Tim Parkin - Still Developing - Comments

Kodak Ektar - The Best Negative Film, I'm Posititve - Tim Parkin

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:05:56 GMT

I've changed my mind on the Ektar a bit - it's a bugger to post process and different exposure levels really do affect the colours - however, I'll persever...

Of Drum Scanners - Tim Parkin

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:04:48 GMT

I couldn't help myself - the results are just too good not to..

Jobo Automated Developing Unit (ATL 2300) - Tim Parkin

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:03:43 GMT

I've not heard further news on the E6 3 bath stuff - lets keep our fingers crossed..

Last Day in Northumberland - Tim Parkin

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:02:42 GMT

I think that on is my favourite too..

Sheet Film and the Dreaded Grafmatic - Tim Parkin

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:01:47 GMT

I'll see what I can do for the video!

Kodak Ektar - The Best Negative Film, I'm Posititve - Alistair Haimes

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:42:19 GMT

Hi Tim - firstly thank you for your blog, it is an absolute treasure-trove of information, thank you for sharing so much research and enthusiasm. I have lost count of the number of hours I have spent browsing it! On the Ektar to Velvia conversion, I think I have managed to get it a little closer to the Velvia version, using some relatively straightforward LAB curves and blend-if sliders: I think it is the yellows and greens (i.e. negative A and positive B in LAB-speak) in the highlights where the Ektar conversion needed some boost. But I think the big, and obvious, thing you miss out on is the ability to hold a Velvia transparency to the light, which I think is a good chunk of the satisfaction and pleasure with transparency film. So the previous posts are probably right: if you want Velvia, shoot Velvia. Have a good Christmas anyhow!

Why Large Format? - steve france

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:17:12 GMT

I like reviewing your older posts... see where you were, and comparing to where you are now. Very blessed I'd say. btw..... Mr Cramer is a digital man now.. you probably know that anyway... but interesting none the less.

Of Drum Scanners - steve france

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:59:40 GMT

Been reading all your blogs about scanning. I noticed in one you said you wouldn't consider buying a drum scanner lol! Jokes...you now offer it as a service (which I will use most definitely in the new year btw ) You still have the v750?

My New Finder - Ricoh GX100 - steve france

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:57:34 GMT

Interesting read, as with all your blogs. Not sure how i missed this one? Compacts are great for this type of thing. I use the Pano Lumix LX5... one interesting feature is that you can make the camera remember the last zoom setting.. so everytime it powers on, its at your correct focal length :)

Joe Cornish talks about Peter Dombrovskis - Jen

Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:45:18 GMT

I am currently researching Peter Dombrovski for my photography course and found this video very interesting and informative. It is very useful to have an overview of his work from the perspective of a [much admired also] proffessional. Thank you both for investing your time and energies into producing this. I shall now be looking for more!! Regards, Jen

Jobo Automated Developing Unit (ATL 2300) - David Higgs

Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:07:28 GMT

very jealous really sad news about E6 chemicals, I found that an easier process than C41

Last Day in Northumberland - northeastfirstaid

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:37:42 GMT

I think the top photo has more of an edge. More distinguished and highlighting the danger of the steep slope. The bottom photo is softer due to the colours and grasses. Beautiful but the top one will always win!

Sheet Film and the Dreaded Grafmatic - Dismayed

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:06:30 GMT

I'm looking forward to seeing a clip on the Grafmatic back.

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Chris

Thu, 25 Nov 2010 23:37:19 GMT

Despite my own little nit-pickings, I think on the whole, considering it's early days, I think youre doing well Tim. It's going to take time to get into the swing of things, get more content, make contacts, review peoples work, etc etc. Its an aweful lot of background work to even present a few articles, collate, scrutinise, develop. Surely the whole point of the magazine was to invite landscape photographers to submit work, give ideas, offer advice, rather than just knock Tim for what he 'hasn't done. I hope Tim that you haven't bitten off more than you can chew with this one, but keep going. With regards to some comments, I haven't seen one advertisement or a 1000th article on how to use an ND grad...so thats one thing to be grateful for...eh OP ! :-D

