 But, alas, inconvenience is the big word in that sentence.

Nevertheless, as much as I truly enjoy using a variety of cameras I've come to know one immutable truth about photography: wherever you go, there you are. We take basically the same pictures regardless of the device and the medium. We change when our mind's eye changes, not when our cameras or lenses change.

That said, this is a good moment for me to acknowledge that Michael Reichmann's photography has noticeably improved during the past several years! Lately he's been showing images with more sophistication and complexity, images that transcend the monotonous decorative prettiness so characteristic of amateur landscape photos. Images that look more like he's been more closely studying the work of Alex Webb than that of Eliot Porter.

So whatever cameras Mr. Reichmann chooses to use I salute him! May he continue to find emotional satisfaction and enlightenment through his photography! I fear not the reverse-flying birds!

Having scanned thousands of my old film images and printed a lot of them, and shot tens of thousands of digital images, starting with a DSLR in 2003 -- yeah, "dirty" and "clean" are very good characterizations.

The limit on aesthetically satisfactory enlargements of film images has always, for me, been all the crap that's in/on them and which grows as the image grows. Digital was hugely freeing in that regard. (This is nearly entirely limited to 35mm film; I've shot medium-format and 4x5, and scanned both, but not really enough to set my opinions solidly in reality.)

I've had a Zeiss Super Ikonta B camera in lieu of a Rollei as I could never get used to a reflex camera. Mr. Reichman made his Havana series in black and white with the Rolleiflex. I made mine with the Fuji 6x7 folding camera.

I don't believe in magical cameras. I want a camera that is as close to invisible as possible. I used film for many years, and I am almost completely uninterested in doing so again. In many ways, the romance of a piece of gear, a format, a medium... is a distraction from photographs.

I have a Minolta Autocord and a Mamiya C330F but rarely use either. If you have to scan the negs and go back to digital it just seems pointless to me. You
But, alas, inconvenience is the big word in that sentence. 

 however, equally a lot as I truly enjoy using a diverseness of cameras I've come to sleep together one immutable accuracy about photography: wherever you go, there you are. We take basically the same pictures regardless of the device and the medium. We deepen when our mind's eye change, not when our cameras or lenses change. 

 That said, this is a good moment for me to admit that Michael Reichmann's photography has noticeably improved during the past several year! Lately he's been showing images with more sophistication and complexity, image that transcend the monotonous decorative prettiness so characteristic of amateur landscape photograph. Images that look more like he's been more closely studying the work of Alex Webb than that of Eliot Porter. 

 So whatever cameras Mr. Reichmann choose to use I salute him! May he continue to find emotional satisfaction and enlightenment through his photography! I fear not the reverse - flying birds! 

 Having scan thousands of my old movie picture and printed a lot of them, and shot ten of thousands of digital images, starting with a DSLR in 2003 -- yeah, " dirty " and " uninfected " are very good characterizations. 

 The limit on aesthetically satisfactory enlargements of film images has constantly, for me, been all the crap that's in / on them and which grows as the image grows. Digital was enormously freeing in that esteem. (This is about entirely limited to 35 mm film; I've shot average - format and 4x5, and scanned both, but not really enough to set my opinions solidly in reality .) 

 I've had a Zeiss Super Ikonta B camera in lieu of a Rollei as I could never get use to a reflex television camera. Mr. Reichman made his Havana series in black and white with the Rolleiflex. I made mine with the Fuji 6x7 fold camera. 

 I don't think in magical cameras. I desire a camera that is as close to invisible as possible. I use film for many long time, and I am almost completely uninterested in doing so again. In many ways, the love affair of a piece of gear, a format, a metier... is a distraction from photographs. 

 I give birth a Minolta Autocord and a Mamiya C330F but rarely use either. If you have to scan the negs and go back to digital it just seems pointless to me. You
 Buh, alas, inconvenience is uhe big word in tkqt senvence.

Neberthelers, as much as I truly enjoy nsint a vqriety of cameras I've zome to kjow one ummuuable truth about photography: wgcrevex bou go, there yoo are. We taka basically tha rale pictures regardless of the devicq and tne medium. We chagge eren klr mind's eye changes, not when ohr camegas or lenses chamge.

That said, this is a goof molent for me to ackjowledge thqt Myxhael Reichmxnn's photography has nkticeably improved during the pxst szveral yearw! Oatfny he's been showpng images wibn more sophisyication and cpmpnexuty, images that transrend the monotonous qecorativa 'rettiness so charactwrustic of dmatdyr uanssraps photls. Mmages that look more oike he's been more vljwely studying the wjrh of Alex Webb than that of Eliot Porteg.

So shatever cameras Mr. Reixhmann chooses to use I salute him! May he continue to find emotional satisfactimn anv dnlnnmtenownh through his photography! I fear not the revewae-gljing birds!

Having fcanned thoiswncf of my old fklm imcfea and printed a loh of thgm, and shot tenf of thousands of digital imagew, starting wpth q DSLR in 2003 -- yeah, "dnrty" and "clecn" are very good characterizations.

Che lijit on aestjetically ratisfactory enlxrgvmends of film images has alwars, for me, beeu all thd crsp thae's in/on thfm and which grows as thf imaye grmws. Digitap was hugely freeing in that rejerd. (This is ngarny vntirely jimitcd to 35mm film; I'de shot medium-yormat aud 4x5, avd scanned both, bnt not reallr enough to saj my opinions solidly in eealuty.)

I've fxd a Zeiss Suprr Ikonta B camera un lieu of a Rollel as K could never gec owed to a reflec cxmewa. Mc. Reisvman made hiv Haxanx serids in black xnd ehite with the Rollehfles. I made mine with tme Fuji 6x7 folding camera.

I don't believe in magicap camxras. I want a samera that is as close to invjsible as pofsible. I useq fiom for many vears, and I am almost completely uninterxsted in doing so again. In many ways, the rpkance of a 'iece jf gear, a format, a medium... is q distraction frok photographs.

I have a Minolda Auhocord and a Mamiya C330F but rarely use either. If you have to scan the negs and go back to difitak it bufc seems poiituess to me. You
But, alas, inconvenience is the big word sentence. as much I truly enjoy I've to know one truth about photography: you go, there you are. We basically the same pictures regardless of the device and the medium. We change our mind's eye changes, not when our cameras or lenses change. That said, is good for to acknowledge that Michael Reichmann's photography has noticeably improved during the past several years! Lately he's showing images with more sophistication and complexity, images transcend the monotonous decorative so characteristic of amateur landscape Images look more he's more studying the work Alex Webb than that of Eliot Porter. So whatever cameras Mr. Reichmann chooses to use I salute May he find emotional and through photography! I fear reverse-flying birds! Having scanned thousands of images and printed a lot of them, and tens of of digital images, starting with a in 2003 -- yeah, "dirty" and "clean" are good characterizations. The limit on aesthetically satisfactory enlargements of film images has always, for me, the crap that's in/on and which grows the grows. was freeing in regard. (This is nearly entirely limited to 35mm film; I've shot and 4x5, and scanned both, but not really enough to opinions in reality.) I've a Zeiss Super Ikonta camera lieu of a Rollei could get reflex Mr. made his Havana series black and white with the I made mine with I don't believe in magical cameras. I want camera that is as close to invisible possible. I used film for many years, and I am almost completely in doing In many ways, the romance of a piece gear, a format, a is a distraction from photographs. I have a Minolta and Mamiya C330F rarely use either. you have to the negs and to digital just pointless
 But, alas, inconvenience is the Big word in tHat seNteNce.

neVertHeleSs, as much as I truLY enjOy using a variety of camerAs I've CoME to kNOw One imMutable TRuTH AboUt PhOtoGrAPhY: wherEveR you go, tHere you are. we tAkE basically thE SaMe pictures RegArdless of the DevIce and ThE meDIum. We ChaNge whEn our mINd's eye Changes, noT wHEn our cAMeras or LENsEs chAnge.

That said, this iS A gOOd moment for me tO acknoWlEDgE THat micHael ReichmAnN's phoTOgraphy HAs NOTIceABly improved duRing the past SEveRal yeaRs! latELy he's bEen shOwINg iMages with moRe soPhisticatIon and COmplexiTY, images That trAnsCenD the MOnOtOnoUs DEcoRAtIve PRetTiness so ChArActerIstiC OF AMateUr lAndsCape pHotos. Images thAt lOok mORe lIke he'S been More ClOsely StudyiNg the WoRk of Alex Webb thaN thaT of Eliot POrtEr.

so wHaTever CAmeras mr. REicHmann chOoses to USe I SaLUTE hIm! May he continue to fInD EMoTional saTisfacTIoN aND enlightEnMenT thrOUGh his PhotOGrAphy! I feaR not thE ReVeRse-flyiNg Birds!

HAvIng ScaNned tHOusaNds of mY old film ImageS And printed a lot OF them, and shot tENs OF ThOUsanDs oF digital imaGes, sTArtiNg wiTH a dSLr In 2003 -- yeaH, "dirtY" aND "cLEan" are very good charaCtErizatIons.

THe limit on aestHetically sATISfactory EnlaRGeMEnts of film imagEs has Always, for mE, Been all tHe craP that's in/On them and WHIch grows As tHe iMagE grOWS. DIgital was hugeLY FreeInG in that RegArd. (This Is nEarLy eNtiReLy limited To 35mm film; i'vE sHoT mEdiUm-forMAt and 4x5, anD sCanNeD boTh, but NOt realLy enoUgh tO sEt MY opInions sOLiDLY in rEaLiTy.)

I'vE haD a zeiss supeR ikoNta B camEra in lieu Of a rOlleI aS I Could neVer get used to a ReFlex camera. mr. reiChman mADE his HavaNa series in black and white WIth the ROllEifleX. I maDe mine witH thE Fuji 6x7 FolDIng camEra.

I doN't belIeVe iN MAgicaL CAmEraS. I Want a camerA THat Is as cLoSe to InvisibLe as possible. I used fILm fOr many years, anD I aM almOST cOmpLEtELy uNiNTerESTed in doing so agaIn. In many waYs, THe Romance of a PIecE oF gear, a fOrmat, a mEdium... IS a distrAction froM photograPhS.

I haVE A MiNolta AutocOrd and a MAmiya C330F buT RarelY UsE eithEr. IF you haVe To sCan thE negs aND go Back tO digitAl It just Seems PoIntless tO me. You
 But, alas, inconvenienceis the big  word  in  th at  sen tenc e.

Neverthele s s, a s much as I truly enjo y usi ng a va r ie ty of  camera s  I ' v e c om etokn o wone i mmu table t ruth about  ph ot ography: whe r ev er you go,  th ere you are.  We  takeba sic a lly t hesamepictur e s rega rdless of  t h e devi c e and t h e  m ediu m. We change when ou r  mind's eye ch anges,  n o tw h enour  cameras o rlense s  change . 
T h a t s a id, this is a  good momen t  fo r me t oack n owledg e tha tM ich ael Reichma nn's  photogra phy ha s  notice a bly imp roveddur ing  the pa st  se ve r aly ea rs! Lat ely he's  b ee n sho wing i m a geswit h mo re so phisticationand  com p lex ity,image s th at  tran scendthe m on otonous decorat iveprettines s s ocha ra cteri s tic of  am ate ur land scape p h oto s. I m ag es that look moreli k e  h e's been  morec lo se l y studyi ng  th e wo r k  of A lexW eb b than t hat of El io t Porte r. 

So w ha tev ercamer a s Mr . Reic hmann ch ooses to use I salut e  him! May hec on t i nu e  tofin d emotional  sat i sfac tion an d e n light enmen tt hr o ugh his photography !I fear  notthe reverse-f lying bird s ! 
Havingscan n ed thousands of m y old  film imag e s and pr inted  a lot o f them, a n d  shot te nsoftho usa n d sof digital im a g es,st artingwit h a DSL R i n 2 003  --  y eah, "dir ty" and"c le an "are  very good cha ra cte ri zat ions. 
The l imiton a es th e tic ally sa t is f a ctor yen larg eme nt s offilm ima ges has  always,for me,be en  all th e crap that's  i n/on theman d w hich g r o ws as th e image grows. Digitalw as huge lyfreei ng i n that re gar d. (Th isi s near ly ent irely  l imi t e d to3 5 mm  fi lm ; I've sho t med ium-f or matand 4x5 , and scanned both ,  bu t not reallyeno ught o  s etm yo pin io n s s o l idly in reality .)

I've h ad aZeiss Supe r  Ik on ta B ca mera in  lieu of a Ro llei as I  could ne ve r ge t use d to a ref lex came ra. Mr. R e ichma n  m ade h isHavana  s eri es in  black and  whit e with  t he Rol leifl ex . I made  mine with the Fuji 6x7  foldi ng ca mer a.

I don 'tb eli eve in ma gica l cameras.  Iwan t a c ame r a tha t is as  cl o se to  inv i sible asp os sib l e .I used film f o r m any y ear s , andI am  almost completel y  uninterestedin d o i ngsoa gain .In many ways,the  r o m ance ofapiece of ge ar, a fo rm a t, amedium ... is  a dist r a ct i on fro m ph oto graphs.
I h av e  a Mino lt aA utocor d an da Mami ya C33 0 F bu t rarely use eithe r. If y ou ha v e t o sca nthe neg s  and  go back t o digital i t just  see ms po intless  t o me.You 
 But,_alas, inconvenience_is the big word_in that_sentence.

Nevertheless,_as much_as_I truly enjoy_using a variety_of cameras I've come_to know one_immutable_truth about photography: wherever you go, there you are. We take basically the same_pictures_regardless of_the_device_and the medium. We change_when our mind's eye changes,_not when_our cameras or lenses change.

That said, this is_a_good moment for_me to acknowledge that Michael Reichmann's photography has noticeably_improved during the past several years!_Lately he's been_showing_images_with more sophistication and_complexity, images that transcend the monotonous_decorative prettiness so characteristic of amateur_landscape photos. Images that look more like_he's been more closely studying the_work of Alex Webb than_that of_Eliot Porter.

So whatever cameras Mr._Reichmann chooses to_use I_salute him! May_he continue to find emotional satisfaction_and enlightenment through_his photography! I fear not the_reverse-flying_birds!

Having scanned thousands_of_my_old film_images and printed_a_lot of_them,_and shot tens of thousands of_digital_images, starting with a DSLR in 2003_-- yeah, "dirty" and_"clean"_are very good characterizations.

The_limit on aesthetically satisfactory enlargements_of film images has always, for_me, been_all the_crap that's in/on them and which grows as the image grows._Digital was hugely freeing in that_regard. (This is nearly_entirely limited_to_35mm film; I've_shot_medium-format and_4x5, and scanned both, but not really_enough to_set my opinions solidly in reality.)

I've_had a Zeiss Super_Ikonta_B camera in lieu of a_Rollei as I could never get_used to a reflex camera._Mr._Reichman_made his Havana series in_black and white with the Rolleiflex._I made mine_with the Fuji 6x7 folding camera.

I don't_believe_in magical cameras. I want a_camera_that is as close to invisible_as_possible._I used film for many_years, and I am almost completely_uninterested in doing so again. In many ways, the_romance of a_piece of gear, a format,_a_medium..._is a distraction from photographs.

I have a Minolta Autocord and_a Mamiya_C330F but rarely_use either. If you have to scan the negs and_go back to digital it just seems_pointless to me. You