The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikons Best is Back in Stock

Elderly

Well-known member
The most famous, the most iconic and the most copied photo ever,
Not being specific to that photo …

… but since when has fame/popularity/quantity meant quality?

And back to my original questioning of your implication that film is better than digital,
would David Yarrow have made better images with a film camera rather than his D5 (I've not watched the video yet)?
 
Last edited:

pegelli

Well-known member
Not being specific to that photo …

… but since when has fame/popularity/quantity meant quality?

And back to my original questioning of your implication that film is better than digital,
would David Yarrow have made better images with a film camera rather than his D5 (I've not watched the video yet)?
To answer your first question In my opinion terms like "most famous", "most iconic" and "best" when used to describe photo's are personal opinions. Some people will agree and some won't and the funny thing is that they are both right :angel:

I think what Jorgen is trying to say is that there is a difference between the "Impact Quality" of a photo and the "Technical Quality"of a photo.

In my opinion the "Technical Quality" is for a substantial part determined by the equipment used (combined with the technical skills of the photographer)
And the "Impact Quality" is almost solely set by the photographer, his vision and his ability to impact the viewer with what he's trying to say with the image.

So for David Yarrow using a camera that's flexible, rugged and delivers a resolution to make very large prints is essential, so his D5 is probably the best tool for his specific job he can use today. But that doesn't mean he could not use older technology (incl. film) to achieve a similar end result because as a photographer he produces "high impact" photo's (imho).

Btw, I think he makes more than a single digit number good photo's per year, but for him being very critical of his own work motivates him to grow and improve, at least that's the way I interpret that statement.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Many interesting answers here, thank you all. I'm on my way out to drink wine with some friends, possibly have some food too, if we're in danger of dying from hunger, so I don't have time now... except:

When it comes to David Yarrow, his style is very similar to that of Nick Brandt, although appart from using wide rather than long lenses, their approaches are totally different. Nick Brandt still uses, or at least used until recently, medium format film and his feet and head. David Yarrow uses all the technology available to him.

Both approaches work, but I don't think their results would change much if they swapped gear. It's their attitude and their skills that make the photos.

As for luck and having access, that has always been part of visual arts, including painting. People who work hard and spend a lot of time achieving their goals mostly seem to have more luck than others, go figure...

So Alberto Korda got the shot because he was there, because he had access and of course because he saw the motive. All of those are skills needed to take good reportage photos. Which is one of the reasons why there are so many good photos from a conflict like the Vietnam War, where all the great conflict photographers were present, some dying in the process, but very few from more recent conflicts like Libya, Syria and now Venezuela. The top photographers from the large news media are simply not sent there during the conflicts.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Many interesting answers here, thank you all. I'm on my way out to drink wine with some friends, possibly have some food too, if we're in danger of dying from hunger, so I don't have time now... except:

When it comes to David Yarrow, his style is very similar to that of Nick Brandt, although appart from using wide rather than long lenses, their approaches are totally different. Nick Brandt still uses, or at least used until recently, medium format film and his feet and head. David Yarrow uses all the technology available to him.

Both approaches work, but I don't think their results would change much if they swapped gear. It's their attitude and their skills that make the photos.

As for luck and having access, that has always been part of visual arts, including painting. People who work hard and spend a lot of time achieving their goals mostly seem to have more luck than others, go figure...

So Alberto Korda got the shot because he was there, because he had access and of course because he saw the motive. All of those are skills needed to take good reportage photos. Which is one of the reasons why there are so many good photos from a conflict like the Vietnam War, where all the great conflict photographers were present, some dying in the process, but very few from more recent conflicts like Libya, Syria and now Venezuela. The top photographers from the large news media are simply not sent there during the conflicts.
Jorgen,

I very much agree with most you say. But IMO the best approach today is still to use technology that is available to achieve outstanding goals. I admire both Nick Brandt and David Yarrow, but if I would want or need to replicate or create any of their work (which I most probably would not master) I would prefer the David Yarrow way.

But I most probably would not (maybe never) go back to film anymore.

Peter
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jorgen,

I very much agree with most you say. But IMO the best approach today is still to use technology that is available to achieve outstanding goals. I admire both Nick Brandt and David Yarrow, but if I would want or need to replicate or create any of their work (which I most probably would not master) I would prefer the David Yarrow way.

But I most probably would not (maybe never) go back to film anymore.

Peter
With the kind of work they do, equipment becomes secondary, and price of the gear uninteresting. Creating the kind of photos that they create takes enormous skill, time and even financial resources. The type of camera is a creative choice and probably not a financial one as it is for most of us normal people. I have neither the skill nor the resources to even attempt to do the kind of work that they do. What I do know though, is that if I'm going to perform my best when taking photos, I must use equipment that I feel comfortable with, that has ergonomics and functionality that suit my style of working. If that equipment generates a 6MP or a 150MP file or a black and white negative becomes secondary, unless I'm going to print very, very large. For most people will look at my images, not at my pixels.

That is also where the F6 enters the scene. Because to me, and many other photographers, it's a camera that to the extreme does not obstruct photography. It does what it's supposed to do, and in an unusually unintrusive manner. I don't need 3 zillion focusing points. I need one, one that works. I think the F6 has 11. That's luxury. There's only 36 images on a roll. Compared to the number of good photos I take on an average day, that's a lot. I have to wait a couple of days to see the results. Good. Then the scene has had time to become distant and the photo stands for what it is, a photo of reality, not an attempt to duplicate reality.

For Nick Brandt and David Yarrow's photos are not what you or anybody else will see if you go to Africa. It's their artistic interpretation of what they saw there. That's why people pay a lot of money for their photos. Because the two of them see things that the buyers won't see, even if it appeared right in front of their eyes. That's what being a great photographer is.

Sorry for being bombastic, but to me, this is very close to the core of photography.
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
NA reminder, Nikon still makes the world's best 35mm film camera, the F6.:thumbup:

I just received notice from B&H Photo that it is BACK IN STOCK!

***So why am I posting this here in the Nikon GetDPI forum? There are many reasons, including the fact that many of us still shoot film and have or recently owned the Nikon F6. The best is still here!
:thumbs:

What's in your bag, a lonely Nikon digital? Splurge a little and enjoy life while you can, you may just be pleasantly surprised and wonder why you waited so long!:thumbs:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bh...SA/Nikon_1799_F6_35mm_SLR_Autofocus.html/amp/
Update:

Still in stock at B&H.:thumbs:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/352116-USA/Nikon_1799_F6_35mm_SLR_Autofocus.html/amp/

My tenure with the D850 is over. I am actually having more fun with the D2x and the 50 1.8 G than I ever remembered before when I bought a new one ☝ years ago for sports/weddings... :)

An F6 loaded with new E-100 slide film would be a great pairing in my bag. Oh, yes, I will need a new bag... this is really getting to be fun already just planning ahead. Time to round up the rest of my gear for a garage sale.:)
 
Top