Getting back to photography

P

petemc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,504
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
I've been thinking recently about a few things. Mainly just how comfy things are these days. Take a shot, check it looks ok on the display and then tweak it back at home in RAW / Photoshop. I'm not saying photography is now easy but what I am saying is just how good were photographers before digital? I was thinking about this while at a gig last night. Doing gig photography is very tricky as the camera will tell you one thing but what I've learnt is that you really need to see the results and work from that to get a good picture. I just don't really trust what my camera says, at least I didn't. Last nights light levels were bouncing all over the shop and I was constantly adjusting. I tried to rely on the exposure meter thing making sure that as long as it said the shot was under-exposed by a stop I would get the look I wanted. I'm now going through them further tweaking them in Photoshop and RAW. I can't imagine doing this without the digital luxury I have. Shooting film must have been so tough. Imagine being paid by someone and not knowing whether you've got the shot or not? Are film photographers better at photography than digital, or are they just as good? Are they just as lucky? :) I've been tempted to set myself a challenge of shooting JPG and not chimping at all in the hope that I become a better photographer. I've read about people who know the exact settings for a photo without using a light meter. Is that from trial and error? I was partially inspired by this and this. I'm sure its a debate that will continue for a long time but its always interesting to discuss.
 
IanC_UK said:
There used to be an awful lot of fixing of pics in the darkroom as well Pete !
Click to expand...
Yeah true and thats one of the reasons why I feel comfortable using Photoshop so much because it is the digital equivalent. But I'm still feeling like I wish I could get more from the original shot and less from the "darkroom".
 
petemc said:
Yeah true and thats one of the reasons why I feel comfortable using Photoshop so much because it is the digital equivalent. But I'm still feeling like I wish I could get more from the original shot and less from the "darkroom".
Click to expand...

Think we all probably feel the same on that, although i suspect Rob doesnt get too many chances in warzones to prat around that much before having to send his pics off to news services!
 
It was tougher and a damned sight more expensive 'back in the old days'. I used to spend most of my time trying to get the print to look like what I had envisioned when I took the shot then just as I do now it's just that now it's a lot cleaner, less smelly, less dangerous all be it more technically complicated.
 
It's not just photography, climbing mountains used to be much harder, crossings seas, etc ... Does that mean sailors and mountain climbers of old used to be better, i don't recon so, just had different skills. They both still had to deal with the environment.

The photographer who shot my wedding uses both film and digital in his work. He perfers to use shoot film for weddings as he cant 'get away' with more, there a lot more of lateral range using neg film than digi. Keep an eye on the incidental light meter and fire away!

Easier, I'm not sure. Different, yes.

One thing digi does help with loads is the learning curve but I still am amazed at the amount awful shots I see from people with kit that's probably worth thousands of pounds (I don't just mean just bad compo, I mean bad technically).
 
LOL. Interesting. No matter how many weddings I did with film, how much I'd pre-checked the kit, how confident I was I'd done all the right things, it was always a massive relief after a week or so to actually get the prints back from the lab and breath a sigh of relief. ;)

My stuff was printed by a pro lab though who were more than capable of compensating for any minor exposure errors on my part. I think what we tend to forget is that pre - digital, many photographers and quite a lot of serious hobbyists got their prints back from the processers with no concept of the adjustments which the lab may have made to get a result.

Now the newcomer is faced with a double whammy - not only has he to get his head round the technical side of the camera, he quickly becomes aware (and much to his surprise) that the pics out of the camera aren't a done deal and he's faced with another huge hill to climb in getting his head around digital processing. I don't think it's easier. Yes- you have the comfort of checking that LCD screen after each shot, but you still don't really know what you've got until you're viewing the shot on a monitor.

Don't look backwards - look forwards. I don't miss those hours messing about in the darkroom one bit. Legions of film shooters are coming to the same conclusion and changing to digital. ;)

We should be eternally grateful for the total control and creativity of digital processing, not wondering if we're somehow lesser photographers than our film forebears. ;)
 
Interesting read and digital has made me realise how good the old skool guys were.

One thing I would say is that in the last few years I have come to realise that

1. Amatuers worry about kit they have not got.

2. Professionals worry about the gear they have got.

3. True 'Experts' worry about light.

The first thing I now do on any job is spend a good 5/10 minutes assessing light, sun direction etc.

And for me, it is as simple as that. In the last 12 months, exposure has become far more critical to me than anything, especially given the fact that I am getting more and more work. However, like others state it is never a done deal out of the camera, hence CS2 etal.

What is interesting is that I had two jobs yesterday. From 9.30 - 5.00 I was covering the NFL Team England trials in Oxford. Brilliant sunshine, which of course made metering as tricky as a flat day, given the kits and colours on display. I was in effect chimping all day.

I then moved onto Birmingham to cover the Bonfire Bowl, a night game under poor flood lights even at F2.8, 1600 I was only getting 1/100 - but yet, my levels were absolutely on the money!

Hey ho.

An interesting thread however and something I have thought about for a long while.

Pete
 
To be honest I enjoy working in the darkroom and enjoy using the enlargers to make prints. I also find some things easyer E.g Burning and doging, getting the print to fit the paper. But digital is cheaper, its not hard to press a button to print the image and no paper is used untill you want to make a new print.
 
Intriguing thread. I used to be a velvia fan and you needed to be pretty damn close exposure wise. Everything else was easy but expensive.

When I started flying I went to colour print film to get a wider exposure latitude and now I am digital guess what. I fight/fret over exposure all the time.

So I expect the same things affect you according to your discipline but for me thank god for multiply layers, curves, levels and selection masks for when I get it wrong! :lol:
 
An interesting thread....

I've sort of done everything back to front to most people, and started off with a digital SLR. I still haven't got my head around photoshop, but that's another story :lol: I'm now doing an A level photography course at college and we have to use film. The most difficult thing for me personally is that I can't see the shot I've just taken and there is no delete button, plus the fact that I'm not gonna take 200 shots of something I might do on digi as film isn't cheap :shake:

Shooting on film does make me think more about the shot I want, in terms of composition, exposure, etc and I think this is because of the fact that I can't afford to take 200 shots in the hope that one of them will turn out ok :lol: Add to that the fact that my film camera is totally manual - no autofocus or automatic settings, so I do have to use my brain more... and that hurts!
 
Lots of interesting points here, and I don't really have an awful lot more to add to the table - I've been doing a great deal of film stuff recently, and I'm really enjoying it. I'm finding that I'm taking along the film SLR to jobs, too - simply because the shots tend to have a rather different feel - that can sometimes be what the customer is after. But I don't really start to shoot much film till I'm confident I have a few good shots "in the can" on the digi side. So hey ho!
 
Interesting stuff here folks!

Personally I've never used a digital camera in my life! Well apart from my little compact digi for ebay but I don't think that really counts! The reason being is digital just doesn't appeal to me. Ever since I started photography about 14 years ago I've only ever used manual cameras with film. I don't get along with auto this, auto that, it takes the fun out of it all for me.

My enjoyment comes in using manual SLR's such as my Nikon FM3A, and medium format which is even more manual. Film of choice is Velvia but also use a few others, and of course wonderful Ilford - I love the stuff!

As mentioned in another thread recently I have been contemplating a digital camera only to aid the workflow for supplying to Alamy. I don't want to go digital but I might opt for a Leica D-Lux 3 though. I've only just heard about this model, and it has manual functioning I believe and would also suit my other requirements.
 
I used to worry a lot about exposure and still do - but now i can correct immediately - in the past I just got on with it.
Using my Leica again at the weekend (prior to selling it hopefully - just making sure it's all still working OK) made me remember how much I now take things for granted.
I did find that after a while you get less concerned with the exposure though - just take a hand-held reading on the Flashmeter V and unless the light changes drastically, that's what it stays on...
 
So what you're basically saying is that no matter how hard I try I'll always need Photoshop. That even the best photographers would probably get the same results from a camera as I do? I mean we only have the shutter, ISO, aperture, white balance and lens to really control. Once you understand them, as Diego said, its all about understanding light. That's where the line is drawn between expert and pro. Everyone can set their camera to the same settings, but not everyone can see the same shot in their head and know how to use the available lighting to achieve it. So basically there is no "getting back to photography." I can't just shoot JPG and bask in stunning photos? Over the past few nights shooting bands I've realised just how valuable it is to chimp. See the shot in your mind, shoot, check the display, good then move on. Shooting 11 bands a night doesn't leave you a lot of time to play. You've got to get the shot right and get to the next band before the crowd does or you won't get the next shot. Its just so handy knowing that you've bagged that shot and you can relax.

I should know all this really. Its not like I've just bought a DSLR. I guess its just a crisis of faith or something.
 
I guess its just a crisis of faith or something.
Click to expand...

I think we all must get them!!

Care to share what settings/lenses you have come to use or prefer whilst shooting bands Pete. This is not an activity I have been involved in but interested to hear your approach.
 
HIMUPNORTH said:
I think we all must get them!!

Care to share what settings/lenses you have come to use or prefer whilst shooting bands Pete. This is not an activity I have been involved in but interested to hear your approach.
Click to expand...

Tada :D
 
Pete,

It is also ironic that chimping, something we all see and do and has become a 'folklore' term in snapping is essential. As I said, I was chimping loads on Sat, looking at my F2.8 black levels and then slowing the shutter if I felt that the blacks where crushed/lost.

Also, with reference to CS2, all great snappers of the modern age are using it and it has become more evident that people who sell ‘amazing’ landscape images are shopping them. They cant not.

I do not think it is a bad thing at all. Levels has becoma an invaluable tool to me.

Pete.
 
I chimp all the time. If only to double check histogram levels.
Why not? I'm only using the tools of the equipment that I have in my hand ;)

As for Photoshop. When I started this photography lark, I felt like a bit of a purist, and didn't really take to the photoshopped approach. (I didnt start photography until digital, so have no film / darkroom history to base my thoughts on).

Since then I've completely changed my attitude.
Tweaking and tinkering went on in the darkroom too, so why shouldn't it happen digitally? It's simply another tool in the photographers arsenal.

I kinda agree with your thoughts about the ability to chimp, and photoshop limiting our possibilities of learning the actual intricacies of photography.

It's easy now, through trial and error (and chimping), and certainly photoshop to pull off a half decent shot, without knowing much about photography.
I too would like to be able to put my camera down, and take a step back and learn. I envy those who can look at a situation and work out settings easily, dial those in and get it right pretty much first time.
I usually work in Av or Tv, in which I know roughly which of the two settings I need (and roughly what) and work it from there. Alot of the time, it becomes trial and error though. I certainly *would* like to understand it more, but it's not an absolute necessity as much as it used to be.

As for photoshop, I think we're always going to need some form of tweaking. How many shots do you take that don't benefit from a quick levels tweak? Or maybe a little rotation?
Sure, photographers of old (I use that term with affection) did have it better in one way, in that they were forced to learn their craft to get it right. But with digital, we now have the ability to correct some problems later on the PC...is that such a bad thing?

Liken it to the mechanic who doesnt know how to adjust an idle speed or fuel mixture with a screwdriver, but instead enters the setting into a programmable engine computer...(if that makes sense)
 
Photography itself has changed though hasn't it. Those of us who embrace digital and try to get the most out of the tools we have (DSLR/Photoshop) are simply doing what photographers have done for years (SLR/Film/darkroom) just in a slightly more techy way. My Grandfather was a photographer and I'm pretty much certain that I wouldn't have had a clue where to start with his kit and he (if he were still alive) wouldn't have a clue where to start with mine! In my opinion though that doesn't mean that either of us would have been better at it than the other, just different.



I've explained that really badly - sorry - it made loads of sense when it was still locked up in my head - honest!
 
Pete - I 've got it! What you need is a Polaroid camera! :lol:

Seriously, that's the only way you'll find what you're looking for .With film you got to know what a well exposed negative looked like -not too thin - not too dark. You still had to print it though, giving it the right amount of exposure on the right grade of paper, then into the developer for the right amount of time..

It's just different, and in many ways a lot more convenient with digital, but you can't get away from the processing stage - nor should you try to. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top