The Photographer

[Photomuse]

Weegee, that photo still gives me goose bumps... I used to work with that on my walls 5 days a week

On a side note - I've been to everyone's websites - nice work everyone. What a surprise to see all this on this board, it has made joining up all the more fun!

Kim - smooch

 

[Photomuse]

Just for a little "digital world" fun.... check this out:

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/flash/cntower_timelapse.swf

 

[WEEGEE]

NC 2000 ( News Camera 2000)

Very good overview of what photojournalist went thru in the begining of the digital journalist age.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6463-7191


I went totally digital in 1997 at my newspaper.
Now along with still images I shoot video clips with a small camera for use on the web. I do feel the multi tasking (stills and motion) takes away from the ultimate quality of both. But we at the Lounge know quality has not been job one for sometime...waiting for the pendulum of the world to swing the quality way. (optimistically)

 

[Photomuse]

Now along with still images I shoot video clips with a small camera for use on the web. I do feel the multi tasking (stills and motion) takes away from the ultimate quality of both. But we at the Lounge know quality has not been job one for sometime...waiting for the pendulum of the world to swing the quality way. (optimistically)

You are so right. I also work for a photojournalist for a major National mag and they are now incorporating multimedia and are asking the photogs to take audio and video during their shoots... and yet they are not charging accordingly.

Are there any pro videographers on this board? I often wonder how they are taking still shooters entering into their domain....

 

[Matt Deckard]

Playing with lighting

 

[Eyemo]

Just picked up this very interesting thread.

I do think Digital has made people better at taking pictures...If you can shoot, view, edit or delete re-take at no real cost all within seconds, then the process of learning surley must be condenced.

I'm an old-fashioned photog who's been taking pictures for 25years+. I hate the idea of loosing film to digital... I don't like digital, but am forced to use it to keep up with the Jones's...I'll be shooting film as long as they still make it.

You can check out my photography at www.timelineuk.com

Cheers Guys and Girls...

 

[Treetopflyer]

What a great invention

I don't think digital will make a "pro" photographer but I do think that it will get people more interested in photography. I do miss the days of the dark room and the sense of accomplishment when a shot came out perfect after all of the work of developing it. I like the "idea" of film but I tend to agree with allot of people that digital makes it less painfull. You don't have to worry about film contamination or the chemicals that go with the developing and all the other things that go with film. Digital cuts out allot of long term cost that go with film as well, i.e. the film, developing, enlargments etc. I am curious as to how long it will be before we are no longer able to get film.

 

[John in Covina]

Are the photoshop type programs up to the task because even then it still seems like cheating in a way.


For B&W photography the use of colored filters could change the appearence of a sky and add to the dramatic effects.

In the darkroom when making a B&W print one can manipulate it using "burning" and "dodging" effects to improve the print.

It would seem a shame for these to not only fall to the wayside but eventually become a "Lost Art" that dies because it doesn't get passed down to the next generation.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Are the photoshop type programs up to the task because even then it still seems like cheating in a way.


For B&W photography the use of colored filters could change the appearence of a sky and add to the dramatic effects.

In the darkroom when making a B&W print one can manipulate it using "burning" and "dodging" effects to improve the print.

It would seem a shame for these to not only fall to the wayside but eventually become a "Lost Art" that dies because it doesn't get passed down to the next generation.

Dodging and Burning is alive and well in Photoshop. It can be used to great, and near identical effect.
What is about to change everything is the widespread use of full frame sensors that more closely mimic film. These up your Megapixles to a true 24+ instead of an algorithim. These are available now in the higher end pro digitals.
So, soon, you can shoot in your high resolution digital, dodge and burn in photoshop, and print on silver paper for a true 30s like photographic technique.
I use layers of bright hihglights and deep shadows along with dodges to get a great 30s glamour look.

 

[Slim Portly]

Is modern day amateur photography and the ability to take a camera anywhere in your breast pocket making what used to be hard to get and hard to take photos into everyday anyone can do photos?

Yes, I think that photo manipulation programs are making it easier for everyday shmoes like me to produce much better pictures than we would otherwise be able to, and thank goodness for that. My new cell phone even has a built-in photo editing program so I can do basic stuff without even having to send the photo to my computer first!

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Is it me, or is the digital era making better photographers out of everyone. I know there are bad photographers and good photographers out there, though I think with the ability to look at images on the spot and retake a shot 'til you get what you desire allows even the worst of image takers to become pretty good.

Better "picture takers", yes. Better "Photographers", no. A photograph is a photograph and a snapshot is a snapshot: One goes in a portfolio or gallery and the other goes on the fridge. Having the option to choose one picture out of a bunch doesn't make one a photographer, per se (it makes one an art director.) What's that saying about a multitude of monkeys given an equal number of typewriters and enough time?

One is not a photographer because they can pick the best shot in a series: Professional photographers always have and always will take many images and then show just the absolute best ones to the client so that they may choose the image that best fulfills their needs. I've taken as many as a gross (four rolls of thirty-six) to get the few that I or my client needed.

And that's just film. I had an occasion where I shot 775 images, only to learn later that I'd set the white balance wrong. I went back the next day and shot another 445 in the hopes of replacing at least some of the ones I'd blown the day before. Yes, digital made it possible for me to take 1220 images in two days, and at little expense, but it was my passion for photography that made me go back to rectify my mistake.

I've spent many years studying and practicing outdoors, in the studio and in the darkroom, and I've had many people tell me that I should become a professional. Am I? Well, if earning money through my craft defines me as a professional then, yes I am, because I have. But, in my opinion, I still have a long way to go. I need more experience in both the studio and in the digital darkroom. Yes, I consider myself a photographer. Not because I choose the best few out of the many, but because I've dedicated years of my life to my craft, and still have many more to go. I'm a photographer because the images I take are more than something to show my family and friends: They're a part of me, of who I am.

Crop here and there, color correct on your computer and you have something on par with the masters.

Nope. Nope. Nope. Sorry, not true. No! An elephant can be trained to slap a brush upon a canvas; that doesn't make the elephant a master painter. (You're going to need a much larger fridge, by the way.) Masters spend their lives achieving their level of expertise and skill. Having a camera that fits in the pocket and the option to choose one out of several images, and then optimizing it in Photoshop, doesn't make one a photographer. It's dedicating a substatial part of one's life to making a photograph that makes one a master photographer. There's a big difference between taking a picture and making one.

What do you think? Is modern day amateur photography and the ability to take a camera anywhere in your breast pocket making what used to be hard to get and hard to take photos into everyday anyone can do photos?

There is no such thing as a "hard to get, hard to take" photo: There's only that photo you work tirelessly to perfect.

Anyone can snap a picture over the railings at the Grand Canyon. The true photographer is willing to hike to the perfect spot, endure the elements, frame the image exactly the way he saw it in his mind, and then wait hours for the perfect light just so he can spend a couple minutes pressing the sutter release to catch it before the light is gone. He'll do this over and over and over, until he has what he feels is the perfect image. Then he'll find another project and do it all over again.

Can you spot the photographer? No, because he's not out of the canyon yet. While the picture taker has already downed a few in the bar at the hotel and is showing his pictures to anyone who will look at them, the photographer is hiking up the rugged terrain and can't wait to see them on a screen larger than a couple of inches wide. (Or he's setting up his campsite while the images are loading into his laptop.)

Digital has made for better picture takers. But, as with any artform, it's having a passion for the craft that makes one a photographer. And, yes, digital is making it easier for us photographers, too. Well, it is for those of us who are willing to accept it.

Now I have a question: As a photographer, I've shot on film for many years. I now shoot almost exclusively digital. Does shooting on digital make me any less a photographer?


