Photographers with Bad Attitudes

[bill schwab]

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

In the interest of balance... I have used the same 2 F3's for over 20 years now, they have been my workhorse cameras for well over 1000 commercial shoots as well as thousands of personal images. I'm guessing the shutter on each has been fired well over 100,000 times and other than the occasional cleaning and shutter adjustments, I have NEVER experienced even one mechanical problem with either one.

Bill

Oh yeah.... both were previously owned.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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!

Perhaps it is because the internet is digitally based and one is unable to post analog images directly on it [read: must convert analog to digital first]. Doh!

Place Simpson's moment here!​

D---------l, as I have stated before, is excellent for internet posting [including *bay], transfering images great distances quickly [sending pix of the kids to Auntie Minnie], and seeing the images quickly [ala chimping].

I am holding back from crossing over to the dark side [not in any particular order]:

1. High start up costs for top of the line and near top of the line camera bodies and film backs
2. The resolution is not high enough yet for very large prints
3. The color gamut is much smaller than with film
4. The latitude of exposure is too narrow
5. Low light level photography is too noisy
6. Not ecologically friendly [product production byproducts, electronic waste, discarded batteries]
7. Ink jet photos fade
8. Not archival. Only one disk crash from oblivion. Most port to new machine with every operating system upgrade [for PCs, not as much for MACs but still a problem]. CDs and DVDs decay in relatively few years. When image formats change, must retain old software to retrieve images => the old software may not be compatiable with the new operating system.
9. Black and white photographs on d-----l look flat

Still when film gets too expensive or hard to obtain and process [include references to problems shipping and transporting chemicals] I will have to move to the dark side. Yet all my lenses will work on the Nikon and Hasselblad products.

I find it hystericaly funny that many digital evangelists feel compelled to defend their choices on film based internet forums. Me thinks they protest too much! [apologies to Wm. Shakespeare]

Steve

 

[Uncle Bill]

I was lucky to help out with the APUG Conference last year and I got a chance to meet the faclitators of the workshops, by and large they were a really nice bunch except for one. A certain gentleman who is best known for contact printing (and advocate for azo paper) who shares my last name (hopefully no relation). I think I bumped into his ego before He physically entered the room. I found his answers in the roundtable discussion on the future of analog photography pretentious. Funny thing is wife was really nice, figure that one out.

 

[roteague]

In the interest of balance... I have used the same 2 F3's for over 20 years now, they have been my workhorse cameras for well over 1000 commercial shoots as well as thousands of personal images. I'm guessing the shutter on each has been fired well over 100,000 times and other than the occasional cleaning and shutter adjustments, I have NEVER experienced even one mechanical problem with either one.

Bill

Oh yeah.... both were previously owned.

I don't doubt you Bill, since I have heard the same from others. I was burned with mine, and never felt comfortable getting another. However, that didn't stop me from getting more Nikons; N70, N80 and my current F5 (and a possible F6 in the future).

 

[snegron]

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.

No, really, I find it amusing, I do!

I would like to explain my term "digital bashing" though. I am not here to start a digital vs. film war. I enjoy talking about digital gear on digital forums. I do spend quite some time on those. Being a human being of free will, I also enjoy film and discussing film issues on this forum. If you look back at the history of this post, I was not the one who initiated any digital topic. Someone else did in a somewhat elitist, snobbish way. I spoke out in defense of those of us who are able, capable, and happy to use both film and digital.

My Nikon F, F2A, F3HP, F100, FM2, Mamiya 645, Mamiya RB67 don't mind when I take my D70, D1X, D200 (and when I'm feeling stealthy) even my Lumix FZ-50 along for a day of capturing images. My film cameras have no problems sharing the same camera bags as my DSLR's on our outings.

I can actually use both film and digital (especially with the compatibility of Nikon lenses on their film and digital cameras) cameras and achieve results I like. I enjoy quality work and certain cameras with special formats or image capturing devices (like film or CF cards) do jobs in different ways. When I want a specific style of image I will use a specific camera (film or digital).

An ironic fact that I must point out is that I created this post for us to share our thoughts on rude comments made by photographers with bad attitudes, yet some took the opportunity to make rude, degarding, elitest, snoby remarks directed toward those of us who shoot digital for weddings. I did not start the attack, just responded to what I consider was uncalled for.

Hopefully this will be that last "it's ok for you to use that low grade, dime store technology called digital because you have no understaning of true image quality" response. It would really be nice to get back on the original topic I created for this thread and leave all the digital bashing for another post. Just a thought.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Now that there is a truce ...

Back on topic, I have not really had an experience with a bad attitude in photography. Yes, I have asked a question when someone was busy, but I cannot remember an instance when I was rebuffed by another photographer. I do not think I am alone.

Steve

 

[snegron]

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

I forgot to mention that the applicants are known to me (something like friends of the family. I am going to probably see these people again. My first instinct was to tell them that they need to have a passion for photography as there are many higher paying jobs out there. I have even thought about taking one of them on one of my next wedding assignments. Maybe if they experience 7 hours of intense, non-stop work and see first hand the demands of wedding photography they might change their mind. On the other hand, who knows, they might enjoy the extreme fast paced style of wedding photography and might change their attitude. My only issue with this is that I have way too many things to be focused on (no pun intended) at a wedding to have to be paying attention to a confused assistant.

 

[snegron]

Now that there is a truce ...

Back on topic, I have not really had an experience with a bad attitude in photography. Yes, I have asked a question when someone was busy, but I cannot remember an instance when I was rebuffed by another photographer. I do not think I am alone.

Steve

I just remembered another incident with a photographer back in 1983. I think I was shooting some social event and he was next door shooting prom pictures. His TLR locked up and he forgot to bring his back up. I had a spare 35mm with a 50mm lens. I let him borrow it and even gave him several rolls of film so he could compete his assignment. Several minutes later he came yelling at me wanting to know why I had left one of those special effects star filters on the lens! I told him it was a backup camera and that I must have forgotten to take it off after messing around with it a few days before. I told him that it would not affect picture quality, just might add a cheesy (back then I thought it was real cool) star shimmer to small intense light sources. He hit the roof! He said that it would affect his picture quality and that I should have told him it was on before I let him borrow the camera!! I told him that if he was not happy then why didn't he just give me back the camera and shoot with his own stuff. I also reminded him that he should have known it was there when he looked through the lens the very first time. I did not appreciate his attitude.

 

[Snapshot]

Hopefully this will be that last "it's ok for you to use that low grade, dime store technology called digital because you have no understaning of true image quality" response. It would really be nice to get back on the original topic I created for this thread and leave all the digital bashing for another post. Just a thought.

I'll bite my tongue and let it go since it seems there are better uses for this thread.

 

[mark]

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!

Oh, look the "every image on the web is digital" cool come back.:rolleyes: Like I said the horse is dead.

 

[roteague]

I have even thought about taking one of them on one of my next wedding assignments. Maybe if they experience 7 hours of intense, non-stop work and see first hand the demands of wedding photography they might change their mind.

I think that there are many different types of photography, just as there are different reasons for doing it. I know some here do digital for their work photography, because, well it is work, and use film for their personal work. There are some that do digital because they love digital, although they generally aren't members of APUG. Then there are those that only do film.

 

[mark]

Maybe if they experience 7 hours of intense, non-stop work and see first hand the demands of wedding photography they might change their mind. On the other hand, who knows, they might enjoy the extreme fast paced style of wedding photography and might change their attitude.

This would get rid of the unmotivated and partially interested. Hell I have done a total of one wedding and I will NEVER do another. I personally think you guys have a screw loose.

You say you don't have time to be keeping an eye on the assistant. Why do you need an assistant in this case. If you are doing it just to keep from being one of the "bad" guys, then that is silly. It is your business.

On the other hand. If you spell out exactly what you want them to do and they are not doing it, send them home. better they learn the game ASAP, if this is what they want to do. Business is business and they need to see that it is a business. I know a lot of folks out there see wedding photogs and photogs in general as cushy jobs, shock them at the beginning and weed out the ones who should not be doing it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Snegron. It seems outrageous to me that the photographer to whom you kindly lent a camera didn't have the sense to examine what filter was on the lens. If he needed the kind of spoon feeding he seemed to be demanding then perhaps you could have obliged and done the shooting for him!

That's a bad attitude on his part in spades

I am curious however about what aspects of film that you prefer over digital if your digital exceeds your 35mm film quality and matches or betters your film MF up to 645.

If you have stated what these aspects are then accept my apologies but other than assuming there is a "fun aspect" to film I can't see why you'd bother with film. It may be the fun aspect which is of course a perfectly legitimate reason to bother with film. If so can you amplify?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[joel dallenbach]

I love photography. I have a bad attitude about it too. Sure I'd love to encourage others in thier photographic adventures but, I don't care too much. I'd personnally like to be put to the test as it were by the likes of Alexey Brodovitch, who was a pivital factor in the lives of many great photographers during photographys' heyday. From what I've read about Brodovitch, I learned that he was extremely harsh on photographers whose work failed to meet his standards. Some gave up photography because of this, some didn't. It is not the 1950's 60's now. There are 20,000 times as many photographers competing for a rapidly disintegrating piece of pie, so essentially, I gave up trying to make a living at photography years ago. This helps my attitude. I tend to look at commercial photographers, Proffessionals etc,... as suspect. There are a lot of pros I admire, but to get in, is more luck and not as much talent or perserverence. I love it when I am granted photographic access because I am not a pro. But am bitter when the pro gets better money for mediocre work. I hate people who try to act like a brodovitch, etc,... when they are just posing. I'd probably last less than five minutes in a Brodovitch design class, how ever, my pretentions lean towards the old new york school photography, range finders, tlrs etc,.... available light

 

[snegron]

This would get rid of the unmotivated and partially interested. Hell I have done a total of one wedding and I will NEVER do another. I personally think you guys have a screw loose.

You say you don't have time to be keeping an eye on the assistant. Why do you need an assistant in this case. If you are doing it just to keep from being one of the "bad" guys, then that is silly. It is your business.

On the other hand. If you spell out exactly what you want them to do and they are not doing it, send them home. better they learn the game ASAP, if this is what they want to do. Business is business and they need to see that it is a business. I know a lot of folks out there see wedding photogs and photogs in general as cushy jobs, shock them at the beginning and weed out the ones who should not be doing it.

Shooting weddings is not all that bad! There is something about the intensity and pressure of the whole event that draws me to shoot them. It is sort of a "photographic rush" for lack of a better term. Just knowing that you can't retake any images (at least if you want to capture the spontaneus expressions of the bride and groom) is exciting.

These people who have expressed their desire to become my assistants lack that love of the thrill. They are artists in their own right (web design, painting, etc.) but they have told me that their primary reason for shooting weddings is that they think they can make plenty of money.

I like your idea of shocking them at first. I think that after about one hour into shooting the wedding they will probably be regreting the idea of wanting to shoot weddings just for money. There is alwys the chance though that it might awaken an interest in them. Who knows?

As far as keeping an eye on them, what I meant wa that at first they would probably be in my way during several key shots. By stopping to explain to them what I need will probably take more time than if I just did it myself. So far I have been a one man show and things have gone well. I would not mind an assistant if he or she had a positive dispostion. It would be nice to have him or her turn into a second shooter at the wedding to capture those moments that I missed.

 

[snegron]

Snegron. It seems outrageous to me that the photographer to whom you kindly lent a camera didn't have the sense to examine what filter was on the lens. If he needed the kind of spoon feeding he seemed to be demanding then perhaps you could have obliged and done the shooting for him!

That's a bad attitude on his part in spades

I am curious however about what aspects of film that you prefer over digital if your digital exceeds your 35mm film quality and matches or betters your film MF up to 645.

If you have stated what these aspects are then accept my apologies but other than assuming there is a "fun aspect" to film I can't see why you'd bother with film. It may be the fun aspect which is of course a perfectly legitimate reason to bother with film. If so can you amplify?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I was rather shocked with that photographer's demanding attitude! Some people are like that and it is useless for us to bother with them because they will neither change nor improve their attitudes.

As for the other part of your question, I offer my apologies, but I would rather not even touch on that subject again. I don't want to risk offending anyone else in here by stating my opinions. Let's just say that nothing else feels as good in my hand as an F3HP with an MD4 attatched to it!

 

[Early Riser]

I love photography. I have a bad attitude about it too. Sure I'd love to encourage others in thier photographic adventures but, I don't care too much. I'd personnally like to be put to the test as it were by the likes of Alexey Brodovitch, who was a pivital factor in the lives of many great photographers during photographys' heyday. From what I've read about Brodovitch, I learned that he was extremely harsh on photographers whose work failed to meet his standards. Some gave up photography because of this, some didn't. It is not the 1950's 60's now. There are 20,000 times as many photographers competing for a rapidly disintegrating piece of pie, so essentially, I gave up trying to make a living at photography years ago. This helps my attitude. I tend to look at commercial photographers, Proffessionals etc,... as suspect. There are a lot of pros I admire, but to get in, is more luck and not as much talent or perserverence. I love it when I am granted photographic access because I am not a pro. But am bitter when the pro gets better money for mediocre work. I hate people who try to act like a brodovitch, etc,... when they are just posing. I'd probably last less than five minutes in a Brodovitch design class, how ever, my pretentions lean towards the old new york school photography, range finders, tlrs etc,.... available light

Your post seems very frank and honest, though I do have a few nits to pick about it. It's not about luck over talent or perserverance. Granted there are some lucky photographers out there, including some very famous one's who rely completely on assistants for all technical issues including lighting and whose concepts and designs were all thought of by various art directors, but in general most pros I know, and I'm talking advertising, editorial and fashion photography here, were knowledgeable and truly professional. Granted since digital came out, the quality level and expertise of the photographers has dropped. In my day there was a sense of pride in getting it right in the camera, photographers that relied on retouching were consider poor practitioners and were not respected, now it seems that digital based photographers completely depend on retouching to save their ass.

 

[joel dallenbach]

on retouching to save their ass.[/QUOTE]but in general most pros I know, and I'm talking advertising, editorial and fashion photography here, were knowledgeable and truly professional.
early riser, I know it's not so much luck now, although once I got a start at a magazine say 15 years ago, music etc,... and it seemed like a great begining, all access passes etc,... I filled up one issue before the magazine folded. Timing may have something to do with it. Had that magazine been rolling stone circa 1967, I might be shooting for vanity fair by now. It's probably worse now for people interested in music photography because of napster type situations where people can download music for free, hence a bands bread and butter might come from touring now, so the band would lose what is left of their revenue by handing out a pass to a photographer. I can not remember the last time I got in free to a show.
A friend of mine who is a pro photographer, suplimented her work buy doing photoshop touch up work. Now she's an authority on the touch up trade. I'm sure she'd rather work behind a camera more. So what will happen to the industry when it only accepts images made by digital photography. Will Irving Penn be stuck on the corner with a paper cup asking for handouts? I suppose a good metaphor for what will be with photography can be what has happened to print media in the wake of television. Magazines and photographs were replaced by videos. It's too bad. Magazines used to expend lavish sums on photographers to provide extensive coverage and promote creative development of photographers, Now it's more often than not that a weekend photographer, wall street broker on holliday etc,... will get the credit if he or she captured the photograph of the highschool massacre in the middle of a hurricane than would the local stringer or assignment photographer. When the pros can't compete with the hobbyists, work suffers. It's not so much a case of when the going gets wierd the wierd turn pro as hunter thompson put it but more at, the blind leading the blind. There's always or so it seems a pendulum swinging. Photographic craftsmanship may be deleted in the digital world, but there's always a backlash of luddites geared up to chain whip the upstarts into analog submission. I'm kinda loosing focus. It all started out as a bad attitude. When the next depression occurs I wonder if there will be another FSA documentary! and if all the out of work photographers will be able to use the medium of their choice?

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I think Joel makes some very perceptive remarks. I remember the moment in 1973 when I, as a young photographer, heard that David Bailey (a very big influence on all us Brits) was moving into directing commercials. I thought to myself "Well, if he can't make a living from stills, I don't think I can either!" and resolved to concentrate on my writing, which I have done ever since.

The situation now is infinitely worse, with a gross oversupply of photographers (l heard once that the total number of photography students in the UK at any given time equals the number of people employed in the industry).

My take on the current situation is that there are still openings for people with outstanding business skills in social photography, and that good money can be made in art photography by a select few who have the requisite amount of talent, originality, chutzpah, balls, insolence, connections and sheer luck. Aside from this, most traditional well-paid photographic work has virtually been wiped out (stock photography by digital and royalty-free, serious reportage by cameraphones, celebrity pix, paparazzi, etc.). I am as passionate about photography as a medium as I ever was, but I feel the chances of getting rich quick (or even moderately well-off slowly) are getting thinner by the minute.

Regards,

David

 

[bjorke]

What was it Bertrand Russell said? Or was it Shaw? Progress only comes from unreasonable people?

 

[joel dallenbach]

It is a success to have a working darkroom at ones abode. I consider myself lucky. The draw of New York is rather tempting, but there I would have to pay 30+ dollars an hour for a darkroom, exhorbitant rents and time would be spent washing dishes rather than film. New York is still the capital of photography. Bertrand and Bernard are right. Be unreasonable. Walk into the Blue Chip galleries on 57th st with a mountain of images and demand representation.

 

[Early Riser]

Walk into the Blue Chip galleries on 57th st with a mountain of images and demand representation.

And be promptly thrown out by security.......

 

[joel dallenbach]

And be promptly thrown out by security.......

Have you had any experience with this? I suppose having connections and insiders may be proper protocall.... Are you a sercurity guard there? Maybe security is tighter now. But it seems pretty easy to walk in with a portfolio to any of those buildings. Perhaps making a demand could attract security guards. However work that demands these galleries attention will eliminate need for standard proceedures. It's just a theory, but in the same way a sold out concert is never really sold out, the concept of coming in off the street and getting gallery representation is ....

 

[Early Riser]

Have you had any experience with this? I suppose having connections and insiders may be proper protocall.... Are you a sercurity guard there? Maybe security is tighter now. But it seems pretty easy to walk in with a portfolio to any of those buildings. Perhaps making a demand could attract security guards. However work that demands these galleries attention will eliminate need for standard proceedures. It's just a theory, but in the same way a sold out concert is never really sold out, the concept of coming in off the street and getting gallery representation is ....

Joel I've had some experience with this, you just don't walk into a gallery and expect them to look at your work. You first need to see what type of work they represent, many galleries have a very distinctive POV and if you walk in and show them work that does not relate to what they are interested in they will feel like you're wasting their time. After you find a gallery that shows work that is consistent with yours, call them. They will most probably want you to drop off your work and pick it up the next day. If they like it, they'll call you. That's how it works.

 

[joel dallenbach]

early, your right, but so many times it seems that having a book of photographs with you when purusing galleries might expidite measures and or save postage. I've always felt somewhat naive when asked if I had anything with me I could show. Funny new york is like a magnet that repulses. I aways want to leave that place when I get there, mostly to focus on generating work. But when I get back to Denver, it's very easy to lose focus and waste time. If I don't go outside I can imagine that there's a subway and a hip record store just outside, Seas of people ideas energy. But in colorado, there's just too much sun and blue skies. Today some cloud cover, and the last few nights glorious pollution. Sorry, seem to have slipped off subject. It doesn't matter where the is made. I think I was riffin on what David said about Kutspah. Depends on who it is. Your right about context. I would imagine though that a gallery which is primarily into macro earthworm photographs, well, let's not think about them. Specialization is suspect.