More Scanner v750 Profiling - Mike

Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:20:09 GMT

Hi Tim, I'm a keen reader of your blog, it's really an excellent resource for film photographers. Just wanted to add a comment to this old post to say thanks for your work in developing profiles for velvia/V700/V750. I've been struggling on for ages to get satisfactory scans from my V700, and I'm now getting pretty good results using your velvia boost profile. It really does make a difference (sounds like I'm endorsing a shampoo advert...) I use a Bronica SQ system, and scan at 2400 dpi, before reducing down to 2000dpi (I still get a 20 megapixel file). This sharpens up the scan nicely, but I do then use a whack of sharpening in lightroom. The scans seem to require to show a decent acuity, and do respond to this pretty well. One thing which seems like utter witchcraft to me, however, is the incredible ability of the new noise reduction algorithms in lightroom/ACR3 to clean up velvia scans from the V700. Colour noise in particular just vanishes with careful processing, with a huge improvement in overall appearance. Thanks again, mike

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Tim Parkin

Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:19:16 GMT

We've just had a lovely comment from a guy called 'Randall Ponse Wander' (a name that doesn't appear in google or any personal search engines) who just threw various insults at Joe - I would normally post anything that comes through on the website but this particular comment had zero saving graces. No constructive personal opinion, no reasoning, no alternative suggestions - just a negativity. I invite Mr Randall Ponse Wander to resubmit a comment with a little more positivity. If you don't like a particular photographer, just say you don't like them and if you think other photographers deserve more attention, name a few of them and justify your choices. I now end this public services announcement..

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Janreinze

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:10:46 GMT

Awesome... Love your article here... I may not be an expert critic but I can feel that you did great in this one...By the way, Just want to tell you that is one of the bests websites for photographers that I have ever checked. Thanks for the post.

First Peak District Large Format Course - John Blake

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:47:07 GMT

Thanks for sharing this nice post with us.

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Tim Parkin

Sun, 07 Nov 2010 19:11:54 GMT

I'm still waiting for some useful advice. So far you have posted comments...

Telling me magazines sometimes have interesting content and naturally have cycles and they're OK
Calling Cornish, Noton, Waite cliched (having "the same half dozen compositions applied to different locations").. Insulting Spencer and Burton as carbon copyists.
Criticising the content of the magazine so far, saying it's boring and not worth the price.
Telling me my reasons for starting the business are flawed. Telling me the magazine content was 'empty' and too 'mainstream' and a 'poor advert'
Telling me I'm angry
Telling me my previous blog posts were off the rails..

I'd be happy to have 'answers', I just haven't seen any yet..

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Tony

Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:56:48 GMT

I was responding to your questions, that's all. You asked a lot of questions and I chose a couple to answer. I am not a troll, just because I disagree with you doesn't automatically make me a troll. You have my email address so you are free to contact me privately if you want. If you do though, prepare for a robust and brutally honest response. I am assuming that you do not actually want me to answer any of your questions. I actually read your comments last year about LPOTY, and started to agree with you until you said something along the lines of a picture with a trolley in it cannot be a landscape picture....then the post went off the rails a bit.... Then I read this post which I totally disagreed with and as you are very vocal in an open forum I decided to comment, particularly as I have my own firm views about landscape photography. So that's it. Not a troll. Not trying to tell you how to run your business. Not going to reply to a post ever again on your website. Tony

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Tim Parkin

Sun, 07 Nov 2010 17:35:05 GMT

I can't really reply because you're not really saying anything. If you are giving me business advice, then please carry on. Although telling me things don't satisfy you in particular isn't going to help. If you are not interested then don't buy/read, you are obviously one of the many who are happily served by the existing magazines/websites, etc. We're not aiming to satisfy every single landscape photographer in Britain (just as the current publications don't), we're just trying to provide what we think is a missing aspect in current periodicals. What I don't understand is that if you have so very little interest, why are you spending so long commenting on my website? I'm starting to think you may be a troll... Prove that you aren't and give us some useful advice on the sorts of content you want to read.

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Tony

Sun, 07 Nov 2010 17:09:04 GMT

What am I saying overall? That there is a demand for what you describe as 'homogeneity en masse', and that content is more varied on the shelves generally. Shop around. As for your publication....of course there is room for more, it’s just that your reasons (IMO) seem to be a little flawed. But there is relatively little outlay so go for it, nothing to lose and all that.....But issue one was a little empty in content and for my taste, a tad mainstream in content. It personally wouldn’t convince me to part with 3 pounds for issue two, and as such would be a poor advert for what I may get if I stumbled across your site looking for a more enlightened photography publication. I know its only one edition, but the free to view stuff is one way that people will decide whether to jump in or not. You also sound a bit angry. Even before my post. That might put people off. Tony

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Tim Parkin

Sun, 07 Nov 2010 12:43:26 GMT

Why criticise mainstream photography magazines? Mainstream photography magazines make money from giving its readers what they want. So cliched samey landscapes are the staple of these magazines because people want it. But over the course of a year, less obvious photographic styles will be covered. There is more of a balance than you think.

I don't criticise the magazines individually, I criticise their homogenity en masse. Of course there will be the odd exception, but I personally want a magazine which has this as a rule rather than an exception, which features amateur photographers on a regular basis, which goes into depth both technically and artistically. Will I manage it? I don't know - but trying is a bit part of it and having an alternative business model will hopefully allow an alternative approach to content

Your ‘2 year’ interpretation of peoples reading habits of the photography magazine is wrong.

I've been told exactly this by two different magazine staff members and it's been repeated through acquaintances.

A lot of beginners, amateurs, enthusiasts read these magazines and after 2 years, or a period of time particular to them they will want to move on to other material from the wide variety of magazines available. That’s because they are developing their photography (not because the magazines are boring/samey, even if this is the reason given for changing reading habits). It’s the variety of other magazines that draw people away.

Which other material?

All magazines go round in cycles in some way because there is a finite amount of material for the target audience at any one time. The same will apply to your venture even if you don't realise this yet.. There is nothing wrong or negative about this.

I respectfully disagree - they will only go in cycles if they 'run out of content' - why should they run out of content unless there are 'business specific' limitations on the style and type of content they write about? I personally don't plan on repeating content - I plan on building on content. If I revisit a topic, I'll make sure I write more about it. If I talk to a photographer again, I'll approach things from a different angle, write different questions.

As far as I'm concerned, if I start to regurgitate the same old content in two years time, that will be a negative thing and I would hope should that happen, I get called on it!

Cornish, Noton, Waite et al have made a living from producing the same half dozen compositions applied to different locations. Their style is the same clichéd samey style that you complain is featured endlessly in magazines, and copied endlessly, relentlessly and extraordinarily competently on file sharing sites. Anthony Spencer and Adam Burton being very competent carbon copyists.

I'm afraid this shows a real lack of understanding of these photographers portfolios. Yes is a certain composition style that I think you are referring to but this is far from being a major component of these photographers output. I'm not going to go into detail as it's pretty pointless - however this sort of comment is said so often that it is probably worth a full on 'rebuff' at some point.

Out of interest, can you let me know which 'non cliched' photographers you would prefer to see that represent the best of British photography?

Given your absolute dismissal of certain styles of outdoor photography,

Could you expand, I can't remember absolutely dismissing certain styles of outdoor photography

and your hitching up with a traditional landscape photographer who doesn’t push boundaries, how exactly will you be different from existing magazines?

Joe is possibly traditionalist because he is part of the origins of that tradition yes, however it's wrong to suggest that Joe's personal photographic style will blinker the magazine in any way. Do you think someone like Michael Kenna just likes long exposure, square, black and white photography (to completely stereotype a fantastic photographer)? Joe has particularly eclectic tastes, and my tastes are only just developing - who is to say what influence this will have on the magazine

There is nothing different so far from conventional magazines, except traditional magazines have more content. (issue one...LPOTY...yawn...JC processing an image....yawn.) there is actually nothing wrong with the content, except I can get more for less from the stands of WHSmiths.

Well - I disagree. Having counted the amount of landscape photography coverage (page by page) in the main magazines I can safely say that there will be more content of greater depth here. If you disagree, what can I do?

I know I will be flamed for this, but so far you have been preaching to the converted, but they will not pay the mortgage. You need to convince people like me why I should pay to watch Joe Cornish spend the best part of an hour processing an image that would take 10 minutes max to process in reality. (How does this differ from practical photography, for example)

erm.. firstly we've only had one issue (two now?) and we're gradually adding content and this will be influenced by our subscribers/readers - if you want to see a certain type of content, then suggest it. As for 'how does it differ from practical photography?', well - I haven't seen in depth coverage of post processing of this type (if you don't want to spend that long on a single picture, then good for you. Some people do. We'll feature other photographers who work differently in future issues).

A point to note...You refer to some photographers by referring to their surnames only. Not everyone will be familiar with these names, so googling them may throw up a photographer that is not the one you are referring to. Full names should be quoted, if not website names.

Gem Southam, Simon Norfolk, Andrew Nadolski, Chris Friel, Thomas Joshu Cooper, Nicolas Hughes, Peter Scammel, Rob Hudson, Mario Popham, Neil Bryce, Roger Longdin, Jon Brock, Liza Dracup, etc..

I'm not quite sure what you are saying in total. Are you trying to suggest that the current crop of landscape photography magazines are all we need? If not, are you suggesting that there is no way that me and Joe can deliver something of interest? Are you suggesting that we could be doing something really good but we're ignorant of many great landscape photographers? Please suggest what you think we should be doing and what you would do differently..

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Tony

Sun, 07 Nov 2010 11:55:09 GMT

Why criticise mainstream photography magazines? Mainstream photography magazines make money from giving its readers what they want. So cliched samey landscapes are the staple of these magazines because people want it. But over the course of a year, less obvious photographic styles will be covered. There is more of a balance than you think. Your ‘2 year’ interpretation of peoples reading habits of the photography magazine is wrong. A lot of beginners, amateurs, enthusiasts read these magazines and after 2 years, or a period of time particular to them they will want to move on to other material from the wide variety of magazines available. That’s because they are developing their photography (not because the magazines are boring/samey, even if this is the reason given for changing reading habits). It’s the variety of other magazines that draw people away. All magazines go round in cycles in some way because there is a finite amount of material for the target audience at any one time. The same will apply to your venture even if you don't realise this yet.. There is nothing wrong or negative about this. Cornish, Noton, Waite et al have made a living from producing the same half dozen compositions applied to different locations. Their style is the same clichéd samey style that you complain is featured endlessly in magazines, and copied endlessly, relentlessly and extraordinarily competently on file sharing sites. Anthony Spencer and Adam Burton being very competent carbon copyists. Given your absolute dismissal of certain styles of outdoor photography, and your hitching up with a traditional landscape photographer who doesn’t push boundaries, how exactly will you be different from existing magazines? There is nothing different so far from conventional magazines, except traditional magazines have more content. (issue one...LPOTY...yawn...JC processing an image....yawn.) there is actually nothing wrong with the content, except I can get more for less from the stands of WHSmiths. I know I will be flamed for this, but so far you have been preaching to the converted, but they will not pay the mortgage. You need to convince people like me why I should pay to watch Joe Cornish spend the best part of an hour processing an image that would take 10 minutes max to process in reality. (How does this differ from practical photography, for example) A point to note...You refer to some photographers by referring to their surnames only. Not everyone will be familiar with these names, so googling them may throw up a photographer that is not the one you are referring to. Full names should be quoted, if not website names. Tony

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Tim Parkin

Sat, 06 Nov 2010 22:49:17 GMT

The magazine is going to be British oriented in that the location guides will be British, the majority of the photographers featured are going to be British and if I'm reviewing books and shows I will be prioritising British ones. The rest of the content is as applicable to a foreign landscape photographer as it is to a British one. The art of composition, philosophy of land, craft of image creation, techniques of post-processing are all universal. I'm also hoping to make the magazine as widespread in style as possible, for every Noton there will be a Nadolski, for every Ward a Friel, for every Waite a Norfolk. The only reason we see the same style again and again is that it is on the one hand, the most easily accessible and on the other hand, far too easy for the magazines to churn out again and again. One of the reasons for the magazine is to push against this commoditizing of photography. How am I "going to give a fundamentally different message than the massively cliched beach+cliff+distant castle shot with screaming SHOOT GREAT LANDSCAPES headlines"? Well, simple - don't give that message. Feature Southam, Norfolk, Nadolski, Friel, Cooper, Hughes (and of the last, take a look at Nicholas Hughes!). People like Peter Scammel and Rob Hudson, Mario Popham are doing something interesting with landscape photography. In the classic vein, people like Neil Bryce and Roger Longdin have original ways of seeing. There is a huge scope within the context of 'British oriented' - and this doesn't preclude foreign photographers interpretations of the UK, not does it preclude British photographers interpretations of foreign lands. The key word to remember is 'oriented' - this precludes nothing. Give me some suggestions of content you would like to see that would compel you and I'll see what I can do :-)

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - David Mantripp

Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:05:00 GMT

I've looked throught the first issue, and although I think it is very well put together, and the content is very high quality, I'm left with a feeling that you're boxing yourselves in a bit with the "British" part. For a start, a number of the photographers you cite as examples of the directions you're interested in are not British, and quite possibly would not have created the impact they have made if they had been. Secondly, although the British landscape has many qualities, frankly it has been done to death, and although it isn't their fault, the cloning of the styles of Cornish, Ward, Noton, Waite and other leading names has unfortunately diluted the message. I'm not sure how you are going to give a fundamentally different message than the massively cliched beach+cliff+distant castle shot with screaming SHOOT GREAT LANDSCAPES headlines which the glossy UK monthlies churn out every month, without opening up to wider input and wider influences. For example, it would be interesting - maybe- to see how foreign landscape photographers interpret the British landscape. And also how, say, Charlie Waite's interpretation of Tuscany compares to that of a local photographer. I'm sure there is a huge potential audience for this publication, but I would encourage you to not set such restrictions, but to be more the home of intelligent, British-school landscape photography on the global, world wide web. As it stands, and as an example of a (nominally) British photographer living abroad, who is unlikely ever to photograph a British landscape, I'm not very compelled to hit the subscribe button, save to encourage a brave and worthy venture.

Artifice - Lies, Damned Lies and Photography - steve

Fri, 05 Nov 2010 08:09:12 GMT

what comes out of someone reveals what is in them..... That is far more important than debating/arguing over such things. So when u next lie or hide things and not be honest about what your doing... Remember that makes u a liar.... liars dont have integrity...

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Sam Gibbons

Thu, 04 Nov 2010 09:16:29 GMT

Hi Tim, This is fab news ! I look forward to visiting the site when its up and running. Goodluck with this new venture All the best Sam

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Paul Breitkreuz

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 16:15:39 GMT

I've not visited your site in awhile and was pleasantly surprised to read this message about your new venture. Congratulations and good luck with this new and exciting plan.

Jobo Automated Developing Unit (ATL 2300) - Tim Parkin

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:20:03 GMT

Thanks for the comment David, I'm sure your father would have managed had he known about the availability (they were expensive at the time however, I think they started around $10,000 over 10x what I paid), he mastered dye transfer after all - a process that would scare the living daylights out of me!! Would love to feature an article on your father on a new landscape photography venture I'm working on. I'll email you separately..

Jobo Automated Developing Unit (ATL 2300) - David Leland Hyde

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 06:48:50 GMT

This was a fascinating post to read even though it was over my head. It is impressive that you do all of your own processing. Even my father landscape photographer Philip Hyde, a student of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and Minor White, never processed his own film. I'm sure he would have loved to because he sometimes had problems with the labs, but he never had the time or the financial resources for such a sophisticated set-up. Though he was known for his BW, dye transfer and Cibachrome printing.

Jobo Automated Developing Unit (ATL 2300) - Tim Parkin

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:29:44 GMT

I was doing fine with my coat hangers and paperclips but, you know, magnets.. And don't talk about me processing other people's film! Joe asked me if I wanted to process some of his and I don't think I've said no so fast in my life!

Jobo Automated Developing Unit (ATL 2300) - Tristan Campbell

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:23:04 GMT

Looks like a great setup! Personally I've found string and paperclips to be a great drying aid with film that has a hole in the corner like pro160. How much do you charge per sheet? ;-)

Jobo Automated Developing Unit (ATL 2300) - Robert Teague

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:18:06 GMT

Well, tell Baxter I said hello the next time you talk to him. I used to chat with him a lot on APUG and other places.

Jobo Automated Developing Unit (ATL 2300) - Tim Parkin

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:55:23 GMT

Baxter seems happy with his digital system, and he really needed it for some of the professional, documentary stuff he's been doing. He's on flickr if you want to see some pictures!

Jobo Automated Developing Unit (ATL 2300) - Robert Teague

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:42:59 GMT

I've always wanted one of those. I had a Jobo years ago, great processors. Sad to hear about Baxter ... he was such a supporter of film. I haven't heard from him in years.

Fuji Quickload and Large Format Film Availability - Tim Parkin

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:52:05 GMT

Hi Jim, Thanks for the comment and I can agree with the fact that a dust free transparency is very difficult with DDS's. I have to disagree with your comment about scanning technology not being able to capture as much shadow as cibachrome. In my personal experience, cibachromes clip shadows quite badly, and on the other side, my drum scanner can get more shadow detail out of a transparency than I can see if I hold it the slide up to a bare light bulb (feel free to send me a transparency and I'll do a free scan for you). The other problem is, how do you get a dust free transparency in your enlarger? Surely there is the same problem doing so as getting a dust free transparency in a DDS? Feel free to drop me a line if you want a scan done. (I have a Howtek Scanmaster 4500 with software that custom programmes the photomultiplier op amps).

Fuji Quickload and Large Format Film Availability - Jim Hawthorne

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:58:04 GMT

DUST prevention is the biggest advantage of quickload - it's almost impossible to get a 100 percent dust free shot on cut film and DDS - there always seems to be the minutest speck right in the middle of that otherwise perfect orange and purple aflterglow sky. For those who prefer the look and realism of a traditionally printed Cibachrome/Fuji Crystal Archive darkroom print straight from the big slide (a necessity for some like me, who shoot a lot of low-light scenes because current scanning technology just doesn't extract enough subtle shadow detail for a decent print), dust is an absolute manace. Quickload will be sorely missed and I suspect I'll have to regress to some of my old rollfilm cameras for low light shots to eliminate dust.

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Chris

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:22:04 GMT

Doug, they may sound like general assumptions, however they are not intending to offend anyone. I have a mind and the freedom to express what I believe based upon evidence through online web forums, galleries and the like. If you work in digital thats fine, it works for you. If you can take an image, NOT muck around with it and print it straight from the camera then that surely is to be acknowledged. However - who does this? Not one person I know who has a digital camera works this way. If they did, they would all be shooting JPEG, or RAW and have no need for PS. But we all KNOW that the temptation to alter, take out, adapt, change or exaggerate is there. Its this very temptation to "alter" or in some cases even, destroy the photograph with manipulation is what makes digital photography the attraction to the thousands. Why do all digital photographers deny this? What Im saying is, take away that temptation given to digital users by using software, and concentrate on what is happening in front of them in the landscape, taking care and being patient for the decisive moment, surely would end up with more than a satisfying image? After all, if I and many others who use film can get a great photograph in one take, why cant some of those who use digital do the same? Simply because of two things; 1. The temptation to some how "invent, or make the image better" and 2. Because quality in the image is not on par with those rendered on film - digital users "have to" improve the image. In doing so, most, not all, but most, will then go on to invent colours, in the name of "creativity". Its not that creativity should be frowned on, far from it infact, its simply because the many who do this deny their "tweaks" and go on to say that this is what was seen. Its sad because I believe that the landscape is beautiful enough as it is. It needs no "inventions". This is why I use film. It challenges me to get it right, and if not, I go back for more. Its about being truthful to the landscape, the moment, and ones self...

"Great British Landscapes" - A New Photography Magazine - Douglas Griffin

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:13:42 GMT

Chris, There are some fairly gross generalisations in that post! I work exclusively in digital and don't recognise many of the attitudes that you quote there - I'm sure I'm far from alone. Doug.