"Every moment and every event of every man's life on earth plants something in his soul." —Thomas Merton

Photography DiscussionWould You, Or Do you, Or Have You Returned to (Or Never Left) FILM?

User avatar
Duck
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:31 am
Location: Shelton, CT
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Re: Would You, Or Do you, Or Have You Returned to (Or Never Left) FILM?

Post by Duck » Fri May 26, 2017 1:38 am

pop511 wrote:"But I have to confess to often shooting in bursts of 3"
We've all done that.... :D :D :D

Sadly that is a habit I have not gotten into that has come to bite me in the ass on a couple occasions. Particularly the eye blinks and head swapping Charles mentioned. As often as I consciously understand the merits of it, subconsciously I never seem to do it.
"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Image ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Ceropegia
Mentoris Sextus
Mentoris Sextus
Posts: 651
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Northeast Alabama
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, you can edit but ask me first
Contact:

Post by Ceropegia » Fri May 26, 2017 6:30 am

Charles Haacker wrote:That third one is plenty scary! I wonder if the crew survived, and were they hauling freight or passengers? Was your grandfather a photographer for the GNRR? He did a really professional job!

An internet search reveals that an avalanche hit a GNRR train on January 22, 1916 in the Cascades killing 8 people, (http://www.historylink.org/File/10713) but the engine was not toppled in that accident and all debris was cleared from the tracks by the 25th, so that could not have been the engine he photographed. That winter, three other people were killed by an avalanche that toppled a GNRR train and 4 GNRR workers were killed by an avalanche while they were clearing tracks. Other internet accounts describe how devastating the winter of 1916 was in the Cascades, bitterly cold with temperatures dipping below -20°F and over 9 feet of snow. Among the photos my grandfather took in February are ones showing damaged show sheds, wreckage from a bridge and the rebuilt bridge, wreckage of another locomotive with a rotary (snowplow) further down the bank, and a section of track cleared after an avalanche. The photos seem to have been taken along a section of track between Leavenworth and Embro, Washington, which does include the place where the January accident occurred. I am not sure what my grandfather's job was. I know he was sent out to survey the damage but don't think he was a official photographer.

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Fri May 26, 2017 2:04 pm

Thanks, Martha! And your grandad still did a very professional job regardless.
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Fri May 26, 2017 2:13 pm

Duck wrote:
pop511 wrote:"But I have to confess to often shooting in bursts of 3"
We've all done that.... :D :D :D
Sadly that is a habit I have not gotten into that has come to bite me in the ass on a couple occasions. Particularly the eye blinks and head swapping Charles mentioned. As often as I consciously understand the merits of it, subconsciously I never seem to do it.

S'aright. It really wasn't so very long ago that it was very difficult to outright impossible, at least to do it so seamlessly that it was indetectable.* I don't do it "all the time," but I've done it enough to have some skill doing it. Most of the time it's not even a full face swap. Often just the eyes will take care of it unless the whole expression was bad. In a group I will choose the one with the best overall expressions and mood (happy laughter-type stuff), and for the one whose expression isn't as good as it was in another shot it's (for me anyway) "duck soup" (sorry!) to swap it out. Even if the turn or tilt of the head is different, Photoshop and even Elements have all the necessary tools. An easy one takes maybe 5 minutes. A hard one might take 10. So long as both pictures had the same light, and they should if I didn't really mess up, it's really quite easy with some experience.

*(I'm reminded that just about anything like face swapping or adding or removing or whatever always required a master, that then had to be rephotographed for final reproduction. That's where I think it became obvious, or at least detectable. One beauty of modern digital is that you can manipulate the original file, or a 100% perfect copy of it, and ultimately output the finished work without the need for an internegative that is never as sharp, never has the full scale of the master. The downside may be that because we can, we do, perhaps too often, and perhaps dishonestly.)
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
pop511
Mentoris Dominus
Mentoris Dominus
Posts: 511
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:29 am
Location: Sydney,Australia
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by pop511 » Sat May 27, 2017 1:03 am

What a great discussion post this has been.
Charles;
" The downside may be that because we can, we do, perhaps too often, and perhaps dishonestly. "

Only took your sentence out Charles because it was in the last post, but close sentiments are all through.

Standing back from this and looking at photography as our chosen career or hobby. Can we say to ourselves? Aren't we all dishonest?

I have read a little on Ansel Adams ( spelling? ). From what I understand, he spent hours in the dark room working on his negatives. Can we describe his work as dishonest because that was not the scene, in shades of gray, as captured by the lens? So if not a photographer. Was he an artist?

We all use curves and sharpening. Is that any different from Ansel? We adjust for our own tastes and preconceived ideas for what the finished picture should look like.
To put grain into a digital b&w picture and then someone to classify it as having no place in the 21st century is beyond comprehension.

We all go down our own road and do our own thing. Is that so bad? Posting on here I benefit from your critiques and studying your photos.
I know some moderators on this site don't comment on pictures that they dislike. That's ok, but aren't you doing a disservice to your membership. Perhaps discuss the technical aspects and others can learn from it.
On the opposite side. I would knock down your door to get a week working with you all...

Who has not been touched by others work..

Are we all artists? but don't know it!!

Back ups:
Please, please, please back up your back ups on a separate drive
Did IT for a while fixing comps. More than once have gone to a firm where the HDD has died.
"Q"..Do you back up your business files?
"A" Oh yes, they are on the hard drive
It's not Lazarus It won't came back to life. Yeah I know, used software in DOS to recover files, but seldom 100% success.
Have fun;
ed
ed davis

User avatar
Ernst-Ulrich Schafer
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 973
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:17 pm
Location: Port Angeleeeeeeees, WA
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Ernst-Ulrich Schafer » Sat May 27, 2017 3:02 am

Do I miss film and darkroom work, Yes & No. Would I go back to shooting film, maybe, but not totally. Would I go back into the darkroom, No. It's a fact, our digital files have surpassed what film can give us.
I have some friends that do shoot film and that's well and good, what ever tools you use, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the work your doing, SHOW ME YOUR IMAGE, I really don't care what you made it with.

I personally have never shot in burst mode, However when I'm excited about what I'm seeing I keep shooting.

Ansel was all three Ed, a photographer, a craftsman & an artist. If he were alive today he would be using digital!
Today is the Day, a New Day.

User avatar
pop511
Mentoris Dominus
Mentoris Dominus
Posts: 511
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:29 am
Location: Sydney,Australia
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by pop511 » Sat May 27, 2017 10:52 am

Ernst;
"" personally have never shot in burst mode ""
In the work you have produced over the years I would be surprised. So let's change the scenario.
You have been asked to shoot a football match and agreed.
One eye is following the ball play through the lens and the other is open and looking onto the field in general. Hard I know!
Off to the side a punch up starts. To get that Pulitzer prize. Wouldn't you shoot in burst?
Have fun;
ed
ed davis

User avatar
Ernst-Ulrich Schafer
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 973
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:17 pm
Location: Port Angeleeeeeeees, WA
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Ernst-Ulrich Schafer » Sat May 27, 2017 2:33 pm

I think I could do a really good job by just keeping shooting, I don't use the burst mode so why would I start?
Today is the Day, a New Day.

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Sat May 27, 2017 7:40 pm

pop511 wrote:What a great discussion post this has been.
Charles;
" The downside may be that because we can, we do, perhaps too often, and perhaps dishonestly."
[...] Standing back from this and looking at photography as our chosen career or hobby. Can we say to ourselves? Aren't we all dishonest?

I have read a little on Ansel Adams ( spelling? ). From what I understand, he spent hours in the dark room working on his negatives. Can we describe his work as dishonest because that was not the scene, in shades of gray, as captured by the lens? So if not a photographer. Was he an artist?

We all use curves and sharpening. Is that any different from Ansel? We adjust for our own tastes and preconceived ideas for what the finished picture should look like.
To put grain into a digital b&w picture and then someone to classify it as having no place in the 21st century is beyond comprehension.

We all go down our own road and do our own thing. Is that so bad? Posting on here I benefit from your critiques and studying your photos.
I know some moderators on this site don't comment on pictures that they dislike. That's ok, but aren't you doing a disservice to your membership. Perhaps discuss the technical aspects and others can learn from it.
On the opposite side. I would knock down your door to get a week working with you all...

Who has not been touched by others work..

Are we all artists? but don't know it!! ['...]

Ed, you've touched on a question so interesting it ought to have its own thread! (And THANK you!)

You spelled Saint Ansel's name correctly (!!) and absolutely, he was a Master in the darkroom. So was his work "dishonest?" I don't think so, not a bit. Was he an Artist? I think he was. A Photographic Artist, Fine Art Photography (as distinct from, say, photojournalism or passports). Ernst knows all about Fine Art Photography because it's what he does (it's who he IS). Indeed, AA manipulated the heck out of every negative he made, but how (I ask) is that different from, say, an Albert Bierstadt painting of similar subjects?
640px-Albert_Bierstadt_-_Among_the_Sierra_Nevada,_California_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
Among the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California (1868), Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington, DC.
Albert Bierstadt
640px-Albert_Bierstadt_-_Among_the_Sierra_Nevada,_California_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (52.27 KiB) Viewed 702 times
We all use curves and sharpening. Is that any different from Ansel? We adjust for our own tastes and preconceived ideas for what the finished picture should look like. To put grain into a digital b&w picture and then someone to classify it as having no place in the 21st century is beyond comprehension. We all go down our own road and do our own thing.

In the early days of photography "real" artists were pretty unforgiving of the new kid on the block. They were fearful that photography would entirely replace "real" art, and to some extent it has, at least for the masses. I freely admit that I am a photographer because I can neither draw nor paint but I have a creative bent. Every new thing that comes along tends to displace something else. I think each of us is an artist in his or her own way. I have never tried to characterize myself as an artist. I think that relative to a painter I am a house painter, a craftsman rather than a creator, but as a craftsman I pride myself on always getting the picture, so there's that. :D

I tell ya, for me the digital revolution has been a godsend. I got into a pretty deep funk and refused to touch a camera for a long time, but digital reawakened the "artist" in me. I was also a up-to-my-elbows wet-darkroom guy, not on Ansel Adams's scale, but I was better than good. I think about that all the time now that I have LIGHTroom instead and, together with Photoshop, I can do things we could only dream about 40 years ago, and if I can't do it, I can look up a tutorial on YouTube and then I can do it. It's nothing short of a miracle.

The reason I made my initial statement about the potential for dishonesty is because, ever since Photoshop, it has become routine to do things that used to be pretty much impossible. All the time we see suggestions about something in a picture that is a "distraction" that we could remove. Any more it is so ridiculously easy to "clone it out" that we sometime get twitted for not just doing it. "That lamp post should come out of there." "Why did you leave that fire plug there?" "That other figure on the right is distracting; consider cloning him out." I know that at least one photographer stringing for the Associated Press was fired and banned because he cloned out a distraction, a very, very minor thing in the foreground, and when the AP found out they canned him because he had broken one of the first rules of photojournalism: the only things you can do are minor adjustments to tone and contrast, and crop. In this case a crop was impossible. It cost him his career!

But we are not photojournalists. We are not going to get fired for cloning something out, or in (I have cloned in birds, rather a lot actually). If I am a painter painting a seascape and I need a seagull --right --there... I'm gonna paint in a seagull! Therefore I personally see nothing dishonest about adding a seagull or two to a seascape to balance a composition and add interest. If I painted it I would, so why not in a photo if I can?

I better siddown and shuddup. I've gone on too long. :oops:
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Sat May 27, 2017 7:53 pm

Ernst-Ulrich Schafer wrote:Do I miss film and darkroom work, Yes & No. Would I go back to shooting film, maybe, but not totally. Would I go back into the darkroom, No. It's a fact, our digital files have surpassed what film can give us.
I have some friends that do shoot film and that's well and good, what ever tools you use, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the work your doing, SHOW ME YOUR IMAGE, I really don't care what you made it with.

I personally have never shot in burst mode, However when I'm excited about what I'm seeing I keep shooting.

Ansel was all three Ed, a photographer, a craftsman & an artist. If he were alive today he would be using digital!

Ansel would definitely be using digital, and I'd love to hear what J.S. Bach could do with a modern keyboard! Adams got very interested in Polaroid toward the end of his life, and not just for checking exposure and composition; he was even using SX70 and enjoying it very much.

So far as burst mode is concerned, I hear ya, and any modern camera can be fired almost as quickly without it, and with no fear of running out of film you can, indeed, just keep shooting. As it happens, though, just today I was with my son and granddaughter in the Children's Museum again, and I find it efficacious to keep the camera in burst mode. I can single-shot it easily enough, but she was coloring with Daddy and the action was so fast, her looking up, looking down, smiling, frowning, moving... I don't think overdo it, usually those little bursts of 3 or 4, but I'd rather delete the clinkers than miss a good one. Different strokes. :D
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests