# Photographers Stuck in the Past



## skieur (Aug 31, 2012)

Boy, I am amazed at how many photographers cling to the past, which seems to me to be a fatal mistake for any serious photographer or potential pro.

The first group is those that cling to black and white.  The only high quality black and white was done by those who did a considerable amount of work on tonal variations, detail, and contrast control in the darkroom. That type of quality represents perhaps 1% of what I have seen.  Generally what I have seen is from those who assume that black and white is easier than dealing with all the variations of colour with results that are usually muddy, unnatural, and poor quality.  A sub group here is those that selectively colour.  When it was a new approach it was interesting, but when it became repetitious and badly done, it became no longer effective and had far less visual impact.

The next group is those that cling to 35mm film.  Digital surpassed 35mm film sharpness quality when it surpassed 10 megapixels.  The difference I saw in a wedding shoot.  The guy using film had excellent shots of my daughter in her white wedding dress. My shots using digital however showed the texture and detail in the dress design missing from the film shots. The immediacy of preview and possible retake makes digital impossible to beat in any photo situation.

Then there are the MANUAL shooters which is a large percentage.  Initially it was the way to go, because AUTOMATIC was a very rough estimate of what was needed in adjustments for a particular shot.  Any good photographer could do better with manual by recognizing the need for perhaps a faster shutter speed, more depth of field and a higher fstop, and perhaps manual focusing.  Technology has changed and the chips and sensors have tremendously improved.  Now the manuals even indicate that AUTOMATIC will accurately handle ANY photographic situation and the further scene and picture modes will ensure a perfect photo.  

Those photographers who change with the times have realized that AUTOMATIC and MANUAL have been replaced with PRE-PROGRAMMING.  The photographer who does scenics for example, sets the fstop for the depth of field that fits his/her style, the ISO that most often balances available light with noise issues, the white balance, contrast, dynamic range, etc. and then records his/her settings on a dial or button.  The same technique for portraits, sports shots etc.
The result is faster shooting for the photographer to get the shot and less tweaking in post.


skieur


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 31, 2012)

If a photographer gets the job done well I don't think it matters how far in the past they choose to live.

It's just when they assume I am interested in how authentically vintage or w/e they are that I have an issue. (Hint: I usually don't care)

This all seems like its geared towards going fast, fast, fast. That's not always necessarily the point.

I also think that saying these are "fatal" is a little dramatic.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 31, 2012)




----------



## rokvi (Aug 31, 2012)

I shoot manual. However I don't preach to anyone that it is the ONLY way to shoot. Also I don't think it a mistake either. If people want to do B&W, let them. If people want to shoot with 35mm film, let them. If I want to shoot in manual, let me!
What Im amazed about is so many people are worrying about what the next person is doing.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 31, 2012)

Poloroid FTW!


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 31, 2012)

BEST. TROLL. THREAD. EVER!


----------



## mjhoward (Aug 31, 2012)

skieur said:


> Boy, I am amazed at how many photographers cling to the past, which seems to me to be a fatal mistake for any serious photographer or potential pro.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> skieur






skieur said:


> You have to be pretty arrogant to talk about what people don't care about. That must be purely a PERSONAL comment.
> 
> skieur



Talk about hipocrisy!


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 31, 2012)

Is this just to start drama? 

I am pretty sure my "clinging to the past" hasn't proven fatal to me in any way. It's made me who I am. I shoot full manual all of the time and control every aspect of the image. I SUCK in the assisted modes and I have cameras that don't even have AUTO at all. So... 
And I sure use a whole lot of black and white. In fact my entire home page slide show is in black and white. It sure seems to land me a whole lot of work. 
So, I'll cling to the past. Every year is better than the past without fail, so it's definitely not fatal.


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Aug 31, 2012)

Pfh...whatever.  Only the true artist can work in the medium of the past.  I prefer Pictograms, Hyrogliphs are so post stone age.


----------



## Tuffythepug (Aug 31, 2012)

I'll bite.    I am one of those people who feels that it's not such a bad idea to keep all avenues of photography alive.  My feeling is that black and white photography is all about the challenge of making a good photo without relying on pretty colors.    Digital color photography is of course the standard of the day.   Who knows what will be the next big leap in photo technology.     I am getting out my developing tanks, enlarger, etc. and getting back to b/w photography for one reason:  When I plan a shot, execute it, develop the film, and watch the print slowly start to emerge in the developing tray I am connected to it in a way that you could never achieve with a click and a check of the monitor.  It's more satisfying in the long run.   

Black and white film photography is all about tone, texture, form, and composition.  You can't fall back on nice bright colors to make a pleasing image.   Some of the finest b/w prints every made would have been just average if they had been done in color instead.   B/w when done well is a powerful medium.  It can also be mediocre and boring when done poorly.
You know, some people like to drive a fast car and others like to ride a motorcycle, while many folks just like a nice walk.   It doesn't matter how you get there.  As long as the journey is enjoyable and you get where you wanted to go.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 31, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Is this just to start drama?
> 
> I am pretty sure my "clinging to the past" hasn't proven fatal to me in any way. It's made me who I am. I shoot full manual all of the time and control every aspect of the image. I SUCK in the assisted modes and I have cameras that don't even have AUTO at all. So...
> And I sure use a whole lot of black and white. In fact my entire home page slide show is in black and white. It sure seems to land me a whole lot of work.
> So, I'll cling to the past. Every year is better than the past without fail, so it's definitely not fatal.



Mlee... you know what they say...  Those who Can't DO, ***** about those that can!


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 31, 2012)

skieur said:


> Boy, I am amazed at how many photographers cling to the past, which seems to me to be a fatal mistake for any serious photographer or potential pro.



"The disadvantage of men not knowing the past is that they do not know the present. History is a hill or high point of vantage, from which alone men see the town in which they live or the age in which they are living."
*G. K. Chesterson
*



skieur said:


> The first group is those that cling to black and white.  The only high quality black and white was done by those who did a considerable amount of work on tonal variations, detail, and contrast control in the darkroom. That type of quality represents perhaps 1% of what I have seen.  Generally what I have seen is from those who assume that black and white is easier than dealing with all the variations of colour with results that are usually muddy, unnatural, and poor quality.  A sub group here is those that selectively colour.  When it was a new approach it was interesting, but when it became repetitious and badly done, it became no longer effective and had far less visual impact.



Black and white is still a powerful medium that has it's own purposes and it's own place. 



skieur said:


> The next group is those that cling to 35mm film.  Digital surpassed 35mm film sharpness quality when it surpassed 10 megapixels.  The difference I saw in a wedding shoot.  The guy using film had excellent shots of my daughter in her white wedding dress. My shots using digital however showed the texture and detail in the dress design missing from the film shots. The immediacy of preview and possible retake makes digital impossible to beat in any photo situation.



From what I know about those who shoot film seriously, this is dead wrong. 



skieur said:


> Then there are the MANUAL shooters which is a large percentage.  Initially it was the way to go, because AUTOMATIC was a very rough estimate of what was needed in adjustments for a particular shot.  Any good photographer could do better with manual by recognizing the need for perhaps a faster shutter speed, more depth of field and a higher fstop, and perhaps manual focusing.  Technology has changed and the chips and sensors have tremendously improved.  Now the manuals even indicate that AUTOMATIC will accurately handle ANY photographic situation and the further scene and picture modes will ensure a perfect photo.
> 
> Those photographers who change with the times have realized that AUTOMATIC and MANUAL have been replaced with PRE-PROGRAMMING.  The photographer who does scenics for example, sets the fstop for the depth of field that fits his/her style, the ISO that most often balances available light with noise issues, the white balance, contrast, dynamic range, etc. and then records his/her settings on a dial or button.  The same technique for portraits, sports shots etc.
> The result is faster shooting for the photographer to get the shot and less tweaking in post.
> ...



So let's put the tiny micro-chip brain of the camera to work, instead of using our own? 

I shoot manual, almost exclusively. Why would I trust the microchip in the camera to make exposure decisions when I can do it better myself? Photography isn't about "speed" or "convenience" to me. Why would I forego image quality to save myself a few seconds in the field?


----------



## KmH (Aug 31, 2012)

The past started just as I commenced typing this sentence.

Everything is in the past, now is fleeting, and the future never arrives.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 31, 2012)

I love fishing. I love to shoot fishing photos, so I have some experience in this area. I prefer deep-water, controlled depth trolling. Downrigger trolling. This post is more like flatline trolling, which only dredges the top 5 to 15 feet of water, and seldom gets down to where the really BIG chinook run, which is from 60 to 200 feet or so on many days. This was a nice, flatline trolling pass by the original angler. Flatline trolling though...it catches lots of shakers. But I'm more interested in fish that'll make "smiley".


----------



## brooklynyc (Sep 1, 2012)

It all depends on what you enjoy shooting with. I love shooting with film and developing my own film, but I also enjoy shooting with a digital camera. The love of film photography and black and white photography has nothing to do with being stuck in the past, neither does shooting with a manual lens. Film and digital are very different, but each has it's own strong points and weaknesses. As far as quality,  a film image actually captures more information than current digital sensors because a digital sensor looses information between the receptors. As technology continues to develop, film can continue to be scanned at higher and higher resolutions. Watch at this video from Kodak about film and digital sensors: here. Film is actually not as outdated as it seems. I guess that's why movies are mainly shot in film, and then scanned. I personally prefer the look of film because I mainly shoot street photography.


----------



## bratkinson (Sep 1, 2012)

Automatic works great!!!!

Except indoors, low light, and it decides to expose a picture of a group of performing people at 1/5th second at f2.8 with ISO 800...

Or outdoors, bright sunlight...except in the shadows that you want to shoot...

And a million other times when Auto just won't capture what you want, the WAY you want it!

Or should I simply dump all my gear, L glass and all, and take up I Phone photography???


----------



## Overread (Sep 1, 2012)

Sooooooooooo its a slow start to the Weekend then is it?


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

Overread said:


> Sooooooooooo its a slow start to the Weekend then is it?



What?...What's going on? I was under my dark cloth MANUALLY focusing my camera and couldn't hear a thing


----------



## SCraig (Sep 1, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> ... Why would I forego image quality to save myself a few seconds in the field?


Sometimes, depending on subject matter, a few seconds is all you have until the shot is gone.


----------



## pgriz (Sep 1, 2012)

Overread said:


> Sooooooooooo its a slow start to the Weekend then is it?



I ws thinking the same thing...


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 1, 2012)

I only see 2 type of photographs:  

1. Good photographs
2. Bad photographs

I dont give a damn how the shot was obtained, how long the artist has been shooting.

However... OP post has some truth to it.  It is not all trolling IMO.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 1, 2012)

bratkinson said:


> Automatic works great!!!!
> 
> Except indoors, low light, and it decides to expose a picture of a group of performing people at 1/5th second at f2.8 with ISO 800...
> 
> ...



Or buy a Sony!


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> bratkinson said:
> 
> 
> > Automatic works great!!!!
> ...



Hey, wait a minute. I have a Sony 230. Best thing since peanut butter and Kodak Instamatic's. Takes fine pictures of the kids and Grandma at family picnics


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 1, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > bratkinson said:
> ...



hahahaha... just a dig at Skiourer   for starting this thread... nothing serious!  lol!


----------



## table1349 (Sep 1, 2012)

skieur said:


> Boy, I am amazed at how many photographers cling to the past, which seems to me to be a fatal mistake for any serious photographer or potential pro.
> 
> The first group is those that cling to black and white.  The only high quality black and white was done by those who did a considerable amount of work on tonal variations, detail, and contrast control in the darkroom. That type of quality represents perhaps 1% of what I have seen.  Generally what I have seen is from those who assume that black and white is easier than dealing with all the variations of colour with results that are usually muddy, unnatural, and poor quality.  A sub group here is those that selectively colour.  When it was a new approach it was interesting, but when it became repetitious and badly done, it became no longer effective and had far less visual impact.
> 
> ...





I have no special regard for skier; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him.  To my mind, his thinking in this matter is to say the least irregular.
.
It is un-English. 
.
It is un-American; 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.it is French.


----------



## jake337 (Sep 1, 2012)

And............

I'm still missing the point of your thread entirely.......


It's about as stupid as casually deleting goodbye threads....


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 1, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Boy, I am amazed at how many photographers cling to the past, which seems to me to be a fatal mistake for any serious photographer or potential pro.
> ...



That deserves a LIKE!  lol!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 1, 2012)

skieur said:


> Boy, I am amazed at how many photographers cling to the past, which seems to me to be a fatal mistake for any serious photographer or potential pro.
> 
> The first group is those that cling to black and white.  The only high quality black and white was done by those who did a considerable amount of work on tonal variations, detail, and contrast control in the darkroom....


Opinions are like...


----------



## table1349 (Sep 1, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Please, allow me to finish this for you..........................


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Please, allow me to finish this for you..........................
> ...


----------



## unpopular (Sep 1, 2012)

for god sake Skieur.

Do you even own a camera?


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 1, 2012)

skieur said:


> Boy, I am amazed at how many photographers cling to the past, which seems to me to be a fatal mistake for any serious photographer or potential pro.
> 
> The first group is those that cling to black and white.  The only high quality black and white was done by those who did a considerable amount of work on tonal variations, detail, and contrast control in the darkroom. That type of quality represents perhaps 1% of what I have seen.  Generally what I have seen is from those who assume that black and white is easier than dealing with all the variations of colour with results that are usually muddy, unnatural, and poor quality.....



Well booger! And here I was using this weekend to get some B&W pics  processed. Oh well, at least I'll go ahead and post one here before I  dump them in the trash. I should have known better! Saved me some time though: I was just gettin' ready to clone out the piece of fishing line hanging off the tree branch -- now I don't have to.

Joe


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

Beautiful shot, but I wouldn't dirty it in this thread. Start a new one, it's worth it


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

BTW, has anyone realized the OP threw a log on the fire by posting a single post and the war rages on two pages later.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 1, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Beautiful shot, but I wouldn't dirty it in this thread. Start a new one, it's worth it



Thanks, glad you like the photo.

I haven't been around here much lately as I just landed a new part-time  job. I had to put together a rush portfolio for them which went a long  way to convincing them to hire me. I made sure there was some good  B&W in the overall collection.

I saw this troll thread this morning and swore I wasn't going to get  dragged in, but that B&W remark just couldn't be left standing.  Here's another photo I used to land that job this past week.

The landscape is Reelfoot Lake in TN -- took that one last winter (5D mkII). This portrait is 25 years old and is scanned film.

Joe


----------



## Overread (Sep 1, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> BTW, has anyone realized the OP threw a log on the fire by posting a single post and the war rages on two pages later.



War? I was under the impression most of us were in agreement that it was a slow weekend?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 1, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> BTW, has anyone realized the OP threw a log on the fire by posting a single post and the war rages on two pages later.



Everybody has to have a specialty.. and Skiiroorir is really good at causing verbal havoc!


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

Overread said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, has anyone realized the OP threw a log on the fire by posting a single post and the war rages on two pages later.
> ...



oh yeah...did I say war? I miss spoke..LOL


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Beautiful shot, but I wouldn't dirty it in this thread. Start a new one, it's worth it
> ...



Man... you make it hard to pick your stuff apart. Great portrait


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 1, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Beautiful shot, but I wouldn't dirty it in this thread. Start a new one, it's worth it
> ...



Looks good to me! But then I am a dinosaur.. what do I know! I grew up doing all those those things that are now (supposedly) obsolete! I'm gonna just waiting for the next meteor to hit... and wipe me out!


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 1, 2012)

Ysarex said:
			
		

> Thanks, glad you like the photo.
> 
> I haven't been around here much lately as I just landed a new part-time  job. I had to put together a rush portfolio for them which went a long  way to convincing them to hire me. I made sure there was some good  B&W in the overall collection.
> 
> ...



That is a great shot.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 1, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Man... you make it hard to pick your stuff apart. Great portrait



Thanks. That's cause I learned in the past. I'm a dinosaur like Charlie.

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Sep 1, 2012)

THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT .... hmm. can't think of anything.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 1, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Rick58 said:
> ...



I didn't know you were a politician from Missouri.


----------



## Tuffythepug (Sep 1, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Boy, I am amazed at how many photographers cling to the past, which seems to me to be a fatal mistake for any serious photographer or potential pro.
> ...



Pretty good...   but the hanging fishing line ruins it for me.  

Now this is what we're talking about.    tone, texture, form, composition, ...  it's all there


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 1, 2012)

Tuffythepug said:


> Pretty good...   but the hanging fishing line ruins it for me.
> 
> Now this is what we're talking about.    tone, texture, form, composition, ...  it's all there



Thanks a lot -- now I have to go clone out the d*mn fishing line!

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Sep 1, 2012)

There is always hope when a good image hijacks a thread!


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 1, 2012)

skieur said:


> Boy, I am amazed by........
> skieur



just about anything, it seems.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 1, 2012)

I dunno, I kinda like my b/w people shots...







I agree with Over.  I think skieur is bored.




So shall we just turn this into a "post your b/w" thread? 

How about this one?


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

I like the concept of the first one, but shadows seems too dark. The second is really good


----------



## unpopular (Sep 1, 2012)

Black and white is always good when you have images which are about form, rather than color. In many cases, color will not add to an image, and in some cases color may actually detract or distract from the important elements.






In this image, I was less concerned about the color of the leaves than I was the shapes forms and implied by the stems. Why would I have chosen to make a color image when color in this case would draw the eye away from what I wanted to convey in the first place?

While there is certainly an "instant art/appeal to tradition" quality to black and white simply using black and white does not mean it's an appeal to tradition.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Black and white is always good when you have images which are about form, rather than color. In many cases, color will not add to an image, and in some cases color may actually detract or distract from the important elements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're absolutely right. You have to know how AND why.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 1, 2012)

Hey, I actually LIKE B&W images...sometimes I even CREATE one... ACK!!!!! Is Ronald Reagan still President? Is Culture Club still releasing those awesome records? Is Rocky IV still in theaters? Gaaawd, I hope so, 'cause I am still makin' B&W shots now and again.... *"Doah!"*


----------



## unpopular (Sep 1, 2012)

b/w is better than the Velvia nightmares of the late 1990's ... of course Ken Rockwell is still there.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

Nice Darrel


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

unpopular said:


> b/w is better than the Velvia nightmares of the late 1990's ... of course Ken Rockwell is still there.



I never did like that cheese. It sticks to the roof of my mouth. < yeah, I'm joking>


----------



## unpopular (Sep 1, 2012)

Once in college I bought a big block of velvita, but my dorm fridge full of stuff for a research project (dichormated pig blood!). I noticed that nowhere did it say "keep refrigerated".

That block of "cheese" lasted almost three months unrefrigerated before showing any signs of mold.

... and yes, you can make prints using pig blood.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

Scary, isn't it. But then again I saw a 1 month expiration date on a pack of hot dogs. NO meat is meant to last a month in the fridge and still be edible... and they  wonder were cancers come from


----------



## unpopular (Sep 1, 2012)

You know if they say it will last one month, it will actually last three or more. My guess, probably six.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

hotdogs = embalmed tube steaks


----------



## terri (Sep 1, 2012)

^^    Now this thread is starting to make sense!


----------



## table1349 (Sep 1, 2012)

Well if that is the case, it is time to end this thread.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 1, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> hotdogs = embalmed tube steaks



Tube Steak Boogy!


----------



## rokvi (Sep 1, 2012)

I think I ruined this shot by converting it to B&W. 









[/URL] [/IMG]

Oh no, I really messed up shooting in manual...


----------



## unpopular (Sep 1, 2012)

doesn't anyone even care that I was making prints out of pig blood? The results had this cool anistropic quality.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

any examples? I'd be curious


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 1, 2012)

unpopular said:


> doesn't anyone even care that I was making prints out of pig blood? The results had this cool anistropic quality.



Well, now that you've teased me with that fancy-ass word in your description, yes, I would like to see one of these photos.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 1, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> any examples? I'd be curious



Unfortunately, no. I lost the examples somewhere in between now and then. They scanned all right, but the coolest part was that it had this copper metallic quality when viewed at 45°, but straight on it was matte van dyke.

It's pretty easy to do. Presensitize the paper and dry with 12% ammonium dichromate and brush on the blood. Exposure times are pretty long, I think the blood blocks a lot of UV. You can get blood from any slaughter house or full service butcher. The blood will have to be filtered to remove clots and bits of meat. 

Or alternately, if you're a serial killer type...


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 1, 2012)

So, there was a guy walking around town with a jar of pigs blood when he thought to himself "I bet I can make photographic paper with this after I remove the clots a meat chucks.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 1, 2012)

LOL. Actually, I rode my bike to a meat packer about 2 miles out of town.

It was crazy. They were chopping pigs in half, you could see everything as the entrails fell out; an image I just cannot get out of my head. They just scooped the blood off the floor and put it in the jar and washed it off. I put the jar in my backpack with some ice and rode back to campus.


----------



## rokvi (Sep 1, 2012)

AS one does...


----------



## manaheim (Sep 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> LOL. Actually, I rode my bike to a meat packer about 2 miles out of town.
> 
> It was crazy. They were chopping pigs in half, you could see everything as the entrails fell out; an image I just cannot get out of my head. They just scooped the blood off the floor and put it in the jar and washed it off. I put the jar in my backpack with some ice and rode back to campus.



That was an incredibly fascinating mental visual and scene that I really didn't need to have planted in my head.  Thanks SO much.


----------



## AlanKlein (Sep 2, 2012)

The viewer doesn't think about or really care whether you walked up a mountain to get the photograph, shot in film or digital, manual or automatic, B/W or color, how many pixels, type of film, what ISO, what f stop, which camera or lens.  Either a picture works or it doesn't.  The photo must do some thing for the viewer.  The rest  doesn't matter except to us.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

unless the print is being produced from the viewer's own blood. then technique matters. A LOT.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> doesn't anyone even care that I was making prints out of pig blood? The results had this cool anistropic quality.



and Frankenstein made monsters! I DONT EVEN want to know what you did with the rest of the pig!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




EDIT: Posted this prior to reading the last few posts... so I now know what happened to the pig. Still.. rather odd!   (besides.. it was an excuse to use one of my favorite smileys!)


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 2, 2012)

Sure it matters. To the photographer and possibly his/her colleagues but does the end user care how you got there. I think that's all Alan is trying to say. If I'm buying a fine print, I want a fine print. If it's the effect I want, as the buyer (viewer) I don't care if it was Tri-x f11 @ 1/60th of a second or Plus-X....


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

Wow. You are one _dedicated_ art buyer.

Then again, I am not 100% sure you read my last post accurately.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> unless the print is being produced from the viewer's own blood. then technique matters. A LOT.



you verwy scarwey man!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

My serial killing days are behind me now.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 2, 2012)

Dedicated art buyer? Not me. My art comes already framed at Walmart. It's amazing how cheap you can buy an original piece of fine art there 

But, if I see one of those fine Walmart originals, I never ask myself "I wonder what camera or f-stop he used?" If it pleases the eye, I buy it.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

oh nevermind!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> My serial killing days are behind me now.



Oh.. now you just doing one at a time, right?


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

well, now that bath salts are illegal I'm having trouble getting motivated.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> well, now that bath salts are illegal I'm having trouble getting motivated.



Everytime you post an image from now on.. I am going to wonder whose blood you used to develop/wash it!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

GAH! 

Dichromated colloids are washed, not developed!!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> GAH!
> 
> Dichromated colloids are washed, not developed!!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?



I said "WASH".. what, can't you read?   lol!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

EUGH!

you don't use the blood to wash the print, you use water - in this case, lime water works best (and no. i'm not talking about the fruit, that would probably coagulate the blood making the unexposed areas harder to wash). The blood is the colloid.

How can I rely on you to be my minion if you don't even know the basic process?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> EUGH!
> 
> you don't use the blood to wash the print, you use water - in this case, lime water works best (and no. i'm not talking about the fruit, that would probably coagulate the blood making the unexposed areas harder to wash). The blood is the colloid.
> 
> How can I rely on you to be my minion if you don't even know the basic process?



I can make great Oatmeal... which can be a colloid, correct?  TASTY!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

I suppose that the starchy gluey part of oatmeal is colloidal, but oatmeal itself isn't evenly distributed.

Milk on the other hand....


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 2, 2012)

I dont like black and white much and only rarely use it, I dont use chemical film, and I cant focus manually with my current camera anyway (I wouldnt focus all the time manually, but it would be nice to have the option), yet this entry posting is riddiculous.

Photography is art ... there is no such thing such as "outdated" in art. You can craft your view camera by hand (and there are good arguments that this is the ultimate kind of camera, anyway) and craft your own chemical film and make photos and your claim its art is still true.

Art is about creativity and expression, not about being fast and efficient at producing some kind of product.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I suppose that the starchy gluey part of oatmeal is colloidal, but oatmeal itself isn't evenly distributed.
> 
> Milk on the other hand....



Ok.. I can put milk in your oatmeal.. or even Cream if you prefer, Oh Master! but only raw, unprocessed sugar for you... nothing but the best!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

let me run into the ally and pick up the milk. use whatever sugar you want; you'll be eating the oatmeal.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> let me run into the ally and pick up the milk. use whatever sugar you want; you'll be eating the oatmeal.



I sense a coup de'tat coming...


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

Hey man. I liked the Gypsy Style girl, too, but that's just uncalled for!


----------



## skieur (Sep 2, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> If a photographer gets the job done well I don't think it matters how far in the past they choose to live.
> 
> It's just when they assume I am interested in how authentically vintage or w/e they are that I have an issue. (Hint: I usually don't care)
> 
> ...



Well, it depends on what the job is.  Amateurs shooting scenery have all the time in the world and so do those shooting posed shots.  Pros shooting sports, action, public relations, journalistic style, etc.  need to "get the shot" as it happens.  By the time you would take to do manual settings, personal adjustments etc., the potential shot would be long gone.  Companies and businesses are looking for natural shots with perfect timing that are effective, well composed, and fit their needs. This can only be accomplished if you use the latest, most relevant features on your camera, and that extremely rarely or never, means black and white, selective colour, 35mm film, etc.

skieur


----------



## unpopular (Sep 2, 2012)

How did they ever do it?

Photographers &#8211; It&#8217;s Not About The Process &#8211; Really! « Photofocus


----------



## Derrel (Sep 2, 2012)

unpopular said:


> How did they ever do it?
> 
> Photographers &#8211; It&#8217;s Not About The Process &#8211; Really! « Photofocus



The funny thing about that picture is that when he made it Neil was a young "newbie", and all the old,experienced, "expert shooters" got so-called "better" shooting positions, and can be seen in the BACKGROUND of HIS shot--all located on the "wrong side" of the action. I read an interview with years ago, where he described the very negative way in which the shot came to be. When he made the shot, he was young and not very well regarded, nor very experienced. He kind of drew the "short" end of the stick, so to speak, at that fight. In a word, he got lucky. NOBODY really wanted to BE where he was...that's why he was the only one that got that shot. I find it ironic that the guy who wrote the blog tried to use the photo as a "photo to teach from", as he puts in, when the photo was the result of a young shooter being shunned, and getting lucky. The shot was based not on luck,m or skill, or experience, but instead on instead on deliberate malfeasance gone awry.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Sep 3, 2012)

Think how awesome you would all be if you spent as much time thinking about the creative choices as the technical ones... Keep shooting. It matters more than all that other stuff.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 3, 2012)

skieur said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > If a photographer gets the job done well I don't think it matters how far in the past they choose to live.
> ...



And to think, I have been shooting sports for 30+ years, Mostly in manual and I have been doing it wrong all this time.  I guess that knowing my gear front to back, back to front, left, right, sideways, and inside out and being able to make changes on the fly with out ever having to look at the gear, as well as knowing my craft, the players, the action, rules of the game is all wrong.  I should let the modern camera do it all for me.   NOT!!!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 3, 2012)

Sung to the tune of "Rawhide"

Trolling, trolling, trolling,
Keep them poster's troll-iiiin!
Post then hide!

Trollin', trollin', trollin',
Keep that nonsense comin',
Post 'em up, Head on out,
Watch that nonsense fly'in

_and it goes on...For younger people who
do not know the Rawhide theme  song, here
is a link to it on YouTube.
<em>



_


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 3, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



Yep! I guess we are just a bunch of old losers without a clue! I think I will start using auto exclusively... after all, it works for the FB MWACS and for Skieeur! Right?


----------



## manaheim (Sep 3, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



God I wish I could do that.

Seriously.

People who haven't "grown up" with these clutches are sooooooooooooooooooo much better to handle their camera than I am.  I mean I would be ok with all-manual if I was in a situation where I had time to compose and think through my shots and stuff... but with sports? HA!  That would be a train wreck.

I bow to your greater skills.

Seriously.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 3, 2012)

One of the easiest things to do shooting sport manually is GET THERE EARLY and check out the venue.   A 1:00 p.m. football game isn't going to change lighting that much over the course of the game, unless you have either 1.weather issues. or 2. shadow issues.  With either you generally make a quick ISO or shutter speed adjustment.  Indoor venues, get there early, carry a light meter, and meter the court.  Rarely do I ever have to make much in the way of adjustments at an indoor venue.  

