Photo quality question

[markc]

Yeah, that's true, and something I wasn't really thinking about. A really good point, Matt. A lot of money does end up being spend on the images after they are taken, which certainly has an impact. In the documentary I saw, the printer was projecting Natchwey's image onto a sheet of paper the size of a wall and using objects the size of hand-puppets to dodge and burn. This is for test prints!

However, Henri-Cartier Bresson had very little work done to his images when they were printed, from my understanding.

Now that you mention it, color balance and vibrancy is something that certainly stands out for me, and is probably the biggest part of what makes an image in National Geographic look different than a pro image in some other setting and what gives it that "polished" look. The people who do this kind of printing work are also really, really good at what they do.

It's hard to be master of all trades. When you combine a master photographer with a master printer (whether as two people or in one), and the money to be able to make use of the best materials, that's when you tend to get the greatest images. The skill still has to be there, though. Throwing money at the issue without it only gets you expensive mediocrity.

 

[TwistMyArm]

Oh, I know. These folks aren't gods or anything. But I think that there is a danger of people thinking that all it takes is enough money to be able to burn through a hundred rolls of film and then pick out the nice ones that you lucked-out with. It doesn't work that way. Sorry to go on about his; I know that isn't what you are trying to say, but it's something that goes hand in hand with the "better equipment = better pictures" idea. "Just shoot a bunch and you'll get something good." It is true that they shoot a lot, but if that's all that's said about it, I think it ignores what they are really doing. Okay, I'm probably beating that to death.

I didn't mean to imply that it's all luck or anything close to that. I just ment to say that profesionals have to be patient with their photography some times too and not everything comes out they way they want it. Nachtwey is definately a talented individual who knows what he's doing. Not many people could do what he's doing.

Heh. Cool! Did you see the documentary on him? Pretty interesting stuff.

Ya, "War Photographer" is a great documentary. If anyone out there hasn't seen it yet then I suggest you check it out. http://www.war-photographer.com/

 

[markc]

I didn't mean to imply that it's all luck or anything close to that.

I knew you didn't. I think I've been exposed to enough of the "you must have a really nice camera" and "what a lucky shot" attitudes that I've developed a bit of paranoia concerning them.

 

[ksmattfish]

I didn't mean to imply that it's all luck or anything close to that.

I knew you didn't. I think I've been exposed to enough of the "you must have a really nice camera" and "what a lucky shot" attitudes that I've developed a bit of paranoia concerning them.

I once had an old high school buddy make a comment about my photos, "Gee... I guess if you shoot with BW film anyone can look like a professional."

 

[markc]

I once had an old high school buddy make a comment about my photos, "Gee... I guess if you shoot with BW film anyone can look like a professional."

:shock:

*smack!*