istreetshooter

Joined on Dec 11, 2011

Comments

Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
In reply to:

In the Raw: Youngsters, hurrumf. Since when was 35mm film the dominant format in the film era?
The statement is meaningless. Before the Box Brownie, most photographers used large format plates, wet and later dry (ignoring Daguerreotypes). Then, thanks to Kodak, most photographers were the general population, not professionals, who used medium format, until Kodak introduced the 28mm square 126 Instamatic cassette. 135 format film may have been used by many enthusiasts, from the invention of the Leica onwards, but photographers of my generation sure as hell didn't use it professionally, and neither did anyone else with any brains, if they could avoid it....especially for portraiture (try retouching anything smaller than 4*5 negatives).

"photographers of my generation sure as hell didn't use it professionally, and neither did anyone else with any brains, if they could avoid it....especially for portraiture"

You made a point but sort of overthrew it. The choice of film was often profession-specific. 35mm film was the dominant choice from the 1960s until the digital era for photojournalists, and certainly they had brains. The demands of the specific profession within photography is what pushed choosing film, as you stated with portraiture.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Kinda disturbing to see the meaning of "sexual harassment" watered down so much as to mean "a man offended a woman". This is very dangerous and in the long run, if common enough, will simply undo decades of progress modern societies made since the first feminist movements.

Here is UNL's policy: http://www.unl.edu/equity/employee-sexual-misconduct-procedures

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 03:28 UTC

It is a bit sad but should we be surprised? It seemed that Modern and Pop were too hesitant to critically examine what they tested. I'm thinking the amateurs who became pros migrated to PDN, News Photographer and others.

American Photo, in my memory, was more artsy and professional in the 80s. I dropped it when it felt like it was becoming a lad mag.

Thanks for the memories, Pop.

Throw in dpreview and the better personal sites, Modern and Pop didn't seem that relevant.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 02:35 UTC as 153rd comment
In reply to:

Sean65: Great to see they're using a Martin Parr shot for the promotion. The old boys of Magnum nearly choked on their sherry when Martin Parr was nominated to be a member due to 'the vulgarity and brashness of his high contract colour rubbish'. How times change.

I'm a Martin Parr fan, and I think he is winning over Magnum by showing how he makes money.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 20:55 UTC
On article Opinion: Enthusiast compacts have finally come of age (469 comments in total)

I don't understand why Nikon and some of these other camera makers don't put some mechanism to get dust off of sensors. Yes, these lenses are not interchangeable, but the zoom lens allows in dust.

Is there is an engineering reason, e.g., keeping camera small?

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2016 at 20:35 UTC as 86th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Roshni: Images of children should only be published with the consent of the care givers. Decent photographers and journalists need to pressure the governments of their countries to pass laws to make it that way. This protects the children and those people making a respectable living.

Is there a private-figure privilege in Australia? So, are there public figures who are children (for example, child actors), and the photographers would still need permission?

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2015 at 20:03 UTC
In reply to:

Roshni: Images of children should only be published with the consent of the care givers. Decent photographers and journalists need to pressure the governments of their countries to pass laws to make it that way. This protects the children and those people making a respectable living.

There is a difference between photojournalism and what these paparazzi are doing. So if you are photographing into a crowd with say 100 adults and 50 kids, you are going to ask all those adults?

At least in the USA and somewhat in England there is a divide of public and private space. When one enters a public space it becomes fair game, but that doesn't protect stalking and harassment.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2015 at 20:33 UTC
On article Sony launches support program for pro photographers (116 comments in total)
In reply to:

viking79: I have never understood "pro" support. Have spare gear.

viking79, pro support in the past has sometimes meant faster repairs, loaner gear, and emergency service at major events.

I used to be a member of Nikon's service, but it was been a long time ago. If I recall correctly, it used to be more important that a person actually made a living from photography than which cameras the person owned.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 19:57 UTC
On article Nikon 1 V3 Review (651 comments in total)

This is really making me think of selling my V1 and gear, because I have little confidence in Nikon growing the system that I will satisfy me. I bought into the V1 with the hope that Nikon would ramp up the entire system, which it hasn't.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 00:35 UTC as 155th comment

Some of you may be more interested in Alex Webb and Rebecca Norris Webb's view on Rochester. http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/in-kodak-alex-webb-rochester-rebecca-norris-webb-photos-memory

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2014 at 16:28 UTC as 7th comment

There were two things that bothered me about the project. One, Rochester isn't even located correctly in the running story: "the city of Rochester - also known as Kodak City - in northeastern New York State". This will probably get changed later in the story, but Rochester is in Western New York, something residents tend to be proud of. Its location is connected to its sense of identity.

Also, Rochester's problems are deeper than Kodak. Yes, it was a major manufacturer in the area. But Rochester has had additional problems. Years ago it was the headquarters of Gannett media, until it moved in 1986. Xerox moved out in 1969. A handful of companies moved to the suburbs. I wish there was a deeper understanding of the greater Rochester area, however. Those former Kodak employees weren't living only in Rochester--they also lived in suburbs and even more distant rural areas.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2014 at 02:03 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11