Everyone thinks they can be a pro! (RANT)

can we some how get manaheim's post stickeid somewhere - feels a shame that it will be lost in this thread somehow.
 
I don't think Jerry is being too harsh, but I don't agree with him on EVERYTHING. For instance, I don't think mastering post processing skills is a requirment to becoming a good photographer; after all, ideally we wouldn't NEED the post processing if our shots came out the way we wanted when we click the camera.

I agree with you, I spent nearly 30 years shooting 35mm and medium format transparency film, with that you had just one shot to get it right. I have only recently moved to a digital SLR but I still believe that if a photograph needs post-processing then it wasn't good in the first place, I did something wrong when I took it.
 
I agree with you, I spent nearly 30 years shooting 35mm and medium format transparency film, with that you had just one shot to get it right. I have only recently moved to a digital SLR but I still believe that if a photograph needs post-processing then it wasn't good in the first place, I did something wrong when I took it.

I by no means mean any disrespect for your years of experience or knowledge, but I have to ask a question here. I want to preface this with "I am not trying to debate anything, I am simply stating my opinion".

You point out the 30 years of experience using the "old way" of photography and the fact that you recently switched to DSLR technology. The equipment still has limitations much like conventional film did/does. Much of the post processing back in the day was done in the darkroom with shading, masking, time exposure for tonal adjustments and the like... Probably (because of my lack of experience with color) just as much if not more is done with color film. My question is this: How is darkroom processing different than digital darkroom adjustments? Does your comments mean that you never adjusted your pictures at all, what-so-ever, completely untouched in every possible way and thats what was printed? And only the perfect captures went public? If so, what was the standard times for light exposure in the B&W darkroom along with the times in the different chemicals to have a standard? This would be necessary information (and a standard) in order to preventing the need for ANY POST PROCESSING (digital or otherwise). I am sure post processing to any extent has been around and used since the invention of "film" and has just moved on with technology as everything else did.

Personally, I see people of today getting final results due to the advancement of technology. Unfortunately, (like with everything else in this world), machines have replaced the manual way of doing things. I see it as a "lost art" or on it's way of being a lost art. I am not saying this to stir the pot, I am simply stating what I see from my point of view. Much like in your signature, "The camera is merely a recording device, the image, and all its faults, are my responsibility." It is still left up to the eye behind the lens to produce the final product either pre or post process. The final image is what matters.

I look to people like you for your experience and knowledge. I see your 30 years of work as inspiration and I hope to be able to produce work better than you. Although maybe not as often, it is possible for me to accomplish it. Without that possibility, you have a monopoly on photography and in theory no one should ever pursue it unless they want to spend years educating themselves. I give you a lot of credit and respect for your accomplishments, but remember one thing. You started somewhere as well.
 
can we some how get manaheim's post stickeid somewhere - feels a shame that it will be lost in this thread somehow.

Why?--It's just an opinion.
 
I by no means mean any disrespect for your years of experience or knowledge, but I have to ask a question here. I want to preface this with "I am not trying to debate anything, I am simply stating my opinion".

You point out the 30 years of experience using the "old way" of photography and the fact that you recently switched to DSLR technology. The equipment still has limitations much like conventional film did/does. Much of the post processing back in the day was done in the darkroom with shading, masking, time exposure for tonal adjustments and the like... Probably (because of my lack of experience with color) just as much if not more is done with color film. My question is this: How is darkroom processing different than digital darkroom adjustments? Does your comments mean that you never adjusted your pictures at all, what-so-ever, completely untouched in every possible way and thats what was printed? And only the perfect captures went public? If so, what was the standard times for light exposure in the B&W darkroom along with the times in the different chemicals to have a standard? This would be necessary information (and a standard) in order to preventing the need for ANY POST PROCESSING (digital or otherwise). I am sure post processing to any extent has been around and used since the invention of "film" and has just moved on with technology as everything else did.

I give you a lot of credit and respect for your accomplishments, but remember one thing. You started somewhere as well.

The vast majority of my work was on slide film, the few I printed were done with no darkroom enhancements.

I did do a lot of B/W print work but the majority of that was using Ilford SFX, I did intentionally boost the contrast when I was printing but I did very little in the way of dodging and burning.

I'm not sure that I have accomplished anything significant, I've been shooting for a long time but that doesn't make me particularly good. I do have some shots that I do believe are good, a couple have been published and a couple have won competitions but generally I just try to produce well-exposed, correctly cropped photographs that tell a story.

You asked what was different about digital processing and darkroom processing, well, nothing, except digital is a heck of a lot more convenient. I have nothing against processing but I believe that if people strive to produce work that doesn't need it that can only make them better photographers, I prefer to have a good photograph right out of the camera, like the one I posted in this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146944

Yep, I started somewhere, with a box Brownie shooting 127 B/W film. :)
 
The vast majority of my work was on slide film, the few I printed were done with no darkroom enhancements.

I did do a lot of B/W print work but the majority of that was using Ilford SFX, I did intentionally boost the contrast when I was printing but I did very little in the way of dodging and burning.

I'm not sure that I have accomplished anything significant, I've been shooting for a long time but that doesn't make me particularly good. I do have some shots that I do believe are good, a couple have been published and a couple have won competitions but generally I just try to produce well-exposed, correctly cropped photographs that tell a story.

You asked what was different about digital processing and darkroom processing, well, nothing, except digital is a heck of a lot more convenient. I have nothing against processing but I believe that if people strive to produce work that doesn't need it that can only make them better photographers, I prefer to have a good photograph right out of the camera, like the one I posted in this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146944

Yep, I started somewhere, with a box Brownie shooting 127 B/W film. :)

That shot is awesome!
Now back to my point. Personally, when I do PP, although convenient, I try to watch what I am doing to "fix" a shot, so I can learn and pay closer attention for my next time out. This way I may need less PP in the future, therefore learning. I personally hope to get to a point that PP is not needed, but with the many variations (in monitors, online viewing, and the like) as opposed to yester-year when the only option to show your photo to someone was in print, I think in this day and age of "convenience" with digital, PP is almost necessary until it goes to a final print. In any event, thanks for sharing your work, and I look forward to learning from you and many others going forward.

"Everyone Thinks They Can Be A Pro" has sounded like a bad thing every time i read this topic title. Maybe it's a good thing. The next generation of people striving to be better and carry on the legacy of capturing images on the "new film" (digital media). So for those of us that are serious about learning, performing well, making money, and dedicating the time to providing a service in a very competitive field....You are only as good as you think you are...Go for it and don't let anyone tell you any different! You can not make everyone happy. Who do you need to make happy? Only yourself. So be honest to yourself, and have high morals, things should work themselves out just fine in the end.
 
Hm.

Let's consider something outside of photography for a moment... perhaps it will strike some of the emotion from the conversation.

I play trumpet and have for about... jeez, almost 30 years now. Damn, I'm old. :lol: I happen to have a fairly nice horn... a Vincent Bach Silver. Can't remember the model number, but it ran about $2500 new a good 20 years ago. Beautiful instrument.

Anyway...

(by the way the following course of events has happened to me NUMEROUS times, so I'm not making this up... I'm just condensing it into one representative example)

Imagine the scenario with me and someone who has been playing for just a few years. (or even 5-8 years, for that matter). Assume the person is playing a standard old ~$300 Brass Yamaha or King student horn. Good, solid workhorse of an instrument. Nothing wrong with it.

I can sit next to the person and play on my VB while they play on their King/Yamaha. During a break the person turns to me and compliments my playing and says "I really need to get one of those Vincent Bach Silver trumpets." I smile, and say "You're welcome to play it if you like, just trade horns with me."

They get all excited and agree to swap. (I let go a sigh of relief as I get to hold a much lighter trumpet for a bit. :lol:)

We play the next piece. I usually marvel at how generally good the $300 instrument is, and I can always push the horn to it's limits and get really good sound out of it, but I often find the valve mechanism and little rough and usually can't get QUITE the rich tones out of the horn that I can get out of my Vincent Bach. However, usually the student brass horns are brighter and lighter, so they're fun for marches as it's easier to make it sound chipper, whereas my Vincent Bach silver tends to want to be deep and somber and rich.

I notice that the person who is playing my horn is not sounding any better than usual, and in fact is struggling a bit to get as full of a tone as I can get on the horn because it simply requires stronger breath support to really fill the instrument up. It's certainly "fine", and they're getting the music out, it's just not any better.

At the end of the piece, the person hands the horn back to me and looks baffled. They usually then ask me how much I paid for the horn, are shocked, and then say something along the lines of "Geez, it really isn't any better than the my Yamaha... I guess it's the player, not so much the horn." Sometimes they'll even be obnoxious and say "Geez, what a waste of money! I can get just as good music out of my Yamaha!"


It's like this with so many things... how many of you have kids who think you're stupid and don't know what the hell you're talking about? How many of you have been kids and were pretty sure your parents were utterly stupid? Did you get stupid as you grew older, and now your kids have simply surpassed you? Hmmm? Is the same thing going to happen to them?

No, of course not.

What we see in all of these kinds of situations is experience in action.

Experience is a real curse, because without the experience that someone who is your better in a given practice, you cannot really tell how much better they are. You might be able to say "Oh yeah, that trumpet player plays really beautifully", but you may not be able to tell that there is literally 15+ years of experience worth of improvement between you and him until you have that extra 15+ years of experience.

You also won't really be able to tell that yes there absolutely is a difference between the $300 and $2500 trumpet, simply because you haven't got enough experience under your belt to get everything out of that $2500 horn, whereas the guy 15+ years your senior will not only be able to tell, but will be able to make your $300 horn seem to come to life.

(Yes, that is a commentary on equipment vs. the user of same.)

In my experience, people who attain true mastery of any thing often have some very similar characteristics...
  1. They always feel their work is "fine", but are always feeling like they could have done better if only they could master X or Y.
  2. They look at their absolute masterpieces and say things like "Yeah, this one's really not bad... I like it."
  3. They actively seek opportunities to learn from others, and accept those opportunities graciously.
  4. They never disregard or argue with any criticism... no matter who it comes from.
  5. They never poo-poo any other method/type of tool/whathaveyou, but rather look to understand it better because there may well be something buried in there that they don't understand that will allow them to improve.
  6. True masters strive to be able to teach others, because being able to teach a concept strengthens mastery of that concept.
I need two more to make it a "7 Habits of Highly Effective Artists". :lol:

Where does this leave us? Same place it always does.

Accept that no matter how good you think you are, that there are other people in this world who are better. Accept that you must choose to either grow in what you do, or choose to be happy with where you are. Accept that to grow, the first thing you must do is listen, and the last thing you should be doing is yelling at people who are trying to help you.

Accept that nearly everything you say, do or produce in life (that you were proud of at the time) is something you're going to look back later on and think "Oh man what a mess, I could have done that so much better.".

Accept that no matter how workable your equipment is, that there is a reason why some equipment costs $300, some $2500 and some way way over that. Accept that the reasons for why something costs so much more may simply be something that you cannot grasp because you lack experience. Accept that this is perfectly fine.

Accept that there is nothing wrong with the tools that you use today, but that someday your experience will exceed what your tools can provide you, and that you're going to want new and better tools. Accept that the day this happens should be a very cool day for you, because it means you have learned so much.

Be happy.

Listen to others.

Accept what they have to say.

Learn.

Grow.

Be happy.

If you are still playing and are interested PM me. I have a Mt Vernon Bach Stradivarius that due to an unfortunate accident was totally rebuilt to my specifications 30 years ago. (Got crushed right before a concert).

It was a brass version that was plated silver. Very unique sharp tone. The #1 & 3 valves were reset to a 3 degrees angle, new larger lead pipe and bell along with the addition of both the 1st and 3rd valves slide triggers. The Mt Vernon's didn't have the a 1st valve slide mechanism at all and the third valve slide had a loop at the time.

I no longer play as I split my throat one night during a gig. Took a year to heal and the doctors could never guarantee that it wouldn't reoccur. Not the best thing to stake a living on. I was in college at the time so my major changed.
 
I've actually done that... I put my D40 in a hollow I dug out next to a tie and shot it remotely with an oncoming train... the problem was that I was trespassing to do it, and the train has a really big emblem on the front of it so I can't share the shot... it looks pretty good though, the blurred image of the engine is kind of a 'reverse zoom' effect.

was it because of one of Jerry's posts ? j/k.
 
I've actually done that... I put my D40 in a hollow I dug out next to a tie and shot it remotely with an oncoming train... the problem was that I was trespassing to do it, and the train has a really big emblem on the front of it so I can't share the shot... it looks pretty good though, the blurred image of the engine is kind of a 'reverse zoom' effect.

What makes you think you cannot share the image? The act of trespassing is not related to the act of taking a picture. Once you have the photo, you are free to share it!
 
His confession alone is enough probable cause for an arrest, but I'm sure no one is searching this forum to make the trespassing arrest of the century. We may as well see the cool picture.
 
Right, confessing, evidence, etc... ALL seperate from the act of taking the picture... no reason NOT to share it.
 
Actually, confessing means nothing, a "confession" has to be written and signed, unless its on video (i think), the photo isnt evidense of you taking the shot, only that someone took the shot, it doesnt prove YOU took the shot. You should be able to share it :)
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top