How to deal with photography deniers?

Theo Sulphate · Jul 31, 2019

From reading numerous digital-oriented websites, it seems ISOs of 3200 and higher are used regularly, along with shutter speeds of 1/4000 and much higher with lenses close to wide open. Some of the photos I've seen, such as at a beach on a sunny day, isolating the subject at maybe f/2.8, look pretty good.

Being from a different era and happy with my style of photography, I almost never exceed ISO 400, with film or digital, and almost never exceed 1/1000. For night shots, I'm happy with Tri-X at 400 and very low (long) shutter speeds - from a high of 1/30 to several seconds.

It might be amusing to hear from people who started with digital, came to film, and were surprised by cameras which had 1/500 or 1/1000 top speeds and ASA values that stopped at 1600.

Luckless · Jul 31, 2019

jnantz said:
Why would anyone need a shutter speed faster than 1/1000s ( or even 1/500thS )?

For any time they want to take a photo where 1/1000th of a second is too slow of a shutter speed?

- What could anyone possibly do with more than 640kb of ram in a computer...

Cameras are tools, and with wider options of cameras comes a wider option of what can be captured as an image.

Sirius Glass · Jul 31, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
How are you going to shoot ISO 3200 film at box speed with the lens wide open?

markjwyatt said:
Another good point- even at f22 in daylight it is an issue. ND filters...

Wide open on my 500mm lens is f/8 and the fastest shutter speed is 1/500.

Helios 1984 · Jul 31, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
Wide open on my 500mm lens is f/8 and the fastest shutter speed is 1/500.

You need a flash, a big one.

jtk · Jul 31, 2019

If you consider yourself an artist you only need a 2H pencil, if that.

Berkeley Mike · Jul 31, 2019

I recall colleagues discovering ASA 3200 film in about 1986 and saying that it changed he way that they see; a whole new world. I thought they were nuts. My world was Ektachrome 4x5, 8000 watt/seconds, f32, bulb. Tri X 35 was for fun. Then I tried ASA 3200 and that was way fun.

In the entry-level classroom we often just shoot with the room light, awful fluorescents, and learn to work the camera for a good exposure. Noise and color are not the point. Later in the semester when we are trying to do our best, including color and noise...yeah...it is a very different world. It is a world we cannot see with our eyes. It is great for establishing the principle that the camera sees differently that our human vision.

firemachine69 · Jul 31, 2019

jnantz said:
Why would anyone need a shutter speed faster than 1/1000s ( or even 1/500thS )?
Auto winders have been around forever. Sorry I am confused by your reasoning..
As far as I know, I have lived 100% in every time period I have had a camera ...
I agree it can be easy to be carried away, but still it can be easy not to. Most cameras and shuttered lenses I have
owned maxed out at 1/1000 flash sync at 125 or 60 ( if at all )
or they had 2 shutter speeds "I" or "T" and they never really let me down...

Don't forget to have fun !

I typically walk around with my camera in Aperture Priority mode in downtown Toronto. I have an ND2 filter on my nifty-fifty. I'll watch the shutter go all the way down to 1/15 at times (going in heavily shaded areas), and peak at 1/2000 elsewhere. I keep my equipment minimal - I'm a bus driver, and it's not unheard of having your personal belongings stolen. I can live with a roll of film and $200ish of equipment going missing. I'd cry if I lost something like my 70-200 G2. I'm also not interested in carrying around lots of "extras", or spending money on them. I'm actually on the verge of selling my "pro" stuff. I'm enjoying photography more than ever just focusing on the "basics". YMMV, of course.

jamesaz · Aug 1, 2019

jtk said:
If you consider yourself an artist you only need a 2H pencil, if that.

Knowing how to draw is also helpful.

faberryman · Aug 1, 2019

jamesaz said:
Knowing how to draw is also helpful.

Thanks for throwing cold water on my hopes and dreams. I was just getting ready to head out to the art supply store to pick up some 2H pencils.

Luckless · Aug 1, 2019

jamesaz said:
Knowing how to draw is also helpful.

More helpful still, actually being reasonably good at drawing...

For example, I know how to draw, but in all honesty my skills with drawing are a huge part of why I'm a photographer...

BMbikerider · Aug 1, 2019

Dali said:
I recently participated to a local photography contest and went to the closing ceremony to hear one of the judges motivating their choice.

After listening to what I consider a speech full of BS, someone asked the judge if we knew if these pictures were digital or analog. The answer was “all digital” despite the fact that I submitted 4 analog pictures…

A mistake is always possible but what I heard next was not an error. The “judge” carried on by saying that film photography was over, a legacy of a bygone era and if it were still used, it is only by “purists”… The way I heard that, “purist” was clearly for him the equivalent of “retarded” or “snobs”...

Apart from that, I have mostly good experiences when I shoot outside, especially with TLR, don’t ask me why… The same day but hours apart, my Rolleicord was noticed by a Chinese grandpa who worked in a camera shop in Hong Kong decades ago and a tramp who remembered the time he was shooting film in high school. Both got the camera wrong by confusing it with a Rolleiflex but it is pretty understandable. Each time, it had been ths subject of a little chat.

A few years ago I was a member of a prestigious Photographic Society in the North of England. At one of the monthly competitions where I had a couple of 12x16 colour prints up for assessment and the comments by the assessor were completely gob-smacking. "Too dark here. Too much contrast there. not enough luminance everywhere. (whatever luminance is). The followed up by I had used too much unsharp mask. Her final statement was "The author would benefit by taking lessons in Photoshop use". Shortly afterwards I saw her talking to one of the club committee where apparently she was enlightened that it was not a digital print, but one made in a darkroom. There was no response from her, but she was apparently acutely embarrassed. She clearly was someone who's photography was surrounded by electronic gizmos and had absolutely no experience of traditional work.

Bless 'em, for they know not what they preach!

jamesaz · Aug 2, 2019

Luckless said:
More helpful still, actually being reasonably good at drawing...

For example, I know how to draw, but in all honesty my skills with drawing are a huge part of why I'm a photographer...

The pencil and the knowledge are 2 of the "3 legs of the stool" as it were. Practice is the 3rd.

removed account4 · Aug 2, 2019

firemachine69 said:
I typically walk around with my camera in Aperture Priority mode in downtown Toronto. I have an ND2 filter on my nifty-fifty. I'll watch the shutter go all the way down to 1/15 at times (going in heavily shaded areas), and peak at 1/2000 elsewhere. I keep my equipment minimal - I'm a bus driver, and it's not unheard of having your personal belongings stolen. I can live with a roll of film and $200ish of equipment going missing. I'd cry if I lost something like my 70-200 G2. I'm also not interested in carrying around lots of "extras", or spending money on them. I'm actually on the verge of selling my "pro" stuff. I'm enjoying photography more than ever just focusing on the "basics". YMMV, of course.

ahhh makes sense now the difference between deep shade and sun is pretty vast
have fun making your pix !
john

Black Dog · Aug 3, 2019

BMbikerider said:
A few years ago I was a member of a prestigious Photographic Society in the North of England. At one of the monthly competitions where I had a couple of 12x16 colour prints up for assessment and the comments by the assessor were completely gob-smacking. "Too dark here. Too much contrast there. not enough luminance everywhere. (whatever luminance is). The followed up by I had used too much unsharp mask. Her final statement was "The author would benefit by taking lessons in Photoshop use". Shortly afterwards I saw her talking to one of the club committee where apparently she was enlightened that it was not a digital print, but one made in a darkroom. There was no response from her, but she was apparently acutely embarrassed. She clearly was someone who's photography was surrounded by electronic gizmos and had absolutely no experience of traditional work.

Bless 'em, for they know not what they preach!

Hahahaha that's a great story!

jtk · Aug 3, 2019

Black Dog said:
Hahahaha that's a great story!

Amusing...but "luminance" isn't exclusive to inkjet printing ... it relates perfectly well to darkroom prints. Nothing wrong with a little learning.

The online definitions, especially wiki, are consistently useless (but correct). The "assessor" in this story might have made a better point by suggesting a different paper choice (#2 isn't identical across brands) and some sort of toning, such as selenium.

jtk · Aug 3, 2019

nmp said:
Ironically, you are denying other people's photography as well.

Yes.

markbau · Aug 3, 2019

jtk said:
Amusing...but "luminance" isn't exclusive to inkjet printing ... it relates perfectly well to darkroom prints. Nothing wrong with a little learning.

The online definitions, especially wiki, are consistently useless (but correct). The "assessor" in this story might have made a better point by suggesting a different paper choice (#2 isn't identical across brands) and some sort of toning, such as selenium.

Most of the words used in photography circles are actually quite useless. "Luminance" would be high up that list. Even the word "contrast" means different things to different people. I can have a print where the highlights are not blown out nor the shadows featureless black but if the midtones are lacking in tonal seperation the print can look horrible. Technically the print could be said to have good contrast. Conversely you can have a print with blown out highlights, blocked up shadows but decent midtones. Some people would like the first print, some the second.
I always have a chuckle when someone says a film/developer/paper has "good tones" or "a good tonal range".

I also get a chuckle from the term "fine art". David Vestal riffed on this once by asking, if there is fine art does it follow there is medium art or coarse art?

And the biggie, define "art". Your definition will probably vary greatly from another person. I don't even use the word anymore as it is meaningless. There is only what I like, and what you like and what the guy next to you likes.

faberryman · Aug 3, 2019

markbau said:
And the biggie, define "art". Your definition will probably vary greatly from another person. I don't even use the word anymore as it is meaningless. There is only what I like, and what you like and what the guy next to you likes.

There are things that I like that aren't art and things I don't like which are art. Art doesn't have anything to do with what you like.

markbau · Aug 3, 2019

faberryman said:
There are things that I like that aren't art and things I don't like which are art. Art doesn't have anything to do with what you like.

But I don't call any of it art, so for me there is simply what I like and what I don't like. If you want to define something as art, that is your call.
If art doesn't have anything to do with what you like it seems you are inferring that there is some higher authority or consensus view that can bestow the word "art" on something. I eschew the whole "art scene" which bestows greatness (and a high price tag) on the select few by calling their work "art" and the makers "artists". It seems to me that the people who are the current "great artists" are actually just people who are better at promoting and marketing their work. There are untold masses, like many of the people in these forums, who produce outstanding work but will never be known outside their family and friends and perhaps some of the other people on these forums. Are they not "great artists" because their work is not hanging in some swanky New York gallery? That's why I don't use the word anymore except in discussions about the futility of using the word.

Berkeley Mike · Aug 3, 2019

BMbikerider said:
A few years ago.... There was no response from her, but she was apparently acutely embarrassed. She clearly was someone who's photography was surrounded by electronic gizmos and had absolutely no experience of traditional work.

Bless 'em, for they know not what they preach!

Or...one might suggest that this is a great but unintended blind test.

As the judge was not aware of the process used to produce the image (what does that have to do with anything?), the judge appreciates the extra capacity for development set by a new standard for image production. Perhaps analogue limitations might be quaint but do not measure up to contemporary standards. One might say, well this is a nice image..for a silver print with limited tonal capabilities. Awkward, yes, but If I were the judge I would not be embarrassed for revealing the king's new clothes.

One might suggest that analogue prints ought not to be judged by contemporary Digital standards. Fair enough. Yet how long have we had to endure evaluations of digital performance from entrenched analogue standards?

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 3, 2019

Once when I was out in Central Park in New York using my Linhof Tech V, a gentleman with a German accent asked if I was German, but if I’m using one of my Canons, no one asks if I’m Japanese.

Theo Sulphate · Aug 3, 2019

Berkeley Mike said:
...
As the judge was not aware of the process used to produce the image...

The "judge" (whatever those qualifications are) stated the photographer should improve his photoshop skills, so she clearly believed the image was digitally produced.

That, in itself, I don't find offensive - but the cavalier suggestions for improving it are presumptuous. She didn't accept that the print looked exactly the way the photographer wanted it to look. Instead, she offered the type of advice you find on certain digital photography forums by people who've mastered 3 months of photoshop.

BMbikerider · Aug 3, 2019

To be honest a lot of people who use digital think this is the be all and end all and nothing else is worth bothering with. I 'do' photography mostly for pleasure and still appreciate and welcome the challenge of making a colour or mono print using no more technology than my personal skill which I can do most times but there is still a challenge of getting everything right 1st time which start in the camera and not sat in front of a screen working on what may be imperfections afterwards.

I do use digital for work and have access to a decent set of Nikon kit, but whatever I use I do not have the self satisfaction that I get with film. Sorry guys but that is my preference and no one is going to change that..

removed account4 · Aug 3, 2019

BMbikerider said:
To be honest a lot of people who use digital think this is the be all and end all and nothing else is worth bothering with

IDK seems like often times the shoe fits the same on the other foot..

jtk · Aug 3, 2019

I don't disdain (or "exchew" ...pinky finger in air) film OR digital. I use both. We all know why people like to take sides.

Right now I'm waffling about a 4X5 E6 decision...it's not a technical or economic decision.

How to deal with photography deniers?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency