Photographers with Bad Attitudes

Red

D
Red

  • 2
  • 1
  • 62
The Big Babinski

A
The Big Babinski

  • 2
  • 6
  • 93
Memoriam.

A
Memoriam.

  • 6
  • 6
  • 158
Self Portrait

D
Self Portrait

  • 3
  • 1
  • 70
Momiji-Silhouette

A
Momiji-Silhouette

  • 2
  • 3
  • 81

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,003
Messages
2,768,069
Members
99,523
Latest member
Seeker0221
Recent bookmarks
0

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm
....
Watch them work. Click, chimp, click, chimp, click, chimp.... You get the idea....



Patrick

Patrick,

Spot on.

At the wedding I attended the other week I was amazed (appalled?) how the "pro" checked her LCD after every friggin' shot!

For crying out loud, digi or film, it should not matter if you "got the Pic" - your head should be working on the NEXT shot even as you're shooting the current one.

Not sure if you got it? Just shoot it again, and again, and again. For crying out loud - these "digi" wedding photogs should just put some tape over the damned LCD and re-shoot if unsure.

Imagine, a camera with a CF card capable of shooting several hundred RAW pics - and you "chimp" every one! Yet that's what they do! :confused:
 

roteague

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
6,641
Location
Kaneohe, Haw
Format
4x5 Format
For crying out loud, digi or film, it should not matter if you "got the Pic" - your head should be working on the NEXT shot even as you're shooting the current one.

Not sure if you got it? Just shoot it again, and again, and again. For crying out loud - these "digi" wedding photogs should just put some tape over the damned LCD and re-shoot if unsure.

Just one of the reasons digital holds very little appeal to me. When I'm shooting, I'm always thinking about the next shot, not the one I just did. I believe that a lot of digital cameras allow the LCD to be off by default (mine does).

As for the "professional" label. I met someone a few months ago, going from a Canon P&S to a Canon 5D because he was "going pro". When I look at some of what passes for travel photography, for example, I'm not surprised. FWIW, I also belong to a travel writer forum, and it seems like more and more writers are seeking to augment their articles by taking their own images - most don't even have a clue what type of camera they need.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
2,360
Location
East Kent, U
Format
Medium Format
Patrick,

Spot on.

At the wedding I attended the other week I was amazed (appalled?) how the "pro" checked her LCD after every friggin' shot!

For crying out loud, digi or film, it should not matter if you "got the Pic" - your head should be working on the NEXT shot even as you're shooting the current one.

Not sure if you got it? Just shoot it again, and again, and again. For crying out loud - these "digi" wedding photogs should just put some tape over the damned LCD and re-shoot if unsure.

Imagine, a camera with a CF card capable of shooting several hundred RAW pics - and you "chimp" every one! Yet that's what they do! :confused:

It is (used to be) routine professional practice in many situations to check exposure by shooting Polaroids - would you say these people were incompetent? You are far more likely to create an impression of incompetence if you "Just shoot it again, and again, and again". One of the characteristics of digitial cameras is their reduced ability, compared with film, to handle high-contrast scenes. Couple this with the fact that an LCD screen display is only an approximation of what you have got, and there are very cogent reasons to check the histogram of shots to make sure exposure is correct - much better than killing spontaneity by bracketing exposure or just shooting lots of frames at random. I think, quite frankly, your coments reveal that you have no experience of this type of photography.
 

patrickjames

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
742
Format
Multi Format
David- Next time you shoot a wedding tell everyone that you are going to be checking the Polaroid, so stop the services until it develops! :smile:

My original post was that you do not have to chimp if you know what you are doing, and you should if someone is trusting the memories of their cherished day to your ability. After all, how the hell can you follow what is going on in front of you when you are looking at the LCD? You should know before you take the picture that it will be ok, not after. Again, that is the sign of a professional.

Let's try to keep this positive, shall we?

By the way, I have always called Polaroids "paranoids" because there was always paranoia when people resorted to them!

Patrick
 

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm
It is (used to be) routine professional practice in many situations to check exposure by shooting Polaroids - would you say these people were incompetent? You are far more likely to create an impression of incompetence if you "Just shoot it again, and again, and again". One of the characteristics of digitial cameras is their reduced ability, compared with film, to handle high-contrast scenes. Couple this with the fact that an LCD screen display is only an approximation of what you have got, and there are very cogent reasons to check the histogram of shots to make sure exposure is correct - much better than killing spontaneity by bracketing exposure or just shooting lots of frames at random. I think, quite frankly, your coments reveal that you have no experience of this type of photography.

David,

You are absolutely correct that I am not, never have been and never will be a wedding photographer. For various reasons, including lack of interest and desire to do so, I couldn't take the stress of having someone's "special moments" in my hands.

But I dare say that I doubt what I observed was the pro checking the histograms of her shots.

And, as to bracketing shots, since you can auto-function that on any modern SLR or DSLR - I fail to understand how one would kill the sponteneity doing so? As DSLRs finally overcome the "recovery time" (or what ever it's called) I would think that any "pro" would engage the auto-bracketing function and just "triple shoot"; even further lessening the need to "chimp". For goodness sakes, a 4GB CF will give you 300+ RAW shots - and I'll bet there are even larger CFs now (haven't checked lately)!

The pro was shooting with a Canon 20D - it can m/l take pictures, walk the dog and print the proofs simultaneously! And I dare say that the LCD screen probably renders the shot image in truer colors than what she first sees on her computer before she "trues up" the color match on her monitor!

My main point is that with the most sophisticated image taking tools imaginable in their hands - these "pros" still find a need to chimp after each shot - whether its the image or the histogram. That's just not, in my estimation, the mark of a "pro". Where does the knowledge and experience come in if you have/need to do that after each and every shot?
 
OP
OP

snegron

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
806
Location
Hot, Muggy,
Format
35mm
It is (used to be) routine professional practice in many situations to check exposure by shooting Polaroids - would you say these people were incompetent? You are far more likely to create an impression of incompetence if you "Just shoot it again, and again, and again". One of the characteristics of digitial cameras is their reduced ability, compared with film, to handle high-contrast scenes. Couple this with the fact that an LCD screen display is only an approximation of what you have got, and there are very cogent reasons to check the histogram of shots to make sure exposure is correct - much better than killing spontaneity by bracketing exposure or just shooting lots of frames at random. I think, quite frankly, your coments reveal that you have no experience of this type of photography.



I second that! As I mentioned before, I shoot weddings with a pair of D1X's and a D200 as back up. I admit I "chimp". I like to know if the flash exposed properly after taking so many vairiables like distance of subject to bounce surface, flash output, added color in certain indoor envoirnments, etc. I too compare this to using a poloroid back on a medium format camera as I am sure many of you have done in the past. Think of the little built in screen on the back of a DSLR as a built in poloroid back.

Yes, you can bracket, but why waste time? Also, it helps to know if your subjects blinked in the shot. You can have the best exposed shot in the world printed on the highest quality paper, but if you show it to the bride and groom with her eyes close they are not going to select it. (And I don't mean those cool, emotional shots where the bride closes her eyes in bliss! I mean the ones were she blinked and makes her look like she has a lazy eye or something). "Chimping" lets you zoom into the shot after you took it and see if your focus was as critical as you though it was when you shot it. For some of us older folk who have trouble focusing in low light conditions, this is very helpful.

I believe that there is a difference between an ametuer who just purchased his new DSLR and looks at the rear LCD screen in awe after each shots because he still can't believe how cool it it to shoot a picture and see it pop up instantly behind the camera, and pro who uses his screen to adjust or optimise his next image (histograms, white balance, no lazy eye, etc.). I don't see a crime in having some photographer improve his images by any means available to him.
 

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm
Geez, at the rate that most wedding digi pros shoot - they're practically doing video! Checking for "lazy eye"! The friggin' black dot function of Photoshop will take care of that - and, yes, BTW, CS2 (are we up to CS3 yet?) does an auto-check for red-eye BEFORE it loads the image to the screen.

Please, don't treat us like we're idiots here.

Simple fact is that "chimping" is hominoid nature. That's why they call it "chimping". The chimpanzee is the only other hominoid who's been shown to recgonize her/his own image and the image of others of his/her species! Oh, they also recognize we humans - and likely have a properly low opinion of us!

If I were to buy into David and your concepts of wedding photography then it would seem the "profession" only began after the digital age!
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
2,360
Location
East Kent, U
Format
Medium Format
David- Next time you shoot a wedding tell everyone that you are going to be checking the Polaroid, so stop the services until it develops! :smile:

My original post was that you do not have to chimp if you know what you are doing, and you should if someone is trusting the memories of their cherished day to your ability. After all, how the hell can you follow what is going on in front of you when you are looking at the LCD? You should know before you take the picture that it will be ok, not after. Again, that is the sign of a professional.

Let's try to keep this positive, shall we?

By the way, I have always called Polaroids "paranoids" because there was always paranoia when people resorted to them!

Patrick

Patrick, you are quite correct in saying that no film shooter would use Polaroids at a wedding - they would rely on the latitude of good old color neg film!

Pardon me for saying so, but I find the term "chimp" derogatory. I am a very occasional social photographer these days, but anyone working in this field knows the problem with bad expressions, blinking, kids displaying their fondness for rock-star gestures, etc. This is why any social photographer cannot stop themselves shooting 4 or 5 frames (of film) of large groups to insure against these problems. If I had ever shot a wedding on digital (I still use film), I am sure I would want to check shots by all means possible and would certainly view each one on the camera screen (of course there is the option of comping shots together, but I would want to know that I had got one good shot of Auntie not yawning and little Charlie not picking his nose).

This brings us to a further point - the idea of "going pro" with an expensive digital camera. Of course this will not help in turning dross into gold, but a "pro" model is very apt to have a histogram function and a better screen, not to mention an efficient TTL flash mode, which is the best thing since sliced bread with regard to social photography.

I absolutely do not want to be rude to anyone but if someone is "amazed and appalled", I would like to cast some light on the matter if I can!

Best regards to all,

David

PS: Polaroids have a different association for me - aside from checking exposure, their main function was to be thrust under the client's nose for approval and signature as insurance against later changes of mind, accompanied by wailing and gnashing of teeth!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
2,360
Location
East Kent, U
Format
Medium Format
If I were to buy into David and your concepts of wedding photography then it would seem the "profession" only began after the digital age!

Interesting point - of course there has been wedding photography for as long as there has been photography at all, and for each generation it has caught the mood of the age. I (and I am sure many other APUGers) have got some examples of pre-WWII wedding photography done the classic way with a 5x7" on a tripod - beautiful quality, technically way above any modern digital shots, and of course with facility for negative retouching, and yet clients today will most often say that they do not want formal shots but instead "reportage" style, and that's where you can use all the help (from your digital camera or otherwise) that you can get!

Regards,

David
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
2,360
Location
East Kent, U
Format
Medium Format
This is a rather humorous take on chimping by sports photographers that I found with "the google" on "the internets"

http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/chimping/index.html


I have to admit, until now I really did not realize that "chimping" was an issue (as opposed to being something that pros joke about to pass the time). Let's just recall: The sport photographers in the video were under pressure to deliver pictures with certain requirements (clear shot of a star player, picture of home team making an aggressive play, etc.) within very tight time constraints (possibly within 15 or 20 minutes of the START (not end) of the game). They are NOT going to take their film or memory cards home and study them at their leisure. This has always been the case with sports photographers. 100 years ago a "plate runner" (boy on bicycle) would have been waiting, today the laptop calls. A change in the last 100 years has been that then an acceptable sports shot was a standard-lens view of three or four players and a lot of turf, today tight close-ups are wanted, using extreme telephoto lenses, and these are technically much harder to capture, with a much lower hit rate.

Under these circumstances, how could photographers NOT want to review their work by any means at their disposal? Laugh if you want, these guys know what they are doing!
 

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm
This is a rather humorous take on chimping by sports photographers that I found with "the google" on "the internets"

http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/chimping/index.html

With NO apologies to Cole Porter - since he deliberately left the song available to what we would these days call "open source" additions...

"Birds do it....

Bees do it....

Even photographic chimpanzees do it....

Let's do it, let's fall in love!" :D

Oh, I really liked the last comment about how sometimes you miss the "great shot" because you just can't help but look - at the last one before it!

Precious!

Professionally photography is dead - it has been supplanted by Professional Image Taking and that's just the way it is - there's no going back to the way it used to be....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
2,360
Location
East Kent, U
Format
Medium Format
Precious!

Professionally photography is dead - it has been supplanted by Professional Image Taking and that's just the way it is - there's no going back to the way it used to be....

As I said, personally I can see no difference in essence between the situation now and 100 years ago (see my previous posting). But let's just agree to disagree...

Regards,

David
 

vet173

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,209
Location
Seattle
Format
8x10 Format
Is it me, or does it strike others odd when a person comes on this or other forums, says they are a pro and are moving up to a larger format and has to ask what lens to get? This is what I was thinking of when I was talking about the level of expertise in the trade.
 

Early Riser

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,676
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Is it me, or does it strike others odd when a person comes on this or other forums, says they are a pro and are moving up to a larger format and has to ask what lens to get? This is what I was thinking of when I was talking about the level of expertise in the trade.

Vet, your point is well taken. But the bigger picture is not that real pros aren't as competent as they used to be, it's that people who are not pros are claiming to be pros. I didn't feel comfortable calling myself a pro until after photography school, after years of assisting many serious and super capable professional photographers and even then not until I had a few years of full time assignment work did I feel that I was really a "professional". I really believe that for many people just buying a beat up hassy on ebay makes them think they're professional.

Even on APUG which I think has on average the most photographically competent and experienced members of any of the photography forums, there are many amateurs who claim pro or near pro status for themselves. I see it all the time here. Someone has done a few shots for the local Pennysaver or the local newsletter, gotten paid $50 and that makes them a pro. They sell a couple of prints that were hanging in the coffee shop and they're "exhibiting artists" or they "show their work" or they're "gallery artists" etc. I don't understand the bravado required to make one's self seem larger than one's self is. I still find it uncomfortable calling myself an artist eventhough by every definition it's what I do.

A few years back I was asked to lecture at SVA, a school I once taught at, on landscape photography, I declined the offer because I didn't feel that I was qualified enough or experienced enough as a landscape photographer to do so. Now I see people who's credentials and quality of work I would certainly question, giving workshops to people and I can't help but think that it's the blind leading the blind. After 30 years as a professional photographer, and 6 years of making my living as a landscape photographer I'm only now feeling qualified to teach about landscape. And it's not that I'm shy or humble, anyone who knows me knows I'm neither, it's that I feel that if you're going to get up there and espouse your wisdom, you owe it to people to actually know what you're talking about.
 

mmcclellan

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
461
Location
Ann Arbor, M
Format
4x5 Format
Bravo, Early Riser! You said it perfectly. Your words point up a growing problem throughout society that is shared by many more than just photographers -- growing hubris and a lack of humility.

So many photography "teachers" and "pros" out there can hardly hold a candle to the greats shooters of the past, or even the working press photogs of just 30 or 40 years ago when it took a lot of effort and experience to compete and deliver in a professional manner. The fact that it's so "easy" to produce an image, means people put far less effort into making a photograph because the passable has become acceptable. As a result of acceptance, they think they're reached the upper echelons of the profession.

That's why I prefer analog and large format -- the extra WORK that goes into making the image does, I think, in the long run make one a better photographer. The easy way is seldom the best way . . .
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
2,360
Location
East Kent, U
Format
Medium Format
... But the bigger picture is not that real pros aren't as competent as they used to be, it's that people who are not pros are claiming to be pros. ...

It is true that photography has changed a lot in recent years. As will be apparent from my postings on APUG, I am an older photographer, steeped in traditional photographic methods, with particular experience of large-format studio photography and press work, the latter often with "old stuff" such as Speed Graphics and screw-thread Leicas.

HOWEVER ... from time to time, I muse on the fact that
a) a very large proportion of the knowledge of specific equipment and processes that I have acquired over 50 years is now entirely redundant (which is why I like answering questions on APUG about old gear, so that I can at least make some use of the otherwise useless facts in my head) and
b) much of the most visually exciting photography I see being done today is by people who, by traditional standards, haven't got a clue (and furthermore don't need to have one!). Their attitude is that photography is just a computer application that you can learn like any other. They may of course pitch up at APUG wanting to learn the old methods, but, there again, they may just go their own way!
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,248
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Thought about professionals

I think the best way to approach this subject is to use an analogy:

When I first started skiing, I noticed the following progression:
On the first ski trip a nooby would say, "I am a novice."
On the return from the first trip the same nooby would say, "I am an advanced intermediate."
By then end of the first season, no matter how many times this person went skiing nor whether or not they had in fact improved, the nooby would say, "I am an expert skier."
Five or more years later this same person, when asked [they no longer volunteered how well they skied] would say. "I get down the mountain."

'nuf said,
Steve
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,248
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Where can I get ...

Please help me, where can I get d------l chimping lessons?

Steve
 
OP
OP

snegron

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
806
Location
Hot, Muggy,
Format
35mm
Geez, at the rate that most wedding digi pros shoot - they're practically doing video! Checking for "lazy eye"! The friggin' black dot function of Photoshop will take care of that - and, yes, BTW, CS2 (are we up to CS3 yet?) does an auto-check for red-eye BEFORE it loads the image to the screen.

Please, don't treat us like we're idiots here.

Simple fact is that "chimping" is hominoid nature. That's why they call it "chimping". The chimpanzee is the only other hominoid who's been shown to recgonize her/his own image and the image of others of his/her species! Oh, they also recognize we humans - and likely have a properly low opinion of us!

If I were to buy into David and your concepts of wedding photography then it would seem the "profession" only began after the digital age!


There is a difference between red eye and lazy eye. Mainly, lazy eye is when the eyelids are semi-closed making the person appear to be drunk. Red eye is when the pupils appear to be a strange red color. These ae two very different things.

I understand your frustration and hostility toward computers and new technology in general. I too was like that at one time until I realized that digital is just another way to capture an image. Think of it as the new film for the new millenium. It really is a lot of fun if you give it a chance!

Again, I stand by my reasons for chimping. I see absolutely nothing wrong with verifying exposure, focus, white balance, etc. on the LCD display. I am sure there were many photographers in the past who have been suspicious of new technology like in-camera meters, hinged camera backs, glass prisms, etc. I can equate them to those first humanoids who saw fire for the first time and thought "this is bad! it will never serve us any real purpose!"

And as far as "wedding digi-pros" are concerned, that is a perfect example of bashing a fledgling photographer just because he or she was unfortunate enough to have started photography after the digital age began. As far as I'm concerned photographers are photographers no matter what medium they use (after all, it is the final image that counts).

Many years ago when I started photography I had the luck of being able to pick from different film cameras in different formats mostly because they were available new on the market. Today things have changed and film is not as readily available as it was back in the day. Even the traditional labs have gone digital! Look at the add section of any photography magazine and I can bet that you will find 99% of the equipment for sale to be purely digital. New photographers have no choice but to invest in digital if they expect to make any sort of profit in wedding photography nowadays.

Yes ,(before I am bashed by torch-wielding film afficionados) some profit can still be made by shooting weddings with 120 film. Problem is that with the new era of digital album design it is impractical. It worked back in the day when we offered prints in a post or pin-type album, but in order to create that magazine-type, photojournalistic look produced by printing companies, they need digital files. Try batch scaning 120 size negatives after a wedding. I have. It is time consuming and costly.

I am not trying to turn this into a film vs. digital debate. I am, however, sticking to the original post of how negative comments by photographers with bad attitudes impact photographers who are just starting out. I have used film for years and I have now embraced digital for work purposes. It is practical, convenient, produces high quality images, and keeps me competitive with the other wedding photographers out there. It keeps me in business. I like to shoot with film for my persoanl stuff because I have the time for it. Business is another matter. Just because I like the look of film or was fortunate enough to have worked with film does not give me the authority to look down upon a new photographer who comes to me for advice or suggestions. I get asked many questions by different people everytime I shoot a wedding. I never talk down to them or say anything rude to them. They usually approach me during the down time when the couple is eating. I am usually downloading files saving them on a laptop at that time, so I have no problem talking to upcomming/curious photographers at that time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm
Snegron,

First, I have a DSLR (D70 and just used it together with my F100 when shooting at my nephew's wedding a couple of weeks ago). I'm just as guilty as the next one when it comes to chimping when using it. And that's why I prefer to rely on my "instinct" and shoot film.

Second, I watched "the pro" very carefully because I was hoping to learn some technique - her rapidity of fire was such that while she chimped each shot - there was not time to make constant adjustments in the way you suggest.*

Third, despite your disclaimer, given all you've just said - aren't you now really trying to take this thread into the forbidden land of D v. A?


*BTW: I am not suggesting this pro was not good. And I did learn a few things about using flash (something I've not done a lot of).
 

roteague

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
6,641
Location
Kaneohe, Haw
Format
4x5 Format
I understand your frustration and hostility toward computers and new technology in general. I too was like that at one time until I realized that digital is just another way to capture an image. Think of it as the new film for the new millenium. It really is a lot of fun if you give it a chance!

Your other points aside ...

I agree that digital is another methodology for capturing images, an inferior one based upon the way it captures color and sharpness IMO, but a viable one nonetheless. Further, I see nothing fun about taking great compositions with a camera that doesn't give me the color or sharpness that meet my expectations; those things that fully compliment the composition and take it from "nice" to "wow". The fact that you don't see that simply means that you don't perceive color or sharpness in the same way that I do - and I don't mean this in any derogatory way whatsoever.
 
OP
OP

snegron

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
806
Location
Hot, Muggy,
Format
35mm
Snegron,

First, I have a DSLR (D70 and just used it together with my F100 when shooting at my nephew's wedding a couple of weeks ago). I'm just as guilty as the next one when it comes to chimping when using it. And that's why I prefer to rely on my "instinct" and shoot film.

Second, I watched "the pro" very carefully because I was hoping to learn some technique - her rapidity of fire was such that while she chimped each shot - there was not time to make constant adjustments in the way you suggest.*

Third, despite your disclaimer, given all you've just said - aren't you now really trying to take this thread into the forbidden land of D v. A?


*BTW: I am not suggesting this pro was not good. And I did learn a few things about using flash (something I've not done a lot of).

I have a very simple solution to the "chimping" dillema: turn the rear LCD display off on your D70. You will be shooting by instinct much the same way you shoot with film.

As for the rapid-fire/chimping of the wedding photographer, some people have different styles. That technique might work for her, who knows? When I shoot indoors during the dance, toast, and bouquet toss, I set my flash on manual. Depending on the distance of the subject or the position of the bride (due to the white dress), a distance of two feet can make a difference with blown highlights. This all changes constantly as I move around the dancing couple to capture their expressions. These changes in the shots are more noticeable when the lighting in the room is bad (as it usually is, dark and "moody"). I "chimp" to see if I need to set the aperture a stop or two over or under. I due this as fast as my camera permits me to. An outside observer might view my behavior as odd. The thing is that I would rather bracket up or down and waste a couple of shots than have to spend hours in PS trying to correct a blown highlight. I usually glance at the LCD screen to see the highlights when I'm shooting fast paced, rapid shots like the dance scenes. For a typical dance scene I get about three useable shots out of five. Any one of those three can be easily tweaked (not heavily processed in PS) and choosen by the couple for the album.

Me, taking this into a film vs. d---l debate? I would never dream of such blasphemy! May the mighty Zeiss strike me down if I should even think such impure thoughts! :D
 
OP
OP

snegron

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
806
Location
Hot, Muggy,
Format
35mm
Your other points aside ...

I agree that digital is another methodology for capturing images, an inferior one based upon the way it captures color and sharpness IMO, but a viable one nonetheless. Further, I see nothing fun about taking great compositions with a camera that doesn't give me the color or sharpness that meet my expectations; those things that fully compliment the composition and take it from "nice" to "wow". The fact that you don't see that simply means that you don't perceive color or sharpness in the same way that I do - and I don't mean this in any derogatory way whatsoever.

I have heard similar comparisions between 35mm vs. 120mm. Years ago big name companies were producing very expensive glass (not that it has gotten any cheaper today) for 35mm and marketing their lenses as if they could produce images equal to those produced with medium format cameras. Many people bought into the marketing hype and purchased these expensive lenses and camera systems. It kept the big named companies in business. Things are no different today. I'm sure that many of us will be reading in the future about debates between the how camera phone images are superior to old fashioned DSLR sensors.

The bottom line is the quality product we can produce for our clients that both pleases them and continues to bring in more clients. I don't consider myself an expert in any way, not even when I used film. I just get paid to take pictures. Much the same way as I did back in the early 80's. However, my clients love my work and that is what counts. I must be doing something wrong because my prints (yes, I do print ocassionaly those small 11"x14" images that the couple wants at the entrance of the reception area) look like film prints taken with one of my Mamiya 645's and Porta VC 160. Maybe I have a deffective Nikon D1X or a bad Epson 2400 printer? Who knows? Maybe my Photoshop CS2 has a glitch? Next time I'll try with my Mamiya RB67instead. :smile:

My final product is usually an 8"x10" album. The images in this album don't exceed this size. Even taking cropping into effect ( I make sure to compose the image right the first time so I can limit the amount of exsessive cropping afterwards), I don't see any deterioration of quality in any way. It works for me.
 
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:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom