PDA

View Full Version : Photographers or graphic artists?



Tim_Galyean
12-29-2008, 04:21 AM
It seems to me that photography has changed into being a graphic photoshop artists job more than what we used to be known as photograhers, anyone agree with that? It seems like I see lots of snapshots made into cool looking images with photoshop, which to me isn't being a real photographer compared to pre digital days. I know PS is a tool that we can use but it seem like it is used more than actual photography skills to create good images.

I just got this facebook message so that's why I was wondering how other people here felt about it. "hey i was wondering if you have a country theme for your senior pics because i like how you take your pictures and how you edit them not to much at all and you cant tell at all and i was wondering what your prices are?"

Todd_Reichman
12-29-2008, 04:48 AM
No.



Just kidding, Tim. Although you'll be surprised to find out that I don't agree with you. I don't think what we do could be considered graphic art at all. We might enhance a photo, but the photo is still the thing. While without doubt some folks are putting a dress on a pig with Photoshop I don't think that colors the entire industry. I believe pretty strongly in giving the best that I can do, and charging accordingly. For me, that means enhancing in Photoshop when appropriate. We do almost no airbrushing to people but we do pop levels and environments to suit. In the film days you had to do the darkroom work, and effective darkroom technique was just as important as the shooting. Now, just because we have more options on the back end I don't think its any less important.

What you should be complaining about isn't Photoshop its digital cameras. If the files straight out of camera looked good enough we wouldn't need PS, right?

:D

What do I know? An un-Shopped image has never left my studio or been seen by anyone but my wife and me, and that'll likely never change.

- trr

KirkDarling
12-29-2008, 11:31 AM
So what was it when a photographer shot a roll of Ektachrome, cross processed it, copied the result several times on a Honeywell Repronar, cross processed each of them, sandwiched them together slightly off register, copied that, sandwiched with another shot, copied that, and finally printed the result?

Salvador Dali both painted and made direct lithographs. Was he a painter or a lithographer?

Kathy_Malaspina
12-29-2008, 01:19 PM
Like that remark..."putting a dress on a pig in photoshop" LOL very funny, sad part..its true!:D

econopix
12-29-2008, 01:50 PM
This is the debate of this era. I've had this debate, sometimes arguments with a lot of my peers. The only common answer to this question is that there is no common answer to this question.

It really depends on what you believe to be "photography". You could categorize photography into traditional or modern methods, but what does that really do for anyone in the business? Regardless of how the image is produced, it's Art nonetheless.

The beauty and value of this art will be determined in the eyes of the person who acquires and appreciates it.

From a collector's standpoint, I'd see more value in Jerry Uelsmann's surreal images than someone who created a similar image using a digital camera and Photoshop, because, to me, it takes a near unattainable mastery of the darkroom to create an Uelsmann piece.

Just my thoughts on a great topic!

Tim_Galyean
12-29-2008, 02:25 PM
This is the debate of this era. I've had this debate, sometimes arguments with a lot of my peers. The only common answer to this question is that there is no common answer to this question.

It really depends on what you believe to be "photography". !


That's a really good answer. It's not what you really are, more of a photographer or more of a photoshop artist, it's what an individual believes that they are.

Mike_Brown
12-29-2008, 02:26 PM
It seems to me that photography has changed into being a graphic photoshop artists job more than what we used to be known as photograhers, anyone agree with that?

No

It seems like I see lots of snapshots made into cool looking images with photoshop, which to me isn't being a real photographer compared to pre digital days. I know PS is a tool that we can use but it seem like it is used more than actual photography skills to create good images.

There is no one on here that is selling "pre digital days" work.

I just got this facebook message so that's why I was wondering how other people here felt about it. "hey i was wondering if you have a country theme for your senior pics because i like how you take your pictures and how you edit them not to much at all and you cant tell at all and i was wondering what your prices are?"

Looking at that last sentence, maybe we should be more concerned about the changes in the usage of the language in than what we call our selves.

Tim_Galyean
12-29-2008, 02:38 PM
Looking at that last sentence, maybe we should be more concerned about the changes in the usage of the language in than what we call our selves.

The Facebook and teens have a language computer program that they type into and then it comes out like that, kind of artsy, creative type of use of the language. I think Adobe makes it. LOL

Don_Chick
12-29-2008, 02:47 PM
“The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work.”
~Emile Zola

So lets change this....

