Photographers with Bad Attitudes

z-man · Jun 29, 2007

FLYING BLIND

asalumu alekum to all

disclaimer-i only read the 1st and last pg-i will go back and digest the whole thread a peice at a time because i think that this is important

in the 1970's i used a 35 kit of a 70 f1.4, 35 f1.4 and 16 f2.8 ziess t* lenses to be able to shoot ektchrme 200 @400(no push-the real speed was 400) in theaters without any lighting except for the stage lights

my clients were able to get shots of what the audience was seeing and they were very very good art too

anybody who asked me was given my whole process-if i had the time to talk-and a few tried it but couldnt do what i could because they didnt have my eye and brain

so of course i was accused of 'holding out' and 'not sharing' and being a' crass commercialist' by many

i have allways been able to come up with novel ways to solve artistic process problems-if it meant giving away my edge and lt would cost me clients and income-of course i wouldnt tell

if you paid the entrance fees for classes i taught you got what you paid for

a busy pro cant stop in the midst of working to answer your questions-get a contact # or email and usually you will get more than bargained for in info

as for the stuffed animals and hypocrits on high who are to often a feature of the art world-laugh atthe jokes you make at their expense-that always deflates them

i often leave my big guns at home these days and use a vivitar film point and shoot with a 28mm that i got used but new in the box at b&h for $10-nobody pesters me with qustions so i enjoy and make art

when i go out with a 4x5 i gather a crowd and often blow shots because of my desire to answer the questions-that costs to much money and i may lose that fleeting light i planed to catch for a week or so

this is good stuff to meditate on for all of us

vaya con dios

roteague · Jun 29, 2007

snegron said:
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.

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.

We have different clients and different standards. My primary client is me, and my standards are exacting. What I see in terms of color and sharpness are obviously different from what you perceive. I'll take the images I get out of my Nikon F5 loaded with Fuji Velvia, Provia or Astia over anything I get out of my Nikon D200.

snegron · Jun 29, 2007

roteague said:
We have different clients and different standards. My primary client is me, and my standards are exacting. What I see in terms of color and sharpness are obviously different from what you perceive. I'll take the images I get out of my Nikon F5 loaded with Fuji Velvia, Provia or Astia over anything I get out of my Nikon D200.

So I have lower standards because I shoot with a DSLR instead of a 35mm? Last I checked 35mm was not all that great to begin with when it came to any type of enlargements. The only reason 35mm format was created by Leica to begin with was for portability. 35mm may be great for someone shooting for a newspaper or similar low quality publication, but as many in here will attest, larger format film will produce a higher quality image. I would never insult my clients by shooting with a 35mm camera on their wedding day, not even when I shot with film (unless I was oferring an album of 4"x6" prints which I never dreamed of doing)! At a minimum, 645 or larger if quality is what counts.

Again, I love film. I love my film cameras. However, I am currently able to produce images and prints with my DSLR's that exceed any 35mm film on the market today. My current images are equal to my 645 film images IMO. And no, it's not because my 645 images look crappy, it's because I learned how to use my digital equipment as it was meant to be used. The proof is in the images. I have yet to see a client of mine complain about the image quality of a print made with my DSLR's! I have had these same prints viewed by many photographers (old school, film-using photographers who didn't own a digital camera and whose primary business was wedding photography as well) and they thought that the images had been shot with a 645.

I hate to rain on your parade, but the reality is that digital photography has something very much in common with film photography; both rely on the ability of the shooter. Anyone with enough money can buy a Hassleblad film camera with the best Zeiss lenses, that does not give them the instant ability to create outstanding images. Same applies with digital. It's not the cost of the equipment but the ability of the shooter to use good Photoshop and printing skills as well. Anyone with money can buy a Nikon D2X and CS3, but that does not mean that they can achieve instant outstanding results. In both mediums one must pay his dues and learn the craft before any great images can be created.

roteague · Jun 29, 2007

snegron said:
So I have lower standards because I shoot with a DSLR instead of a 35mm?

Sorry, but you missed what I was saying. My perception of color and sharpness is different from yours. I don't find digital color accurate or digital sharp. My perception. You have to satisfy a client with lower standards, I only have to satisfy myself.

copake_ham · Jun 29, 2007

snegron said:
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!

Snegron,

Maybe you should just move on from APUG now?

This really IS a film photography website. Nothing more, nothing less.

I did get an e-mail the other day from a website called "FilmLives" (http://www.filmlives.net) which actually claims to be both a film and digital website. Why not check it out?

Your interests vary from ours now - so perhaps it's time to say "Goodbye"? :confused:

snegron · Jun 29, 2007

copake_ham said:
Snegron,

Maybe you should just move on from APUG now?

This really IS a film photography website. Nothing more, nothing less.

I did get an e-mail the other day from a website called "FilmLives" (http://www.filmlives.net) which actually claims to be both a film and digital website. Why not check it out?

Your interests vary from ours now - so perhaps it's time to say "Goodbye"? :confused:

I didn't know you were elected to moderator here at APUG! I guess you missed the part I mentioned in my responses where I mentioned how I still love my film cameras and use them for my personal work. I have another idea for you. How about the next time you see one of my posts just ignore it? Save yourself the frustration of having to deal with my opinions.

I have done absolutely nothing wrong except voice my opinion without attacking anyone or violating any APUG agreement. If I am not mistaken I believe you were the one who brought up the whole digital vs. film debate to begin with. This post, started by me, was about the rude comments of photographers with bad attitude towards beginning photographers. Everyone here seemed to participate in this discussion without turning it into a digital bashing debate such as you did (remember the comment you initiated about "chimping" and wedding digi photographers? I thought that was quite derrogatory on your bahalf, especially in a thread about the negative effects of comments by photographers).

Understand that this website does not belong to you and you can't just get rid of someone just because you don't agree with his or her point of view. The idea behind this sort of forum is to establish a community with like-minded individuals who can share their thoughts and experiences with others. It would be really nice for all of us in here if you would participate in our discussions without attacking us when we don't think exactly like you do.

Sirius Glass · Jul 2, 2007

snegron,

I am baffled. I have produced many 24" x 36" prints from 35mm color negatives and those prints far exceed the quality from the DSLR prints from so called full frames. Why are you unable to shoot 36mm and make sharp poster size prints?

Would you like the names of some good analog photo finishers?

Steve

Snapshot · Jul 2, 2007

snegron said:
Again, I love film. I love my film cameras. However, I am currently able to produce images and prints with my DSLR's that exceed any 35mm film on the market today. My current images are equal to my 645 film images IMO. And no, it's not because my 645 images look crappy, it's because I learned how to use my digital equipment as it was meant to be used. The proof is in the images. I have yet to see a client of mine complain about the image quality of a print made with my DSLR's! I have had these same prints viewed by many photographers (old school, film-using photographers who didn't own a digital camera and whose primary business was wedding photography as well) and they thought that the images had been shot with a 645.

I've heard this story before and it rings a little hallow to me as well as seems a little disingenuous. I'm skeptical of such DSLR superiority, especially when compared to medium format. Although I've seen some beautiful digital images, I found in general that digital doesn't measure up to the claims of its pundits. I must admit, I'm no professional but I've yet to see someone show me some truly 'superior' digital prints.

kombizz · Jul 2, 2007

Unfortunately I met few of them, but I guess you would see this kind of people with harsh attitude everwhere in the society.
Just try to be cool enough about them.

roteague · Jul 2, 2007

snegron said:
However, I am currently able to produce images and prints with my DSLR's that exceed any 35mm film on the market today. My current images are equal to my 645 film images IMO.

Yeah, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale as well. Sorry, I have a D200 and it doesn't come close to matching what I can get out of my F5 loaded with Velvia.

Sirius Glass · Jul 2, 2007

Snapshot said:
I've heard this story before and it rings a little hallow to me as well as seems a little disingenuous. I'm skeptical of such DSLR superiority, especially when compared to medium format. Although I've seen some beautiful digital images, I found in general that digital doesn't measure up to the claims of its pundits. I must admit, I'm no professional but I've yet to see someone show me some truly 'superior' digital prints.

I would go several steps further.
1) DSLR uses a focal plane that has less resolution than film.
2) The DLSR focal plane has a grid pattern which causes color bleeding and fringing. To remove these artifacts, software must futher reduce the resolution. NB: film grain is random by design so that these artifacts do not appear.
3) Almost all DSLR are not full frame and therefore the focal plane is 1.5 times smaller than the 24mm x 36mm film frame. Thereby causing even lower resolution.

Some of the major problems with the Film Lives! forum is that because it is run by Popular Photography the forum encourages D_____l users to fill the forum with pro-d__________l philosophy and brovado. This is so because Popular Photography has a vested interest in pushing d_______l and not film, hence they have removed some pro-film responses which were carefully written and backed up by laws of physics and optics. For example a few weeks ago one d________l user proclaimed that his MP8 photographs [from what his cell phone?] were sharper than any 35mm film photograph. When challenged on this, some of the more techincal responses [not just mine] disappeared after a few hours.

Steve

mark · Jul 2, 2007

I think we have definately made some progress here today. How about we remove the putrified and gelatinous equine remains and call it a session.

copake_ham · Jul 2, 2007

Stever said:
I would go several steps further.
1) DSLR uses a focal plane that has less resolution than film.
2) The DLSR focal plane has a grid pattern which causes color bleeding and fringing. To remove these artifacts, software must futher reduce the resolution. NB: film grain is random by design so that these artifacts do not appear.
3) Almost all DSLR are not full frame and therefore the focal plane is 1.5 times smaller than the 24mm x 36mm film frame. Thereby causing even lower resolution.