Lee

 

[Scuffy]

Short and sweet I do think digital can make a better photographer simply because of the instant feed back. If the skill is gained or honed then digital is a great tool to learn with. But other the other side of the coin even the worst photographer can get a good shot by luck and/or by firing off a barrage of snaps in hopes of getting something. Point, Push and Pray should not be ones motto!

...I do think that the digital industry and a confident public will cause a drop in attendance to professional photography studios, unless of course you need the giant matte finish portrait of your mother to go over the fire place you can take many of the pics you want at home. I think you will see those studios branching out into more fanciful types of photography rather than portraiture. We'll see...

But to respond to a specific question/comment you had made earlier...

Matt I can account for this first hand. Or at least in my area of the country. Three of the big name photographers in the area shut their doors over the last 2-3 years, mainly due to the fact that digital has become so popular. Most pro photographers, including myself, have gone digital. Two of the biggest things we still have over the general consumer is a range of backdrops and experience (ie posing techniques, in camera cropping, use of lighting, etc). Aside from that we are taking a big hit. More and more people are snapping shots at reunions and other events, even outdoor or on location senior portraits are being done on consumer grade, even point and shoot cameras and printed off either at home or at the local 'Mart. Countless times have I heard this uttered quietly by people walking by my store in the mall: "Oh we can just take the pix with our digital now." And while I do have a studio in the mall- we aren't the cookie cutter type that I've grown t despise! lol I do weddings and on location work, fine art, and quite a bit of automotive (read Hot Rods!) work. Being the business for the past 11 years I can unfortunately add that at least in this area people get their photos taken out of convenience. They shop for clothes, they get new haircuts and "Oh wow! A studio- let's go get out pictures taken." It's not this way everywhere though. I've built and started studios in Mentor, Cleveland, Erie and even Charlston. Each area is a bit different.


There is a call for and an appreciation that is growing again for pro work, even film work though. While our customer base has dropped a bit by do-it-yourselfers our average sale from returning customers has almost doubled. Our prices are almost the most, if not THE most reasonable in town. So it's not like we're losing business because of greed.

I have noticed too, especially this year, because of the economy many folks have cut back in their spending. Professional portraits are part of this. It is frivolous compared to say food, gasoline, clothing, school supplies etc. Many times this past spring I'd over hear parents with kids at the sales table whispering about how it's either get a lot of pix to hand out or party supplies or food for the open house. The money situation is even reflected in the sales of the K Mart store just down the way in the mall. This year they barely sold any party or picnic supplies for open houses. SO in that respect digital is a money saver which people need in this day in age.

As a side note - another way professional photogs are hurting from digital is the evolution of quality or at least adequate scanners. Folks are running right home and scanning pro prints, printing them off and sending them out to family. The 'Marts are getting very proficient at not scanning pro work without a release but it doesn't stop the folks from doing at home. I've even had this happen twice where a family will come in for a sitting- we're talking a group of at least 12-18 people, and an aunt or grandma who isn't in the picture will stand back and pull a digital point and shoot out her purse or pocket and try to sneak pix over my shoulder!!!

I still shoot 6x7 (Medium format) for all of my personal work. I shoot both color slide and B&W negative films. I still have my own darkroom and still develop my own prints and film. I love it because while I've made my fare share or more of mistakes in the process of learning- I've gained an immense amount of knowledge from my screw ups. I prefer film myself just because of the personal contact with my work. Working in a darkroom for me is very relaxing and is almost meditative. I still borrow my brothers or my girlfriend's digital point-and-shoots when I go out and just want snapshots. But if it my personal work, my passion, something that could be displayed then I burn through a roll or two of film.

As said before, and I'm in agreement with the idea that without the cost of film and initial processing involved- a digital camera pays for itself quiet quickly. And with a much less limited range in terms of number of pix one can take of course there are going to be some great shots out there. In my opinion if one wished to get serious about photography then a digital SLR is the perfect tool for a student to learn on. A camera that still has all of the controls of a manual camera with instant feedback. The learning curve suddenly becomes a bit lower. Not necessarily the bar for quality, just that people can learn faster.

I guess all in all I'm torn. I use digital in the studio. I use film in my personal work. Where are my alliances? I can't really say. What I can let loose is the fact that film sales are back on a slow rise now that some of the digital fad is loosing it's forward motion. The market is saturated with digital cams of all varieties. It's also flooded with film cameras galore. Now the consumer has his or her choice in whatever flavor they'd like at a decent price. Films that have been dead for a number of years are making a return. Several film companies that have gone under have been brought back to life and stream lined to the point where they are making profit again.

It's a very quirky image capturing world out there!!!

 

[Scuffy]

Weegee the great.

Wasn't he a magician? lol

Just kidding Quigley!!

I'm a big fan of Edward Weston and his family personally.

 

[MrBern]

pro stuff

Dodging and Burning is alive and well in Photoshop. It can be used to great, and near identical effect.
What is about to change everything is the widespread use of full frame sensors that more closely mimic film. These up your Megapixles to a true 24+ instead of an algorithim. These are available now in the higher end pro digitals.
So, soon, you can shoot in your high resolution digital, dodge and burn in photoshop, and print on silver paper for a true 30s like photographic technique.
I use layers of bright hihglights and deep shadows along with dodges to get a great 30s glamour look.

I believe only Canon & Nikon have the pro-level full frame sensors....but LEICA is about to push that further w/ a larger sensor to compete w/ medium format. Useful for Fashion photogs.
NEW LEICA S2-(37.5 megapixel)

The S2, which has a 37.5 million pixel resolution, is the first of many future models that will form part of the S system. The first model sports a 30x45mm CCD sensor, which is 56% bigger than a typical 35mm sensor. The sensor was developed by Kodak, which has been working with Leica since it introduced its first digital rangefinder, the M8, and the Modul-R digital back for the R system.

 

[adamjaskie]

Instant feedback, and low cost once you divide by volume of work will of course both improve the photography skills of anyone who cares to learn from her mistakes, because she can make far more mistakes for far less money, and learn from many of them within a few seconds rather than days or weeks later when she has forgotten what she did to get the image.

And all that practice doesn't go away. If that photographer now picks up a film camera, once she is used to it, all of the skills translate over. Composition is still important. Exposure is still important. Lighting is still important. Timing, the emotions of the subject? They don't change if you're using film instead of digital.

Push, point, and pray? Hey, if it gets you a nice shot, more power to you.

Film isn't going away anytime soon. It's just getting to be more of a niche market, and thus the prices will go up. Digital has all but replaced film in the casual snapshot market, but film will be there in the "art" market for quite some time.

 

[MrBern]

leica S2

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092301_leica_s2.asp

Leica S2 with 56% larger sensor than full frame 35mm

With a custom 37.5-megapixel, 30 x 45 mm sensor that is 56% larger than full frame, it establishes parameters of imaging excellence that are well beyond those obtainable by conventional pro-caliber DSLRs.

 

[MrBern]

TLR for filmlovers

its not a rolleiflex, but cuter.

http://www.kilian-nakamura.com/blog-english/index.php/blackbird-fly-tlr-camera-from-superheadz/

 

[Fletch]

Playing with lighting

I'm getting a strong Steichen vibe from that. He loved to shadow his portraits and a lot of them were of people in fashion, arts, and letters - the Vanity Fair sort of thing. And not always prettied up - quirky and personal. If you'd been a prominent men's clothier in the 30s you could easily have been one of his subjects.

 

[John in Covina]

its not a rolleiflex, but cuter.

http://www.kilian-nakamura.com/blog-english/index.php/blackbird-fly-tlr-camera-from-superheadz/

********
I kinda like the looks of these and find it interesting that there is an increased interest in film in Japan springing from of the digital revolution.

 

[MrBern]

Actually the Lomography movement mentioned sprung out of Europe & Eastern Europe.
Lots of odd littl cameras came out of that area when the wall came down.
They made some interesting ZEISS inspired lenses.

The Chinese product HOLGA has quite a similar following.