« 160 | Main | 162 »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lucky you, if you had bought a D3 or a D700 you would still be left with 12 Mp prints. Having a slightly better EV ratio though, but 12 Mp they would still be. And a Dutch photographer's pictures taken with a Praktika (proudly made by GDR manufacturers) and developed in his own urine as fixative are selling for 20.000 dollar's a piece. What youre comments ment was that the counterparts in your discussion where nothing more then technology and IQ snobs.....personally I go for PQ instead of IQ. And I just watched youre Superior after dark PDF and so do you.....I personally wouldn't care what camera you made these pictures with, and neither would I care about college professors and crap like that. You can't study talent especially when it comes natural as yours.....I might even suspect some of the blokes to be a little jealous. Your work reminds of the better pictures of Gregory Crewdson, there I've said it, only Crewdson in B&W......

I agree with you - the only digital camera you should ever need is a small one with a zoom lens 24-400mm.

The bulky DSLR cameras are "film" cameras adapted to digital - they don't need to house or advance film anymore, so why are they still so big?

The camera I want hasn't been invented yet - the cameras with a good zoom still have crappy sensors - I need more than 135mm.

Oh, the snobbery of the "art" world - very funny article.

You can't go around with a big camera anymore - here in Vegas security will stop you, not just in the casinos, but the street. You have to pose as a happy-go-lucky tourist.

Besides, I really don't like the sharpness of the Canon DSLR's - there is such a thing as too sharp.

I only came back to photography, because I think digital is superior - to hell with the darkroom and all the old expenses. This is different and fun.

Love your blog - super photographs.

"Crewdson in B&W" ... wow! Perhaps not surprisingly, I've always been intrigued by his work and many people have told me the scenes captured in my Superior photos look like they're movie sets (which they're not, although there have been a few movies filmed in and around Superior over the years, such as Oliver Stone's 1997 film U turn.)

In any event, Ed, thanks for the kind words about my photos. You've made my day! :-)

A fascinating story of ignorance and snobbery on the part of the people reviewing Jeffrey's wonderful images. But also an argument against DSLRs? I don't think so. For me, there is one truth - use the camera that gives you the most satisfaction, whatever the brand and whatever its size. As for me, I use two - a Panasonic LX5 that I carry with me Monday-Friday when I'm at work (it replaced a G9 that was just too big for that task) and a 5d Mark 2 for the weekends. The combination works for me and I am really happy that your combination works for you. Win-win :-)

Great blog, by the way, Gianni. I have just missed a meeting because I was engrossed in it!!!

I couldn't agree more with you.
I have never proclaimed a crusade against DSLR. My point is that it is not compulsory having one to do good photographs. We can use whatever our creativity needs to express itself, and nothing more (nor less).
By the way, I am enjoying the LX5 with the electronic viewfinder. It feels like a small scale Leica MD and delivers a stunning image quality. Great camera.
As for your missed meeting, please pay attention in the future: I couldn' bear the guilty feeling, if you get yourself fired because of my blog.

This comment is coming late to the game, but I hope it still has some value. Having not been at Jeffrey Goggin's side during the events he described, I can't quibble with his description of the facts. I can, however, disagree with his interpretation of them. For example, he says that gallery owners need to be able to tell an interesting story about the photographer's work and that a small camera such as the Panasonic GF-1 would ruin the story.

The idea that gallery owners need an interesting story could be either opinion or fact. For the sake of argument let's say it's a fact. His conclusion that small cameras ruin the story is not well supported by facts. I can't count the number of gallery exhibitions and books I've seen that feature photographers who use small format film cameras such as Leicas, Nikons, Canons, etc. Why should the GF-1 be any different?

And then there's the fact that Gianni himself has been quite successful at gallery sales despite his preference for mirrorless digicams. If anything, the relative novelty of his approach sets him apart from photographers who use larger cameras and makes for a better story.

Finally, there's the irony that Jeffrey's story itself is so interesting because so many of his reviewers were surprised by the quality of his images given the camera he was using. The trick to all of this is to tell your own story rather than let others tell it for you. As tempting as it is to believe that we need a bigger camera to be taken seriously, perhaps a better solution is to produce more wonderful and inspiring photographs with whatever camera we please.

Way later to this article, but thus coming with the *news* of later camera developments --e.g., GF1 =>GX1=>GX7 newly, OM-D E-M5, RX100--, is it fair to say that while there are continued measurable differences between such smaller-than-DSLR cameras as these and DSLRs and larger (MedFormat), that the output medium of prints, in usual, non-huge sizes, will NOT show the differences (so much)?!

One can think of how much effort (=cost) can be made to lighten a vehicle --bike or car-- only to achieve a small increase in performance; for a valuable race, the cost might be justified, but in general, it will be insignificant.

you make a point here.
My motorcycle's mechanic/tuner always says: "The first (less) kilo costs 10 euros, the second 30 euros, the third 100 euros and so on."
This is why I value compact cameras so much: they are the final result of a R&D painstakingly job, which DSLR are not, generally speaking.
On the other hand I totally agree whit you as far as the average output size of photography is concerned. Although being a large printer myself (up to 24x36 inch, or 60x90 cm) I don't see the point in being prepared to huge print sizes, unless one's assignment is to wrap a building facade.
Moreover, as of today I can't help considering that the final output of a photograph is rarely a print (unless an exhibition or a collector's sale is foreseen) and more often a computer screen, in the form of a website or -better- an e-book, or a printed book (Blurb and the likes), which makes owning a printer a pointless choice for many (most) of us.
And I own two of them!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Check out my books
Norway cover 170
Praising cover
BlackBlue cover
Square cover
Extralight cover
Sushi cover
Sabaudia cover

Newsletter by VerticalResponse