The artist is nothing, there is no gift..... it's the idiot-proof light recording device combined with a computer program to produce output.

Michael_Gan
12-29-2008, 03:31 PM
The moment we all start seeing our work as art and not a medium is when the world evolves.

econopix
12-29-2008, 03:33 PM
“The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work.”
~Emile Zola

So lets change this....

The artist is nothing, there is no gift..... it's the idiot-proof light recording device combined with a computer program to produce output.

By "idiot-proof", do you mean digital cameras?

Ron_Jackson
12-29-2008, 03:34 PM
They probably had a similar debate many years ago when acetate film came out that would replace metal and glass plates or medium and small format cameras replacing the bulky large format ones, or in the '40s regarding color film. These are just different times. We are in newer technology and just like all the technological changes before this, we should embrace it. I came from the film days and spent my share of time in the darkroom trying to get the perfect results. I now do the same thing but in the comfort of a chair with no acetic acid odor wafting through my nostrils.

Tim_Galyean
12-29-2008, 03:37 PM
“The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work.”
~Emile Zola

So lets change this....

The artist is nothing, there is no gift..... it's the idiot-proof light recording device combined with a computer program to produce output.

That's some good stuff there Don.

Michael_Gan
12-29-2008, 03:38 PM
I don't have to rely on an enhancement lab artist anymore to do what I interpret.

Tim_Galyean
12-29-2008, 03:44 PM
I don't have to rely on an enhancement lab artist anymore to do what I interpret.

Michael, on a regualar family portrait session you do how much would the final print that goes on their wall be split up? Like 80% photography and 20% post work to accomplish the final work, or is that way off.

Linda_Gregory
12-29-2008, 03:46 PM
So we now do with photoshop what photographers for years did in either the darkroom or on the prints after they were developed.

I have worked in a lab long enough to have seen what the art dept did with both the negatives and the print before sending it to the photographer.

All studio photographers had their special crayons and dyes to fill in and change things and I've heard of several, who when out of a certain product, resorted to shoe polish.

I have NO IDEA how that held up through the ages but it's a true story.

Go back to Ansel Adams as we have each time this conversation comes up. He would not have had the reputation he does if he had not manipulated his film and prints.

KirkDarling
12-29-2008, 04:15 PM
Michael, on a regualar family portrait session you do how much would the final print that goes on their wall be split up? Like 80% photography and 20% post work to accomplish the final work, or is that way off.

The problem I have with that statement is the artificial division between "photography" and "post work."

Linda brought up Ansel Adams, who said, paraphrasing, the negative is the score, the print is the performance. Pick up a sheet of "music." Is that piece of paper the music? Is that piece of paper what Mozart or Andrew Lloyd Webber actually conceived in their minds...dots and lines on paper?

Or is the music the pattern of melody and rhythm of vibrations in the air playing upon human eardrums into the human mind?

Ansel's comment tells us that he did not consider the negative--the product of the camera--to be his photography. His photography was the print, and it was by no means straight out of the camera.

The same is true of the portraits of Philip Stewart Charis.

So then, shall we determine that Adams and Charis are "graphic designers?" Okay, I'll be there with them. Not bad company.

But actually, I agree with Michael.

Tim_Galyean
12-29-2008, 04:28 PM
I guess I'm talking about the average Joe the photographer, not Ansel or Charis. The photographer that is avaiable to most of us if we needed one. If I need a lawn service I'm going to call the local guy, not the guy who does the football fields for the NFL. So pulling out legends of post photo work is not what I'm talking about. That is not the norm.

Linda, having worked in a lab for a long time how many % wise of the negatives that came through got lots of work compared to the negatives that just got blemish retouching and printed or not retouched at all, just printed. When I shot film none of my proofs ever got retouched, very few of my zillions of wedding prints got retouched, maybe 1/2 of my seniors got any retouching for zits, not fixing clothes or backgrounds.

Stan_Lawrence
12-29-2008, 04:34 PM
"Pick up a sheet of "music." Is that piece of paper the music? Is that piece of paper what Mozart or Andrew Lloyd Webber actually conceived in their minds...dots and lines on paper?"

Great analogy....all music, even classical, requires the artist's interpretation. Dynamics, accents, all create the final performance. What we do is very similar, we take the file and create the performance. I guess some of us improvise more than others.....;)

Linda_Gregory
12-29-2008, 04:49 PM
Linda, having worked in a lab for a long time how many % wise of the negatives that came through got lots of work compared to the negatives that just got blemish retouching and printed or not retouched at all, just printed. When I shot film none of my proofs ever got retouched, very few of my zillions of wedding prints got retouched, maybe 1/2 of my seniors got any retouching for zits, not fixing clothes or backgrounds.


We had some customers who's every image was perfection when it left, others who always had zits removed, skin smoothed, etc and would sometimes need extra services and yet others who had nothing done. They seemed to be the volume photographers who zipped 'em in and zipped 'em out but honestly, the majority had something done.

Todd_Reichman
12-29-2008, 05:01 PM
I guess I'm talking about the average Joe the photographer, not Ansel or Charis. The photographer that is avaiable to most of us if we needed one. If I need a lawn service I'm going to call the local guy, not the guy who does the football fields for the NFL. So pulling out legends of post photo work is not what I'm talking about. That is not the norm.


Why not? Really is there that big of a difference between the named folks and the rest of us rabble? I'm not putting them down, but because they have some (perhaps very well deserved) hype it shouldn't make them any different than the rest of us. Why should the rest of us aim lower? Why is it OK for them to take pride in perfecting their work but the rest of us should settle sooner?

I've said it before but my feeling is that as good as cameras get (and the 5d2 is pretty sweet :D) they still don't produce a good enough image to hand to a client from my perspective. I don't really fear the uncle Bob argument, but if we shouldn't be doing much work on our images, if we shouldn't be taking every effort to perfect them then we've just pitched out another point of professional difference. Heck, nowadays there are outsourcing options for digital work so you can almost go back to the film workflow if you don't want to do the post work yourself. But the post work has always been a factor in our industry.

- trr

Linda_Gregory
12-29-2008, 05:09 PM
Todd,

Prolabs have always offered the same services with digital that they offered with film. Photographers took over their own retouching because they wanted more control and to save money. Many also decided to print their own.

There've always been those who only want to be photographers and send out their work although for the last 5 years, most seminars are intimating they must do their own artwork. I still do basics for many photographers and at their direction, create comp prints. They know what they want but don't do it themselves for a variety of reasons.

So, the option has always been there, you're just now discovering them!

Ron_Jackson
12-29-2008, 05:14 PM
You do know that Ansel and Charis both spent inordinate amounts of time perfecting their images in post. This is part of their legacy and why they acheived the recognition they have today.

Todd_Reichman
12-29-2008, 05:26 PM
With regards to the original post this was clearly spurred by a prospect who was able to speak about what she likes or doesn't like about photo finishing. The fact that a layperson can recognize the distinction between in-camera work and post-work seems to indicate that its a skill none of us can afford to ignore.

- trr

Linda_Gregory
12-29-2008, 05:36 PM
I have seen some of what the hobbyist and beginner photographers do in photoshop and some of it is pretty garish. They bring it in here, proud as can be for me to print. I have NO IDEA what this mother saw but so many throw a filter on and say it's great and then try to sell it.

We can't tell from that post whether the lady is talking about outlandish or reserved photoshop skills.

Check out myspace and see what kids are doing to their images, she may have been thinking of those type overdone images and YES, they are prevalent in the younger generation's offerings as they haven't taken anything but hs photoshop classes to know HOW to do it tastefully.

econopix
12-29-2008, 05:37 PM
Would be interested in your answer to this question:

Consider a photographer who's never shot film and strip this person of both his/her digital camera and computer. Ask him/her to recreate the last 10 images from their own portfolio using only film, a manual camera, a light meter, and the chemical process for development.

If he/she is unable to come close to their own digital work, would you still consider this person a "photographer"?

Michael_Gan
12-29-2008, 05:38 PM
I guess I'm talking about the average Joe the photographer, not Ansel or Charis. Good God man! Have a little pride in your work. To suggest that your everyday work is hack photography is something you put on your own efforts. ;)

Linda_Gregory
12-29-2008, 05:42 PM
an example--overdone, yes but still thought to be great and yes, I have the copyright, it's my image, overdone by the subject.

Michael_Gan
12-29-2008, 05:44 PM
Would be interested in your answer to this question:

Consider a photographer who's never shot film and strip this person of both his/her digital camera and computer. Ask him/her to recreate the last 10 images from their own portfolio using only film, a manual camera, a light meter, and the chemical process for development.

