the modern trend of making a light room painting out of photographs. It makes them all look like a Thomas Kinkade paint by numbers image. It's unrealistic. And I think a lot of photographers might fool themselves into thinking they're not doing much manipulation in post but if you are replacing skies or relighting the photograph with the gradient tool, it's fake. Just my opinion.
I really appreciate they way you raise pertinent questions and issues in the photography world. I'm with you on the Hasselblad give-away. Is that a sell-out? Take the money and run philosophy? Does it call into question the integrity of the recipient? I often wonder how the pioneer photographers of the day reacted when glass negatives gave way to film. Or when it became possible to manipulate images in the darkroom. Or when film was challenged by digital? Would Ansel Adams succumbed to the option of speed and ease, the ability to see an image in real time, and/or obviate the need for a darkroom at all. Regarding print versus digital output on the two prints you showed, I saw a video recently where Hugh Brownstone on Three Blind Men and an Elephant (October 7, 2021) compared using a classic 35mm film camera (Nikon F2AS) with the first Nikon mirror-less camera (Z6). In looking back he says the Z6 blows the F2AS out of the water. It centered around the themes of practicality, ease of use, personal preferences, new technology versus old. In the end what matters is do you get the results you want from the medium you use.
I really should fire that printer up more often. The trouble is, I want to frame every picture I print. What I should do is keep a physical archive in case my digital archive is completely destroyed.
I print all the images that make the cut. That's under 20 per year... You can always print all your images in a book. It's cheaper than you might think. 🙂
I frequently face the dilemma of using a quick preset, created by someone else (DXO for example), or taking the time and effort to adjust the settings in the photo editor so that the final image truly represents MY vision, even though I may not be able to produce an image as spectacular as the preset does. Would you consider the use of a commercial preset to be a lack of integrity and fakery?
You answered your own question. If it doesn't truly represent your vision, why are you bothering at all? You're only reproducing someone else's art (or vision.) Taking any credit for the results on your part is probably not so ethical, right?
Dynamic range is one aspect of image quality that I find interesting. The camera companies all have a dynamic range dog in the race, some touting their particular dogs more than the others do theirs. Thing is, the papers can't display it in full, nor can some screens. So, dynamic range becomes some "benefit" in the ether, after a certain point. I read that Ilford FP4+ has about eight stops. That sounds bad if true, but film can be gentle on the highlights due to the chemical processes in development. So, for some, the draw of film lies in the way it handles highlights. I like and use digital as well as film, but I've found that my digital camera with its purported high dynamic range clips the highlights if I don't take care to expose for them. Pick your poison, I guess. Yes, printing one's work is an eye-opener; not all of the DR goodness gets onto the paper.
The biggest drawback of digital black and white is the squashing of the midtones. I don't know why all the conversions do that, but if you boost the mids everything starts looking right. It also removes any need for a mono sensor camera other than the insanely clean high iso images they can produce.
I don't use any photoshop, lightroom..! If one scans film, you are missing out, with no wet darkroom. A scanned film =digital. Use digital to begin with! I use a great printing facilty. Archival paper. I found printing at home Very Expensive with inks..Geez ! 16x20 is way too big. where the ef do you place them? I agree NO manipulations. Oh! New Haselblood is not real medium format. It's way smaller. That's why 35mm format lenses can be used.
Peter Lik is a great salesman. His images are very formulaic, and this seems to be what makes him successful (I think). Not what I would put on my walls (if I had the walls to hang and the money to buy them ;-)).
Well, how do you feel about digital adjustment of contrast, shadows, color saturation, white balance changes? What about adjusting how large the file is so I can do what I did last year, and expand files so they would produce detailed 60x40 prints for a bank lobby in a major city? I think that my client would argue that those prints are fine art. Am I just some kind of fraud because I don't limit myself to WHAT I SEE at the instant of exposure? Because Ansel certainly didn't limit himself to what he saw at exposure. Both he and Edward Weston worked by expanding what they saw. Ansel did Very large mural prints for clients. Did that lessen his integrity? You need to read the History of your craft. I agree with you in that your work should be printed. I just don't agree on limitations digital adjustment of files.
I think you totally got the wrong end of the stick on that one. Traditional photographic enhancements are all required to practice the craft. The clouds going behind the moon is fraud. Replacing the sky with AI is fraud. I'm well versed in the history of my craft, you might want to get better versed in who I am and what my work is before commenting. No offense.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography or, you might want to be clearer about what types of file adjustments you consider unacceptable. You came off sounding like if you didn’t see it at time of exposure, the change would be somehow illegitimate. I agree Peter Lik is a hack. I don’t add “things” to my work, but I’ve been known to subtract things and add pixels and density and such. I’m sorry if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make but it wasn’t really clear the line you were drawing, and it was all sounding a bit religious.
The problem today is not the photographs it’s the consumer. Most people can’t tell the difference between a great image and a mediocre image, oh and the smartphone.
The truth of the matter most people never could tell if a photo was mediocre even back in the film days. What is different now is we are saturated with mediocre or worse photos from social media.
@@washingtonradio Completely saturated, and still very few people have the ability to tell what is a mediocre photo and what is a great one or even what attributes great photography should have.
I can just imagine the scene (pun intended): Man in exhibition: I’m not sure if this can be considered authentic as you obviously included more than the storm actually offered. J.M.W. Turner: I confess I had to. Those waves wouldn’t keep still and the clouds were constantly changing. The never ending ridiculous argument now perpetuated by photography …
Edward, your last videos are very thought provoking. You said so many things I relate to having started my photo journey with film. It seems like photography has become more of graphic design during post processing rather than actual photography. I want to see how good a photographer someone is. Not how good a graphic designer they are. Im thinking of unsubscribing from the UA-camrs showing off Hasselblad recently. They obviously were sent those from Hasselblad free or maybe Hasselblad even paid them to shill their products. And I’m miss Galen Rowell’s work and style.
Yes. I agree with you about those three also. It seemed like everywhere I turned there was Hasselblad. I was surprised to see Nigel D. jump on the that bandwagon. I can’t wait for the next video from one of those guys that’s about ‘it’s not about the gear’.
Ansel Adams was a total geek, DIY, photographer, dodging and burning his photos to hell and back with recipes for each print.. He was doing quality control for Polaroid prototypes. He probably had relationships with many other manufacturers too. I'm not sure how different it actually is in our current situation of shills on UA-cam, but it does feel different. If I'm correct, Ansel Adams mainly made his photos with glass plates, not 4x5 (but I'm sure he did that too). Anyway, I would imaging that if he were alive today, he'd be completely behind digital, probably owning one of the most expensive systems available with the fastest computers for processing the images. He might draw the line at sky replacement though. All speculation though. Who really knows?
And he worked with publishers who, while working on the last few of Ansel's books used huge drum scanners to produce the images that we look at in those books today. It wasn't digital photography, but Ansel supervised and approved those scans, and was very excited about the future of digital image creation.
The church image with the amazing clouds in my opinion meets the definition of "Fine Art" photography. Well done, excessive post processing or "Cooking" the image is not photography in my opinion. Again, I believe setting a standard limiting yourself from excessive post processing is the key in shooting in the realm of Fine art landscape photography. I guess for myself this is why I personally have no issues shooting JPEG all the time. When I used to use RAW all the time I would go in LR and sit for hours editing images.
I too use the Jpegs when it's possible. Especially with Fuji cameras. If you want to see some baked images subscribe to the "inspired by Ansel Adams" instagram feed. What garbage for the most part.
I absolutely agree about not being finished until you have printed out the picture. Not sure what you meant about photography being like flying an airplane though. If the picture is no good, just delete the file, and shoot again. If the Pilot does poorly, he gets deleted completely. Ansel Adams has become a known name from the early days of photography, and he has frozen slices of time that probably cannot be repeated. People seem to want to hang an Ansel Adams over the fireplace and tell friends and guests, "It's an Ansel Adams", and get the resulting Ohhs and Ahhs from the name recognition. Be your own market. Do what you want to hang in your own home. Today with digital every Tom, Dick and Harry has a camera better than Ansel Adams could dream about. So the sheer volume of output tends to make it all seem common. Make art, for you. Don't get me wrong, I hope you get rich selling landscapes. But most artists were starving artists. Yet they soldiered on doing what they did. Because they loved it. Picasso paid for lunch with a scribble on a napkin. Today that same napkin would buy a house in Bel Aire California. Somebody with lots of money wants that napkin. The scribble looks dumb to me. But it is a Picasso, I guess. And all the napkins you might scribble on today won't make one worth a nice house. Sorry to be so blunt. Picasso is dead, there won't be any more scribbles from him. You are still breathing.
That's my point, though. I'm not making my "art" for now or for me. I'm making it for 70-100 years from now. If anyone cares about it then, great, if not, at least I tried.
If you want complete integrity as a photographic realist, then print the raw file from your digital camera with no post-production adjustment whatsoever. Note that Ansel Adams made significant darkroom adjustments to nealy all of his black and white photographs. He did so to satisfy his main artistic vision: the manifestation of a meaningful departure from reality to match how he felt about a scene. Thus, he seldom made a straight print from a black and white negative. Did Ansel Adams suffer from IQDS? If he did, does it even matter? Galen Rowell, on the other hand, was mostly a nature photojournalist. His photographic genre requires a more faithul depiction of perceived reality. Nevertheless, many of his more famous images involved alpenglow (an optical phenomena) as well as sunrises and sunsets. In such circumstances, Galen Rowell took advantage of Kodachome's unique reaction to red colors in the atmosphere. One could argue that he engaged in image manipulation of a sort as a result of his film's idiosyncrasies. While Galen Rowell's photographic style and objectives were vastly different from Ansel Adams' approach to image making, one could argue that Galen Rowell also suffered from IQDS.
Define "photographic realist?" And whatever that is, I never ascribed to being one. Let's just stick to "Landscape Photography as Art." And as everyone knows, RAW are MEANT to be enhanced. I'm guessing if you wanted to be a "photographic realist" you would shoot only Jpegs and display them SOOC. Ansel also never replace da sky or superimposed the moon over some clouds. And did is make any difference? I doubt his prints would sell for millions+ if he did, so yes. Most of Galen's work was done with Fuji Velvia which he switched to as soon as it became available. When I asked Galen what were some of the greatest influences on his style and work he said Ansel Adams first among others. (Galen was hanging out for a show at a gallery that carried my work, and I got to spend a few afternoons with him while he was waiting to do book signings....) Galen did not suffer from IQDS, but he didn't get the chance to get mired in the digital quicksand either.
Kinda depends on your goal. If your goal is artistic expression and a photo or 2 are your base then and you heavily Photoshop it and sell your art, that's ok. If you are intentionally passing it off as just a photo, that's not ok.
I think there's a difference between what Ansel did utilizing traditional and accepted darkroom practices and procedures and superimposing an image of the moon in front of the clouds and selling it as not a fake for ridiculous sums of money. Landscape image fakery is like pornography, it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it...
Top racing drivers dont buy their own racing cars, we wouldn't expect that. So why are people out of shape influencers getting their kit provided by a sponsor, i think its inverted snobbery.
Hello. I enjoy your youtube videos. On the subject of people receiving free equipment. Why not. If you are lucky enough to be given an expensive 100 Mp camera use it. As long as you are not being bribed to give a false assessment, what's the problem. It is obviously a very good camera with excellent features. IBIS image quality etc. if you are bumped up to first class from coach, sit back and enjoy the ride. All the best. Andy
Mads Peter Iverson, Roman Fox, and James Pop sys all evaluated the Hasselblad and deemed it something they wouldn't buy for themselves and sent it back. If they deemed it so good that they would have splashed out on it, and kept it I would have no issues at all. One of the people who got one for free evaluated the camera a year ago and said it wasn't for him i.e. he wouldn't spend his own money on it, and now that they gave him one he thinks it's great. That's what I have a problem with. If you are bumped up to first class from coach, but you are an "Airline Influencer" then there are further responsibilities regarding ethics involved...
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography I watched Mads P Iverson review of the X2D 100C, and credit to him for saying he would not use one because it would alienate him from his youtube followers because of how expensive it is. But I could sense that he loved that camera and it was a difficult decision to make and deep down he wanted to keep it.😇. All the best.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Good luck with the ethics side to photography. I just want to see some good old fashioned pictures: Landscapes, street, industrial, life in general. The journey on how the photographer got there and what equipment He/She used are fine but in the end it is all about the picture. Gustave Flaubert wrote to George Sand. "l'homme n'est rien, L'ouvre tout" . The man is nothing, the work all. All the best.
Too many points. Not enough focus. Three minutes in and it seems like this has more to do with film and integrity than image quality. A couple of thoughts: The is no such thing as integrity in digital and there was never such a thing as integrity in film. That is a willful illusion. Film has always altered the true visual perception from the beginning. The world is not gray scale. Ansel Adams dodged graffiti off rocks in one of his images. A painter paints the way he was an image to look. Photography is no different. Van Gogh never said this is a precise capture of what a starry night looks like. Do what you want to make the image you want. The only time integrity ls lost is when someone claims an image is documentary when it isn't. Otherwise, as photographers, we are no different from painters. As for image quality, well, it is everything. It is where you have to start. How you alter it is up to you. But to start without it is a vapid as a Jackson Pollock or as fortunate as a happy accident.
Your analogy is terrible. Vincent said much about starry night, it's in his letters. He augmented that asylum window scene 21 times- or more. He told his brother that tiny blue, pink, yellow and red stars were not enough to depict the night sky. In that sole altered nocture, he incorporated Gauguin's provocation to create from abstraction. Aside from that, being visual art is all photography and painting have in common. The approach is completely different but the desired outcome is the same- create an apparatus that extends the body while also being extended by it.
@@flightographist You missed the point completely so it is not surprising that you think the analogy is terrible. The point is that Starry Night does not attempt to document the precise appearance of the night sky and there is likewise no imperative the a photograph does either. And you are mistaken about the similarities of painting and photography. As mentioned, Ansel Adams altered the content of his photos essentially painting out details he did not wish to include. And given the available technology like adding a stock photo of sky to your landscape or AI elements the differences between painting and photography nearly disappear. And the point here is that no one tells the painter that he can't or shouldn't paint a scene or a person any way he chooses. Likewise, it is no one's business to tell a photographer that he can't represent the image any way he wants to. That's not my style but it is hardly my prerogative to tell someone else that using AI, stock backgrounds, dodging/burning or Photoshop alterations somehow lacks some made up notion of integrity.
@@bencompson You're wrong. Vincent himself said it was his interpretation of the starry night view from his room. It just wasn't the natural interpretation he preferred, he wen ton to say he would never do it again. Do you get it now?
@@flightographist I get that you just made my precise point for me; so thanks. It is not clear to my why you are agreeing with me but telling me I'm wrong. Let's try again. Maybe the third time is a charm: You are correct when you say he _interpreted_ the night sky view. That is my WHOLE point. He was not trying to make it look like a literal copy of reality. (If he was, he failed miserably as it looks nothing like a real starry sky.) He was expressing himself in the way he distorted and interpreted reality. Just like Degas and so many others. And in so doing, the art is superior to most literal expressions. Photographers are as free to do the same thing as painters are. So now I've said it three times for you. I'm not sure I can make it any simpler for you.
Its not about Thomas Heaton, he's just a good example of a youtube high sub creator trying to navigate ethical issues in a commercial situation that requires you to sell your soul to play.
Not Confucios, The Buddha said: "The inability to accept change is the root of all human suffering."
As to image quality, I worked for years as a lab technician for a premier production house in London back in the height of film days, 90's. For commercial use IQ was important, and finesse in production was vital in the art/creative market. E6 transparency film was judged in 1/4 stop increments, which one became very proficient at recognising small exposure/tonality adjustments or for increase in contrast and saturation etc. In the art world it doesn't have to be sharp or in focus on the other hand, it's all about the context, content, emotion and process etc.
It took me years to give up film. Now my eyes have accustomed to digital capture and I really enjoy it. IT's different and in some ways harder, some easier. The ability to manipulate an image is beyond anything from film days and we are redefining what photography can be. There are so many amazing image makers out in the world which is revealed by the internet, and somehow standards are being maintained albeit in very different industries and ways. It's inspiring to see but also makes me see how bad my own work is and how far I have to go still.
Ansel Adams lives in poverty for decades as he built his prolific skills and library of photographs. It was late in life that someone helped him turn his archive into a business. He toiled up and down mountains by mule and foot with heavy loads to find his compositions. Perhaps that deep toil with no reward in sight other than the reward of a brilliant print aided him to keep going. I believe his first devotion was art which very often gives us very little reward for our work. I enjoy your channel and fell on it by chance. These are very relevant discussions to have especially now. To be an artist is a long and difficult journey with nothing promised in return, other than the journey itself.
Well said.
Cameras like Leica or Hasselblatt are not tools ….. they are a piece of art to enjoy the PROCESS of taking photographs.
The reason lots of photographers go back shooting film is because of the PROCESS of taking a picture.
As for UA-cam influencers getting free gear ….. they are doing what is necessary to get some bread and butter on their table. It’s their job. Mads Peter Iverson, Roman Fox and James Posyps shared their experiences with the Haselblatt and admitted that while it is a masterpiece of equipment and very enjoyable to use, they can’t consider it for their day to work because of its inherited drawbacks like file and physical size …. Use what floats your boat and beware of GAS
All the UA-camrs getting free gear make 10K a month... I think "bread on the table" is something they don't worry about at all. Mads, Roman and James have integrity.
I think a testament to this hasselblad thing is when Gavin showed his OM-1 mk II images in a following video and they were also great.
LOL. If every camera company sent every UA-camr shill a free camera and lens, how would they differentiate which one was any good, or better than the rest?
After a good day of photography, I'm sitting in my cabin in the Norwegian wilderness and looking at my waterfall pictures. How boring would it be if I had only taken all the pictures with one program. No wet feet and no good pictures. Greetings from Blefjell in Norway. Great video.
PPDS (Pixel Peeping Derangement Syndrome).
“Comparison is the thief of joy” -President Theodore Roosevelt
I agree with what you are saying. Personally I grew up shooting film and still love the look and the process so I almost never shoot digital these days. I only shoot it if the turn around is too fast or people have to see the results as we shoot. For what I shoot landscapes, places, people, travel etc modern digital cameras are complete over kill. I enjoy capturing the subject in camera where only very minimal post work is needed. I think it makes a person a better photographer to work that way. What I do not like is the modern trend of making a light room painting out of photographs. It makes them all look like a Thomas Kinkade paint by numbers image. It's unrealistic. And I think a lot of photographers might fool themselves into thinking they're not doing much manipulation in post but if you are replacing skies or relighting the photograph with the gradient tool, it's fake. Just my opinion.
I really appreciate they way you raise pertinent questions and issues in the photography world. I'm with you on the Hasselblad give-away. Is that a sell-out? Take the money and run philosophy? Does it call into question the integrity of the recipient? I often wonder how the pioneer photographers of the day reacted when glass negatives gave way to film. Or when it became possible to manipulate images in the darkroom. Or when film was challenged by digital? Would Ansel Adams succumbed to the option of speed and ease, the ability to see an image in real time, and/or obviate the need for a darkroom at all.
Regarding print versus digital output on the two prints you showed, I saw a video recently where Hugh Brownstone on Three Blind Men and an Elephant (October 7, 2021) compared using a classic 35mm film camera (Nikon F2AS) with the first Nikon mirror-less camera (Z6). In looking back he says the Z6 blows the F2AS out of the water. It centered around the themes of practicality, ease of use, personal preferences, new technology versus old. In the end what matters is do you get the results you want from the medium you use.
You make a ton of sense. I appreciate the reminder, and we all ought to be reminded often. My lust causes me to forget all sorts of things...
Thank you for the thought provoking video!
This is the exact question I have been asking myself. Now that I am set up with my process, what do I do with the photos? Thank you for the thoughts
Learn to design books on Blurb. Make books not prints.
I really should fire that printer up more often. The trouble is, I want to frame every picture I print. What I should do is keep a physical archive in case my digital archive is completely destroyed.
I print all the images that make the cut. That's under 20 per year... You can always print all your images in a book. It's cheaper than you might think. 🙂
Good articulate reasoning. Makes sense to me.
Did not see a link to your patreon channel, I am interested
Found you with quick search on patreon😀
@@FixerFingers Link should have been in the description, but I will check to make sure. Thanks!
I'm glad someone named it. Good pictures are easy. I strive to take bad photos. 🙃
LOL, same here...
I frequently face the dilemma of using a quick preset, created by someone else (DXO for example), or taking the time and effort to adjust the settings in the photo editor so that the final image truly represents MY vision, even though I may not be able to produce an image as spectacular as the preset does. Would you consider the use of a commercial preset to be a lack of integrity and fakery?
You answered your own question. If it doesn't truly represent your vision, why are you bothering at all? You're only reproducing someone else's art (or vision.) Taking any credit for the results on your part is probably not so ethical, right?
Dynamic range is one aspect of image quality that I find interesting. The camera companies all have a dynamic range dog in the race, some touting their particular dogs more than the others do theirs. Thing is, the papers can't display it in full, nor can some screens. So, dynamic range becomes some "benefit" in the ether, after a certain point. I read that Ilford FP4+ has about eight stops. That sounds bad if true, but film can be gentle on the highlights due to the chemical processes in development. So, for some, the draw of film lies in the way it handles highlights. I like and use digital as well as film, but I've found that my digital camera with its purported high dynamic range clips the highlights if I don't take care to expose for them. Pick your poison, I guess. Yes, printing one's work is an eye-opener; not all of the DR goodness gets onto the paper.
The biggest drawback of digital black and white is the squashing of the midtones. I don't know why all the conversions do that, but if you boost the mids everything starts looking right. It also removes any need for a mono sensor camera other than the insanely clean high iso images they can produce.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Interesting. I didn't know that. I'll try boosting the midtones.
Always good! Also, thought provoking!
Thanks!!
I don't use any photoshop, lightroom..! If one scans film, you are missing out, with no wet darkroom. A scanned film =digital. Use digital to begin with! I use a great printing facilty. Archival paper. I found printing at home Very Expensive with inks..Geez ! 16x20 is way too big. where the ef do you place them? I agree NO manipulations. Oh! New Haselblood is not real medium format. It's way smaller. That's why 35mm format lenses can be used.
I spent 35 years in my own darkroom and still develop and print now. Silver prints do look better. But very few people can see the difference.
As a Finn I really would like to see your photo of the Finnish Apostolic Lutheran Church!
Peter Lik is a great salesman. His images are very formulaic, and this seems to be what makes him successful (I think). Not what I would put on my walls (if I had the walls to hang and the money to buy them ;-)).
It's photographic garbage you could buy at Hobby Lobby for under $50.
Well, how do you feel about digital adjustment of contrast, shadows, color saturation, white balance changes? What about adjusting how large the file is so I can do what I did last year, and expand files so they would produce detailed 60x40 prints for a bank lobby in a major city? I think that my client would argue that those prints are fine art. Am I just some kind of fraud because I don't limit myself to WHAT I SEE at the instant of exposure? Because Ansel certainly didn't limit himself to what he saw at exposure. Both he and Edward Weston worked by expanding what they saw. Ansel did Very large mural prints for clients. Did that lessen his integrity? You need to read the History of your craft. I agree with you in that your work should be printed. I just don't agree on limitations digital adjustment of files.
I think you totally got the wrong end of the stick on that one. Traditional photographic enhancements are all required to practice the craft. The clouds going behind the moon is fraud. Replacing the sky with AI is fraud.
I'm well versed in the history of my craft, you might want to get better versed in who I am and what my work is before commenting. No offense.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography or, you might want to be clearer about what types of file adjustments you consider unacceptable. You came off sounding like if you didn’t see it at time of exposure, the change would be somehow illegitimate. I agree Peter Lik is a hack. I don’t add “things” to my work, but I’ve been known to subtract things and add pixels and density and such. I’m sorry if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make but it wasn’t really clear the line you were drawing, and it was all sounding a bit religious.
@@jeffchastain2977 No worries. I do have a pretty long history on UA-cam of stating and showing how and what I do for post processing.
I agree with your observations and assessment 100%
The problem today is not the photographs it’s the consumer. Most people can’t tell the difference between a great image and a mediocre image, oh and the smartphone.
Agreed.
The truth of the matter most people never could tell if a photo was mediocre even back in the film days. What is different now is we are saturated with mediocre or worse photos from social media.
@@washingtonradio Completely saturated, and still very few people have the ability to tell what is a mediocre photo and what is a great one or even what attributes great photography should have.
I can just imagine the scene (pun intended):
Man in exhibition: I’m not sure if this can be considered authentic as you obviously included more than the storm actually offered.
J.M.W. Turner: I confess I had to. Those waves wouldn’t keep still and the clouds were constantly changing.
The never ending ridiculous argument now perpetuated by photography …
Edward, your last videos are very thought provoking. You said so many things I relate to having started my photo journey with film. It seems like photography has become more of graphic design during post processing rather than actual photography. I want to see how good a photographer someone is. Not how good a graphic designer they are. Im thinking of unsubscribing from the UA-camrs showing off Hasselblad recently. They obviously were sent those from Hasselblad free or maybe Hasselblad even paid them to shill their products. And I’m miss Galen Rowell’s work and style.
Vote with your feet, unsubscribe. Ian Worth, Andy Mumford, Ben Horne all are photographers with integrity in my opinion, give them a try.
Yes. I agree with you about those three also. It seemed like everywhere I turned there was Hasselblad. I was surprised to see Nigel D. jump on the that bandwagon. I can’t wait for the next video from one of those guys that’s about ‘it’s not about the gear’.
Ansel Adams was a total geek, DIY, photographer, dodging and burning his photos to hell and back with recipes for each print.. He was doing quality control for Polaroid prototypes. He probably had relationships with many other manufacturers too. I'm not sure how different it actually is in our current situation of shills on UA-cam, but it does feel different. If I'm correct, Ansel Adams mainly made his photos with glass plates, not 4x5 (but I'm sure he did that too). Anyway, I would imaging that if he were alive today, he'd be completely behind digital, probably owning one of the most expensive systems available with the fastest computers for processing the images. He might draw the line at sky replacement though. All speculation though. Who really knows?
He was supposed to have said that digital was the future and would agree with you.
And he worked with publishers who, while working on the last few of Ansel's books used huge drum scanners to produce the images that we look at in those books today. It wasn't digital photography, but Ansel supervised and approved those scans, and was very excited about the future of digital image creation.
Peter Lik is not a photographer, simple as that. He’s a graphic artist, or just an artist, but he is definitely not a photographer
Not sure that he's even an artist. More like a con man actually.
Well said about the 100K+ You Tube crowd getting free Hasselblad gear! They all preface their videos with "This is my own opinion". Right????
The church image with the amazing clouds in my opinion meets the definition of "Fine Art" photography. Well done, excessive post processing or "Cooking" the image is not photography in my opinion.
Again, I believe setting a standard limiting yourself from excessive post processing is the key in shooting in the realm of Fine art landscape photography.
I guess for myself this is why I personally have no issues shooting JPEG all the time.
When I used to use RAW all the time I would go in LR and sit for hours editing images.
I too use the Jpegs when it's possible. Especially with Fuji cameras. If you want to see some baked images subscribe to the "inspired by Ansel Adams" instagram feed. What garbage for the most part.
I absolutely agree about not being finished until you have printed out the picture. Not sure what you meant about photography being like flying an airplane though. If the picture is no good, just delete the file, and shoot again. If the Pilot does poorly, he gets deleted completely. Ansel Adams has become a known name from the early days of photography, and he has frozen slices of time that probably cannot be repeated. People seem to want to hang an Ansel Adams over the fireplace and tell friends and guests, "It's an Ansel Adams", and get the resulting Ohhs and Ahhs from the name recognition. Be your own market. Do what you want to hang in your own home. Today with digital every Tom, Dick and Harry has a camera better than Ansel Adams could dream about. So the sheer volume of output tends to make it all seem common. Make art, for you. Don't get me wrong, I hope you get rich selling landscapes. But most artists were starving artists. Yet they soldiered on doing what they did. Because they loved it. Picasso paid for lunch with a scribble on a napkin. Today that same napkin would buy a house in Bel Aire California. Somebody with lots of money wants that napkin. The scribble looks dumb to me. But it is a Picasso, I guess. And all the napkins you might scribble on today won't make one worth a nice house. Sorry to be so blunt. Picasso is dead, there won't be any more scribbles from him. You are still breathing.
That's my point, though. I'm not making my "art" for now or for me. I'm making it for 70-100 years from now. If anyone cares about it then, great, if not, at least I tried.
Not a big fan of large prints myself.
Actually, I'm not either. Michael Kenna said that his 8x8 and 10x10 prints allow the viewer a more intimate experience with the subject and I agree.
If you want complete integrity as a photographic realist, then print the raw file from your digital camera with no post-production adjustment whatsoever.
Note that Ansel Adams made significant darkroom adjustments to nealy all of his black and white photographs. He did so to satisfy his main artistic vision: the manifestation of a meaningful departure from reality to match how he felt about a scene. Thus, he seldom made a straight print from a black and white negative. Did Ansel Adams suffer from IQDS? If he did, does it even matter?
Galen Rowell, on the other hand, was mostly a nature photojournalist. His photographic genre requires a more faithul depiction of perceived reality. Nevertheless, many of his more famous images involved alpenglow (an optical phenomena) as well as sunrises and sunsets. In such circumstances, Galen Rowell took advantage of Kodachome's unique reaction to red colors in the atmosphere. One could argue that he engaged in image manipulation of a sort as a result of his film's idiosyncrasies. While Galen Rowell's photographic style and objectives were vastly different from Ansel Adams' approach to image making, one could argue that Galen Rowell also suffered from IQDS.
Define "photographic realist?" And whatever that is, I never ascribed to being one. Let's just stick to "Landscape Photography as Art."
And as everyone knows, RAW are MEANT to be enhanced. I'm guessing if you wanted to be a "photographic realist" you would shoot only Jpegs and display them SOOC.
Ansel also never replace da sky or superimposed the moon over some clouds. And did is make any difference? I doubt his prints would sell for millions+ if he did, so yes.
Most of Galen's work was done with Fuji Velvia which he switched to as soon as it became available. When I asked Galen what were some of the greatest influences on his style and work he said Ansel Adams first among others. (Galen was hanging out for a show at a gallery that carried my work, and I got to spend a few afternoons with him while he was waiting to do book signings....) Galen did not suffer from IQDS, but he didn't get the chance to get mired in the digital quicksand either.
Kinda depends on your goal. If your goal is artistic expression and a photo or 2 are your base then and you heavily Photoshop it and sell your art, that's ok. If you are intentionally passing it off as just a photo, that's not ok.
Also, not sure why Ansel is always used as an example for not modifying photos. He heavily processed his images even if it was just in analog.
I think there's a difference between what Ansel did utilizing traditional and accepted darkroom practices and procedures and superimposing an image of the moon in front of the clouds and selling it as not a fake for ridiculous sums of money. Landscape image fakery is like pornography, it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it...
How about PSOS ? 😀
?? Photographers Save Our Sponsors?
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Photo System Optimization Syndrome I remember somebody talking about this a few years ago :))
Top racing drivers dont buy their own racing cars, we wouldn't expect that. So why are people out of shape influencers getting their kit provided by a sponsor, i think its inverted snobbery.
Don't think it's quite the same thing...
Hello. I enjoy your youtube videos. On the subject of people receiving free equipment. Why not. If you are lucky enough to be given an expensive 100 Mp camera use it. As long as you are not being bribed to give a false assessment, what's the problem. It is obviously a very good camera with excellent features. IBIS image quality etc. if you are bumped up to first class from coach, sit back and enjoy the ride. All the best.
Andy
Mads Peter Iverson, Roman Fox, and James Pop sys all evaluated the Hasselblad and deemed it something they wouldn't buy for themselves and sent it back. If they deemed it so good that they would have splashed out on it, and kept it I would have no issues at all. One of the people who got one for free evaluated the camera a year ago and said it wasn't for him i.e. he wouldn't spend his own money on it, and now that they gave him one he thinks it's great. That's what I have a problem with. If you are bumped up to first class from coach, but you are an "Airline Influencer" then there are further responsibilities regarding ethics involved...
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography I watched Mads P Iverson review of the X2D 100C, and credit to him for saying he would not use one because it would alienate him from his youtube followers because of how expensive it is. But I could sense that he loved that camera and it was a difficult decision to make and deep down he wanted to keep it.😇. All the best.
@@AndrewKerr-i3o And that is a clear example of integrity and sympathy for your followers. Its why I subscribe to Mads and not some other people.
@@EdwardMartinsPhotography Good luck with the ethics side to photography. I just want to see some good old fashioned pictures: Landscapes, street, industrial, life in general. The journey on how the photographer got there and what equipment He/She used are fine but in the end it is all about the picture.
Gustave Flaubert wrote to George Sand. "l'homme n'est rien, L'ouvre tout" . The man is nothing, the work all.
All the best.
@@AndrewKerr-i3o The Red Baron said, "Its not the crate, but the man flying it."
Too many points. Not enough focus. Three minutes in and it seems like this has more to do with film and integrity than image quality. A couple of thoughts:
The is no such thing as integrity in digital and there was never such a thing as integrity in film. That is a willful illusion. Film has always altered the true visual perception from the beginning. The world is not gray scale. Ansel Adams dodged graffiti off rocks in one of his images.
A painter paints the way he was an image to look. Photography is no different. Van Gogh never said this is a precise capture of what a starry night looks like. Do what you want to make the image you want. The only time integrity ls lost is when someone claims an image is documentary when it isn't. Otherwise, as photographers, we are no different from painters.
As for image quality, well, it is everything. It is where you have to start. How you alter it is up to you. But to start without it is a vapid as a Jackson Pollock or as fortunate as a happy accident.
Your analogy is terrible. Vincent said much about starry night, it's in his letters. He augmented that asylum window scene 21 times- or more. He told his brother that tiny blue, pink, yellow and red stars were not enough to depict the night sky. In that sole altered nocture, he incorporated Gauguin's provocation to create from abstraction. Aside from that, being visual art is all photography and painting have in common. The approach is completely different but the desired outcome is the same- create an apparatus that extends the body while also being extended by it.
@@flightographist You missed the point completely so it is not surprising that you think the analogy is terrible. The point is that Starry Night does not attempt to document the precise appearance of the night sky and there is likewise no imperative the a photograph does either.
And you are mistaken about the similarities of painting and photography. As mentioned, Ansel Adams altered the content of his photos essentially painting out details he did not wish to include. And given the available technology like adding a stock photo of sky to your landscape or AI elements the differences between painting and photography nearly disappear. And the point here is that no one tells the painter that he can't or shouldn't paint a scene or a person any way he chooses. Likewise, it is no one's business to tell a photographer that he can't represent the image any way he wants to. That's not my style but it is hardly my prerogative to tell someone else that using AI, stock backgrounds, dodging/burning or Photoshop alterations somehow lacks some made up notion of integrity.
@@bencompson You're wrong. Vincent himself said it was his interpretation of the starry night view from his room. It just wasn't the natural interpretation he preferred, he wen ton to say he would never do it again. Do you get it now?
@@flightographist I get that you just made my precise point for me; so thanks. It is not clear to my why you are agreeing with me but telling me I'm wrong.
Let's try again. Maybe the third time is a charm: You are correct when you say he _interpreted_ the night sky view. That is my WHOLE point. He was not trying to make it look like a literal copy of reality. (If he was, he failed miserably as it looks nothing like a real starry sky.) He was expressing himself in the way he distorted and interpreted reality. Just like Degas and so many others. And in so doing, the art is superior to most literal expressions. Photographers are as free to do the same thing as painters are. So now I've said it three times for you. I'm not sure I can make it any simpler for you.
@@bencompson No, you don't get it. He refused the notion you endorse, even if you still claim otherwise.
Aaah... I see. Are you sure it's Image Quality Derangement Syndrome, and not Thomas Heaton Derangement Syndrome?
Its not about Thomas Heaton, he's just a good example of a youtube high sub creator trying to navigate ethical issues in a commercial situation that requires you to sell your soul to play.
Digital is for fun
Film is forever 🌿