LL: Everything Matters - 2 Part Essay

[groovyone]

Another good read on Luminous Landscape from Mark Dubovoy:

Part 1: Everything Matters - It's All About The "Small Details"

Originally Posted by Dubovoy

This article will be the first in a two part essay. The first part addresses some very key issues regarding, as the title implies, the fact that everything matters in photography. There is simply no detail small enough to safely be ignored. All the small details matter and make a difference. The first part of the essay will concentrate on explaining why this is so. As part of the discussion, I will also address some personal philosophy and observations of what makes an image a compelling artistic statement.

Originally Posted by Dubovoy

I frankly get tired of people saying things like "I cannot tell the difference between a fine wine and a mediocre one", or "I cannot appreciate the difference between a fine audio system and an average one", or "My eyes are not good enough to see the difference between a medium format original and a smaller one"....

Except for people that suffer from a specific disease, all the above statements are pure unadulterated BS. In other words, everyone can tell the difference.

[ronocnikral]

this could easily be titled, "why you should own a medium format digital back."

Prints and screen images from larger format captures always look better, regardless of the size of the print or the screen image

Of course, there is probably some truth to this. Don't get caught up with comparing apples and oranges. sure, there are some amazing images made on crop sensors, but in the hands of the same photographer, superior equipment will yield superior images.

Thanks for sharing.

[wclavey]

I had mixed feelings about the first part of this article... perhaps he will be bringing it together in the second part.

It seemed to me that one of the clear messages of the top third or so was simply that better specs do not make a better picture... then the last third was about how a MF digital back has better specs than a 35mm sensor or crop sensor. While I enjoyed his illustration, I'm not really sure that anyone would debate that it has better specs and it is great that you can see it in a side by side comparison... but better specs do not make a better picture...

So maybe I missed it but it just seems that the message is not clear... and maybe he will pull it all together in chapter 2.

[groovyone]

I agree. He mentions looking at lenses beyond the spec, but he is very pro-MF vs 35mm. His writeups on MF gear are very well done though.

I like these articles from LL and Online Photographer though because they can get you thinking more.

[wclavey]

I have read LL for a long time... I think there is almost always a lot there to make you think...

[Abel]

moving to article vault

[groovyone]

Part 2: Everything Matters Part 2

Originally Posted by Dubovoy

I will never forget, when I met Ansel Adams in the early '80s to participate in a workshop with him. He invited me to his darkroom and his work room where he was trying to determine the specific crop of a 16x20 inch print. There were two versions of the print. The exact crop on 3 out of the 4 sides had been determined. The difference in the crop on the fourth side was approximately 1/16th of an inch between the two versions of the print. He told me he had been agonizing over this 16th of an inch for several weeks. The point here is that Ansel would agonize for weeks over 1/16th of an inch on a crop line. And this is not even the tip of the iceberg. Anyone who saw his notebooks, experienced is critiques, spent time in his darkroom or spent time shooting with him knows that each and every detail was excruciatingly important and had to be determined and controlled as precisely as the human brain and the tools of the time permitted.

Originally Posted by Dubovoy

The second stage for an artist is what I would call the "bloom" phase. Once the basics are reasonably well mastered, then the artist can start to bloom. Technique and basic skills no longer get in the way, so the artist can start focusing on subject matter, style and a personal approach to the medium. This obviously applies not just to photographers, but also to painters, musicians, dancers, etc.

[ronocnikral]

much better than the 1st essay, imo.

some tidbits I really enjoyed...

Speaking of the uncontrollable, we cannot control the weather. The image above was 8 years in the making. I was first shown this location in Zion National Park by Dick Garrod. I was immediately taken by the place, but it was the wrong time of day and the light was no good. I had to leave to return home in just a few minutes, so the image would have to wait. I decided at that point that this shot needed to be taken in the afternoon in the Fall. I returned to the same spot in Zion repeatedly over the next 6 years, but I was unable to find a day when the light was what I wanted, or the colors of the trees were what I thought the image needed.

There are many working parts to an image, and some we can't control. just b/c everything we can control is executed well, doesn't make it a good image. sometimes, it's not just in the cards....and hacks or the unknowing try to pass it off as a "good" image.

At a recent workshop, Michael Reichmann mentioned "The 10,000 hour rule". What this rule states is that to master the basics of most worthwhile human endeavors takes 10,000 hours (roughly 4-5 years of pretty much full time attention). The point he was making is that one cannot grab a camera, take a course or two, or read a few books and be a good photographer. To master the basics takes 10,000 hours.

I couldn't agree more. While I personally am still in the stage of "mastering the basics," it's amazing how much you figure out that you really do suck.

and the slightly off topic rant by the author...

If you have good color management and a properly calibrated display, your prints will look exactly like the image on your monitor.

First of all, this will never happen, unless you do Soft Proofing. But even with Soft Proofing there are some issues.

I know there are some here who think color management is simple plug & play, but it is non-objective subject. And the depth of field rant is good as well.

Thanks for sharing.

[groovyone]

I agree on this one being better than the first. The first did come off heavy on MF and general equipment, but this one is more useful to most I think.