If he/she is unable to come close to their own digital work, would you still consider this person a "photographer"?Again, I'm not getting why this matters? Why do we need to copy our work for exact duplication, instead of using the media we have for artistic interpretation? Film is a medium. Digital is a medium. The work itself from the maker is the art.

Linda_Gregory
12-29-2008, 05:46 PM
Would be interested in your answer to this question:

Consider a photographer who's never shot film and strip this person of both his/her digital camera and computer. Ask him/her to recreate the last 10 images from their own portfolio using only film, a manual camera, a light meter, and the chemical process for development.

If he/she is unable to come close to their own digital work, would you still consider this person a "photographer"?

May they still be able to use the tools I used when putting film through my camera? May they use retouch oils on the neg, special paints and oils on the finished print as we did in film-only days?

econopix
12-29-2008, 06:14 PM
Again, I'm not getting why this matters? Why do we need to copy our work for exact duplication, instead of using the media we have for artistic interpretation? Film is a medium. Digital is a medium. The work itself from the maker is the art.

I agree with you. Art is art. However, I think how it's made is deserves a classification out of respect for the skill it took to produce it, either way.

One person can create an amazing piece of art using only light, time and chemicals. Another can create the same visual effect using pixels. Both require some mastery, I just consider them wholly different skill sets that deserve their own names. To me, classifying them both "photography" somehow diminishes the value of both skills.

Todd_Reichman
12-29-2008, 06:23 PM
One person can create an amazing piece of art using only light, time and chemicals. Another can create the same visual effect using pixels. Both require some mastery, I just consider them wholly different skill sets that deserve their own names. To me, classifying them both "photography" somehow diminishes the value of both skills.

I can agree with the idea of journeys and destinations, but ultimately is a photographer someone who pushes buttons on a camera, someone who mixes chemicals, or someone who creates photographs? I like what I do, but I don't think the fact that I create it digitally means much at all - I care about the final product.

- trr

Don_Chick
12-29-2008, 06:26 PM
By "idiot-proof", do you mean digital cameras?

It depends on which "era" you were born in.... (could be either a view camera or a digital camera)

About a hundred years ago, Nadar said..

“Photography is a marvelous discovery, a science that has attracts the greatest intellects, an art that excites the most astute minds
- and one that can be practiced by any imbecile.
… Photographic theory can be taught in an hour, the basic technique in a day. “But what cannot be taught is the feeling for light… It is how light lies on the face that you as artist must capture.

curtis777
12-29-2008, 06:30 PM
Is it Photoshop? Is it Photography? It depends. Take a look at the industry leaders in wedding photography. Mike Colon (http://mikecolon.com/), Becker (http://www.thebecker.com/), Mike Myer (http://www.mikemeyerphotography.com), these individuals have a very non-photoshopped look. Very natural. however, each and every image has been retouched. Ironically, the goal is to look as though the photo was perfect in the camera, without the use of photoshop.

Curtis

Mike_Brown
12-29-2008, 06:48 PM
Would be interested in your answer to this question:

Consider a photographer who's never shot film and strip this person of both his/her digital camera and computer. Ask him/her to recreate the last 10 images from their own portfolio using only film, a manual camera, a light meter, and the chemical process for development.

If he/she is unable to come close to their own digital work, would you still consider this person a "photographer"?


Times change but names tend to linger a bit longer.

My Grandfather was a driver. He drove teams of horses pulling a wagon, most of the time it was a 2 horse power vehicle, sometimes a 4.

I consider myself to be a driver also. I can turn the key and away I go with over 100 horse power. However I know that I would have a real problem getting my grandfathers 2 horse power wagon "turned on" and ready to go off down the street.

Guess that I am not as good a driver as my grandfather.

Tim_Galyean
12-29-2008, 07:03 PM
Is it Photoshop? Is it Photography? It depends. Take a look at the industry leaders in wedding photography. Mike Colon (http://mikecolon.com/), Becker (http://www.thebecker.com/), Mike Myer (http://www.mikemeyerphotography.com), these individuals have a very non-photoshopped look. Very natural. however, each and every image has been retouched. Ironically, the goal is to look as though the photo was perfect in the camera, without the use of photoshop.

Curtis

That's where the girl is coming from in the first post.

Tim_Galyean
12-29-2008, 07:22 PM
Good God man! Have a little pride in your work. To suggest that your everyday work is hack photography is something you put on your own efforts. ;)

I don't think it has to do with pride, it's about providing a service to a targeted market. You might only see $3500 sales but I see $500 ones, when your client and mine view their portraits on their walls I think they are both equally happy. Now in order to do the $500 ones profitably I can't spend the time creating a print that you do so I try to get things right when I take the pictures vs spending time(money) fixing it up later. If I charged $3500 then many people that can afford me now wouldn't be able to afford my work, even if I delivered it in a gold frame and hung it on their wall. :)

Todd_Reichman
12-29-2008, 07:48 PM
I don't think it has to do with pride, it's about providing a service to a targeted market. You might only see $3500 sales but I see $500 ones, when your client and mine view their portraits on their walls I think they are both equally happy. Now in order to do the $500 ones profitably I can't spend the time creating a print that you do so I try to get things right when I take the pictures vs spending time(money) fixing it up later. If I charged $3500 then many people that can afford me now wouldn't be able to afford my work, even if I delivered it in a gold frame and hung it on their wall. :)

OK, now we're getting somewhere. It seems that you're perturbed by the fact that clients want a certain type of product (something digitally enhanced) but you can't sell it at the price you want. So why not offer a more enhanced product at a higher price and give your clients the option if that's what you perceive they want?

How do you know that people wouldn't be willing to afford more polished work?

Plus, I think many folks would take umbrage to the "get-it-right vs. fix-it-later" argument. Its been said before but since you bought it up I doubt Michael or many others on this forum don't get it darn near exact in the camera. I'd like to think I do more often than not. But perfect in the camera doesn't look as good as I want it.

I also think there is a crazy misconception about how long it has to take to enhance an image. Certainly some people can spend hours per image, but others can give it a little pop with a few minutes.

Bottom line is if someone is telling you they want a product then it seems reasonable to put a fair, profitable price on it and go from there. But clients wanting more than they can or will afford isn't an industry problem its a marketing problem.

- trr

KirkDarling
12-29-2008, 09:08 PM
an example--overdone, yes but still thought to be great and yes, I have the copyright, it's my image, overdone by the subject.

Linda, go back up to my post #3. Your work there looks very much like what I was doing in the late 70s with a Repronar, sandwiching cross-processed dupes slightly off register and then re-duping them.

Not saying your work isn't original, but that manipulations far from what the camera captured has been going on for a long time...but back then, nobody was saying, "That's not photography." Basically, if it started with a camera, it was photography.

KirkDarling
12-29-2008, 09:19 PM
Plus, I think many folks would take umbrage to the "get-it-right vs. fix-it-later" argument. Its been said before but since you bought it up I doubt Michael or many others on this forum don't get it darn near exact in the camera. I'd like to think I do more often than not. But perfect in the camera doesn't look as good as I want it.

It depends on the final vision and the limits of tools, as well. George Hurrell's negatives looked like garbage--'way too thin, 'way too contrasty, needing considerable retouching just to make them basically printable. He was constantly fighting his camera and film, both of which were 'way too slow.

Ansel's negatives--overexposed and under developed because he was also fighting the shortcomings of his tools--would have looked like garbage printed straight. But they contained all the data he wanted them to have that he could use as a pallet for the print.

Irene_Lucier
12-30-2008, 05:12 AM
Practically anyone can take a shot without a specific goal in mind and then play around in post process until they find something they like - little skill is involved.

For me, skill comes down to how whether or not the print is true to the image the photographer had in mind before the exposure was made. I couldn't care less that one tool or another was used, as long as the artistic intent was realized.

KirkDarling
03-13-2009, 10:45 PM
Practically anyone can take a shot without a specific goal in mind and then play around in post process until they find something they like - little skill is involved.

Well, Michael pointed us to this old thread, and now I'll have to respond to the last post on it.

I disagree with the quoted comment. Why do I disagree? Because I can look at the results of any of my own sessions and find some frames that belie that statement.

Even when I started with a specific goal in mind (and I always start a session with a specific goal in mind), there will be at least a couple of frames that won't make a decent picture no matter how much I play around with them in post processing.

Michael_Gan
03-14-2009, 02:02 AM
Ha! Fighting for the last word...

Not sure why this thread is in the business/legal section. Consider this moved to a proper place starting right...now... <poof>

Linda_Gregory
03-14-2009, 07:33 PM
Linda, go back up to my post #3. Your work there looks very much like what I was doing in the late 70s with a Repronar, sandwiching cross-processed dupes slightly off register and then re-duping them.

Not saying your work isn't original, but that manipulations far from what the camera captured has been going on for a long time...but back then, nobody was saying, "That's not photography." Basically, if it started with a camera, it was photography.


Oh my, old thread but Kirk, I hadn't read this. That's not MY work. That's an image of my daughter who thought she'd get creative. I don't care for it.

Kevin_E._Newsome
03-15-2009, 02:54 AM
The corner has been turned. Photography as we knew it 10 years ago is long gone. Our industry has experience an irreversable evolution. Cameras are now computers with a lens attached and the most used piece of equipment in our camera bag is Photoshop.

With that being said, the basic elements of a good quality image remain the same as they ever were. The only difference is that new tools are now available to improve upon that image.

As a full time pro for 30 years I appreciate a great photograph that still looks like a photograph. I also enjoy the newfound power I have to take that photograph to a new level of art.

I believe that the mark of a true 'artist of the lens' these days is the one who not only creates the original image but handles all of the post production Photoshopping on their own. That, without question, give license to the maker to submit that image into competition as representative of his or her personal work.

There was a time when submitting a color photograph was considered an unfair advantage over black and white and they were judged separately. Now it's no big deal. The day will come when images that have been Lucis'd, Paintered, and Photoshopped will be looked upon as just another image too.

Peter_Bauer
04-08-2009, 05:02 AM
Photoshop is generally used to help the maker produce a print that either replicates the "reality" he/she saw or to replicate the "concept" that he/she envisioned in the scene being captured. However, we've recently been inundated with special effects, such as those created with the Lucis Art plug-in, that stylize the original capture in ways that neither represent reality nor enhance the concept envisioned during capture. Perhaps it's these images to which Tim is posting an objection?

But to think that Ansel Adams or Paul Caponigro simply walked into the darkroom and produced a print straight from the negative as-captured would show an ignorance of the history of photography and, quite frankly, show disrespect for the other half of photography -- actually producing the print that sells and hangs. The icons for Photoshop's Dodge and Burn tools weren't created in a caffeine-induced haze by some crazed computer engineer! And let's not forget the concept of cropping -- not something that originated in the digital age.

Many of the most respected photographers working today have one or more individuals who digitally re-create their images. (Last year, I believe, "The New Yorker" had an article about Anne Liebowitz's primary retoucher. Even I was surprised at how much some of her images change from capture to print.)

Let me return (briefly) to my first sentence, in which I used the word "generally." There certainly are exceptions, and some of them attract great attention, especially on the Internet. (Huge shark leaping out of the water to eat commandos on a rope ladder???) But countless images pass through Photoshop on a daily basis, worldwide, with enhancements designed to help the viewer see what the photographer saw at the time of capture. No magic, no bells and whistles, just maximization of the captured image.

Pete

KirkDarling
04-08-2009, 11:31 AM
However, we've recently been inundated with special effects, such as those created with the Lucis Art plug-in, that stylize the original capture in ways that neither represent reality nor enhance the concept envisioned during capture. Perhaps it's these images to which Tim is posting an objection?

OTOH (or, really, on the same hand), I'm sitting here looking at the June 1971 issue of "Camera 35" magazine in which there is an article about using a Honeywell Repronar and all kinds of cross processing techniques to create sandwiched duplicates and make psychedelic (anyone remember that word) images that veer farther from reality than any Lucis Art effect and was certainly not what had been envisioned when the images were first captured.

That same issue has another article about far-from-reality image toning (one image as orange as Sunny D).

Yet, nobody wrote to the editors to complain, "That's not photography, that's graphic art!"

Back in those days, if it started in a camera, it was a photograph.

(As an interesting aside, this issue of "Camera 35" also has a book review: "Procedures for Processing and Storing Black and White Photographs for Maximum Possible Permanence" by Henry Wilhelm.)

Michael_Gan
04-08-2009, 02:30 PM
BTW, did anyone catch last month's Rangefinder? Look at the works of a certain famous photographer's work in the 1970's!