Mar 102017
 

Pretty nice, right? Of course this is not a really old church. In a way these late 19th century churches, with their architecture always mimicking some historic style, could well be dismissed as kitsch, but on the other hand I like to think that a church does have a purpose as well.

If a church of roughly similar looks fit that purpose 800 years ago, I see no reason why the style shouldn’t fit the purpose today. Or, look at it this way, if we accept that Yellowstone can be the subject of images after Ansel Adams, why shouldn’t we accept Neo-Romanesque or Neo-Gothic architecture?

Anyway, I like churches to be bright, and this one surprised me pleasantly.

  2 Responses to “3794 – Inside of the Church”

  1. You wrote back on Feb 9 “”Equipment does not really matter.” Ok… it’s not the arrow it’s the indian. Got it. Yet… yet…. I recently came upon a trove of 1970 Popular Photography mags. Frankly the small craft was primitive. Everything was softer than a pillow. Contrast bled terribly. Neither the optics, nor the focal plane shutters were up to the demands of the images… Don’t even start to talk about the processing.

    If what you mean is that among today’s tech… then ok… it is the indian. And generally speaking an artist can do his stuff with almost anything off the shelf. But don’t give me a Nikon or even a Leica from the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Or even a Hasselblad from the 70s. We got some pretty awesome tools today and this image up above proves it. Look how astonishingly clean it is, yet sharp and perfectly toned.

    Sure, you are a master. But I do not think that the ancient tools of the last mid century would allow you to do anything like that… Especially as you waited ten days for Agfa, Fuji, or Kodak to send back the little cardboard boxes. Right?

    • Yes, waiting for images was awful. It even prevented me from taking up photography, because I couldn’t afford to by development gear myself, and waiting for labs as well as having no control over the results sucked out any joy.

      As to sharpness, etc, I am sure that with proper technique you could make fine images on film that wold hold up well even to today’s standards, but most of the time you didn’t. If I make an image today, I almost routinely have a look at it on pixel level, and if it lacks the proper acuteness, well, I just take it again. Same with composition. And even for “decisive moment” images digital’s perfectly honed autofocus does wonders. And now that mirrorless has more or less caught up in terms of autofocus speed, lens variation is out of the equation as well.

      You’re right, I’m really talking about today’s gear.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)