Have you met one of these types of photographers?

[Tom Kershaw]

Back when I was working in a camera store, we sold a young man a new Minolta Autocord. When we attempted to show him how to use it he refused to listen saying that doing so would destroy his ability to do "artistic" work which he intended to do professionally. (even bought an occupational license saying that he was a professional photographer) We tried to talk him out of it but he would not listen. As far as we knew he never read anything about photography. All so his art would not be compromised. He opened a small studio (no darkroom, sent his work to a lab) and lasted about 90 days (until his money ran out). It was sad but predictable. I think he reenlisted in the Air Force...........Regards!

That is a great story, and pretty much what I had in mind.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think the types of photographers mentioned on this post are solipsistic.

 

[Eric Rose]

I think the types of photographers mentioned on this post are solipsistic.

Good one. However I'm not sure you really exist

 

[Eric Rose]

Ferryman...
What an ignorant, stupid response. When you have exposed processes as many LF negatives as I have with some 60 + years under the dark cloth, (30+ as a "professional) I just MIGHT consider your response worthy of 'some consideration That being said, I prefer to 'not' respond to ignorant and/or stupid questions such as yours, when you decided to 'show' us all just how "smart/better educated/" you think you might be. might I suggest that you take another look in a mirror.

Ken

The ignore function is your friend Ken.

 

[nmp]

I was recently 'accosted' by a 'mid-twenties idiot who felt he needed to introduce me to "modern photography" while 'fondling' two 35mm (?) /electronic/digital type cameras strung around his neck indicating that "it was time I got with it' as I came out from under the darkcloth with an image recorded to FP4.
"You will find 'things' much easier now-a-days" and MUCH faster... I thought for a moment and asked if either of his 'beuties' allowed him to use shifts, swings... or 'tilts' to correct for verticality &/or
control over DOF, he quickly went into "blank look" mode and indicated he DID NOT KNOW what I was 'talking about' or 'what these 'things meant'.. turned around and rather quickly.. walked away.
Had not been wearing a coat, I might have been able to see if his 'tail' was now well tucked in between his legs.

Ken

Ironically, if the guy knew his digital stuff well, he would have said he could do a lot of that by other means such as focus stacking, perspective correction in post-processing etc. Of course, he would not be able to capture the amount of detail in his 35mm cameras as you could on your 4x5's.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think the types of photographers mentioned on this post are solipsistic.

Good I needed a new word. Thanks.

Good one. However I'm not sure you really exist

+1

 

[Nodda Duma]

I’ve found very few people in life that I needed to be rude to...especially when it comes to the pursuit of hobbies. When someone shares their opinion on theres or my photography, I tend to listen and have a conversation. It’s always interesting to hear someone else’s perspective, even when 99% of the time it won’t impact what I’m doing. That 1% of the time though, I find worthwhile to improve what I’m doing and sometimes it takes some chatting to find it.

Don’t know if that’s arrogance, self-confidence, or just being taught by my dad if I don’t have something nice to say then don’t say anything.

 

[BrianShaw]

Oh my...

 

[foc]

I have met all of them ( I own a camera shop/ minilab) and my attitude is "let them at it".
Most times it can be entertaining to listen to what they have to say. One thing I have learnt, NEVER contradict them.
If the come into the shop just to lecture me about whatever, I continue working and half listen and throw in the odd comment " sure now", "are you serious?", "that's the way". After about 10 to 15 minutes they leave.

I found most professional photographers to be the most self-opinionated, egotistical, boorish people that are best avoided at all costs.
(I should know, I shot professionally for 34 years ! ! !)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have met all of them ( I own a camera shop/ minilab) and my attitude is "let them at it".
Most times it can be entertaining to listen to what they have to say. One thing I have learnt, NEVER contradict them.
If the come into the shop just to lecture me about whatever, I continue working and half listen and throw in the odd comment " sure now", "are you serious?", "that's the way". After about 10 to 15 minutes they leave.

I found most professional photographers to be the most self-opinionated, egotistical, boorish people that are best avoided at all costs.
(I should know, I shot professionally for 34 years ! ! !)

If you work in a store you have no choice. You might ask them for "advice"; they love that.

I think the second paragraph is a bit understated.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Ironically, if the guy knew his digital stuff well, he would have said he could do a lot of that by other means such as focus stacking, perspective correction in post-processing etc....

I don't think post-processing can duplicate all perspective controls. I ask, sincerely, whether the use of front rise (to avoid converging verticals) can be duplicated successfully - I've seen it done, but it seems to be a distortion that looks different than actual use of front rise.

As another example, imagine a shelf in the kitchen that has a rack of spices and other items. You want to photograph this obliquely so that the rack is at a 45-degree angle, yet have all the spices in focus, from closest to furthest. You don't use f/1000 to achieve this focus, but merely use swing to shift the plane of focus using the Scheimpflug principle. Can post-processing do that? Again, I ask sincerely.

 

[Luckless]

I don't think post-processing can duplicate all perspective controls. I ask, sincerely, whether the use of front rise (to avoid converging verticals) can be duplicated successfully - I've seen it done, but it seems to be a distortion that looks different than actual use of front rise.

As another example, imagine a shelf in the kitchen that has a rack of spices and other items. You want to photograph this obliquely so that the rack is at a 45-degree angle, yet have all the spices in focus, from closest to furthest. You don't use f/1000 to achieve this focus, but merely use swing to shift the plane of focus using the Scheimpflug principle. Can post-processing do that? Again, I ask sincerely.

Post-Processing can push the limits in some interesting ways, especially if you can use multi-imagine sampling. Things can get really kind of cool to work with if you pull the images in as a 3D digital environment, and then position the camera in some impossible places. [It can also fail in some delightfully hilarious ways. I'm kind of fond of what it does with people or pets who move between shots. 'At least you tried your best' kind of results.]

It all has pros and cons however.

Correcting for convergence can be hit and miss, depending on specifics of the scene and how far you push it.

Scheimpflug principle is a lot harder to do well from a single image, but that sort of thing is where focus-stacking from a bunch of images comes into play. [And makes for some really impressive results if you drift into macro photography kind of things.]

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Stacking is impressive. Co-worker used an ancient D90 to make several 15-second photos of the night sky (in the city!) and we could see stars down to magnitude 11. Visually, we would be lucky to see magnitude 5 at that time and place.

Astronomers used to stack film images of Mars to gain better images - such technique averages-out atmospheric blurring. But with digital, can stack thousands of images for great results.

 

[nmp]

I don't think post-processing can duplicate all perspective controls. I ask, sincerely, whether the use of front rise (to avoid converging verticals) can be duplicated successfully - I've seen it done, but it seems to be a distortion that looks different than actual use of front rise.

I wouldn't dare compare every different combinations of movements in LF camera and what they do to what is possible in Photoshop after a shot is taken with a regular lens in a DSLR. It's been a while since I played with my Toyo 4x5 and cracked open my Leslie Stroebel book (not that I was an expert in the first place.) However at first blush, given that various movements are nothing but manipulation of the projection of a 3D object onto a 2D ground glass by pushing and pulling the rays to make them fall at various places on film, I would think at least theoretically, digital post-processing should be able to get there by similarly pushing and pulling the pixels. Now granted, that when this kind of post-processing is done, there are new pixels created by interpolation and extrapolation which would deteriorate the quality of image somewhat. However with some of the newer higher pixel-count cameras, as well as better algorithms, this becomes less of an issue. The matter of fixing the converging lines is fairly straight forward:

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/atv/cs6-tutorials/correcting-perspective.html

Nowadays I use something called the "perspective warp" tool that can do this (an much more!) with a few clicks.

One major difference I can think of here is that one has to take the picture with an idea of what kind of post-processing is going to be done (previsualization?) - parts of the image will get cropped out so one has to compensate by keeping extra space around. In a LF camera, you are able to see exactly what you are going to get by looking at the ground glass - something which a DSLR can not match at this point. It is still not clear to me whether or not the final corrected image is identical to the one that may be obtained with in-camera correction. There may well be some artifacts and distortions as you allude in case of the former, rising not the least because of the skill level of the practitioner.

As another example, imagine a shelf in the kitchen that has a rack of spices and other items. You want to photograph this obliquely so that the rack is at a 45-degree angle, yet have all the spices in focus, from closest to furthest. You don't use f/1000 to achieve this focus, but merely use swing to shift the plane of focus using the Scheimpflug principle. Can post-processing do that? Again, I ask sincerely.

This can be achieved by doing "focus stacking." Some of the newer cameras can do this automatically with one press of the shutter. It takes several pictures focusing at the nearest, the farthest, and several points in-between in the scene. One would take these shots into Photoshop (or one of the other more dedicated apps) and combine them into one image where everything is in focus. The case of a spice rack that you describe may be one of the simpler ones to execute as there are no discontinuities in the image (like a foreground and a distant background.) Of course, like everything in digital there are limitations, artifacts and other complications to pay attention to. And you don't know if you did it right until you come home and fire up the computer whereas it is WYSIWYG in case of LF camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't think post-processing can duplicate all perspective controls. I ask, sincerely, whether the use of front rise (to avoid converging verticals) can be duplicated successfully - I've seen it done, but it seems to be a distortion that looks different than actual use of front rise.

As another example, imagine a shelf in the kitchen that has a rack of spices and other items. You want to photograph this obliquely so that the rack is at a 45-degree angle, yet have all the spices in focus, from closest to furthest. You don't use f/1000 to achieve this focus, but merely use swing to shift the plane of focus using the Scheimpflug principle. Can post-processing do that? Again, I ask sincerely.

Nothing can do the job of shifts and tilts. Period. As much as I love my Hasselblad if I need shifts and tilts I would do it in LF instead if a FlexBody or ArcBody. And no computer processing is not a substitute for camera movements.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Shifts are matter of "scrolling" around with your standards on LF and, given that you have allowed enough extra space around your intended image, manageable in file development, as are perspective adjustments. Where LF excels is in the adjustment of focal planes with swings and tilts, not doable after the fact of exposure in file development. Neither can manage Depth of Field after exposure.

 

[jtk]

I don't reduce people to "types."

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't reduce people to "types."

But some of them come that way or fit into those classes.

 

[jtk]

But some of them come that way or fit into those classes.

That makes for primitive relationships. It voids artistic potential but undoubtedly makes marketing simpler.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That makes for primitive relationships. It voids artistic potential but undoubtedly makes marketing simpler.

When they fit in one of those four classes, they are devoid of artistic potential.

 

[removed account4]

Who cares ... they are our friends, family, mentors and the people
we wish we were like ( but don't want to admit it )
It's too bad these "so-called wonderful authors and influencers"
don't go out and make great photographs instead of writing garbage that mocks and divides people.
It's unfortunate that people feel so intimidated by others they have to do that sort of thing.

 

[jtk]

I have met all of them ( I own a camera shop/ minilab) and my attitude is "let them at it".
Most times it can be entertaining to listen to what they have to say. One thing I have learnt, NEVER contradict them.
If the come into the shop just to lecture me about whatever, I continue working and half listen and throw in the odd comment " sure now", "are you serious?", "that's the way". After about 10 to 15 minutes they leave.

I found most professional photographers to be the most self-opinionated, egotistical, boorish people that are best avoided at all costs.
(I should know, I shot professionally for 34 years ! ! !)

Professional photographers dont have time to hang around with retail clerks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Professional photographers dont have time to hang around with retail clerks.

The four types I have come across in the wild.

 

[foc]

Professional photographers dont have time to hang around with retail clerks.

So what do you do if you are (among other things) a retail clerk and a professional photographer?

 

[Sirius Glass]

So what do you do if you are (among other things) a retail clerk and a professional photographer?

You would spend your time tearing yourself apart. You would never be able to live with yourself.