« Apropos of Nothing | Main | Localization in Camera Markets »

Tuesday, 01 February 2011

Comments

Mike, I think this article topped (ie, slashdotted :)) his server. First it didn't deliver all the thumbnails and now the server is down due to "maintenance or capacity problems"...

"achieving a technical image quality almost as good as that of film"

I'm curious. What precisely does technical
image quality mean?

I can't wait! I think it's great that you've decided to sample both his film work, and digital. From what I have seen, both are outstanding.

Who selects the photographs to be offered (and how)? I've been tempted to purchase a print for some time, but could not narrow down my selection on my own.

Charles Cramer has been one of my most favourite US landscape/nature photographers since I first started looking at websites. The opening image on his site (Cascade Creek) is wondrous.

Having only heard of his name in passing, I took a look at his galleries and quite liked what I saw... quiet, contemplative landscapes with a good mix of subtle tone and details. Those are the ones that speak to me, rather than the pumped up golden hour vistas that populate many photo sharing sites.

Interestingly, I found a shot of his that incorporated a very familiar phenomenon.

http://www.charlescramer.com/imagesbg/y218.jpg

Compared to the hood failing to block out the light here:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/5121584316_d9e7836481_z.jpg

I admit his rendition is much more pleasing, but was a little amused none the less.

I look forward to seeing the prints.

Looking forward to seeing more of your images. Hope the sales go well!

Pines, Emerging Arch, Kolob Canyon, Zion
this is wonderful.

"I think this article topped (ie, slashdotted :)) his server."

Are other people having problems? It's still working for me.

Mike

Dear Paul,

In contrast to aesthetics.

For example, in terms of technical image quality, Kodachrome was the finest grained, most accurate and sharpest color film for 4-5 decades (it was eclipsed in the various aspects in the late 1970s- late 1980s. But there are people to this day who think that aesthetically, it's never been surpassed. And others, like me, who never cottoned to it.

By referring to "technical image quality" Mike avoids getting into it with the folks who will claim that film "looks" better than digital... or vice-versa.

pax / Ctein

"the folks who will claim that film "looks" better than digital", says Ctein. But are we talking inkjet prints or chromogenic prints?

PS. Largely agree with Ctein on the Kodachome.

I enjoy Mr. Cramer's work very much. By far and away my favorite landscape photographer working in color.

Lovely work. Can't wait to see what's on offer. I live 50 miles from New York City, supposedly the photography capital of the world. Don't know of a landscape photographer with an active NYC gallery relationship except for Christopher Burkett. Just look at Charles's list of galleries on his site. I can walk around Carmel and see much more first class landscape work in one afternoon than I can see in NYC in a year, by orders of magnitude. Carl Weese's work in B&W and particularly platinum is wonderful, but the establishment here doesn't seem to recognize it. And in color, nobody since Eliot Porter died. I hope that's an exaggeration and somebody corrects me!

The comments to this entry are closed.