My second body is usually set to Aperture Value for a quick grab and shoot, but it to has been pre set to the conditions so I am making minor adjustments on the fly.  Also, next time you watch say a football game take a look at the guys with bigger glass particularly their lens hoots.  I have cheat sheets taped to the outside of the lens hoods for my 70-200, 200 f2.0, 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 with the shooting conditions of various venues I commonly shoot at.  This too makes it quick and easy to be in the right range most of the time.  For indoor venues I have a pocket notebook with notes for each venue, again with the general shooting settings for their lighting conditions.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 3, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I have cheat sheets taped to the outside of the lens hoods for my 70-200, 200 f2.0, 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 with the shooting conditions of various venues I commonly shoot at.  This too makes it quick and easy to be in the right range most of the time.  For indoor venues I have a pocket notebook with notes for each venue, again with the general shooting settings for their lighting conditions.



But it's soooo much easier to let the camera try and read your mind and incorrectly guess what your trying to meter for, resulting in a poorly exposed photo!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 3, 2012)

Back when i was going to school, and we had to walk up hill both ways in the snow ... you know, 1998 ... you were required to have only "a 35mm camera capable of manual focus, manual exposure and a 50mm lens". The teacher required that you use manual exposure.

Truly understanding manual photography, not just lining up triangles with zeros, makes a photographer more proficient in auto modes. You have to understand what the camera is doing, and more important, why, before you have any hope of controlling any automatic exposure system.

I seldom use auto exposure, because I like dynamically and arbitrarily adjusting both aperture and shutter in any given situation. But at the same time it's not like AE is some big mystery to me either.

Multisegment AF OTOH...


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 3, 2012)

Just for the record...

I believe that beginners should not be able to start threads about techniques of the past.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 3, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Just for the record...
> 
> I believe that beginners should not be able to start threads about techniques of the past.



YEAH!

Actually, I think nobody should be allowed to start threads about any techniques that were not mainstream at the time the started photography.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 3, 2012)

I was stuck in the past this weekend, but i would like to see one digital shot straight from the camera like this


----------



## j28Photography (Sep 3, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> If a photographer gets the job done well I don't think it matters how far in the past they choose to live.





rokvi said:


> What Im amazed about is so many people are worrying about what the next person is doing.



'nuff said.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 3, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Just for the record...
> 
> I believe that beginners should not be able to start threads about techniques of the past.



Skiuer? He's an old pro. He was secret agent photographer for the Canadian government, traveling the world, jumping out of helicopters - James Bond style. He's also won numerous international awards. President Kennedy even requested that he visit the white house where he would be awarded the Presidential Photographic Fitness Award, though unfortunately he declined as he was scheduled to be knighted that week. Skiuer also consulted several directors, including Fellini, and while working Rocky, it was him, not Garret Brown who invented the Stedicam - though being such a modest guy, Skiuer gave him the credit. Later Skieur worked with NASA on a secret mission which even he can't talk about. 

Later, at age 32, Skieur took a different direction and started photographing for New York Times and Time Magazine, where, throughout the 1980's he had taken several famous photographs. What most people do not know is that there were actually six gunmen, not just one, at the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Skieur fought off the remaining five gunmen, all while taking award winning footage of the president - you don't see any photos of the other gunmen because Skieur was using his camera as a weapon, killing all five. Knowing that a lot of questions would be asked of the photographer/assassin, the US and Canadian governments conspired to cover up the incident.

After returning to Canada he served on the Dog River, SK school district as a fine art consultant. He is held in very high respect at local camera clubs throughout rural Canada. Nobody knows his true identity as a measure of both Canadian and US national security.

But yeah. Skieur is definitely an old pro, obviously he can't discuss all (or really any) of the details about his experience - but there is no sense in us peons doubting his infallible wisdom.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 3, 2012)

So basically that's your complicated way of saying he's full of BS? LOL LOL LOL


----------



## KmH (Sep 3, 2012)

That scene from War Games - YouTube


----------



## skieur (Sep 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> > Just for the record...
> ...



Gee, you can't even spell SKIEUR correctly more than a few times, and you did NOT even recognize that it is FRENCH and of course the LAST place that you would find someone who speaks FRENCH is in Saskatchewan..but then I said before you DON'T READ enough of my background to put even a phoney story together with some believability. :thumbdown:

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 3, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Just for the record...
> 
> I believe that beginners should not be able to start threads about techniques of the past.




Well, you are the beginner.  You should NOT comment on threads about obsolete techniques, but then I would NOT be surprised if you follow them.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 3, 2012)

j28Photography said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > If a photographer gets the job done well I don't think it matters how far in the past they choose to live.
> ...



My point is that no one who is stuck in the past is likely to get the job done well, or for that matter even get the job in the first place.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Sep 3, 2012)

KmH said:


> That scene from War Games - YouTube



Of course you are correct.  Actually it is to my advantage professionally, if more photographers cling to past technology and procedures, because it gives me an edge in securing projects at my high rates.

skieur


----------



## Superfitz (Sep 3, 2012)

8 page post....skieur is officially my hero


----------



## unpopular (Sep 3, 2012)

Duh. That's exactly what the CIA was thinking when they put you there with Brett, Wanda, Lacy and the rest of the gang. As for misspelling your name, well, I don't pay much attention to you.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 3, 2012)

KmH said:


> That scene from War Games - YouTube



And to think...the young Matthew Broderick featured in that movie clip linked to above would later be found guilty of killing a woman and her elderly mother because he was such a clueless ^^^%tard that he was driving on the WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD in Northern Ireland when he slammed his car into their vehicle. Broderick was found guilty, and was fined $150...

Matthew Broderick - Matthew Broderick Car Crash Family Reach Out - Contactmusic News


----------



## unpopular (Sep 3, 2012)

Superfitz said:


> 8 page post....skieur is officially my hero



Some of that was me hijacking...


----------



## Derrel (Sep 3, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Superfitz said:
> 
> 
> > 8 page post....skieur is officially my hero
> ...



Ding! Ding? Ding! We have finally found *D.B. Cooper!!!!!*


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 3, 2012)

skieur said:


> Of course you are correct.  Actually it is to my advantage professionally, if more photographers cling to past technology and procedures, because it gives me an edge in securing projects at my high rates.
> 
> skieur




Being high... Is not the same as having high rates.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 3, 2012)

Derrel said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Superfitz said:
> ...



Once a hijacker, always a hijacker.

----

I think Skewer should have my user name, who would I talk to about that.


----------



## Superfitz (Sep 3, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Some of that was me hijacking...



Fine...you can be co-heroes


----------



## unpopular (Sep 3, 2012)

y u take interntz so seriously?


----------



## Superfitz (Sep 3, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> y u take interntz so seriously?



I don't have any interns


----------



## chuasam (Sep 10, 2012)

yes, but does it result in better pictures? I don't think so.


----------



## bhop (Sep 10, 2012)




----------



## ProsPhotos (Sep 10, 2012)

All I plan on clinging to would be my "Guns and my Religion."   

I thought that the point of photography was to cling to the past.  I think the main point is to take moments in time and let people re-live them.  Why not also cling to old methods for creating photography.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 10, 2012)

I have never seen a digital image quite as beautiful as a large 8x10 transparency shot on a large format camera.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 11, 2012)

HALP! Why does green box mode no work with my Dynalites?!


----------



## skieur (Sep 12, 2012)

ProsPhotos said:


> All I plan on clinging to would be my "Guns and my Religion."
> 
> I thought that the point of photography was to cling to the past. I think the main point is to take moments in time and let people re-live them. Why not also cling to old methods for creating photography.



Well, if you are an amateur, you can do whatever you please. If you are an enthusiast who wants to be ahead of the curve or a professional who wants to have an edge over his/her competitors then it makes sense to change with the times.

After all, how many of you "clingers to the past" still use 3 megapixel digital cameras?

Why buy new cameras with great features and then turn around and use black and white and manual focus and manual settings for everything?

What is it?...insecurity...lack of creativity....refusal to change....old age?

skieur


----------



## fractionofasecond (Sep 12, 2012)

Hell there are even photographers who shoot weddings with their iphone now.  I am sure the quality is not there but if the couple likes the pictures they did their job...


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 12, 2012)

skieur said:
			
		

> Well, if you are an amateur, you can do whatever you please. If you are an enthusiast who wants to be ahead of the curve or a professional who wants to have an edge over his/her competitors then it makes sense to change with the times.
> 
> After all, how many of you "clingers to the past" still use 3 megapixel digital cameras?
> 
> ...



I don't think you understand the point of black and white.

How does the difference between 3 and 24 MP affect my creativity....

I'm sorry but you seem sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hung up on the camera part of photography and don't seem to actually get to the photography part.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 12, 2012)

You know, Skewer. I don't feel any more limited really shooting a DSLR than I did shooting a view camera without even a shutter. Hell, in some ways the DSLR is more limiting.

You work with whatever the equipment is that you have, not despite it. After all, the best camera is the one you have with you - Chase Jarvis, said that; and I think i'll go with him.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 13, 2012)

skieur said:


> ProsPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > All I plan on clinging to would be my "Guns and my Religion."
> ...



OMG...Just curious, how old are you? I'm only asking because I'd like to know how old you can be and still not have any common sense. It's been said over and over again, it's not the equipment, it's the human being standing behind the lens that makes the difference. 
I'll tell you what, I'll let you pick any DSLR you like. Throw on all the bells and whistles you like. Then give Ansel Adams (if he were still alive) a 70 year old, $150, 4x5 Graphic with a good lens and handheld meter. Now lets compare photo's.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 13, 2012)

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm not Ansel Adams, so I'll take all the help I can get.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 13, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > ProsPhotos said:
> ...



This type of trolling behavior is very common in bored pimply-faced 16 year olds, that can't get a date because of the obvious issues they have...... Just saying....!


----------



## Overread (Sep 13, 2012)

And I think that is far enough - everyone off you go and take some photos.


----------