Some of the major problems with the Film Lives! forum is that because it is run by Popular Photography the forum encourages D_____l users to fill the forum with pro-d__________l philosophy and brovado. This is so because Popular Photography has a vested interest in pushing d_______l and not film, hence they have removed some pro-film responses which were carefully written and backed up by laws of physics and optics. For example a few weeks ago one d________l user proclaimed that his MP8 photographs [from what his cell phone?] were sharper than any 35mm film photograph. When challenged on this, some of the more techincal responses [not just mine] disappeared after a few hours.

Steve

So "Film Lives!" is part of PP. Thanks for the info, I didn't know that.

No wonder it all seemed a bit strange how a site can claim to be both D and F (kind of like the lion and lamb laying down together in a peaceable kingdom) when I visited over there.

I dropped my subscription to PP a while ago - since it is not just a digital mag - but is actively derisive of film and film photography. Glad I didn't join the site!

snegron · Jul 2, 2007

mark said:
I think we have definately made some progress here today. How about we remove the putrified and gelatinous equine remains and call it a session.

I find it hystericaly funny that every digital basher here has either their digital images posted in the gallary section of this forum or have a link to their web pages filled with digital images!

snegron · Jul 2, 2007

roteague said:
Yeah, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale as well. Sorry, I have a D200 and it doesn't come close to matching what I can get out of my F5 loaded with Velvia.

I neglected to mention that the mages I usually enlarge are those produced by my little 5.3 megapixel D1X, not my D200. I save my D200 for even bigger prints or prints that require more cropping . Like anything, the D200 has a rather steep learning curve and it takes time to realize its potential. I have a great deal you might be inerested in: I trade you two of my F3HP's (one in near mint condition with MD4 motordrive) for your D200!

snegron · Jul 2, 2007

Stever said:
I would go several steps further.
1) DSLR uses a focal plane that has less resolution than film.
2) The DLSR focal plane has a grid pattern which causes color bleeding and fringing. To remove these artifacts, software must futher reduce the resolution. NB: film grain is random by design so that these artifacts do not appear.
3) Almost all DSLR are not full frame and therefore the focal plane is 1.5 times smaller than the 24mm x 36mm film frame. Thereby causing even lower resolution.

Steve

I have yet to see any color bleeding or fringing on any of my DSLR's. As far as any software that reduces resolution, I have to say that it is the exact opposite. Not to get to technical but there are filters in CS2 that enhace sharpening, etc. As for full frame having less resoultion than a 1.5 sensor, there is no correlation at all. The only "drawback" of a smaller sensor is that it shows less of the image than you would see on a 35mm plane. So, instead of capturing a subject and the background, you would probably only be able to capture the subject without much of the background. That's why you need a wider angle lens with a 1.5 sensor (or take a few steps back from the subject) to be able to fit in more of the subject in the frame. Basically, with 1.5 all that the normal focal length lenses do are to crop the image, not bring it any closer. Hopefully this is the last digital refference we make on this thread so we can continue to talk about the topic of the original post.

snegron · Jul 2, 2007

kombizz said:
Unfortunately I met few of them, but I guess you would see this kind of people with harsh attitude everwhere in the society.
Just try to be cool enough about them.

Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic again! Yes, you have a very valid point. These people are found in just about every profession we can encounter. I think that it is particularly sad in photography though because many of us have the perception that photography is art.

When a new artist is at a stage of discovering his or her style, he or she may be more succeptible to critisism.

Recently I have had a couple of people who have wanted to be my assistant. They made it clear to me that their motives were mostly for money. My perception is that there needs to be a love for the art of photography, ultimately a passion to capture the image. I am faced with having to make a decision on who I will choose as an assistant and what to say to the unmotivated ones without putting myself in the position of being that type of photographer with a bad attitude who will leave a long lasting negative impression on them. I'm still debating what to say and how to say it.

jstraw · Jul 2, 2007

snegron said:
I am faced with having to make a decision on who I will choose as an assistant and what to say to the unmotivated ones without putting myself in the position of being that type of photographer with a bad attitude who will leave a long lasting negative impression on them. I'm still debating what to say and how to say it.

How about; "I want to thank you for applying. The position has been filled. Good luck and thanks again."

Sirius Glass · Jul 2, 2007

snegron said:
I have yet to see any color bleeding or fringing on any of my DSLR's. As far as any software that reduces resolution, I have to say that it is the exact opposite.

That is because the software that came with the camera removes the artifacts before downloading to the memory.

snegron said:
IAs for full frame having less resoultion than a 1.5 sensor, there is no correlation at all. The only "drawback" of a smaller sensor is that it shows less of the image than you would see on a 35mm plane. So, instead of capturing a subject and the background, you would probably only be able to capture the subject without much of the background. That's why you need a wider angle lens with a 1.5 sensor (or take a few steps back from the subject) to be able to fit in more of the subject in the frame.

If you read it carefully, you would have seen that I was referring to the so-called full frame focal plane arrays, and not the true full frame focal plane arrays, which are only in a few top of the line models.

snegron said:
Basically, with 1.5 all that the normal focal length lenses do are to crop the image, not bring it any closer. Hopefully this is the last digital refference we make on this thread so we can continue to talk about the topic of the original post.

Cropping should ideally be done with any camera system prior to exposure. For many years I shot slides which are limited in options for alteration after the exposure. Therefore I learned to edit in the viewfinder. I for one do not need to have an optical system narrow the field of view. For the record, I have been greatly disappointed with the Nikon and Canon camera's wide angle performance when there was less than a full frame focal plane.

Steve

Sirius Glass · Jul 2, 2007

jstraw said:
How about; "I want to thank you for applying. The position has been filled. Good luck and thanks again."

Or "I have a few more applicants to talk to, I will decide soon."

Steve

roteague · Jul 2, 2007

snegron said:
I neglected to mention that the mages I usually enlarge are those produced by my little 5.3 megapixel D1X, not my D200. I save my D200 for even bigger prints or prints that require more cropping . Like anything, the D200 has a rather steep learning curve and it takes time to realize its potential. I have a great deal you might be inerested in: I trade you two of my F3HP's (one in near mint condition with MD4 motordrive) for your D200!

Thanks, but I used to have an F3. The biggest piece of junk I ever owned.

At the moment I have an F5 for small camera work, and am considering - seriously - purchasing a new F6. I was so impressed with the features of the D200 that I want to have them in a film camera as well, hence the reason for the F6 purchase. I'm not one of those guys who only wants old, manual cameras, I too appreciate newer cameras.

PhotoHistorian · Jul 3, 2007

roteague said:
Thanks, but I used to have an F3. The biggest piece of junk I ever owned.

At the moment I have an F5 for small camera work, and am considering - seriously - purchasing a new F6. I was so impressed with the features of the D200 that I want to have them in a film camera as well, hence the reason for the F6 purchase. I'm not one of those guys who only wants old, manual cameras, I too appreciate newer cameras.

What made your F3 the biggest piece of junk you ever owned? I have owned the same F3 since 1983. It has been my camera of choice since then in 35mm work. It has traveled with me through rain forests to arctic conditions and never failed me. I have looked at other Nikon advancements with the F4, F5 and F6 and just never felt the need to change. I too am not an old manual camera guy either. I have more advanced cameras in other formats and appreciate advancements. But when something works, I see no need to change just for the sake of change.
I would be interested to hear how your F3 failed you.

Walker

snegron · Jul 3, 2007

I actually like my F3HP more than my F2A and F100! I have an old F3 (from the first year of production) that looks like it went through a war zone. It looks badly beaten up, but still works! I purchased that camera from a photojournalist friend of mine back in the early 80's. He was thinking of retiring it because he used it to the point that it looked rough. I continued to shoot with it for several more years as a primary camera, then as a back up camera until I misplaced it for about 15 years. I recently found it eaxactly as I left it. It still works! Because of its now sentimental value I removed the battery and placed it in a retirement drawer together with an old Nikon 105mm 2.5 that was usually mounted on it back in the early 80's. I have two almost new F3HP's that I use all the time now, so I keep the old one in a cool dry place.

roteague · Jul 3, 2007

PhotoHistorian said:
What made your F3 the biggest piece of junk you ever owned? I have owned the same F3 since 1983.

The fact that I've gone through 3 system boards in the time I've owned it - it finally died about 10 years ago (another system board - the 4th) and I didn't repair it. It was one of the early models, I think I bought it in 1980.

Snapshot · Jul 3, 2007

snegron said:
I find it hystericaly funny that every digital basher here has either their digital images posted in the gallary section of this forum or have a link to their web pages filled with digital images!

I don't think that digital bashing is going on so much as people are challenging the purported superiority claims of digital. If I criticize the actions of my government, it does not make me an anarchist. This board and Internet are valuable tools and, therefore, to be fully leveraged. Hence, the use of digital images by forum users. I'm all for finding humour and irony in daily living. However, I believe that your statement at interpreting the 'digital bashing' as being humourous stem from an an attempt ridicule and incite your critics rather from a genuine sense of irony.

Photographers with Bad Attitudes

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency