|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 9/21/2008
|
Thanks a lot for the nice detailed comment, George!
Well, too much of the widespread beliefs about film are just that. Beliefs! They were created by an industry that of course wanted to boost digital and create a new hype. That's understandable - they don't produce things because they are the good samaritans or something. This should be clear, they are industries and as industries they have to make profits or... die out.
The less understandable thing is how easily the vast majority of "interested people" allows the own mind to be manipulated and blindly believes whatever some Mr Canon or Mr Nikon might say, instead of opening some (free available) books about physics, ey? ;-) If Mr. Canon tells me that the digital approach is better and if this is in the magazines, then it has to be the truth. ;-)
But physics doesn't change because some CEO says so. And simple clear physics say for example that film has the better resolution (in principle!) but also unfortunately the worse practical side. So, both things have their ups and downs and we don't need to be blind followers in order to get some good images. Companies are companies, that's good and nice. We are - or say, we *want* to be - photographers. Also nice.
I use film exclusively because I like its character, its kind of response, its idiosyncrasy. A matter of personal taste. I'd also use a good tube amp for my guitar rather than any kind of digitized "perfection" of solid state technology. It has the better "groove", the better "drive" for may ears, just as film has the better kind of "painting" with light for my eyes, in the sense of depicting something.
So, I don't see how either of the methods should be absolutely "the best". My allergy is only against the dogmatic statements like "if it's film it's no good" or also vice versa. That's a useless "war", isn't it?
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 9/19/2008
|
Thanks a lot again, Aziz!
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 9/19/2008
|
Hmmm, then I failed capturing what I wished, Vandi. I must try once more.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 9/19/2008
|
Thanks a lot, Dave!
Most of the time they lie straight there but in this case they decided to curve, which of course was a good opportunity.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 9/19/2008
|
Thanks a lot for the nice comment and the interpretation too, Indranil. I wasn't aware of any kind of possible story as I don't do that when I shoot, but I think I understand what you mean. For me it was just the shape and texture both of the weeds and the stones at the shore of the lake.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 9/19/2008
|
Many thanks Erland!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
George Marks
{K:15437} 9/19/2008
|
Very interesting. Excellent composition and tight focus. I like the way the old weathered rope wanders randomly through the photograph. Also, I am especially pleased that you produced this with film!!! Simply amazing. Anymore I only screen images made with film... like the website name... usefilm.
|
|
|
|
aZiZ aBc
{K:28345} 9/18/2008
|
The straw looks like a border between wet and dry zones, between sea and the shore , ... composition is good.
Health and happiness
Aziz
|
|
|
|
Vandy Neculae
{K:7990} 9/18/2008
|
The straw looks like a castaway sea snake.
Very good one.
Vandi
|
|
|
|
Dave Stacey
{K:150877} 9/18/2008
|
I like the composition, the way the weeds curve through the image, Nick.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Indranil Ray
{K:2035} 9/18/2008
|
Nice catch. A quick look, the photograph looks usual but if you go to the depth, it tells a story. I dont know am I right or wrong, just explaining my view. The straw looks like a border which helps to flurish the little stone chips. Like protecting them from the stronger stones.
Great shot.
Best Regards
Indranil
|
|
|
|
Erland Pillegaard
{K:34147} 9/18/2008
|
Great shot again
erland
|
|
0 
