Who are we?

Q.G. said:

Having to wait for the result isn't a restriction.
We don't guess at things, and then wait how our guesses turn out. No matter what you do (photography, IT, whatever), when you know what you are doing, you know what the result will be.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear! Well said.

That is exactly what I have told people who question how I can say that the ability to review, while useful at times, is far from a necessity. There have been many times when I have said "Got it!" as soon as the shutter closed, and that's with all manual exposure.
Experienced carpenters don't rely on the "cut and try" method. They know their stuff.

lxdude said:

Hear, hear! Well said.

That is exactly what I have told people who question how I can say that the ability to review, while useful at times, is far from a necessity. There have been many times when I have said "Got it!" as soon as the shutter closed, and that's with all manual exposure.
Experienced carpenters don't rely on the "cut and try" method. They know their stuff.

Click to expand...

This is BS...sorry....why do you think film shooters bracket? Why do you think bracketing is almost never used with digital? Yes, we film lovers do sometime guess at exposure...hence the bracketing, the extra shots at different exposures, ect...not a bad thing, by the way....just the way it is sometimes.

I love film no less then any of you, and I shoot 90% film over digital, but I'm not so insecure with my film ways as to continually bash the digital set with inaccurate reasons and outright BS to make myself feel better as a film user.

The fact is, and as much as I love and use film, waiting until development is a restriction...and being able to view the LCD and a histogram nearly real-time on a digital camera is a fantastic thing...

Lets not demonize one way over another especially with arguments that are pure BS.

I'm sure everyone approaches their medium of choice in their own way.

This thread has made for fascinating reading with lots of great stories. Let's not get it locked for becoming a digital/film argument.

I've had many jobs and am now retired , I've had many jobs to make a living but all the time since I was thirteen I've been a photographer, I define myself not by what I do to pay the bills, but what I am in my heart.

SilverGlow said:

This is BS...sorry....why do you think film shooters bracket? Why do you think bracketing is almost never used with digital? Yes, we film lovers do sometime guess at exposure...hence the bracketing, the extra shots at different exposures, ect...not a bad thing, by the way....just the way it is sometimes.

I love film no less then any of you, and I shoot 90% film over digital, but I'm not so insecure with my film ways as to continually bash the digital set with inaccurate reasons and outright BS to make myself feel better as a film user.

The fact is, and as much as I love and use film, waiting until development is a restriction...and being able to view the LCD and a histogram nearly real-time on a digital camera is a fantastic thing...

Lets not demonize one way over another especially with arguments that are pure BS.

Click to expand...

You make some good points but that does not make my statement BS, pure or otherwise. I think the ability to review, check exposure, etc. is very useful, and in the right hands is a tool, not a crutch. That does not make it a necessity.
I'm not critical of it. But it's not a good substitute for knowledge. If the LCD failed, a knowledgeable photographer would continue without it and be little affected. Some folks shoot, look at the LCD. Shoot, look at the LCD. And so on. Things don't flow when they're doing that. If they're not dependent on the LCD they can be looking for the next shot, not at the last.

Immediacy is great, but when, for instance, shooting fast moving sports, there's no time to go back and see if you got the shot. And regardless of medium, there's no chance to bracket.

What I said was, it's hardly a necessity. There are many times when the "magic moment" occurs, a fleeting expression or peak action, and there is only that moment. There is no substitute for knowing your stuff. It's like AE and AF. Used with knowledge, they are tools; if simply relied on in all situations, shots will be lost, and the shooter won't know why. That is, unless the shooter analyzes why and learns from it.

I have been asked by digital shooters how I get by without the ability to review, and that's when I tell them they don't have to have it. I suggest they examine their EXIF data and learn what works best in different situations and why. Then when they have to judge they won't be guessing, and they will know when to use their judgement.
It's about mastery. They can confidently override their meter or not in fast-changing situations, and not be having to look at their LCD instead of looking at the subject. I like to finish by saying that if they do that, I could hand them a completely manual film camera and they would be able to confidently determine exposure.

As for me, I never guess at exposure. I make a judgement. I seldom bracket.
I bracket mostly for different effect or to experiment. In those cases I might vary toward underexposure as much as two stops, and over as much as a stop. In situations where exposure must be just right, I bracket for insurance against slight errors in judgment, errors introduced by equipment, or to give a selection of slightly different exposures from which to choose, which protects against variations in development. They also give me the chance to choose a slightly different exposure than what I wanted originally. Those brackets are as little as 1/4 stop and seldom exceed 1/2 stop.
All that is with transparency film, of course.

I'm sure many here know what it was like starting out to not be able to afford to shoot as much as desired. When payday was two days away and I had 10 shots left and was looking at something I really wanted to capture, bracketing was not something I wanted to do. So, I learned how to finely judge exposure out of economic necessity. The real benefit, though, lay in gaining the ability to expose accurately and confidently and to concentrate on getting the shot.


I don't mind waiting for results for my serious work. I agree with Q.G. that for me, it's not a restriction, in that I don't have to see the results to know the results.
I use a P&S digital for family snapshots and pet photos and such and the immediacy of results and convenience are great. In that situation it's like the Polaroid my Dad used to use.
I remember thinking long ago about how nice it would be if I could review a shot as soon as I took it, and if I could just erase the clunkers without paying for them. As I improved, my "keeper" rate went way up and my uncertainty and need to discard went way down.
Now that the ability to instantly review and discard is here, I have little need. But I understand its attraction and desirability, and how it is useful to those in the business.

There's a sort of paradox regarding many features on cameras. The more skill and knowledge we acquire, the more use we can make of them, but the less we really need them.

SilverGlow said:

This is BS...sorry....why do you think film shooters bracket? Why do you think bracketing is almost never used with digital? Yes, we film lovers do sometime guess at exposure...hence the bracketing, the extra shots at different exposures, ect...not a bad thing, by the way....just the way it is sometimes.

Click to expand...

BS?
In too many decades of photography i would like to admit to, i have never bracketed. I never felt the need to. I never found out afterwards that i better would have bracketed either.

There is absolutely no need for guesswork. Never.

So are you sure that you're not "so insecure"? Because i'm sure, reading your "BS" apology for bracketing, that you are.

Hmm, IT people more affine to analog photography? Not in my experience.

I work as an architect for an IT consultancy / custom software development company, and while there are quite a lot of my colleagues who are relatively deep into photography, I seem to be the last one holding out as a heavy film user, and the only one to do his own wet processing.

Or, maybe I'm just the first one to come back to film and wet darkroom?

For a while, I was exclusively digital. Then I got increasingly dissatisfied with the the many color variables needing tweaking in the workflow, and the fact that it's nearly impossible to do a really black&white only print using inkjet printers (or at least, my printer).

Now, I'm mostly back to shooting b&w film, and doing my own processing and enlarging. I shoot mainly for recreational purposes anyway (stress-relaxant from my mostly gnaw-my-brains only job), and greatly enjoy the manual, LCD-screen-less nature of the workflow.

SilverGlow said:

This is BS...sorry....why do you think film shooters bracket? Why do you think bracketing is almost never used with digital? Yes, we film lovers do sometime guess at exposure...hence the bracketing, the extra shots at different exposures, ect...not a bad thing, by the way....just the way it is sometimes.

Click to expand...

I call BS on the BS. I have never bracketed to take a normal pic since I was like 12 or 13 years old. In fact I have never heard of film photographers bracketing as standard practice at all. It's usually novices or folks that don't know what they are doing practicing bracketing for normal exposures.

Regards, Art.

shimoda said:

I have found that two kinds of people are overrepresented as film shooters. Artists and IT-people.

Or maybe I am making too much out of what is after all a very small sample...

Click to expand...

Speaking as an auditor for many years and dealing with sampling on a regular basis: yes your sampling is flawed. (just kidding)

I was an IT security auditor for about 6 years and I started out adult life with my degree in music, so I fall into your categories. However, I stick primarily with film for much more pragmatic reasons.

One, I already have all of the gear I would ever need (and it will outlast me) and am acquiring even more of it at ridiculous prices.

But, two (and the most important), is that I am good at it. I would rather continue with the skills I enjoy then start over learning to print again in another media. I'm too old to bother.

Bottom line: I'm not a Luddite, or an old soul, I'm just lazy ...

Q.G. said:

BS?
In too many decades of photography i would like to admit to, i have never bracketed. I never felt the need to. I never found out afterwards that i better would have bracketed either.

There is absolutely no need for guesswork. Never.

So are you sure that you're not "so insecure"? Because i'm sure, reading your "BS" apology for bracketing, that you are.

Click to expand...

Well, then I guess you don't aspire to shoot like a pro because I know many pros that bracket.

For example, a customer wants a sunset behind their family portrait. How dark or light the sunset should be is SUBJECTIVE, so the smart pro will bracket the background exposure, even as the flash exposing the human skin is constant. The bracketing is via the change in shutter speed....faster darkens the background, slowing it down lightens it. You can't know until you see the prints from the lab; allowing the customer to pick and choose what works best for them.

Funny, but ALL pro 35mm SLR's come with bracketing features. Bracketing is often not about guessing but rather bringing different "correct" exposures to the mix, allow you or the customer to pick and choose which works "best" because "best" is subjective.

In the last 10 years I have bracketed thousands of times and I make no apologies for this and I think anyone that says they've not done this in 20+ years is someone that lacks imagination.

I'm a braketing shooter and pround of it! No, I don't do it often, but when the situation calls for it I do.

I've toiled in the software industry for 10 years or so, which makes me an IT guy more than anything else. I spend my day dealing with bugs and glitches and algorthyms, so it is nice to unwind with a non-digital hobby. More than anything, however, I want my results (such as they are) to be based on reality. If I get a good image, it's because of my understanding of light and chemistry and process, not because my camera is more sophisticated than the lunar lander.

spolly74 said:

I've toiled in the software industry for 10 years or so, which makes me an IT guy more than anything else. I spend my day dealing with bugs and glitches and algorthyms, so it is nice to unwind with a non-digital hobby. More than anything, however, I want my results (such as they are) to be based on reality. If I get a good image, it's because of my understanding of light and chemistry and process, not because my camera is more sophisticated than the lunar lander.

Click to expand...

All cameras for all types of mediums require the mastering of light, exposure, and camera workflow...I find it odd you don't acknowledge this.

SilverGlow said:

In the last 10 years I have bracketed thousands of times and I make no apologies for this and I think anyone that says they've not done this in 20+ years is someone that lacks imagination.

I'm a braketing shooter and pround of it! No, I don't do it often, but when the situation calls for it I do.

Click to expand...

Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the way to recovery.
So good for you!

SilverGlow said:

All cameras for all types of mediums require the mastering of light, exposure, and camera workflow...I find it odd you don't acknowledge this.

Click to expand...

Yet you think bracketing could be a good thing...

Q.G. said:

Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the way to recovery.
So good for you!




Yet you think bracketing could be a good thing...

Click to expand...

Please do not feed or tease the trolls.

SilverGlow said:

All cameras for all types of mediums require the mastering of light, exposure, and camera workflow...I find it odd you don't acknowledge this.

Click to expand...

I don't know about your cameras, but mine don't require a darned thing. I can just pick them up and push the button -my 4 year old does it all the time.

The results I get, however, are dependent on a lot of factors. Chief among these is how well I understand the things you list. My point (perhaps not well made) was that FOR ME, the technology in a camera would get in the way of learning these things.

Music, IT and film

I've been in "high tech" for 30 years, with the last 20 as a software developer. My background, education and passion is music, but this software stuff pays the bills quite nicely. I only shoot film, using 35mm and MF, and I'm building a large format 4x5.

For me, the last thing I want to do when I've finished a 50+ hour work week is sit in front of a computer for 2 more days. I love the process of film photography, the chemistry, the science, the "organic" nature of it.

As far as bracketing is concerned, I have done some to evaluate film and camera, and to help me build an intuition about how film behaves. It is a great learning tool. I do not do it as a general rule. I do understand from some of my digital friends that these computers will bracket several partial stops on either side of the central exposure without the photographer thinking about it. I'd prefer to use my skills and take a chance on one exposure, even though I may get it wrong

TheFlyingCamera said:

Please do not feed or tease the trolls.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you and QG might want to get use to other opinions, points of view. Reality is really not so bad....

SilverGlow said:

Reality is really not so bad....

Click to expand...

That's right.
So stop clinging to your security blanket, throw away those crutches, and face reality head on. Dare to live. Let your skills cope with the world. And stop hiding behind "but what if..."s.

Q.G. said:

That's right.
So stop clinging to your security blanket, throw away those crutches, and face reality head on. Dare to live. Let your skills cope with the world. And stop hiding behind "but what if..."s.

Click to expand...

It seems you're still wearing those rose...ah, I mean red colored glasses. I'd suggest you put the pipe down, and get back to Jesus. For good. It shows :rolleyes:

Maybe the division is not at all about IT, art people etc.
Nowadays a lot of people work in "IT". Sign of the times.
In the late nineties a lot of my friends moved to IT, which was a relative new technology (for the masses) and a somewhat more clear dinstinguisable area than it is for me now.
At present day 2010, for me, there isn't something like a somewhat separate IT anymore like we used to now.
Perhaps in the end, history will not acknowlegde our millennium-style classification of professions.
I am not IT allthough I have used computers since the early eighties. I am not a professional artist either.

What I know about I.T. you could write on the head of a pin, neither am I an Artist, I shoot film because although I've been doing it all my adult life I still don't begin to understand it's beauty and mystery, I have no desire to start to learn another medium, and undertake the considerable outlay in time and money that would be necessary to replace my film equipment with the digital equipment of commensurate quality it would take.

Well, I'm not into IT, per se, but my work involves a lot of spreadsheets, Word documents and product specifications. There's also a helluva lot of work and I'm out of the house at 6am and back no earlier than 7pm. That doesn't leave a lot of time for photography - apart from weekends - and I use both digital and analogue equipment according to whether I have a bit of time or need a quick fix...!

Like Bejiboy, I've used film for many, many years and still it surprises me how good it can be and how little I understand about the process of getting it right. Digital is much more "in your face". It's a great medium (IMO) but much colder and more clinical than film. I don't believe in soul and all that anthropomorphist mumbo-jumbo but, if I did, I would define film cameras as having it and digital cameras being robotic.