One of my favorite stops in Bishop, California.
http://enlightphoto.com/another-sad-passing-galen-rowell-closure-mountain-light
by boyblue » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:18 am
by mrchad9 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:39 pm
by Tom Kenney » Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:46 am
mrchad9 wrote:I've been pretty surprised when I've been in a gallery. The pictures look great in books or at a distance... but so many of the images blown up and framed look blurry and fuzzy. It is like he is taking 7 MP photos and blowing them up too big. Either needs a better camera, better processing, or something...
by lcarreau » Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:52 am
by boyblue » Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:36 am
mrchad9 wrote:I've been pretty surprised when I've been in a gallery. The pictures look great in books or at a distance... but so many of the images blown up and framed look blurry and fuzzy. It is like he is taking 7 MP photos and blowing them up too big. Either needs a better camera, better processing, or something...
by clmbr » Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:13 pm
boyblue wrote:mrchad9 wrote:I've been pretty surprised when I've been in a gallery. The pictures look great in books or at a distance... but so many of the images blown up and framed look blurry and fuzzy. It is like he is taking 7 MP photos and blowing them up too big. Either needs a better camera, better processing, or something...
Yeah, I suppose, Chad. But, I stilled admired his talent for composition and technique while taking into consideration the limitations of the technology at the time. I know I've personally been frustrated with using Kodachrome 25 for enlarged images and web viewing.
But, wait! I think I may have just been trolled by the great mrchad9 after all these years! Now, I'm a true member of Summitpost!
by mrchad9 » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:09 pm
by MCGusto » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:12 am
by ROL » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:32 am
Galen Rowell, however, used only 24x36 mm Kodachrome and later Fuji Velvia (excellent for landscapes) film to capture images and then his tiny slides were blown out to incredible sizes onto photographic paper. If the image is directly transferred from the slide onto photographic paper, there is not much control to manipulate it (that’s why he used tricks in the field). If, however, the image is scanned first (or digitized) on a highest quality drum scanner and then printed out, there is much control to enhance it but you still can only deal with the captured information.
For large printing photography at that time at least 6x6cm (middle-size) cameras were used or even so called large photography gear (e.g. Ansel Adams) to get more details, less grain and sharper lines, plus other optical characteristics.
Nowadays it looks like GoPro is the best choice camera for adventurers. Why...? Obviously we can see on YouTube why (as well as in this and other forums).
by clmbr » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:52 pm
Not sure how you interpreted my writing and what was your point but just in case here is a bit more detailed (although still very minimal) angle for more demanding audience. However, I doubt you did not understand.ROL wrote:. . .clmbr wrote:For large printing photography at that time at least 6x6cm (middle-size) cameras were used or even so called large photography gear (e.g. Ansel Adams) to get more details, less grain and sharper lines, plus other optical characteristics.
Medium Format = 4.5cm to 9 cm in film length. Not "so called large photography gear". Large Format = 4"x5" to 20"x24" film.
The different characteristics of various film were just features available to photographers who could make choices based on their perceptions and the final work purpose, for instance, portrait, architecture or landscape. Fuji Velvia was excellent for landscape photography to achieve vivid colors and contrast (and fine grain) which was important in large printing. However, everything is based on perception and preference. If you want to sale it, it’s the perception of your audience to buy it.ROL wrote:Fuji Velvia transparency was (is) also known as Velveeta among landscape photographers for its (cheesy) high saturation/contrast properties. Rowell preferred it because of his human eye – contrast theories as well as its fine grain. Sometimes the results speaks for itself, sometimes not.
by mrchad9 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:20 pm
by Marcsoltan » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:49 am
mrchad9 wrote:How many people who lament the gallery closing have actually bought a print from there?
by boyblue » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:42 am
mrchad9 wrote:You can download one of his thumbnails off the internet and blow it up to 40 inches and it will be the same quality and detail of what is hanging in that gallery... and a lot cheaper. That is why it is closing.
How many people who lament the gallery closing have actually bought a print from there?
by mrchad9 » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:01 pm
boyblue wrote:mrchad9 wrote:You can download one of his thumbnails off the internet and blow it up to 40 inches and it will be the same quality and detail of what is hanging in that gallery... and a lot cheaper. That is why it is closing.
How many people who lament the gallery closing have actually bought a print from there?
Never. But I still enjoyed visiting. I guess it's going to be Laws and various souvenir shops from now on.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests