As you might recall, home video cameras put all of the major motion picture studios and television networks out of business back in the 1980's. Are film-based photographers next?
Is Traditional Photography THAT Hard???
-
- Thread starter Sean
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Very nice 300mm f/6.3 Komura Commercial in Copal 3S
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
For Sale Very clean 90mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon in Copal 0
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
Want to Buy Folding Pocket Kodak Plate Holders, Cut Film Sheaths, and Ground Glass
- Started by trichrome
Forum statistics
I think Lex alluded to the real difficulty with traditional methods, especially B&W and that is the need for a darkroom. Everyone who is serious about traditional methods either has, had or wants a dedicated darkroom. This involves cost and logistics. Next comes the issue of dealing with various chemicals, some pretty toxic if misused. Then the time involved in developing the film, printing, washing, storage etc.
Now look at digital. If you have a total digital workflow, all you need is a high quality lap top, and printer. Of course the computer can be the same computer the wife balances to books with and you play games on. You may need a dedicated printer. Besides the camera, that is all you need. Everything is on the desktop. To get fancy you get a good imaging program, MIS inksets and maybe a better printer.
Now, if you are 18 or 19 and interested in photography, which one do you choose? Which one is going to be the harder one to master for the 18yr old?
Now look at digital. If you have a total digital workflow, all you need is a high quality lap top, and printer. Of course the computer can be the same computer the wife balances to books with and you play games on. You may need a dedicated printer. Besides the camera, that is all you need. Everything is on the desktop. To get fancy you get a good imaging program, MIS inksets and maybe a better printer.
Now, if you are 18 or 19 and interested in photography, which one do you choose? Which one is going to be the harder one to master for the 18yr old?
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2002
- Messages
- 4,515
- Format
- Large Format
Thomas, I am sure your super duper Epson has paid for itself, but tell me, how many times over has your analog cameras paid for themsleves? Not only that I am sure they will keep making you money long after you decided you need the ultra super duper Epson....no?
But that was not my point, what I was trying to say is that although the digital motto is "content is everything, not the technology" it seems they are the ones more preocupied with the latest gizmo. I beleive the camera should be the window of your imagination, and to acheive that you need to be throughly familiar with the way the camera works.
Jim if the 18 year old had no money, like I did when I was 18, he would probably start with analog. I started with a Beseler printmaker 35, 3 trays a nikon fg one lens and one beseler enlarging lens..the total for all the stuff was under 200 dollars, I bought a bulk film loader and film was cheap as hell....with the price of a high end lap top you can get an excellent analog setup which includes the camera and the darkroom.
Donald thinks we are griping to much and dizzing digital. I think the comments made here are just the response to many of the digital claims. When this site started I posted my rant about "digital platinum gliceè" and I think this is a perfect example, Cone explains that "digital" platinum is better because is easier, you dont have to deal with those "nasty" chemicals and real platinum has become obsolete because is hard to get film and not many people do it any more...his words not mine. So then here we have a manufacturer who is blatanly making untrue and misleading statements, yet nobody says...aww c`mon you are dumping on traditonal platinum. If people like me and others did not speak up against the fallacies of these statements then people will beleive they are true since there is no response from the traditional practicioners. Inarguably a digital platinum gliceè can be beautiful, but it is NOT a platinum print, it does NOT look like a platinum print and anybody who has seen a real well made platinum print will never mistake them for one.
So I dont think anybody who was new to photography and read this would choose digital just on the basis of what was said here, on the contrary I think they would be able to make a more informed choice without the advertisement hype.
There is nothing wrong with choosing digital, but it is certainly not easier or at least not as easy as some people would like us to beleive.
But that was not my point, what I was trying to say is that although the digital motto is "content is everything, not the technology" it seems they are the ones more preocupied with the latest gizmo. I beleive the camera should be the window of your imagination, and to acheive that you need to be throughly familiar with the way the camera works.
Jim if the 18 year old had no money, like I did when I was 18, he would probably start with analog. I started with a Beseler printmaker 35, 3 trays a nikon fg one lens and one beseler enlarging lens..the total for all the stuff was under 200 dollars, I bought a bulk film loader and film was cheap as hell....with the price of a high end lap top you can get an excellent analog setup which includes the camera and the darkroom.
Donald thinks we are griping to much and dizzing digital. I think the comments made here are just the response to many of the digital claims. When this site started I posted my rant about "digital platinum gliceè" and I think this is a perfect example, Cone explains that "digital" platinum is better because is easier, you dont have to deal with those "nasty" chemicals and real platinum has become obsolete because is hard to get film and not many people do it any more...his words not mine. So then here we have a manufacturer who is blatanly making untrue and misleading statements, yet nobody says...aww c`mon you are dumping on traditonal platinum. If people like me and others did not speak up against the fallacies of these statements then people will beleive they are true since there is no response from the traditional practicioners. Inarguably a digital platinum gliceè can be beautiful, but it is NOT a platinum print, it does NOT look like a platinum print and anybody who has seen a real well made platinum print will never mistake them for one.
So I dont think anybody who was new to photography and read this would choose digital just on the basis of what was said here, on the contrary I think they would be able to make a more informed choice without the advertisement hype.
There is nothing wrong with choosing digital, but it is certainly not easier or at least not as easy as some people would like us to beleive.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 6,230
- Format
- Large Format
000
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2002
- Messages
- 4,515
- Format
- Large Format
Well Donald you certainly have the right to your own stupidity and to remain in ignorance, if that is what you choose to do, but on the same token I also have the right to express my opinions about the misleading digital statements without being labeled antidigital, digital hater or afraid of digital.
As I have said before among the prints I have purchased I have two by Dan Burkholder, he uses digital means and I really like and admire this prints.
I know Dan from circumstances outside photgraphy and it was not until later that I knew he was a photographer. Once when I was visiting with him, he told me how long it took him to make a digital composite and let me tell you it was not easy at all. WHich is the core of this topic, is traditional printing any harder than digital? From the responses I would say most in this forum do not beleive it is. So to label us insecure about the future of analog photography as you implied to Sean or to say we are "against" digital simply because we or better said I try to make some distinctions and clarify some issues is unfair.
So you certainly have the right to remain in your own stupidity, nobody is trying to take that away from you, but on the same token allow those who do not wish to follow your example to read opposing views and make their own judgements.
As I have said before among the prints I have purchased I have two by Dan Burkholder, he uses digital means and I really like and admire this prints.
I know Dan from circumstances outside photgraphy and it was not until later that I knew he was a photographer. Once when I was visiting with him, he told me how long it took him to make a digital composite and let me tell you it was not easy at all. WHich is the core of this topic, is traditional printing any harder than digital? From the responses I would say most in this forum do not beleive it is. So to label us insecure about the future of analog photography as you implied to Sean or to say we are "against" digital simply because we or better said I try to make some distinctions and clarify some issues is unfair.
So you certainly have the right to remain in your own stupidity, nobody is trying to take that away from you, but on the same token allow those who do not wish to follow your example to read opposing views and make their own judgements.
Yes, if there is a market for digital cameras or knock of Rolexes people should allowed to stupidly spend their money. Caveat emptor and all that. But if we are to allow a free market to work we need good information about the product to make a decision and we are being consistently mislead about digital.
I have been unpleasantly surprised after picking up that book "Silverpixels", and confused by the various analoge process terms used to describe a digital process. These terms are being used to mislead just as Rolex is being used to describe a counterfeit watch. They are lying and they are doing it on purpose because they feel that the product won't sell on it's own merits. I happen to believe that digital doesn't need the lie to sell but I also believe that when they lie they should be called on it at every turn.
You may be comfortable knowing that you have a real Deardorf but if you saw someone being sold a counterfeit as real I hope you would let him know he was being cheated.
Bob
I have been unpleasantly surprised after picking up that book "Silverpixels", and confused by the various analoge process terms used to describe a digital process. These terms are being used to mislead just as Rolex is being used to describe a counterfeit watch. They are lying and they are doing it on purpose because they feel that the product won't sell on it's own merits. I happen to believe that digital doesn't need the lie to sell but I also believe that when they lie they should be called on it at every turn.
You may be comfortable knowing that you have a real Deardorf but if you saw someone being sold a counterfeit as real I hope you would let him know he was being cheated.
Bob
I don't know whether it's more difficult to make a good traditional print than a good digital print, but what I do notice in my experience is that people working digitally seem a lot more prepared to compromise on quality than those working traditionally.
It can take years - if not a lifetime - to hone your craft in the darkroom, so how come people expect to be able to produce a digital print immediately upon plugging in the printer? Or a decent scan from an eighty-quid desktop flatbed?
I see inkjet prints submitted to our magazines that are clearly a very, very poor representation of the original, and as a result they don't get used, because we don't have the time to get in touch with the people concerned and ask them to send in the original slide/print to us. I'm amazed that the photographers concerned have looked at the inkjet (or indeed the quality of the scan, if they are submitting a CD) and thought, 'Yup, that's as good as it can possibly be,' and placed it in an envelope.
As for youngsters and their attitudes to digital or traditional photography, a friend of mine, who is a lecturer on a photography course locally, recently told me something very interesting. He says that most of the students he teaches (around 18 years old) have very little interest in digital, and far prefer to do their printing in the wet darkroom. My theory on this is that this age group comes from a generation that has grown up with the computer, they know everything it can do, and it holds no surprises for them. Stick them in a darkroom though, with a tray of dev and a 10x8in piece of paper that's been exposed under the enlarger, and the age old story of the magic of the picture appearing in front of you still holds true.
It can take years - if not a lifetime - to hone your craft in the darkroom, so how come people expect to be able to produce a digital print immediately upon plugging in the printer? Or a decent scan from an eighty-quid desktop flatbed?
I see inkjet prints submitted to our magazines that are clearly a very, very poor representation of the original, and as a result they don't get used, because we don't have the time to get in touch with the people concerned and ask them to send in the original slide/print to us. I'm amazed that the photographers concerned have looked at the inkjet (or indeed the quality of the scan, if they are submitting a CD) and thought, 'Yup, that's as good as it can possibly be,' and placed it in an envelope.
As for youngsters and their attitudes to digital or traditional photography, a friend of mine, who is a lecturer on a photography course locally, recently told me something very interesting. He says that most of the students he teaches (around 18 years old) have very little interest in digital, and far prefer to do their printing in the wet darkroom. My theory on this is that this age group comes from a generation that has grown up with the computer, they know everything it can do, and it holds no surprises for them. Stick them in a darkroom though, with a tray of dev and a 10x8in piece of paper that's been exposed under the enlarger, and the age old story of the magic of the picture appearing in front of you still holds true.
Ailsa,
Very insightful...it is interesting to here this from a magazine editor's perspective. I know several, maybe 20 or 30, people that are now fully digital. Most if not all are producing VERY NICE work. They tell me it is as much work in digital as is there is the with traditional processes. The one thing all these people have in common is that they come from the traditional processes and were expert printers in black and white before turning to digi. They know what a good print is and what it is supposed to look like. This is, in my opinion, the single biggest asset they have over someone coming from a purely computer background. They have a real point of view and are mature in the image making process. They have made all the beginning photo 101 images and have moved past this. Some of the people have books to their name. Ironically, no one that I am aware of has a book deal yet shooting digital. Several have made homemade books as "mock-ups". One of the main proponents of Digital is Pedro Meyers, a Mexican photographer. Pedro was into digital before digital was cool.
lee\c
Very insightful...it is interesting to here this from a magazine editor's perspective. I know several, maybe 20 or 30, people that are now fully digital. Most if not all are producing VERY NICE work. They tell me it is as much work in digital as is there is the with traditional processes. The one thing all these people have in common is that they come from the traditional processes and were expert printers in black and white before turning to digi. They know what a good print is and what it is supposed to look like. This is, in my opinion, the single biggest asset they have over someone coming from a purely computer background. They have a real point of view and are mature in the image making process. They have made all the beginning photo 101 images and have moved past this. Some of the people have books to their name. Ironically, no one that I am aware of has a book deal yet shooting digital. Several have made homemade books as "mock-ups". One of the main proponents of Digital is Pedro Meyers, a Mexican photographer. Pedro was into digital before digital was cool.
lee\c
A while back I heard about "Holga" filter that is available for Photoshop.
Just think. For an investment of a mere few thousands of dollars in hardware and hundreds of dollars in software you can effectively imitate the results that you can get from a 10 dollar camera
Another example of better living through technology.
Just think. For an investment of a mere few thousands of dollars in hardware and hundreds of dollars in software you can effectively imitate the results that you can get from a 10 dollar camera
Another example of better living through technology.
Jorge,
I agree that when we were young we started out with the 35mm printmaker, and the Patterson tanks and reels etc. Of course we had no choice. I guess what I am saying is that if you have a computer, printer and scanner for negatives or just a digital camera, or it is all your folks gear and you are in high school, you are more apt to begin learning digital methods assuming you have an interest in photography. One reason is because it is familiar. For most kids, working with a computer at an early age is pretty common. Photography is just another set of perephrials and software to learn how to use.
Second, as has been pointed out, digital is immeadiate feedback. See the image on the viewer, edit you work, plug the camera into the the computer and print the picture. Of course to "master" digital there is a whole world to learn but for many of today's kids, that is a lot easier then loading a reel in the dark, inverting the tank for several minutes, waiting for the negs to dry, contact printing, proof printing, setting up the darkroom, cleaning the darkroom etc.
There are many students who want to learn traditional methods and there has been a noted increase in interest in LF and ULF. But kids today have very limited attention spans. Digital allows quick feedback and I think more important to these people, the ability to stop and start your workflow without major hassles. Working on the computer and it's time for Friends on TV? Just walk away and come back in 30 minutes.
And what this all leads to is a lot of people making garbage images because they have not the patience to learn how to see and learn a process. I think the person who has the ability to take the time to learn a process and understands that photography is a life long learning process will gravitate towards traditional. It really seems to be about personality types as much as anything.
I agree that when we were young we started out with the 35mm printmaker, and the Patterson tanks and reels etc. Of course we had no choice. I guess what I am saying is that if you have a computer, printer and scanner for negatives or just a digital camera, or it is all your folks gear and you are in high school, you are more apt to begin learning digital methods assuming you have an interest in photography. One reason is because it is familiar. For most kids, working with a computer at an early age is pretty common. Photography is just another set of perephrials and software to learn how to use.
Second, as has been pointed out, digital is immeadiate feedback. See the image on the viewer, edit you work, plug the camera into the the computer and print the picture. Of course to "master" digital there is a whole world to learn but for many of today's kids, that is a lot easier then loading a reel in the dark, inverting the tank for several minutes, waiting for the negs to dry, contact printing, proof printing, setting up the darkroom, cleaning the darkroom etc.
There are many students who want to learn traditional methods and there has been a noted increase in interest in LF and ULF. But kids today have very limited attention spans. Digital allows quick feedback and I think more important to these people, the ability to stop and start your workflow without major hassles. Working on the computer and it's time for Friends on TV? Just walk away and come back in 30 minutes.
And what this all leads to is a lot of people making garbage images because they have not the patience to learn how to see and learn a process. I think the person who has the ability to take the time to learn a process and understands that photography is a life long learning process will gravitate towards traditional. It really seems to be about personality types as much as anything.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 6,230
- Format
- Large Format
000
Aggie,
Why does anyone need a class to learn digital phtography? As you correctly pointed out, the classes are about learning photoshop and how to digitally manipulate images. That is one of the problems. People becoming involved with phtography for the first time and doing it through digital quickly believe that the software will cure any problem or enhance any image and make it a masterpiece.
I have seen some truly wonderfull digital imaging in both color and B&W. All the photographers had one common thread between them. They learned traditional phtography first and thus already had an understanding of composition, vision, unique optical traits of the medium etc.
But the majority of the people who take digital photography classes will never do any more then print there own family photos or send post photoshop files to Shutterfly for prints. Any many of those will never really use anything other then the proprietary imaging software that comes with the camera or scanner they purchase.
A lot of this discussion reminds me of watching my father woodworking. It seemed so effortless for him. His only power tools were a table saw, scroll saw, drill press. he did everything else by hand with hand planers, chisels and specialized hand saws. Later he added a very good router. He took his time made few mistakes and wasted no material and created beautifull things.
Today, people watch a 30 minute program on ETV or Showtime, buy a woodworking magazine, take a couple of shop classes buy $10,000 worth of woodworking tools and wonder why they still can't consistently cut a board straight or make anything that does'nt look like crap after a few weeks of trying. My dad said it took him 30 YEARS of woodworking off and on before he felt he could call himself accomplished. It was a hobby, I figure it would take a lot less time if he had done it for a living, but you get the idea.
The best tools, the best teacher, the most money can never make you a master or even competent at anything. That takes time lots of practice and patience.
Why does anyone need a class to learn digital phtography? As you correctly pointed out, the classes are about learning photoshop and how to digitally manipulate images. That is one of the problems. People becoming involved with phtography for the first time and doing it through digital quickly believe that the software will cure any problem or enhance any image and make it a masterpiece.
I have seen some truly wonderfull digital imaging in both color and B&W. All the photographers had one common thread between them. They learned traditional phtography first and thus already had an understanding of composition, vision, unique optical traits of the medium etc.
But the majority of the people who take digital photography classes will never do any more then print there own family photos or send post photoshop files to Shutterfly for prints. Any many of those will never really use anything other then the proprietary imaging software that comes with the camera or scanner they purchase.
A lot of this discussion reminds me of watching my father woodworking. It seemed so effortless for him. His only power tools were a table saw, scroll saw, drill press. he did everything else by hand with hand planers, chisels and specialized hand saws. Later he added a very good router. He took his time made few mistakes and wasted no material and created beautifull things.
Today, people watch a 30 minute program on ETV or Showtime, buy a woodworking magazine, take a couple of shop classes buy $10,000 worth of woodworking tools and wonder why they still can't consistently cut a board straight or make anything that does'nt look like crap after a few weeks of trying. My dad said it took him 30 YEARS of woodworking off and on before he felt he could call himself accomplished. It was a hobby, I figure it would take a lot less time if he had done it for a living, but you get the idea.
The best tools, the best teacher, the most money can never make you a master or even competent at anything. That takes time lots of practice and patience.
Yes, Paul Strand said it took about 8 or 9 tears (oops, years) to become a photographer. But it's so rewarding to accomplish a challenging task-be it photography or a really tough mountain walk or whatever. You do get out what you put in
I've been at it for over 35 years and I still don't call myself a photographer. AA and Weston were photographers. I'm a hack nothing more. If I could spend as much time at it as working pro's then I could master the craft to an extent were I could call myself a photographer. In the old days when I did do it professionally (all chromes) I did have it mastered and I felt confident about calling myself a photographer, but not with all this new LF stuff.
An old buddy of mine who was a working pro but got tired of it has taken up photography again because of digital. It has re-energized him and he produces great stuff. But he had the foundation from a traditional photography background. He loves to mess around in PS and does some really cool stuff. He's much more accomplished with PS than he ever was in a wet environment (sorry Karl) and really has no desire to get back into a darkroom. Digital is the best thing for him and the photos he produces bring joy to those lucky enough to see them.
An old buddy of mine who was a working pro but got tired of it has taken up photography again because of digital. It has re-energized him and he produces great stuff. But he had the foundation from a traditional photography background. He loves to mess around in PS and does some really cool stuff. He's much more accomplished with PS than he ever was in a wet environment (sorry Karl) and really has no desire to get back into a darkroom. Digital is the best thing for him and the photos he produces bring joy to those lucky enough to see them.
Ailsa - There is certainly more magic in the darkroom than on the computer screen, and I don't necessarily think it's the age group thing. My guess (and that's all it is) is that it is more to do with the background of the individual, whatever the age.
I'm a prime example of this myself, a dyed-in-the-wool techie that took a photography course to improve his (fairly dire!) shooting skills and would now rather print (chemically) than shoot!
Having said all that, my 17 year old nephew gets his first go in a wet darkroom tomorrow... I'll report back!
(Oh, and please stay pig-headed; a year from now I want to still have at least one photo mag that utterly makes my day when it arrives! <g>
Flotsam - ROTFL!
I'm a prime example of this myself, a dyed-in-the-wool techie that took a photography course to improve his (fairly dire!) shooting skills and would now rather print (chemically) than shoot!
Having said all that, my 17 year old nephew gets his first go in a wet darkroom tomorrow... I'll report back!
(Oh, and please stay pig-headed; a year from now I want to still have at least one photo mag that utterly makes my day when it arrives! <g>
Flotsam - ROTFL!
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,308
- Format
- Multi Format
Frank, ditto on the arrival of B&W Photography!
Going a little off-topic here although discussions above reminded me of this, but what is a "photographer"? Is it someone who writes "Photographer" on their tax return, is it someone who takes pictures and gets paid, or is someone who owns a camera? I own a welder, numerous power tools, hand tools, even a soldering iron, but never do I describe myself as a "tradesman". I once bought a heap of frames at a frame shop and the sales assistant asked if I was a Photographer.. without thought I answered no, cause I'm not, I happen to take photos.
One thing that always amuses me is people in forums that insist on announcing their 'not a Pro' in their request for advice. What does that mean?
Going a little off-topic here although discussions above reminded me of this, but what is a "photographer"? Is it someone who writes "Photographer" on their tax return, is it someone who takes pictures and gets paid, or is someone who owns a camera? I own a welder, numerous power tools, hand tools, even a soldering iron, but never do I describe myself as a "tradesman". I once bought a heap of frames at a frame shop and the sales assistant asked if I was a Photographer.. without thought I answered no, cause I'm not, I happen to take photos.
One thing that always amuses me is people in forums that insist on announcing their 'not a Pro' in their request for advice. What does that mean?
Thomassauerwein said:
Yet another four-page thread where the key attribute is said within the first couple of messages.
I like Nikon's "Now! Now!ography" promo slogan, it speaks volumes. If you want a picture that's 10,000 times more valuable today than it will be tomorrow, digital is unquestionably the way to go. If you want to make pictures whose value (to either the marketplace or yourself) increase over time, then the choice is not so easy.
Whether it is traditional "wet"photography or (let me invent a word) digitography, they are both similar and different. With either one, you need a good eye, and a proper exposure. You also need good composition. Garbage in will always equal garbage out. Both are easy to do, but hard to do well.
Hmmmm. This must be my shortest post ever
Hmmmm. This must be my shortest post ever
I have read this thread and the other digital/analog posts and to me there is just too much concern either way.
When I started my studio in 1976, I was shooting color. We were told by Kodak that the images were stable and would last. They did, for about five years, maximum. I, like almost every portait photographer, sent his work to a lab to be developed and printed. This was a shortcut so we could supposedly concentrate on learning to take better pictures. We received sometimes great and other times questionable results. To get better work, I decided to print my own and bought a Hope processor and was able to print up to 20x24. But is still wasn't really hands on because you just fed the print into the machine. After ten years I was bored. I had made a lot of money and I sold everything and moved to LA.
After doing a lot of different kinds of photography and eventually moving to San Jose CA. in 1992. I decided I wanted to do portraits again but decided this time to do strickly black and white. I wanted to do everything myself and to help in this, I decided to work out my home - no overhead. I began to study black and white and found myself in a whole new world. Using photonet, I asked a lot of questions and got a lot of great information and taught myself through trial and error. I learned different enlargers and now have two different types, different papers, developers, different toning techniques etc and after 11 years, I realize that I still have a huge amount to learn. But it is never boring.
To make a long story, longer, I have discovered that in photography as in life, there are no shortcuts.
There are many illusions that you think will help you get to a quick result. For me, first, it was labs, which I found out didn't turn out my "vision". Then it was countless other gismos and gadgets that were supposed to help me. They didn't really work either. After almost thirty years of photography, I now know that you have to put in the time, pay your dues, and learn it all the hard way.
Photoshop and digital in my opinion is just another illusion. We are fighting it because we don't think that these people, and rightly so in most cases, have paid their dues. They are looking for shortcuts. But their work will show it. The public in most cases can see the difference, and the big lie will be exposed.
So perhaps we should lighten up and let these digital types have their instant gratification, and we can calmly say as they display their latest gimmick, " thats nice dear". You call it whatever you like but we both know it ain't the real thing. Naturally they name it the same as the real thing, because without that they have no credibility.
To me, it is like stage actors compared to movie stars. One knows their craft and the others knows they are a fraud. The stage actor can do movies but the movie stars can barely do the movies, and they know it and are insecure about it.
I guess we should be like the stage actors, because we have learned that there are no shortcuts.
Michael McBlane
When I started my studio in 1976, I was shooting color. We were told by Kodak that the images were stable and would last. They did, for about five years, maximum. I, like almost every portait photographer, sent his work to a lab to be developed and printed. This was a shortcut so we could supposedly concentrate on learning to take better pictures. We received sometimes great and other times questionable results. To get better work, I decided to print my own and bought a Hope processor and was able to print up to 20x24. But is still wasn't really hands on because you just fed the print into the machine. After ten years I was bored. I had made a lot of money and I sold everything and moved to LA.
After doing a lot of different kinds of photography and eventually moving to San Jose CA. in 1992. I decided I wanted to do portraits again but decided this time to do strickly black and white. I wanted to do everything myself and to help in this, I decided to work out my home - no overhead. I began to study black and white and found myself in a whole new world. Using photonet, I asked a lot of questions and got a lot of great information and taught myself through trial and error. I learned different enlargers and now have two different types, different papers, developers, different toning techniques etc and after 11 years, I realize that I still have a huge amount to learn. But it is never boring.
To make a long story, longer, I have discovered that in photography as in life, there are no shortcuts.
There are many illusions that you think will help you get to a quick result. For me, first, it was labs, which I found out didn't turn out my "vision". Then it was countless other gismos and gadgets that were supposed to help me. They didn't really work either. After almost thirty years of photography, I now know that you have to put in the time, pay your dues, and learn it all the hard way.
Photoshop and digital in my opinion is just another illusion. We are fighting it because we don't think that these people, and rightly so in most cases, have paid their dues. They are looking for shortcuts. But their work will show it. The public in most cases can see the difference, and the big lie will be exposed.
So perhaps we should lighten up and let these digital types have their instant gratification, and we can calmly say as they display their latest gimmick, " thats nice dear". You call it whatever you like but we both know it ain't the real thing. Naturally they name it the same as the real thing, because without that they have no credibility.
To me, it is like stage actors compared to movie stars. One knows their craft and the others knows they are a fraud. The stage actor can do movies but the movie stars can barely do the movies, and they know it and are insecure about it.
I guess we should be like the stage actors, because we have learned that there are no shortcuts.
Michael McBlane
FrankB said:
Well, he had a go... ...and I think we've hooked another! 8)
I started him with a couple of photograms, then a contact of a roll of 35mm HP5+ he'd shot on a cheapo compact, then a couple of prints. I even got him doing a bit of basic manipulation (a couple of dodges, one to lighten a face, another to remove some camera-induced vignetting).
He loved it, and definitely preferred it to Photoshop. The clincher (as usual, I think) appeared to be the way the image sprang up from the paper during development and the level of detail on the 10x8's we were producing.
He's currently looking at an English and Media course at a couple of universities, and is hoping that there will be an element of trad photography in that.
Regards,
Frank
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |