Is it embarassing to shoot film?

Worker 11811 · Jul 22, 2011

If I had a camera with a "black dress" program and a "white dress" program I would use it at least part of the time but, like I said, I'd shoot a couple on manual and bracket. Maybe I don't need to know how to bracket but it is certainly beneficial to know what's going on inside my camera that makes the black/white programs work.

Do I really, really need to know that, for instance, I should expose one or two ƒ-stops up or down to get the right result? Not in so many words but it's probably best if, at minimum, I know that the program(s) I use in my camera command it to make that little hole inside the lens change size so as to alter the amount of light that gets in and I need to know that it's the amount of light that gets in which makes the difference between a good, salable photograph and a bad one.

Does a house painter need to know how to formulate paint from scratch? No but he probably should know the difference between oil based paint and latex pain and he'd better know when or when not to use each kind.

Sirius Glass · Jul 22, 2011

Would the "white dress" mode work for snow?

Worker 11811 · Jul 22, 2011

When I was a teenager, we had a black Labrador Retriever. I tried so hard to take pictures of that dog when he was outside playing in the snow. All I ever got was a black blotch on a white background!

I think I only ever got one or two really good pictures of him.

Wilcoxson David L. · Jul 22, 2011

My experiences with other people has always been positive re. shooting film. Just last month, I went to a Civil War reenactment in a nearby community. It was actually a pretty big deal with lots of reenactors, both fighters and support/family in attendance. I got there fairly early on Saturday morning well before the "battle" was to begin and got a good spot to set up. The battle area was roped off so people wouldn't go wandering into the battle area and foul it all up. Once set up, I couldn't really reposition myself for any other angles because of the crowds and fortunately for me, I was right up against the rope. What really surprised me was out of several thousand visitors, I was the only one I saw with a film camera. I thought it would be fun to shoot the event with my Wisner 4X5 Technical Field using Ilford Ortho film. I got lots of kind comments about the camera and much interest in the "Old Style" photography. I was amazed there were no photographer reenactors playing Matthew Brady. Not only no other film cameras (that I saw) but also no other large format equipment at all. Quite sad really, but the peoples response to the camera was good. I even got interview by a reporter for a local TV station and got my 15 seconds of fame!

Sirius Glass · Jul 22, 2011

At the Andrews AFB Armed Forces day, I was allowed to go past the barriers and tapes every time but one. But I was carring a 4"x5" Pacemaker Speed Graphic with the wire frame erected.

michaelbsc · Jul 22, 2011

Wilcoxson said:
...I was amazed there were no photographer reenactors playing Matthew Brady....

This is exactly one of my goals. To shoot period correct plates on my wooden 4x5 at Civil War reenactments.

The biggest problem is that this pesky business of earning a living to pay the mortgage gets in the way of my hobby.

Diapositivo · Jul 22, 2011

Sirius Glass said:
Would the "white dress" mode work for snow?

That's not really important for that professional, he will certainly have a different camera with a "snow" program and use that for the snow pictures. Actually he will wonder why didn't they put a "snow" program in his DSLR instead of forcing him to buy a bridge camera with a "snow" program. It would be nice - you can imagine him saying - if I could use the same camera for white dresses, black suits, and snow. It's all marketing, you know! They force you to buy many cameras.

Fabrizio

PS I know I am saying something that can appear provocative to somebody, but frankly I think it all started with "matrix" metering. When you begin thinking that the camera can make valid decisions in your place, you are walking down a steep slope ending in a black hole. "Matrix" metering is not at all very different from "snow mode", in my [insert your preferred disparaging comment here] opinion.

PPS Before this post looks too provocative, it's just an encouragement to understand the basics and realize that you really don't need matrix metering, it's not progress, the only occasions when I can see some utility is when you really have no time to think about exposure at all, lighting conditions are varying, your focal length and composition is varying, the ratio between background and foreground is varying, and you are using slides. In those circumstances, I would use negatives in any case. Matrix really makes no sense to me.

markbarendt · Jul 22, 2011

Klainmeister said:
This is one of the most lucid and accurate posts I have seen in a while. Thank you.

You are welcome.

M.A.Longmore · Jul 22, 2011

jordanstarr said:
no

.
Good Answer !

Ron
.

markbarendt · Jul 22, 2011

Worker 11811 said:
But there's something else...

There were, probably, a dozen people on that pier taking pictures of the same ship. Everybody but me had digicams and I am the one who is getting his photograph to sell. Why is that? It's because of attention to detail.

I made sure the exposure was right, or at least as well as I could make it. I printed it as well as I know how. You can count the planks in the side of the ship. In future prints, I hope to make it even better.

Actually I'd bet the reason you "sold" yours and they didn't is because you simply made the effort to sell it and the digi-snappers didn't.

Assuming the digi-snapper next to you is a hack in the craft is to seriously underestimate your competition.

Worker 11811 said:
Maybe a studio is just an assembly line but, assuming you're not running a franchise operation, you need to know how to set up the equipment in the first place and you need to develop a workflow to produce a good product, even if that product is only good enough that people simply pay for it.

What about unforeseen or unpredictable situations? What if some woman comes in demanding that you photograph her in an all black, floor length dress? Do you know enough about your camera to make it expose that subject correctly? Do you simply trust the automatic exposure system in your camera? Wouldn't the prudent professional shoot a few shots on automatic then shoot a few on manual just to cover his ass? I do things like that a lot.

Normal, general purpose, studio setups can easily handle black or white dresses or even both in the same shot.

Specialty setups can be designed to deal with almost any client preference. The design process is typically done before the client arrives. The client sits in the right place, the shutter drops and you are done.

For most any studio setup, there is no guessing whether your exposure is right or not because the lighting is designed for the camera setting. The ISO, aperture, and times are not variables.

Studio sets are so reliable that the only reasons to take more than one shot is to insure you caught a good expression (I.e. That nobody blinked), to get a different pose, and in case there was a defect in one shot.

Worker 11811 said:
Professionalism isn't simply about producing a salable product and it isn't simply investment in a craft. It's about understanding your business as well as you know how. One uses his knowledge to produce his product. What one doesn't know, he makes an effort to learn.

A professional photographer of any sort who doesn't doesn't understand -stops is like a race car driver who doesn't understand what a clutch is. Sure, you can teach a driver to look at the the tachometer then step on the little pedal and move the handle when the little needle gets up to the red line but he's not going to win many races unless he has a basic understanding of how his engine works.

The managers in the company I work for are moving exactly the opposite direction. They used to be guys that "grew up" in the industry and they understood the mechanics of the craft, now the preference for managers are classically trained accountants and MBAs.

The new crop of managers care only about the budget and looking as good as possible to their bosses.

Sirius Glass · Jul 22, 2011

markbarendt said:
The new crop of managers care only about the budget and looking as good as possible to their bosses.

Unfortunately I have seen first hand several large companies brought to their knees [or whatever companies have] when the bean counters and attorneys took over. Now if I see that happening to a place where I am working, I leave and get a better job at higher pay. The best revenge is to live life well.

Worker 11811 · Jul 22, 2011

People blame the government when the economy is falling apart?

Sure, I believe a business runs better when processes are streamlined and as many things are thought out in advance as they reasonably can be but boiling everything down to the lowest common denominator in order for minimally trained employees to do a mediocre job just so you can sell a fair-to-middling product at an inflated price is no way to grow a buisness, let alone a national economy.

I don't think that is professional behavior at all. Capitalism is not necessarily professionalism.

What we need as a nation (and the world) is to encourage people to grow in their careers, not to be just trained monkeys. An entry level employee might not need to know the intricacies of photography but, as he gains more experience, he should learn. Those people who learn more, progress and grow are the true professionals. It should be the professionals who move the company forward, not the bean counters and the stuffed suits.

Steve Mack · Jul 22, 2011

No, it isn't.

With best regards,

Stephen

markbarendt · Jul 22, 2011

Worker 11811 said:
People blame the government when the economy is falling apart?

Silly people.

Worker 11811 said:
I don't think that is professional behavior at all. Capitalism is not necessarily professionalism.

It is purely professional. The ethics of the system is what I question.

Worker 11811 said:
It should be the professionals who move the company forward, not the bean counters and the stuffed suits.

The owners are the drivers in the end. When the owner is separated from the business by a fund or some such thing the only thing that matters is the money.

Worker 11811 · Jul 22, 2011

It was the Luddites in England during the late 1700's to early 1800's who protested factories and destroyed mechanized textile looms but their main motivation was not simply against the use of machines. It was against the use of machines to replace skilled workers with unskilled laborers at half the wage. Many Luddites wanted machines because it meant that they could produce a better product and more of it in the same amount of time. The British military had to be called in to quell the fighting when workers were unceremoniously fired from their jobs and replaced with unskilled labor.

Similar things have happened over and over and, even today, in the Southern US, workers in the textile industry are again being laid off in favor of cheap, unskilled labor overseas. My sister-in-law was recently terminated from her job in the textile industry for just that reason. A lot of American industries are essentially doomed to uncompetitiveness and even failure because their management has gambled on machines and cheap labor over craftsmanship and the judicious use of technology to supplement and enhance craftsmanship.

The same thing applies here. I don't necessarily shun the use of technology in photography because I don't like computers and digital imagery. (I think traditional photography is better but that's another subject.) I do not, however, like the use of technology to replace knowledgeable, skilled photographers. If I was of the mind and had the budget to buy a good digicam I'd probably get one and I would use many of the automatic features when it was convenient but I would not rely on automation over knowledge and experience.

If I had a photography business I would expect any applicant to have a basic understanding of photography, digital or otherwise. I would expect them to know what an aperture is and why it's important even if they didn't know how to calculate ƒ-stops. I can teach them the math if and when it becomes necessary. However, if I said to an employee, "Stop down," I would expect them to understand what I'm talking about.

I like machines. I like computers. I like digital imagery. I even make part of my living presenting programs via digital projection even though I prefer film projectors. But people who don't understand why I don't use a digital camera are the same people who don't understand why people are being laid off from their jobs because of the improper use of machines to replace synapses with silicon.

perkeleellinen · Jul 23, 2011

Worker 11811 said:
It was the Luddites in England during the late 1700's to early 1800's who protested factories and destroyed mechanized textile looms but their main motivation was not simply against the use of machines. It was against the use of machines to replace skilled workers with unskilled laborers at half the wage. Many Luddites wanted machines because it meant that they could produce a better product and more of it in the same amount of time. The British military had to be called in to quell the fighting when workers were unceremoniously fired from their jobs and replaced with unskilled labor.

At this time (rather like now, I suppose) to be out of work was considered the fault of the worker himself, to be unemployed was to be lazy, feckless, or a scrounger living on others' taxes. The dominant idea that man is master of his own fate permeated society. So, to be out of work meant the workhouse where families were pulled apart and the unemployed were treated like criminals (they are, after all, the lazy, the feckless...). The Luddites were stirred into action not only because they were redundant but also because society blamed them for it and punished them with incarceration.

markbarendt · Jul 23, 2011

perkeleellinen said:
The Luddites were stirred into action not only because they were redundant but also because society blamed them for it and punished them with incarceration.

A little revolution now and again is a good thing, who's in?

perkeleellinen · Jul 23, 2011

markbarendt said:
A little revolution now and again is a good thing, who's in?

Much of the radicalism from this time emerged out of the rapid disappearance of what E.P.Thompson coined the Moral Economy: gleaning rights, common land, customary rights, gaming rights. Industrialisation individualised man and he stood naked before the free market. It wasn't really until the 1910s that social policy was able to contain this radicalism by acknowledging that the world really does seem upside-down.

[video=youtube;G6O0Erj0hkc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6O0Erj0hkc[/video]

Steve Smith · Jul 23, 2011

perkeleellinen said:
At this time (rather like now, I suppose) to be out of work was considered the fault of the worker himself, to be unemployed was to be lazy, feckless, or a scrounger living on others' taxes.

Unfortunately, that attitude still exists. In reality it is only true during times of full employment. When there are not enough jobs to go round then some people will be unemployed despite their best efforts.

Then there are those who don't want to work. They are best left unemployed - I certainly wouldn't want to employ them!

Steve.

perkeleellinen · Jul 23, 2011

I used to have some friends who never worked, I used to comment that the amount of energy they used avoiding work may be better utilised in work, they would be able to afford stuff like food, then.

It's interesting to see how attitudes to the unemployed change as the labour market contracts and expands. In times of high employment, the public is generally hostile to those without work, in times of low employment, the opposite is the case. This is because during recessions most people have family and friends without work and they know that they are not lazy or feckless, thus they become sympathetic to the plight of the unemployed. However, once all family and friends are in jobs, then unemployment becomes remote and attitudes revert back to hostility.

Diapositivo · Jul 23, 2011

Luddites were relatively well-off people who made a great investment in their loom so that they could make tissues, profiting of the prohibition to make tissues applied to the rest of the empire (India, America, as far as I know, could not make tissues, this was an English privilege). A flourishing cottage industry emerged, the average size of the firm was one family, looms were small.

Suddenly a new industrial kind of loom appeared, moved by hydraulic energy, like a mill. They still say "mill" in England to mean "factory". Those mills did not require less, or more, skilled workforce than the smaller "cottage" mills, but had a higher yield and could produce the same tissues for a smaller price. That pushed the cottage industry out of market.

The cottage industry participants recognised the menace, and in a famous episode just attacked a mill to destroy it. Repression was brutal but obvious. It's a bit as if the photo industry lived out of artisan producers of wet plates. Suddenly somebody invents roll film, and all the cottage producers of wet plates solve the problem by assaulting Kodak plants and destroying them.

I understand how bad it was for the cottage loom people to face competition, but they were not the poor, and they were certainly the arrogant side in the equation, people who become violent to defend their own "privilege" and having the rest of the Empire pay tissues more than strictly necessary. Progress is always good by definition.

The Luddite are among us every day, these kind of problems continuously shake any economic tissue. The answer is "managing" the transition (somehow also with public money up to a certain extent) not trying to stop progress, which wouldn't work in any case. Cottage looms still exist. Benetton made an industrial empire entirely based on the home-based loom, and that in the XX century. Adaptation is necessary for life. The strong (he who will be able to adopt to changing conditions) shall thrive.

That said, I am leftist, I believe in "cushioning" this kind of social problems, and I am unemployed as well. But I would lead the charge against the Luddites even today.

Fabrizio

perkeleellinen · Jul 23, 2011

Diapositivo said:
Suddenly a new industrial kind of loom appeared, moved by hydraulic energy, like a mill. They still say "mill" in England to mean "factory". Those mills did not require less, or more, skilled workforce than the smaller "cottage" mills, but had a higher yield and could produce the same tissues for a smaller price. That pushed the cottage industry out of market.

What's really interesting here is that it was often the daughters of artisans who went to work at the mill. As the father's trade diminished, the daughter become the main wage earner. It produced an odd tension in many homes as the father figure struggled to accept his daughter as the main source of money and his own weakened role. It's an interesting topic and one that adds a gendered perspective to what is often seen as a male-dominated time.

Worker 11811 · Jul 23, 2011

My point is that using technology to do work, best done by people, then claiming that it's all in the name of business is a very short sighted strategy which can hurt business in the long run.

If you can use a tractor to farm your fields and produce more corn for a better price than you could using a team of horses, that is generally seen as a good thing but you should not forget that horses are also good for traveling over uneven terrain where tractors would have a hard time. Even today, many logging companies still use teams of Belgian draft horses to pull timber out of the woods. Horses can do the same job as tractors over flat ground but, in the woods, horses are often better.

A business man who adopts technology in place of knowledgeable people is selling himself short. He should seek the right mixture of machines and people to do the job as well as possible for the long term prosperity of his business and the people who work there and not for the maximization of short-term profit. Otherwise, he stands the chance of finding himself on the sort end of the stick when jobs get shipped overseas.

Do I fault a professional photographer for using digital cameras? No, but I believe a professional photographer who uses technology as a crutch and doesn't learn the basics of his trade to be the same as the owner of a textile mill who fires half his workers and buys mechanized looms. He'll get by in the sort term but, overall, he's only hurting himself.

goldenimage · Jul 23, 2011

i have a digital camera but it stays put away somewhere, honestly i dont even know where it is lol. digital cant even come close to my large format cameras, the best thing about digital photography is it allows me to afford all the cool film gear that i couldnt afford before. I was talking to a portrait photographer the other day, he used to have a studio in the local mall, he was telling me how digital is what ran him out of business, he said everyone that has a digital camera these days thinks they are a pro photographer,

markbarendt · Jul 23, 2011

Diapositivo said:
The Luddite are among us every day, these kind of problems continuously shake any economic tissue. The answer is "managing" the transition (somehow also with public money up to a certain extent) not trying to stop progress, which wouldn't work in any case. Cottage looms still exist. Benetton made an industrial empire entirely based on the home-based loom, and that in the XX century. Adaptation is necessary for life. The strong (he who will be able to adopt to changing conditions) shall thrive.

That said, I am leftist, I believe in "cushioning" this kind of social problems, and I am unemployed as well. But I would lead the charge against the Luddites even today.

Fabrizio

The Luddites today are sometimes obvious, like oil companies and those who have based there businesses on oil. Sometimes less so, cell/mobile phone companies here in the USA are doing their darndest to keep customers locked in where they can't switch to competitors easily.

Another example is Apple's iPad and iPod touch. I actually use my iPad as my main phone via Skype. The iPad though has been crippled slightly, it won't connect the Bluetooth headset to Skype. I have to use a wired microphone/headset.

The only reason I can think of for this is that Apple is "protecting" the iPhone and the AT&T and Verizon.

Is it embarassing to shoot film?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency