Irakly Shanidze

Irakly Shanidze

Lives in United States Grosse Pointe, United States
Works as a creative
Has a website at www.shanidze.com/en
Joined on May 21, 2004
About me:

I am a founder of International Academy of Photographic Arts that provides
online classes and live workshops in fine art photography ith an emphasis on creative approach and lateral thinking in the US, Canada, Western Europe and Russia.

Comments

Total: 104, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Ektachrome iconic? Hmmm... What am I missing? :)

As to this all film resurgence business, yes there is a trend, but I do not see it to be terribly long-lasting. At this point digital is better, easier, faster and, what is really important for professionals, cheaper. Anyone who used to burn through 100 rolls of 120 film per month knows what I am talking about.

Film will not die, yet I am not running to buy Kodak stock on the assumption that the company starts raking money by selling Ektachrome :)

Picturenaut: nobody prevents one shooting slow with a digital camera. It is all about self-discipline.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 04:20 UTC
In reply to:

Guido FORRIER: i still have a mf camera but will never use it again . no film anymore . developing film is bad for the environment . slide film has very low DR . digital 35 mm surpasses 35 mm film in resolution , dynamic range and color .
film is not for ever . maybe kodakchrome last longer than ekta , but the support and the emulsion degrade .
digital is simply digits and can be duplicated for ever without any loss . when a storage device is no more available :copy it to an new device/computer system .
film is already processed and you can not go back to the original : digital raw can be also processed in camera ( who knows) but you have always the "original " .
and so on ...(scratches , film not flat ...)
i used film and enveloped it all myself for more than 35 years , so i know something about the pitfalls .
i suppose younger people will buy it as they never used film and will find it "cool" to, go back to the artisanal way .

Guido

actually, slide film has very high dynamic range, but low photographic latitude. It is the low latitude that makes slides such a pain in the @ss to shoot, but the reward is the dynamic range of up to 4, while print film delivers something around 2.5

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 00:17 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: now, that's cool. in my opinion, every photography student has to go through at least 20 rolls of kodachrome

I would probably refrain from making students print from color positives as a part of a learning process, but in a nutshell you are correct.
There is no such thing as "film look" at this point, as the particular visual features of any film stock can be easily reproduced digitally. Pictures shot on film look different because they have (well, at least in theory :) ) more thought put in it.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 00:10 UTC

now, that's cool. in my opinion, every photography student has to go through at least 20 rolls of kodachrome

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 23:20 UTC as 86th comment | 13 replies

the video is justifiably over the top, but the song was just too much :)

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 23:18 UTC as 104th comment
In reply to:

The Davinator: Hilarious all the film haters spouting off about how their digital gear is "better." They seem to miss the point of why we use film....the different look. The comments are as nonsensical as someone talking about higher resolution of better noise from watercolor vs oils.

magento shot: it did work. From a user perspective, the most difficult part was power. Instead of a led pouch with film I used to carry about a pound of spare NiMH batteries, and all AC outlets in my office were busy charging. As to image quality, however, it did not seem to be falling behind except in some tricky situations where the camera could not figure out white balance on its own. Low ISO was not really a nuisance, as it was pretty much in line with what I was shooting: Agra RSX II 100, Fuji Provia 100F and Fuji Astia.
In the studio Contax N Digital rocked, and I sold it only after comparing it to Kodak DCS ProBack on my Contax 645. It was no contest, the file was 16 megapixels, and the sensor was 39x39mm

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 14:39 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: Hilarious all the film haters spouting off about how their digital gear is "better." They seem to miss the point of why we use film....the different look. The comments are as nonsensical as someone talking about higher resolution of better noise from watercolor vs oils.

a voice of reason: i tried to like G system so hard, but did not manage, went back to Leica. Lenses are outstanding, but AF totally killed it for me. Now I use a few ZM lenses, and they rock. Contax 645 I am going to shoot in about 20 minutes from now, but no film :)

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: Hilarious all the film haters spouting off about how their digital gear is "better." They seem to miss the point of why we use film....the different look. The comments are as nonsensical as someone talking about higher resolution of better noise from watercolor vs oils.

a voice of reason: You are too kind. I wrote that review.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 20:04 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: Hilarious all the film haters spouting off about how their digital gear is "better." They seem to miss the point of why we use film....the different look. The comments are as nonsensical as someone talking about higher resolution of better noise from watercolor vs oils.

a voice of reason: yes, it was close to the sun. just check the pictures. also, do not forget, it was 2003, and no other brand at that time managed to pull off a full-frame CCD camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 16:15 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: Hilarious all the film haters spouting off about how their digital gear is "better." They seem to miss the point of why we use film....the different look. The comments are as nonsensical as someone talking about higher resolution of better noise from watercolor vs oils.

Magento shot: yes of course:
http://www.shanidze.com/undisclosed/ContaxND

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: Hilarious all the film haters spouting off about how their digital gear is "better." They seem to miss the point of why we use film....the different look. The comments are as nonsensical as someone talking about higher resolution of better noise from watercolor vs oils.

a voice of reason: yes, the sensor was admittedly rather pitiful. Anything shot at ISO200 and above looked like a bad scan. However, it was not the only reason why the camera flopped. It was a perfect storm:
1. Bad design decisions (awful LCD and no RAW image preview for instance)
2. Ahead of its time with power source choice (AA NiMH cells at the time of the camera announcement were 1600mAh, which gave us whooping 50 shots per charge. 2500mAh cells that came out in three years when everybody gave up on the camera were good for about 300 shots)
3. Awful RAW processor, which literally butchered the files, and no Lightroom support. In fact, no Lightroom at all in 2003.

Last year, just for curiosity, I reprocessed some RAW files in Lightroom CC, and momentarily had something like the seller's remorse :) So, in my opinion, bad RAW converter was the main torpedo that sunk the camera and made Kyocera pull out of the camera business altogether.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 06:02 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Ektachrome iconic? Hmmm... What am I missing? :)

As to this all film resurgence business, yes there is a trend, but I do not see it to be terribly long-lasting. At this point digital is better, easier, faster and, what is really important for professionals, cheaper. Anyone who used to burn through 100 rolls of 120 film per month knows what I am talking about.

Film will not die, yet I am not running to buy Kodak stock on the assumption that the company starts raking money by selling Ektachrome :)

Really? As it appears, you read only what you like. Also, asking me to leave my own thread sounds kinda strange, don't you think? Taking into account a personal attack totally uncalled for, you may consider my still talking to you a favor.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Ektachrome iconic? Hmmm... What am I missing? :)

As to this all film resurgence business, yes there is a trend, but I do not see it to be terribly long-lasting. At this point digital is better, easier, faster and, what is really important for professionals, cheaper. Anyone who used to burn through 100 rolls of 120 film per month knows what I am talking about.

Film will not die, yet I am not running to buy Kodak stock on the assumption that the company starts raking money by selling Ektachrome :)

The Davinator: I am so sorry, I did not mean to scar your sensitive artistic soul. You can leave now.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 04:21 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Ektachrome iconic? Hmmm... What am I missing? :)

As to this all film resurgence business, yes there is a trend, but I do not see it to be terribly long-lasting. At this point digital is better, easier, faster and, what is really important for professionals, cheaper. Anyone who used to burn through 100 rolls of 120 film per month knows what I am talking about.

Film will not die, yet I am not running to buy Kodak stock on the assumption that the company starts raking money by selling Ektachrome :)

Steven Lungley: OMG, that takes me back :)

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 04:17 UTC
On article Hawks Factory announces new 35mm F2 in M-mount (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lord Lucan: Hey, You are missing the very point.
This is a nice soft focus lens and for that special feature,you have to cough up your pennies and cents.

hahahaha

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 04:12 UTC
On article Hawks Factory announces new 35mm F2 in M-mount (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Not an easy sell for $1800 considering the price of Leica Summarit 2.4/35 new, or even a Summicron 2/35 pre-asph used. Do not forget about Zeiss ZM 2/35, by the way...

indeed :)

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 14:32 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Ektachrome iconic? Hmmm... What am I missing? :)

As to this all film resurgence business, yes there is a trend, but I do not see it to be terribly long-lasting. At this point digital is better, easier, faster and, what is really important for professionals, cheaper. Anyone who used to burn through 100 rolls of 120 film per month knows what I am talking about.

Film will not die, yet I am not running to buy Kodak stock on the assumption that the company starts raking money by selling Ektachrome :)

So, your clients like film, not pictures? Well, good for you :))))
I am not even pretending to be in touch with the wedding market. I shoot ads and other commercial nonsense. My clients do not appreciate film, they prefer 100% conformance with technical briefs.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 14:29 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: Hilarious all the film haters spouting off about how their digital gear is "better." They seem to miss the point of why we use film....the different look. The comments are as nonsensical as someone talking about higher resolution of better noise from watercolor vs oils.

The Dvinator: I don't know... Maybe my standards are too low... All I do is shoot ads for living :)))
What you are describing sounds like you did not figure out how to use the camera. Certainly, it does not hold up to current standards, but back in 2003 it was state of the art equipment. It was the only digital camera capable of shooting at ISO25, which means f/1.4 with studio lights.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: Hilarious all the film haters spouting off about how their digital gear is "better." They seem to miss the point of why we use film....the different look. The comments are as nonsensical as someone talking about higher resolution of better noise from watercolor vs oils.

The Davinator: have you shot with Contax N Digital? :)))))))))
One of my best-selling prints of all times was shot with it, and it holds up to 24x36"

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 04:13 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Ektachrome iconic? Hmmm... What am I missing? :)

As to this all film resurgence business, yes there is a trend, but I do not see it to be terribly long-lasting. At this point digital is better, easier, faster and, what is really important for professionals, cheaper. Anyone who used to burn through 100 rolls of 120 film per month knows what I am talking about.

Film will not die, yet I am not running to buy Kodak stock on the assumption that the company starts raking money by selling Ektachrome :)

tom43:

I'd like to meet a wedding photographer who would successfully manage to charge more for using film. If I were to hire a shooter for my wedding, the only thing that I would be interested in is great pictures, and I could not care less what they will be taken with. Believe me, a film shooter will have way better chances to f@ck up, especially with slides. There is no margin of error. That is why, BTW, wedding photographers always used negative film, something like Portra 800 on medium format. Why medium format? Because prints from 35mm Portra 800 suck.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 04:10 UTC
Total: 104, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »