Thank you for hanging in there, Marc. I think this is quite worthwhile, and is becoming quite an engaging, thoughtful and productive dialogue. I appreciate us both for not giving up, for trying to figure out what the other is saying, and for trying to communicate our own experiences well. I'm not surprised that it's taking a series of back and forth explorations for us to clearly see each other's point of view - since we're strangers, this makes sense. Again, I want to smile in salute to our positive energies. ;-)
--
marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... No, I'm not familiar with Minolta photography. A good picture could be take with a Nikon, Minolta or any number of good cameras. Even with less good ones, in some cases..."
Peter Blaise responds: I hope you someday discover a connection between your own mind and that of the the designers and craftspeople who invent and build the products that provide you with the photographic services you use and depend upon. You don't have to, but I find it enjoyable, empowering, and fostering of equivalent consideration between them and myself.
But that's just me!
--
marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... Went to a photography exhibition today. Nobody gave a fig what cameras were used to take the pics..."
Peter Blaise responds: You mean nobody noted what gear was used.
But they do that for other fine art forms ... like a painting exhibit or other "museum" show, people do care intensely about the technical origins of a piece of art, oils or acrylics or lithography or photography or carved sculpture or watercolor and so on. In other words, people care as much as they know about, and as much as they can care about, about the why of the art they enjoy, and how it got to be that way.
Once I learned about painting with a spatula, I appreciated different kinds of painting presentations all the more.
Once I learned about different kinds of toning, I enjoyed photography exhibits all the more.
And so on.
"If the picture matters, the camera matters" ... well, I'm more interested in the technology of the image origins, and perhaps who made the specific tools, not the camera brand per se as a brand name, as much as the details of the artist's camera system elements and how they work together to support the artist's vision.
For instance, I absolutely care that Annie Leibowitz apparently used a too small image source or an inadequate enlargement routine to present her Women exhibition here at the Corcoran Museum/School of Art in Washington, DC, USA. For me, they were only "clear" and "well defined" when standing w-a-y back, and I might as well have been looking at 10 x 15 inch prints at arms length.
I am very very interested in the techniques and technology behind art, as well as I am interested in the art itself even without reference to it's origins.
Both fascinate me.
Neither is dispensable for me. But that's just me!
(And not all photographic art is "fine art" or "academic art" or "museum/gallery art" - what about the "technical arts" and "communication arts" and "humor" and "commerce" and so on?)
--
Peter Blaise wrote: "... Many stories abound of people coming back to film after reawakening and whetting their appetite [for photography] via a digital camera..."
marc venton (Travis) responded: "... I will not be going back to the darkroom, not if I can achieve the same results with digital..."
Peter Blaise responds: I may not go back to the darkroom either, for a while. But, I still collect my original image sources via film, and convert them to digital afterwards.
There's also a neat photography course next door (college behind me) where they give each of 20 students a large format sheet film rail camera for the semester - EACH! THAT may get me back into the darkroom!
(And one would hope that in the darkroom OR in the computer, we would do more, much more than merely "... achieve the same results ...", eh?)
Peter Blaise wrote: "... I love the thought that I can revisit my negatives over and over with each new generation of scanner AND chemical darkroom and discover a whole new world..."
marc venton (Travis) responded: "... Indeed. Shame is that printing paper will go the way of vinyl. But most people I know who have gone to digital love it, and don't want to go back..."
Peter Blaise responds: Yet.
Regardless of image collection source, the printing target may be the same - inkjet on paper, or "chemical" on paper, like Fuji Crystal Archive - both are terrific output resources regardless of a film or digital original image capture. As Pictography gear comes on the market used, I can see getting one or getting an old mini lab used instead of an inkjet printer, and use film and photo paper.
... and NEW vinyl may be scarce now, but I have a lifetime of vinyl and I'm happy! I have beta, too, but NOT 8 track! ;-)
And not just MY negatives, how about William Henry Fox Talbot's negatives - still good and usable today as they were in the 1800's!
Peter Blaise wrote: "... Digital can't do that..."
marc venton (Travis) responded: "... Digital offers much more in terms of working a photo than the wet process. It may not be able to duplicate all of the old processes just yet..."
Peter Blaise responds: Not more, just easier and faster.
But, forgive me for being imprecise - we were talking about a Minolta DSLR - digital capture versus film capture - NOT digital processing, which supports both digital capture AND film capture.
You and I are now talking about different things.
What I meant was "... original film image sources can be revisited, original digital image sources cannot ...", that is:
I can rescan my film at greatly enhanced qualities with each new scanner generation.
I cannot do that with a digital original.
Afterwards, of course both become digital when preparing a print in the computer.
I was talking about image sources. Fro me, Film and digital CAPTURE meet at the computer and are identical from there.
Digital CAPTURE can't do what film can do - be rescanned in 10 years at "better", and get more out of it!
That's what I meant.
--
Peter Blaise wrote: "... Also, I'm not into immediate commerce..."
marc venton (Travis) responded: "... Well, some of us make a living..."
Peter Blaise responds: I make a living, too, just not with Photography, yet.
I think you are grousing that your professional photography customer billing still leaves you with unexpensed gear costs that you would prefer not to have on your financial books, or that your gear is worth more on your financial books than it is worth on the wholesale used market. We all make business decisions based on the best information at hand, and when subsequent situations change, we must revisit our decisions and pay the price. You want Minolta to shield you from that (not their job), and you believe Canon and Nikon and Fuji and Kodak and Contax and even Pentax beat Minolta in doing that, digitally. You're right. This is not news.
Yet, were you an original purcha$er of the Minolta RD175 Digital SLR or the Minolta RD3000 Digital SLR (which, by the way, can use Minolta A mount lenses with a Minolta brand lens adapter, sadly a rather rare adapter, but that means that ALL 4 Minolta DSLRs so far have been able to shoot through Minolta A mount lenses and, with another adapter, SR/MC/MD lenses, also, though at 1.1x-2x teleconverter effect on top of the already smaller digital capture image ... the RD175 goes occasionally for ~US$400 used and has a 2x narrowing/cropping of the field of view)? Then you would REALLY be grousing about the inordinate expense that you could not pay off with near term customer billing. You can't have it both ways. Either buy the Minolta RD175 when it came out (too late), or don't complain when Minolta waits for the market to mature with Canon customers dumping their last year's DSLR for this year's DSLR and so on - ~$1,000 per year final cost (not that ANY digital investment is ever final!).
The computer industry marches on at an 18 month half life. Minolta customers are used to a 20 year half life. Sony, Olympus, Canon and Nikon have marched into that arena and, I believe, successfully introduced that concept to new and old photographic customers alike.
Minolta and Pentax customer's got spared.
Sigma has no customers. What was Foveon thinking? Well, Foveon/Intel never heard of the photo industry, so Sigma's 1,000 lens models probably wow'd them! (Actually, Intel looks down on any industry that is not Intel! Snooty!)
---
Peter Blaise wrote: "... How many years have some of us gone without thinking of BATTERIES? ..."
marc venton (Travis) responded: "... How many people use a camera that will trip the shutter manually? Anybody? ..."
Peter Blaise responds: My Minolta A-series camera and my Minolta SR-T-series camera are completely capable of manual operation.
And my Minolta HiMatic-series cameras, and my Minolta X-series cameras, and even my Minolta AF-series cameras with their auto film winding seem to last for more than a year or two on only one set of batteries!
I have had customer's digital cameras crap out after only one session of taking and downloading a group of images. Ouch! Hot in my hand, too!
--
Peter Blaise wrote: "... Digital can't beat the low entry price and sensitivity and instantness (is that a word? it is now!) of film and shutter. Buy an Ilford black and white single use camera, get twin prints and a CD, then try to duplicate that experience and results digitally and compare prices and turnaround time, oh, and image qualities! ;-) ..."
marc venton (Travis) responded: "... Perhaps you should improve your photoshop skills
..."
Peter Blaise responds: Nyuck, nyuck - so you DO get the Three Stooges over there, eh?
Let's try the comparison ...
FILM:
Ilford or Fuji or Kodak or Konica single use camera- ~US$10
Shutter release - instant
Lighting - available light, low to high, (though some have supplemental flash)
Processing, twin 4x6" prints + 1536x1024 (4.5mb) CD 85% JPG - 1 hour, ~US$25
FILM Total for twin 4x6" prints and CD,
... 1 hour ~US$35
DIGITAL:
4.5mb digital camera - ~US$235 at LEAST (+ rechargeable or disposable batteries) and a memory card to hold 36 full size 85% JPG images,
Shutter release - delay
Lighting - bright light only, or with flash
Processing, twin 4x6" prints + CD, ~1 hour, ~US$25
UNLESS you want to try to do it yourself, then the time goes WAY up and the cost probably does, too, for processing the images, buying and feeding the paper, buying and burning the CD, buying and setting up the computer ~US$296 at least, and a printer ~US$63 at least, and what competitive qualities will a ~US$63 printer deliver(?!?), hope the default ink holds out for 72 4x6" prints, or add ~US$35 more in ink at least, plus Photoshop - ~US$20 to ~US800 depending on the version, bootleg, plus 72 sheets of 4x6" photo paper ~US$16, and so on (HIDDEN EXPENSES, EH?),
DIGITAL Total for twin 4x6" prints and CD,
... 1 hour ~US$260
... to ...
... as long as your slow printer takes and ~US$610
... or more, especially if you want a nicer printer.
Winner?
FILM!
Peter Blaise wrote: "... get my point? ..."
Get my point NOW?
You can reconfigure this comparison for other criteria, and I know there are many situations where digital capture wins over film capture. This ex&le is just for the cost in time and money to get twin 4 x 6 inch prints and a CD.
Oh, and the film can be rescanned in 10 years at higher qualities, and the digital camera's images cannot.
Funny how a simple film point and shoot camera, even a single use film camera can collect more information faster than the least expensive digital camera by an order of magnitude, eh? Film can do with ~US$35 what digital requires ~US$260 to do, or if you're willing to invest more time and more money, ~$610 or more might be able to provide the same or better (or worse) output, digitally!
But, I'll bet you wouldn't get caught dead with an under ~US$100 Minolta point and shoot or vintage used Minolta camera system in your hands, eh? (That new-in-the-box Minolta AF 24mm lens with camera is up to ~US$21 to ~US$25 now, only a few left! Any takers?)
Some people can't take a satisfactory image with what they think is a substandard camera.
But, as YOU say:
It's not the camera, it's the photographer!
;-)
--
marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... I look at all kinds of photography. I have done all kinds, and I see the liberation that comes with digital. Also don't have to spend time with selenium toner, which is very toxic..."
Peter Blaise responds: "... Let me modify your statement - not the "liberation" but the "control" that comes with digital, since you are tied to a computer and printer. You are depending upon far away programmers and designers, instead of depending on your interaction with the people at a local photo lab. Same same, liberation wise. But digital offers more in-house control, and as a result, perhaps a faster total turnaround time, in spite of the potentially inordinate additional hours of hands-on work, whereas you have no control over the backlog at a photo lab..."
marc venton (Travis) wrote: "... Will you be going back to the typewriter? Pidgeon [do they really spell it that way in England, or is that just someone's name, and you mean pigeon?] post? People always run these debates when a new technology comes. They then adapt..."
Peter Blaise responds: I AM digital ... just not in original image capture. See
http://www.petergblaisephotography.com for at least web images.
... and the computer is nothing BUT a typewriter. W-a-y back I used an IBM Composer magnetic card selectric typewriter that would store my typing, spell check, then justify lines on print out. The computer just has a screen. What's really new?
Peter Blaise wrote: "... Herbert Keppler (sorry about the misspelling) (Minolta Photographer and curmudgeon) ..."
marc venton (Travis) responded: "... Um..well couldn't find any pics, but [book] The Nikon Way: Including the Nikkormat. by: Herbert Keppler..."
Peter Blaise responds: And "The Pentax Way" too, and many others. But TODAY, try Popular Photography magazine, monthly, with millions of subscribers! Geesh!
"The Minolta Way", by the way, was written by Clyde Reynolds.
Peter Blaise wrote: "... William Eugene Smith (Minolta Photographer)..."
marc venton (Travis) responded: "... - yes. Good man..."
Peter Blaise responds: Minolta Photographer! He commented that the Minolta 16mm lens was the hardest lens for him to learn how to use well, but sticking with it and consulting with the Minds of Minolta while he was in Japan, he "cranked out" some splendid stuff with it. See his penultimate solo shot, his swan song (he no longer took pictures after this Minolta Photography project) sometimes called:
"Tomoko in her bath"
... see image ex&le at Minolta Photography web site:
http://www.geocities.com/minoltaphotographyw/williameugenesmith-1973-minamata.jpg
"Gear"?:
Minolta 16mm f/2.8 Lens, Minolta SR T 101 Camera
Image described at Minolta Photography web site at
http://www.geocities.com/minoltaphotographyw/williameugenesmith.html
"... William Eugene Smith took this photo, and together with the help of Aileen Mioko Sprauge Smith (his wife) and Ishikawa Takeshi, a local photographer, many other photos were taken of the effects of long term environmental industrial mercury poisoning on the local population. Here we see an image of an outwardly healthy mother bathing her fetal-poisoned 16 year old daughter, Tomoko Uemura, physically crippled since birth due to environmental industrial mercury poisoning in the local Minamata, Japan, water supply. This may well be the first environmental pollution photojournalism. Note also the invariable comparison to Michelangelo Buonarroti 's Pieta (see
http://sunsite.dk/cgfa/michelan/michel11.jpg for ex&le). ..."
--
Marc, I appreciate your sharing in this discourse (perhaps we can also get Steve involved in an extended participation someday?).
In dialoguing with you, I explored questions I might not have stumbled upon or addressed with the same vigor as I have with your prodding.
I don't want or expect better answers in my photographic journey - I'm looking for better questions.
Thank you!
--
Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise Monahon
Minolta Vivitar Tamron Fujifilm Ilford Kodak Adobe Hewlett Packard et cetera Photographer
peterblaise@yahoo.com
http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/
http://www.minoltaphotography.com/
