Are you THAT good?

JerryPH · Nov 3, 2007

I think that you can consider yourself above your average basic beginner once you start to consider composition, light, aperture, shutter speed and a goal for a final picture in your mind's eye before you snap that shutter.

Anyone thats used a camera for more than 20 minutes will tell you composition is important. How well you compose... that is the real key.

Asking someone how important composition in photography to me is akin to asking a pro race car driver how important is it to hold and use the steering wheel in a race. It has a certain level of importance in both instances. :mrgreen:

Having said that, there are moments that I just snap away... like when about 2 hours ago, our neighbor came to visit his father who lives across the street from us in a 1922 Ford Model A. By the time I got my camera, he was already starting to roll away (thank goodness top end on those things is about 20 MPH... lol). I was snapping without consideration for composition but did manage to get 3-4 keepers out of a dozen shots.

skieur · Nov 3, 2007

MaxBloom said:
I compose in photoshop.

Mmmm...interesting! Certainly not impossible, if your photoshop skills are really good. Would you elaborate, please?

skieur

Alpha · Nov 3, 2007

My PS skills are really good.

But I was poking fun.

JC1220 · Nov 3, 2007

"One does not choose composition strategies, style, or vision. Those things emerge as a function of the working process and certainly nothing that one tries to adopt. After you have been working for a number of years, you look back on what you have done and you see, readily or not, what all those things are. To intellectually choose one or to follow so-called compositional "rules," would be fine for a commercial photographer, but not for an artist or for an aspiring artist. These things come from who you are in the deepest sense. They choose you, You do not choose them."

Composition, etc. should be all intuitive--never analytical.

Alpha · Nov 3, 2007

JC1220 said:
"One does not choose composition strategies, style, or vision. Those things emerge as a function of the working process and certainly nothing that one tries to adopt. After you have been working for a number of years, you look back on what you have done and you see, readily or not, what all those things are. To intellectually choose one or to follow so-called compositional "rules," would be fine for a commercial photographer, but not for an artist or for an aspiring artist. These things come from who you are in the deepest sense. They choose you, You do not choose them."

Composition, etc. should be all intuitive--never analytical.

Say it ain't so! You just killed a lot of peoples' dreams with that one. Oh wait-- everyone with technical ability but no creative mind will continue to shoot anyway...

skieur · Nov 3, 2007

MaxBloom said:
My PS skills are really good.

But I was poking fun.

If your PS skills were really good, you would probably be shooting digital rather than with a 4 X 5 film camera. Nothing wrong with film but scanning film negatives is a round about way to go about editing and postprocessing. It also requires a lot of top and very expensive equipment as well as a heck of a lot of technical knowledge to get the best results. Not impossible, but I am not sure how efficient and effective it is in terms of time/money and profit.

skieur

Alpha · Nov 3, 2007

skieur said:
If your PS skills were really good, you would probably be shooting digital rather than with a 4 X 5 film camera. Nothing wrong with film but scanning film negatives is a round about way to go about editing and postprocessing. It also requires a lot of top and very expensive equipment as well as a heck of a lot of technical knowledge to get the best results. Not impossible, but I am not sure how efficient and effective it is in terms of time/money and profit.

skieur

I do not want to see this turn into a film vs. digital argument.

I was going to PM you because to be completely honest I think that your post is clouded with a bit of ignorance and is really a bit disrespectful of my art. But I'd rather dispel some of its myths for others to read. Perhaps they'll take it from someone who both shoots film in four different formats, and also shoots digital and teaches university seminars on both 4x5 shooting and development and digital post-processing. To be clear, they aren't mutually exclusive, either.

I'll just go line-by line here.

If your PS skills were really good, you would probably be shooting digital rather than with a 4 X 5 film camera.

1) The format has nothing to do with post processing-- I shoot 35mm, 645, 6x9, and 4x5. Neither does the medium-- I shoot black and white, c41, E6, and K14.
2) The sheer pixel count of a scan from a 4x5 negative will make your average APS-C digital shooter shxt themselves. That's a hell of a lot more to work with in PS. I'll say the same about 6x9, and my 645 when I'm shooting slide or slow black and white films (ISO 50 to ISO 6).

Nothing wrong with film but scanning film negatives is a round about way to go about editing and postprocessing.

1) Film does a lot of the hard work for you if you're scanning and processing negatives or slides in photoshop. I feel that it's actually much easier than processing from RAW in almost all cases where you expose correctly. Film and Photoshop are not mutually exclusive.
2) That's only true if you believe that film and digital are media that yield fundamentally identical results. That's really very far from the truth as far as I'm concerned. There is no digital camera on earth, for example, that can match the resolution of shooting an orthochromatic film at ISO 6. Conversely, there is no digital workflow that will make a RAW file look like Tri-X pushed 3 stops.
3) I should ask, round-about of what? Perhaps if you're thinking you need to find the fastest way to get it into the computer. The logical extension of that would be that it would be ideal if you could just take the photo with Photoshop instead. Does it take extra time? Sure! Thankfully, I don't have any deadlines. And as far as I'm concerned, the use of film simply presents me with extra processing opportunities (either into the computer or back into the darkroom, or both).

It also requires a lot of top and very expensive equipment as well as a heck of a lot of technical knowledge to get the best results.

1) This is patently untrue. My 35mm and 6x9's were hand-me-downs. Were I to buy them, the 35mm kit would be $150 CLA'd. The 6x9 would be $250. I paid $300 for my 645 kit. I paid $35 for my 4x5 (the eBay seller thought it was broken because they didn't know how to operate it). Those are all much, much cheaper than their equivalent digital counterparts. In fact, film shooters have the upper hand when it comes to equipment costs because we aren't required to buy AF bodies and sometimes lenses. God forbid you want tethered strobes to complement your tethered camera. My tripod cost the same as yours. I didn't have to buy a stupid remote trigger whatever. All of my cameras use the same $5 cable release. Digital shooters often have lots of stupid financial investments in order to make the most of their equipment. Granted, my ME Super can't flash synch up to infinity with some special overpriced flash, but I don't really care. Not to mention, the use of such an apparatus would require technical knowledge that I, as a film shooter, would not have unless I shot an F6 or an EOS 1v.
2) I'll grant that film adds up in terms of cost. Then again, I'm a pack rat. Anyone who's seen my list of films I own that aren't made anymore will attest to that. I also think that if you know what you're doing, you waste a lot fewer exposures than one might imagine.
3) Film and digital shooters have roughly equivalent technical requirements for actual shooting. One might argue that a film shooter's adeptness in the darkroom has to be rivaled by a digital shooter's proficiency in Photoshop. Printing adds a whole other level. I've personally been to hell and back over inkjet printing. Nick Brandt's horror stories in his emails to me about his experience with inkjet printing (he shoots film) made me feel like a rich kid complaining in front of a refugee. You would be absolutely astonished at the amount of time and money it costs to digitally print really well. I do both. You might just say that I r0xrz.

Not impossible, but I am not sure how efficient and effective it is in terms of time/money and profit.

Fortunately, I don't have to worry much about efficiency or profit. What few photographic ventures I pursue to actually make money I do on my own time. Ironically, I don't have time to try to make money by being a photographer.

I hope that clears up some misconceptions about film and digital post processing. If it hasn't then I give up. I really. give. up.

tbsdphotog · Nov 5, 2007

I shoot thinking that cropping is not an option. I try to shoot so that compositon is in camera.

Battou · Nov 5, 2007

Well, I don't just click away (unless I am looking to finish off a roll or something) but I have found that if I think composition, I screw composition. example

I just kind wiggle around till it looks good to me in the viewfinder.

dpolston · Nov 5, 2007

You know, I've been thinking about this. The original past had to deal with composition not necessarily cropping. I am teaching my daughters (12 and 15) about things like composition, rules of third etc. but I have also told them to leave themselves a little room for post processing cropping. Plus every now and then the are my second and third shooters on an event (more or less just for practice).

I suppose that is because of the ease of post processing programs like photoshop but I think it's more because of the various print sizes. I don't find myself printing standard 8x10's anymore because I prefer the look of an 8x12. My favorite print size now is a 12x16 and I just don't think you can process all of that information ("what's this going to look like on the wall") in your brain and crop during the taking of the shot through the viewfinder.

ann · Nov 5, 2007

with all due respect there is a whole "school" of tradition and thought where we do know what the print will look like on the wall. It is called pre-visualition.

It takes a lot of hard work to reach that level of working. However, that doesn't mean that one can't change their mind or expland on that particular vision.

Alpha · Nov 5, 2007

ann said:
with all due respect there is a whole "school" of tradition and thought where we do know what the print will look like on the wall. It is called pre-visualition.

It takes a lot of hard work to reach that level of working. However, that doesn't mean that one can't change their mind or expland on that particular vision.

:hugs:

dpolston · Nov 5, 2007

No offense taken. =o)

For the record. I do get it close in the camera... but I also allow a little room.

The Phototron · Nov 5, 2007

MaxBloom said:
I
2) That's only true if you believe that film and digital are media that yield fundamentally identical results. That's really very far from the truth as far as I'm concerned. There is no digital camera on earth, for example, that can match the resolution of shooting an orthochromatic film at ISO 6. Conversely, there is no digital workflow that will make a RAW file look like Tri-X pushed 3 stops.
3) I should ask, round-about of what? Perhaps if you're thinking you need to find the fastest way to get it into the computer. The logical extension of that would be that it would be ideal if you could just take the photo with Photoshop instead. Does it take extra time? Sure! Thankfully, I don't have any deadlines. And as far as I'm concerned, the use of film simply presents me with extra processing opportunities (either into the computer or back into the darkroom, or both).

I hope that clears up some misconceptions about film and digital post processing. If it hasn't then I give up. I really. give. up.

That's a really informative post, thanks for sharing. Although your ebay ventures are making me very jealous!