The Photographer

[Matt Deckard]

Matt which photographers are high on your list.

Sad to say, though I have never really studied photographers until now, and now that I look at them as individuals rather than random photos I am starting to see how each one has his or her own clinical style. I have favorite pictures though I am just at the begenning when it comes to finding out who took them. Thank you all for your input and I'll find out more as I look into those photographers you have all named.

 

[Doctor Strange]

For a start, there are examples by a nice selection of classic photographers in these galleries:

http://photomuse.org/COLLECTION/index.html

 

[Bebop]

Although I am an avid photographer and have sold photos for many years, I tend to believe that sometimes we put more value into photography than it really has. For example, many people plan their whole vacation around a photographic experience. I have done that too many times. When vacation time is done, I realize that I missed alot because I had my head behind a camera. At times getting the perfect shot became an obsession that swallowed my down time because I knew that if I could get this photo, my time out there would have been justified. I have since relaxed and left the big camera home when on vacation and just use a small digital. Now when I go out to shoot, I go with the intent purpose of photography, not trying to get some vacation mixed into my photo shoot. I just think sometimes we should put the camera down and relate. I am sure one of my favorite photographers, Richard Avedon would say that taking photos IS relating.
I also think that the internet would be more interesting and probably less used, if there were no possibility of posting photos. Description and writing to get your ideas and feelings across is a lost art because of digital photography. Instead of describing something, it is way too easy to just post a photo. Digital is great because the wild need of instant gratification is satisfied but I miss taking those photos that I knew were "ify" and the anticipation until developing days later. I think that the essence of photography has been lost with digital. Taking a shot and not immidiately knowing if your equiptment, experience and creativity paid off is part of the pleasure of photography to me. Quite frankly, seeing my results seconds after taking the photo becomes boring and predictable. Not enough of a challenge. There is also nothing better than seeing your slides on a big screen. Or having someone want one of your film enlargments.

 

[photobyalan]

... many people plan their whole vacation around a photographic experience. I have done that too many times.

How true. I think I've finally gotten past that. I still take the "big camera" on trips but, unless I run across something sublime, it usually stays in the case. When I go anywhere "family-oriented" (e.g. Disney World), I just take the digital P&S. Now, mind you, my "P&S" is a Canon G3, which does allow me quite a bit of manual control and also accepts my Speedlites, one of which usually comes along. Can't stand the built in flash.

... Quite frankly, seeing my results seconds after taking the photo becomes boring and predictable...

I thought this was a bizarre statement at first, then I gave it some thought and remembered the anticipation and excitement of getting prints or slides back from the lab. I also remember some great surprises from photos that turned out much better than I thought they would or photos I didn't remember taking. Of course, with me, many of the surprises turned out to be unpleasant ones. When you start charging folks for your photographic services, unpleasant surprises are, well, unpleasant. And expensive. Using a digital camera solved a lot of that for me, and helped me to learn much more quickly the nuances of exposure, using flash, and handling difficult lighting situations, not to mention catching closed eyes and similar not-so-obvious photo flaws. Now, even when I use film, I benefit from those lessons that were learned without the frustration and expense of a ton of wasted film. When I'm doing a shoot for money, boring and predictable (at least as far as my equipment is concerned) is O.K. with me.

 

[Matt Deckard]

I used to date a photographer. I went for the vacation, she went for the photos. It was a bleak trip.

 

[shamus]

I used to date a photographer. I went for the vacation, she went for the photos. It was a bleak trip.

Matt,

I was expecting a punch line when I started to read your post... At least you have some nice photos of yourself on vacation then....

 

[Matt Deckard]

Punchline ay?

Well it was really a pretty good trip, I had fun... She was bummed because she went to take photos, and I being the guy I am lugged her equipment.


I went for the photos too, though I can't post the pictures I took!

'Budumpbum' 'ching'

 

[photobyalan]

'Budumpbum' 'ching'

OK, why is there no "emoticon" for a rimshot? Now that would be useful!

 

[jamespowers]

OK, why is there no "emoticon" for a rimshot? Now that would be useful!

That would be this one: :drum:

Regards to all,

J

 

[Bebop]

Funny but every single photo I have ever sold was taken without the thought of making money. When presurred into taking cash shots, I have failed miserably. If it does not come from my heart and soul, I can't get THE shot. If I don't see the shot, I can't shoot it. That is why I am really bad at shooting weddings (although I have done a few). People want certain shots that I just don't see. It becomes alot of work and I loose focus. I am at my best left alone when shooting.
Photobyalan, my p.s. is a Canon G6. Are they not great little cameras??

 

[Hondo]

You know, this post is why I like this joint, people with all sorts of talents and trades hang out here from all over the world. Got a question? someone here will probably be in the know about it.

regards fedoralover

I have to also agree, some one some where will help answer, 35mm or digital cameras and cheap software can make your photos look great, and I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m a real klutz, poor mans would be webby, I do alright but could be better, maybe it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s because I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m old (52) its just my bones.
Nice work ?¢‚Ǩ?ìPhotobyalan?¢‚Ǩ? I got a buddy in Los Angeles who?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s an freelance photographer, works hard, Good topic, I got to TRY harder, Thanks.

 

[DanielJones]

Exacta...

I'd have to say my favorite camera is the one I grew up with. It's my fathers Exacta VX 35mm. He bought it over in Germany back in 1951 and the marking on the bottom is 'USSR occupied Germany'. With the variety of lenses that he has one can take some great pictures.

He had so many other cameras to choose from a Zenza Bronica 6x6

to a Crown Graphic 4x5.

to a Kodak Diomatic that was his fathers.

Now the images above are just off the net, because his camers look much better than these pics can show because they are in far better shape. Every one of them has it's own case like a suit case with all of there attachments. But I got to learn how to use every one of them. I didn't master any of them but they were a joy to use and it was great fun learning from my Pop.
Nowadays for convenience sake while traveling I use a digital camera. But I still use my artists eye in framing up a shot and only taking a few shots that are going to work well. If I don't see the shot I don't take it. Just an old throw back to conserving film. Even my Pop uses a digital camera now and he loves it. He loves the idea of an instant image without it looking like a cheap Polaroid. But he still has his old equipment and we plan on doing some photo work together and see what we come up with.

Cheers!

Dan

 

[Matt Deckard]

I have seen pro photographers using Small Digital Canon cameras for major ad campaigns... They are soo clear, will this hinder the hih end photography market? Exempli Gratia, all those pro lenses and bodies people buy?

 

[Lady Day]

Is it me, or is the digital era making better photographers out of everyone. I know there are bad photographers and good photographers out there, though I think with the ability to look at images on the spot and retake a shot 'til you get what you desire allows even the worst of image takers to become pretty good. Crop here and there, color correct on your computer and you have something on par with the masters.

What do you think? Is modern day amateur photography and the ability to take a camera anywhere in your breast pocket making what used to be hard to get and hard to take photos into everyday anyone can do photos?

The entire digital era has displaced artists of the craft for artists of the moment. Photoshop was a scary thing a while ago, as was (and is) stock photography. Why commission a new illustrator to create a picture, when we have an archive of Rockwell, WITH a build in demographic, mind you. All we have to do is pay the estate....see?

Sorry for the rant, Ive lived this "You can be an artist too, with 3 clicks of the mouse" thing too, too ,long.

Now we return to our regularly broadcast rant.

LD

 

[TM]

What a great thread! And how well it explains why I hang around here. I’m not terribly interested in clothes. I hate Khaki. Not interested in the Golden Era. But I like Ideas, and I like Thinking, and a lot of thought goes on in this Lounge.

What follows is sort of rambling:

I remain conflicted about digital photography. I shoot slides with a Canon EOS-1, and I shoot digital with a Canon EOS D-30. And I shoot 9mm with a Ruger P87, but that’s beside the point. I find that I shoot digital almost exclusively now. Mostly architectural using the fantastic 24mm Tilt/Shift lens. On the one hand, since digital is free, I find I take a lot more shots from a lot more angles and experiment more. But conversely, I find that I don’t think so much in advance. So maybe digital is making me lazy.

I also don’t like ink-jet output, or Giclee, or whatever you want to call it. I like Cibachrome, especially Cibachrome transparencies. I guess I’m a snob and like a rare and difficult output process – like any photographic process – rather than an inkjet that everyone has on their desks.

I also don’t like photographic manipulation. Yes you can dodge and burn and manipulate in the darkroom. But now with Photoshop it’s so easy to lie. And we’ve seen several professional newspaper photographers fired for lying with Photoshop. Also, it’s so easy for someone experienced with Photoshop (not me, all I can figure out how to do is erase) to combine images. And so we are loosing the skill of composing a complex image in the camera.

This really got to me in the late 90’s. I had organized an architectural tour of Palm Springs. We were visiting a great house – if you saw the remake of “Oceans 11”, this was Elliot Gould’s house. There was Helmut Newton photograph on the wall. This was of a swimming pool. Floating in the pool was a babe on a raft sucking on a gin bottle. Above here and parallel to her was a man diving over her into the pool, perfectly aligned. While the image was great, the story of the image was even greater. Newton did 50 takes to get it right. Today you’d take a shot of the girl, then a shot of the man, and then combine them in Photoshop. Maybe the resulting image would be identical. But the skill and maniacal obsession of the photographer adds something to the photograph. To me at least.

In terms of great photographers – my friend Julius Shulman ranks right up there as an architectural photographer. Of course, he shot more than buildings, but that’s what he is known for.

I also like the Brasilian photographer Sebastiao Salgado, especially his book and series “Workers”. Here he documents workers in the third world. Amazing images of an open pit gold mine in Brazil where the workers look like worker ants. Or ship breaking in Bangladesh. Where compressed air is too expensive, so they break up ocean liners with sledgehammers. Incredible stuff.

Tony

 

[Quigley Brown]

I'm a frugal shooter. Even though a 512MB card will give me about 150 shots I still shoot sparingly. This goes back to the days when I shot color film and developed by hand only being able to do three rolls at a time. I just never wanted to spend a whole lot of time in the darkroom. I'd go to major news and sports events and listen as the big paper shooters rip through film as I rationed it. I swear the ratio was their 20 shots to my one. They'd might as well shoot with a movie camera. Anyone's bound to get a good shot if they go through that much film.

When using Photoshop for my job I only use the altering functions that I had in the darkroom - dodge, burn and, once in a while, inking in dust marks. I'll use the Photoshop cloning tool for that now. Every once in a while I'll get a speck of dust on the sensor and will clone/heal the image before I have time to actually get rid of it out of the camera. I really don't find anything unethical about that.

Now those caricatures I do of myself are purely for fun. Photoshop's opened up a whole new art form for me.

 

[Twitch]

Matt, I agree. Forget about "professional" anything as that is a unequal factor now or with film cameras. What you are saying is that Joe Schmow can take quite decent pix with the minimum of fuss at a level superior to his old 110 film camera.

I have watched people fooling with cameras adjusting them infinitely to get the "right" pic and they actually miss the actual experience of "being there" with all the shenanigans. Whip it out, point and shoot. Why phart around with a 35mm hung around your neck like an albatross with the accompanying case full of filters, film and lenses when you can carry a device in your shirt pocket that can do better than 99% of the film cameras?

 

[TM]

Digital image file types

Since many FL'ers take digital photographs I thought I'd make a comment about digital image file types.

There are a number of file types one can use to save and store digital images: TIFF, BMP, RAW, JPEG, etc. The most common on is JPEG. JPEG is the typical default file type for most digital cameras. JPEG is advantageous in that these files are smaller than the alternative file types.

There is a drawback to JPEG though. JPEG is a lossey system, as opposed to a lossless system. The other file types preserve all the data for the image. JPEG discards what it considers to be unimportant data, which makes the file size smaller. So when you take the original digital photograph, some data is lost. But this is pretty much imperceptible.

The problem though is that this discarding of data happens every time the file is saved or renamed. So when you download the file to your computer, you loose more data. When you edit it in Photoshop or some other image manipulating software and save it, you loose more data. Even renaming the file causes more data to be lost. The effect is cumulative and can be apparent after, say, ten saves.

If you can not set your digital camera to save to the RAW format, make sure to save to your computer in the TIFF format. Photoshop allows you to save a file in a variety of formats, so that is pretty easy.

Tony

 

[Matt Deckard]

How many photographers do we have on the lounge?

 

[WEEGEE]

Exposed

One... and counting.