I met AVBG Alex. Also pics of Lee Priest.

[io856]

Here are two unprocessed shots from May 2009 at Rainbow Beach, Queensland, Australia.

I was amazed at the orange coloured sand flowing out of the bottom of the cliff. Quite incredible. It was as if someone had spilled a barrel of orange paint on the beach. Apparently the colours come from decomposed vegetation from long ago.

wow she is a beauty and she sure cashed in on that beauty too... 

[lovemonkey]

How stupid are you??? You cant get the same photo with a $200 camera on a tripod...

Resolution plays a big part in picture clarity so of course it matters...

Idiot

As I've said, if one really cares about resolution then you should shoot with film. Used film cameras are dirt cheap nowadays. Where did you get the $200 figure from?

So you're really saying that the quality of a picture depends on the amount of megapixels the camera has? Please show some proof of this.

Idiot.

[Vince B]

Film? Now I have heard everything. Digital changes everything and makes this a hobby that is more enjoyable. We can take heaps of photos and not worry if some are not very good. I believe with the 5DII that 35mm film has been exceeded re resolution. No way I would even consider using film. Sure, those who still want to do that be my guest but the vast majority will stay with digital which is improving every year.

When I had film cameras I would be lucky to take a few 36 rolls on a holiday. Now I can take hundreds of photos in a day and have them all come out okay because I can check them after shooting every frame.

When are we going to see more examples of your art?

[lovemonkey]

Film? Now I have heard everything. Digital changes everything and makes this a hobby that is more enjoyable. We can take heaps of photos and not worry if some are not very good. I believe with the 5DII that 35mm film has been exceeded re resolution. No way I would even consider using film. Sure, those who still want to do that be my guest but the vast majority will stay with digital which is improving every year.

When I had film cameras I would be lucky to take a few 36 rolls on a holiday. Now I can take hundreds of photos in a day and have them all come out okay because I can check them after shooting every frame.

When are we going to see more examples of your art?

Film is easy and cheap to develop and to scan nowadays. I also question if you really get "hundreds and hundreds" of good photos every day. That'd be an outright amazing speed of quality production. But hey if that's your style then so be it. There's a lot of speculation on how much resolution you can get from 35mm film but generally you should get the equivalent of at least 25mp. If you step up to medium format you'll have megapixels for days. Not to mention the incredible dynamic range you get. Most serious landscape photographers uses film still, there's probably a good reason for that. Excellent film dslrs now cost much less than most entry level digital ones which gives you a whole lot back on your investment.

Digital stuff always loses value. An excellent 5dmk2 today is gonna be considered dirt in 3-4 years max. You'll always be stuck in having to acquire new gear all the time to stay "current". I admit that I too am stuck in this never ending circle, or at least used to be. Since I'll soon be occupied with doing other things than photography I haven't felt the need to purchase new stuff. A sb-600 works just fine for me, even when shooting in high speed at the red carpet etc. One really good side about digital though is the increasingly good ISO performance it delivers. It's now possible to shoot iso 12800 with a D3s with pleasing results which is insane. It's excellent for photojournalism.

But I'm totally serious when I say that you get better photo quality out of film and significantly more if you use medium format. If you really have a passion for resolution and accurate representation of colors etc you should give it a try. It is a bit more of a hassle but if you choose your photos wisely you get a whole lot more bang for the buck. If you intend to do photojournalism then sure, digital is better and way more convenient.

[lovemonkey]

This may not necessarily be art or an attempt to make "art" but it's a photo that a decent amount of people have shown appreciation for. This is from when I was in Michigan and the night sky was pretty amazing so I decided to try and capture it. This is one instance where resolution does matter, but the limiting factor in this case is not the camera but the file size and size of one's computer screen. 12mp shown at 100% is gigantic. Everything in this photo that is not black that may even look like dirt in this compressed state, is a star. I'm not exactly sure what that star trail in the upper right corner is, but people told me that the international space station had passed the sky the same night I took the photo which could explain it.

Equipment used was a D300, tiny but pretty steady tripod and a 50mm/1,8 lens.

[Vince B]

I have owned 2 1/4 systems in the past but the convenience of 35 wins for me. There is no way a medium format system would be affordable and using film is totally out of the question. I had a Rollieflex SLX and three lenses but couldn't justify keeping them at the time. The lenses would cost a lot to replace today. The 35mm format has many more lenses available plus accessories so I am sticking with this.

There is a lot of competition in the digital field and this is driving the research and development. In addition, both Canon and Nikon want to avoid mistakes like the 1DMkIII which had focussing issues. I await what Canon will deliver in their 1Ds IV t you might keep what you have instead of upgrading. I was buying every G series Canon made for several years until last year. Who would have thought a $700 camera would be a virtual throw-away in a year or so? which should be exciting. Yes, 20 years ago you bought a SLR camera and it served you well for at least a decade. A modern DSLR might last 3 years before you want to upgrade. If you don't attend camera clubs or read the interne

[Vince B]

The Milky Way is more visible in the Southern Hemisphere. When I was shooting at Katoomba last weekend I looked up and was amazed at how many stars I could see. The Milky Way is clearly visible and resembles clouds that sparkle. While living in a city you can't see many stars at all. The aboriginees have a reverence for the stars and you can understand why when you look up at the stars and see what they can see. How many minutes was that shot?

[noworries]

Film is easy and cheap to develop and to scan nowadays. I also question if you really get "hundreds and hundreds" of good photos every day. That'd be an outright amazing speed of quality production. But hey if that's your style then so be it. There's a lot of speculation on how much resolution you can get from 35mm film but generally you should get the equivalent of at least 25mp. If you step up to medium format you'll have megapixels for days. Not to mention the incredible dynamic range you get. Most serious landscape photographers uses film still, there's probably a good reason for that. Excellent film dslrs now cost much less than most entry level digital ones which gives you a whole lot back on your investment.

Digital stuff always loses value. An excellent 5dmk2 today is gonna be considered dirt in 3-4 years max. You'll always be stuck in having to acquire new gear all the time to stay "current". I admit that I too am stuck in this never ending circle, or at least used to be. Since I'll soon be occupied with doing other things than photography I haven't felt the need to purchase new stuff. A sb-600 works just fine for me, even when shooting in high speed at the red carpet etc. One really good side about digital though is the increasingly good ISO performance it delivers. It's now possible to shoot iso 12800 with a D3s with pleasing results which is insane. It's excellent for photojournalism.

But I'm totally serious when I say that you get better photo quality out of film and significantly more if you use medium format. If you really have a passion for resolution and accurate representation of colors etc you should give it a try. It is a bit more of a hassle but if you choose your photos wisely you get a whole lot more bang for the buck. If you intend to do photojournalism then sure, digital is better and way more convenient.

You are ao way off on the film remarks.  It is so more expensive, time consuming and not practical.  My friend I mentioned earlier has the largest private stock photo library in the world.  When digital became available he converted all his film into digital.  He had 4 or 5 Macs and hired 4 or 5 people who worked 8 hours a day and all they did was scan and convert into digital.  He figured he saved more than $10,000 a month in developing costs alone by switching to digital.  I was at his house once when they were doing a TV show on his technology.  He was having a photo shoot for Calvin Klein I think on the beach in front of his house.  He had his camera pluged into his computer where the photo was sent over the internet to the ad agency in new york in real time.  The text copy and layout of the ad was complete and the photos he was taken was automatically placed in the area of the ad where it was going to be.  The agency could literally see the photos and what the ad was going to look like as it was being done.  When they saw the photo they liked, they would approve it and everything was complete.  I had had quite a few photo shoots and they almost always had hassleblads (?) large format.  On the side someone would have an Instamatic and would take photos also and they would use those for laying out the photo and other shit.  I really never got into it that much.  But in any case film has really no use nowadays.

[lovemonkey]

You are ao way off on the film remarks.  It is so more expensive, time consuming and not practical.  My friend I mentioned earlier has the largest private stock photo library in the world.  When digital became available he converted all his film into digital.  He had 4 or 5 Macs and hired 4 or 5 people who worked 8 hours a day and all they did was scan and convert into digital.  He figured he saved more than $10,000 a month in developing costs alone by switching to digital.  I was at his house once when they were doing a TV show on his technology.  He was having a photo shoot for Calvin Klein I think on the beach in front of his house.  He had his camera pluged into his computer where the photo was sent over the internet to the ad agency in new york in real time.  The text copy and layout of the ad was complete and the photos he was taken was automatically placed in the area of the ad where it was going to be.  The agency could literally see the photos and what the ad was going to look like as it was being done.  When they saw the photo they liked, they would approve it and everything was complete.  I had had quite a few photo shoots and they almost always had hassleblads (?) large format.  On the side someone would have an Instamatic and would take photos also and they would use those for laying out the photo and other shit.  I really never got into it that much.  But in any case film has really no use nowadays.

So you're saying just because your expert friend now uses digital in his line of work, film is now rendered obsolete in every thinkable application/situation? Get familiar with cameras and photos yourself instead of using your friend as an example all the time. What he uses works for him and what he does.

If you're shooting landscapes and things of that nature film actually gives you better results. Now if you need to produce hundreds or thousands of photos per month then digital may be the only feasible solution, but that really is an exception.

[lovemonkey]

The Milky Way is more visible in the Southern Hemisphere. When I was shooting at Katoomba last weekend I looked up and was amazed at how many stars I could see. The Milky Way is clearly visible and resembles clouds that sparkle. While living in a city you can't see many stars at all. The aboriginees have a reverence for the stars and you can understand why when you look up at the stars and see what they can see. How many minutes was that shot?

I believe the exposure was set like this:

f 1,8
iso 1600
30sec

It was an amazing sky that night.

[noworries]

So you're saying just because your expert friend now uses digital in his line of work, film is now rendered obsolete in every thinkable application/situation? Get familiar with cameras and photos yourself instead of using your friend as an example all the time. What he uses works for him and what he does.

If you're shooting landscapes and things of that nature film actually gives you better results. Now if you need to produce hundreds or thousands of photos per month then digital may be the only feasible solution, but that really is an exception.

Explain why film is better than digital when shooting landscapes and nature.  Especially when you are shooting an action scene like a lion going after some prey and you are at the end of your roll and either have to switch cameras or reload.  And now you are out in the middle of nowhere and need to get the photos you have taken to the photo editor for the story that is going to run in two days.  Oh there are no Costcos, Sam's Clubs or placxes to develop your film for 100 miles.  Please tell me where film has any advantage over film.  

[Vince B]

Yes, some pros still use film. They claim certain film types can't be duplicated yet by digital. So I accept that it is not obsolete. However, everyone at the camera club uses digital that I talked to. So that is the way of the future. I doubt many of us enthusiasts would want to wait a few days to have our photos developed. Those days are long gone for me. I never enjoyed the dark room, either. Another hassle taken out of the experience.

[lovemonkey]

Explain why film is better than digital when shooting landscapes and nature.  Especially when you are shooting an action scene like a lion going after some prey and you are at the end of your roll and either have to switch cameras or reload.  And now you are out in the middle of nowhere and need to get the photos you have taken to the photo editor for the story that is going to run in two days.  Oh there are no Costcos, Sam's Clubs or placxes to develop your film for 100 miles.  Please tell me where film has any advantage over film.  

Are you really this stupid? THINK before you speak.

First off, the people that still use and praise film today are the ones that usually have a lot of time to spend on their photos, they're not on a deadline and it's more about the "art" than doing documentary stuff. With that said, people still managed to do all the stuff you just mentioned prior to the 21st century. It was a pain though. Nowadays digital is used just because it's more convenient and makes things easier.

You're totally misdirected on this. I've said several times that digital now is the better solution for photojournalism, what exactly is it you don't understand?

[Vince B]

What do you expect if you discuss photograhy on a muscle forum? Keith isn't stupid so no need to be offensive. I always try to help others with cameras. I think this is what others should do, too. As you know there is a body of photography knowledge and at best most people learn a fraction of it. The general public wouldn't know what f numbers mean.

[noworries]

Are you really this stupid? THINK before you speak.

First off, the people that still use and praise film today are the ones that usually have a lot of time to spend on their photos, they're not on a deadline and it's more about the "art" than doing documentary stuff. With that said, people still managed to do all the stuff you just mentioned prior to the 21st century. It was a pain though. Nowadays digital is used just because it's more convenient and makes things easier.

You're totally misdirected on this. I've said several times that digital now is the better solution for photojournalism, what exactly is it you don't understand?

Interesting.  Can you please tell me one (just one mind you) publication that does not set deadlines.  Just asking for one remember.  While you spend the next year trying to find one................ The people who have alot of time on their hands that actually make a substantial amount of money from photography are far and very few between.  Someone writing a book or something yes I see where taking their time is no problem.  But to say film is better than digital is just stupid.  Whatever advantages (if there are any) with film are so small that it really doesn't matter.  Take a photo with film and then with digital.  Take them with everything being exactly the same (camera, lens, settings, time, etc) and post them.  Lets see the difference.  There won't be any visually.  But, now take into account all the other shit you have to do to get that photo online.  Digital blows it away.  Also, when you take a photo with film to get it on paper or online you have to digitize it anyway.  Anyway, I am no photographer but I have been around them long enough to know a little.  And it is surprising me that you seem to know so much yet can't get it.  

[lovemonkey]

Interesting.  Can you please tell me one (just one mind you) publication that does not set deadlines.  Just asking for one remember.  While you spend the next year trying to find one................ The people who have alot of time on their hands that actually make a substantial amount of money from photography are far and very few between.  Someone writing a book or something yes I see where taking their time is no problem.  But to say film is better than digital is just stupid.  Whatever advantages (if there are any) with film are so small that it really doesn't matter.  Take a photo with film and then with digital.  Take them with everything being exactly the same (camera, lens, settings, time, etc) and post them.  Lets see the difference.  There won't be any visually.  But, now take into account all the other shit you have to do to get that photo online.  Digital blows it away.  Also, when you take a photo with film to get it on paper or online you have to digitize it anyway.  Anyway, I am no photographer but I have been around them long enough to know a little.  And it is surprising me that you seem to know so much yet can't get it.  

YES!! You get it after all!

This is exactly what I've been trying to get across! Holy moly, you've just redeemed yourself.

My point all along has exactly been that the photos do not depend on the gear. That is a principle that can be applied to all situations and not just film vs digital. You're 100% correct when you say that the actual difference between film and digital is minuscule and barely observable, especially nowadays. Back in 1999 you'd be laughed at if you made the same claim. The same is true if you compare say D300 to a 5DmkII, 99,99% of the picture depends on the photographer and not the camera.

But for the people that DO care about minuscule stuff like resolution and how the reds turn out etc film does have it's advantages. This is why I recommended it to Basile since he himself said that he cares about that sort of stuff. But for the average observer, it couldn't matter less. I myself have never seen any reason why I should shoot film when I don't need it. Hell for the most stuff I publish I'd do just fine with a 4mp camera. The other megapixels just end up clogging my harddrive.

And there people out there that makes art without deadlines, make no mistake. Everything doesn't have to have the purpose of being published in a magazine.

I actually have new found respect for you.

[pellius]

vince, obviously no one gives a fuck about you moonlighting as a photographer of landscapes.....when we all know your bread and butter is shooting homosexual piss fetish shoots for magazines like latin inches and honcho

your lies are getting pretty stale at this point you fat, hairy-titted creep

Why do you keep saying that it's "obvious" that nobody cares about his photographic work when this very thread, and others where Vince has posted his work, shows that there is indeed some interest, if not a lot, in photography. This thread has turned from AVGB to discussions about photography now clocking in at ten pages.

And what's the deal with the gay fetish sites? How did you stumble across those (assuming you don't actively search for gay fetish sites)?
 

[noworries]

YES!! You get it after all!

This is exactly what I've been trying to get across! Holy moly, you've just redeemed yourself.

My point all along has exactly been that the photos do not depend on the gear. That is a principle that can be applied to all situations and not just film vs digital. You're 100% correct when you say that the actual difference between film and digital is minuscule and barely observable, especially nowadays. Back in 1999 you'd be laughed at if you made the same claim. The same is true if you compare say D300 to a 5DmkII, 99,99% of the picture depends on the photographer and not the camera.

But for the people that DO care about minuscule stuff like resolution and how the reds turn out etc film does have it's advantages. This is why I recommended it to Basile since he himself said that he cares about that sort of stuff. But for the average observer, it couldn't matter less. I myself have never seen any reason why I should shoot film when I don't need it. Hell for the most stuff I publish I'd do just fine with a 4mp camera. The other megapixels just end up clogging my harddrive.

And there people out there that makes art without deadlines, make no mistake. Everything doesn't have to have the purpose of being published in a magazine.

I actually have new found respect for you.

see what happens when you listen to me.  Anyway, I would never want to use film simply because of the ease of digital.  You said it is inexpensive and easy to scan and develop.  Yes maybe so but it is still time consuming and an unneccessary cost.  Like I said my friend told me he easily was saving more than $10,000  month just from developing costs of film.  That's not including the cost of film.  Digital has made photography so much more obtainable and affordable to the common person.   No matter what you take great photos and what I have seen from Basile he takes great photos too.  So there shouldn't be a problem. 

[lovemonkey]

see what happens when you listen to me.  Anyway, I would never want to use film simply because of the ease of digital.  You said it is inexpensive and easy to scan and develop.  Yes maybe so but it is still time consuming and an unneccessary cost.  Like I said my friend told me he easily was saving more than $10,000  month just from developing costs of film.  That's not including the cost of film.  Digital has made photography so much more obtainable and affordable to the common person.   No matter what you take great photos and what I have seen from Basile he takes great photos too.  So there shouldn't be a problem. 

Sure, digital is way more practical that's also why I personally use it. No offense though, but your friend is in a VERY unique spot with that kind of business. Most photographers don't even have a quarter of that kind of workload. So he is an exception in most cases.

I've found my old external hdd and there is some stuff in there from a couple years back. Some of it I'm pretty happy with, others I would have done differently today. This is from when I just started out. Either way, some may find it interesting to look at, good or not.

What I have been working on mostly since these photos were taken is to minimalize everything and make it simpler. Less details and more quality. To make sure there's a pattern or something for the eye to hold on to.

[lovemonkey]

Some more. I seem to have discovered photoshop right around the time nr 8 was taken  

EDIT: I swear #5 hasn't been photoshopped, the bird hid its head. It's probably why I saved that particular photo, looks pretty funny.

[derekanthony]

I finally met big mouth AVBG. One look at the dude and I told him he should forget about bodybuilding and take up table tennis! Besides, his head is too big for his body.

Alex has been bad mouthing me and my gym so I had to sort him out. We agreed that we can both be assholes on the internet. Just a minute here, did I agree to that? There was no animosity or anything and we shook hands and had a few laughs. Seems like a nice guy. Doesn't look like a bodybuilder but what does that matter. At least he was there hanging around Lee Priest's booth.

I was the master and he was the pupil in real life. Make no mistake about that.

and the old ugly fuck makes fun of me ....  hes gross

[outby43]

Some more. I seem to have discovered photoshop right around the time nr 8 was taken  

EDIT: I swear #5 hasn't been photoshopped, the bird hid its head. It's probably why I saved that particular photo, looks pretty funny.

Those are some great photos

[Mr Nobody]

lovemonkey knows his stuff no doubt some damn fine pics.