Posted by Barbara Graham on December 31, 2010 at 2:19 PM
In response to my question about larger images, Preston and Ron said, as stated by Ron, "...film, light table, and loupe. No hiding anything from that process." I don't know to say this properly and with the significance that it should have, and this is something I have been wondering about for two or three weeks now, but I have seen that a lot of you shoot with film and a lot of your work involves a lot of really intensive and what I would call advanced photography tools with or without film.
One never knows what is going to happen, even from one minute to the next, I know, but at this point I don't visualize any of that for myself. As you all know, I know that I need a DSLR camera and the best lenses I can afford at any point, but beyond that and accessories like a bean bag and a white umbrella and those kinds of things I don't foresee getting more complicated than that. I can't imagine I'm the only one here whose digital photography falls at that point on the spectrum or who has wondered about this.
If you feel free to express them, what thoughts do you all have about the very simple and the very complicated and everything in between when it comes to digital nature photography? Thank you for any input.
In my past life there was nothing more complicated than shipping off film for processing, waiting 10 days to 2 weeks for it to come back, then printing and sticking each slide and getting it into hanging folders. Heaven forbid you change your naming scheme or want to rearrange your files. Then there was the question of making dupes and submitting them, or holding your breath and submitting originals, then taking it on faith that the company you were submitting to wouldn't lose them, damage them or keep them even if they didn't buy a single image. Then you could wait for as much as a year to get your images back so you could submit them again. Film. RIP.
Posted by Ron Bielefeld on December 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM
I do not miss film either. The cost of film and processing is what took me out of photography when I was in school. Just no money for that at that time. Right now, I consider myself to be on the very simple side. I have two bodies and three lenses, but I really only use my 500mm often. I do not use a tripod or a flash very often at all. I go out and hide in the field with my camera and lens and hand held I shoot what nature presents to me. For post-processing I use Lightroom for organization and ACR and Photoshop for processing. If I want something printed I use an on-line printing source. That is about it.
Posted by Luke Ormand on December 31, 2010 at 3:24 PM
I wouldn't say "a lot" use film... there are some notable ESS photographers who frequently post that use film, but the overwhemling majority on NPN (and in the world) use digital.
I've been doing this photography thing for a couple of years and still don't own a tripod (I've been meaning to get one, but it's just not a priority). There are some photographers (bird and macro photographers in particular) who could not fathom shooting WITHout a tripod.
I don't own a flash and don't have much of a need for one - outside of the occasional macro work. I only use Photoshop for my processing and like to keep things pretty simple.
The more you get into it and more time you spend, the more you'll fall into your niche and discover what you need and what you want. There are some photographers who are caught up in the technology and try to get every new piece of tech and software that comes out - but I've never noticed that their photography was better than someone else's. The most important "accessories" are your lighting and your subject, and God has most of the control there
A light-tight box with a piece of film at one end and a lens with a shutter and aperture at the other, and a spot meter to measure the light. Once I have my developed film in my hand I use a scanner and Photo Shop to bring my images to the web, and/ or final print.
The intensity arises at each of four stages in the process:
1. Carefully evaluating a scene in terms of compositional elements, quality of the light and subject brightness range, and how I want the final image to look.
2. Carefully adjusting my camera's controls so that when I expose the film I have a 'score' from which I can create the 'performance'.
3. Carefully evaluating my developed film and adjusting scanner controls in order to obtain a digital file that requires the least amount of post processing in Photo Shop.
4. Carefully evaluating my scanned image in Photo Shop and then making creative adjustments in order to realize the visualization I had in mind in stage one.
Any of the 'tool's of photography can be placed on a scale from very simple to very complex, and anywhere between those extremes. As with any tool, we begin by learning and mastering the simple and move through stages to the complex. If we attempt to start at the high end of the scale, frustration and, possibly, failure will be the result.
When I look at your work here at NPN I see that you are making excellent progress with the tools you already have. I can also see that you are experiencing a level of frustration. Don't worry about it. We've all been there at one time or another. The key is to evaluate and learn from what you have done so that you can apply those lessons in the future. In doing so, you will continue to make good progress, and then the more complex and advanced tools and techniques will follow in due order.
Perhaps I need to clarify something regarding film.
Sure, I would love it if folks used film in order to keep it alive; especially medium and large format. However, I totally understand where you and others are coming from, and I did not want to start a film vs. digital debate.
In Barabara's other thread (Reason's for not posting larger versions), where she was talking evaluating focus, I mentioned film and a loupe because there is no computer software or video required that may distort what the image actually shows.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
--P
Posted by Richard Ditch on December 31, 2010 at 4:37 PM
I agree with the prior comments, and especially with Luke's final paragraph. Don't be overwhelmed by the lure of technology: I've seen way too many Gearheads in photography who obsess about equipment (and now also about software and photoshop plugins) who still can't create an image with both good technical quality and that important quality that makes me want to look at the image and marvel at the vision.
Let your interest in the world drive what you photograph. Keep taking photos until you master the basics of sharpness and exposure. Pay attention to the light. Read a couple good books on photoshop for nature photographers and learn the basics of post processing (understanding the histogram, adjustment layers and masks). When your skills and interests outgrow your camera and lens you can upgrade your gear to fit what you really need.
Posted by Kent Staubus on January 1, 2011 at 1:59 PM
I've been thinking some about the same topic the past several months, and have some thoughts. After shooting only film I've bought two Nikon DSLRs the past four years, and didn't shoot any film at all after that. Back in June I bought a 1959 Brownie Hawkeye and began shooting HP5 b&w roll film. I then bought a 1937 Voightlander Bessa and a 1914 Kodak Special No. 1, both are 6x9 format and I shoot HP5 in them. I've also gotten back into 4x5 now, shooting HP5 and am looking for an 1850-1870 vintage Petzval lens for it. I've taken a lot of shots with the film cameras this year, especially the Bessa. I scan the shots and process using CS5.
Here's what I've come to think. The camera I have, the lens, etc. just don't matter. I'm going to make some nice images no matter if my camera is the Nikon D300 from 2008 or the Kodak Special from 1914. Sure, the look of the images is quite different, but none the less I'm going to get the shot I previsualized no matter what I'm shooting with. For some kinds of shots I have to use specific gear of course. My 1914 or 1937 cameras just can't take photos of fast moving freight trains at night using flash as they have no sync port. However, if I were to take either my Nikon system, 4x5 system, or just my 1914 Kodak out for a weekend, I'm going to come back with some nice shots. Different shots, but nice all the same. What I've learned is that the ability to "see" and use light is the whole thing, along with being able to previsualize the shot. You then use the gear to get what you want. Another thing I'm beginning to believe is that software skills are now at least a third of photography, maybe more. It's software that's helping me match what my camera captures up to what I previsualized before I took the shot.
I'm going to disagree with Richard a little and say that I don't think even sharpness matters all that much. My 1959 Kodak Brownie Hawkeye has a simple plastic meniscus lens which is anything but sharp, but some of my favorite shots the past year came from it. I think it all comes down to using Light effectively.
Luke, I agree that the most important thing is the lighting, but I think the Light itself is generally the subject. As for God controlling the light, well maybe during daytime. At night, my seven high powered monolights give ME the power to create the light. That gives me near total control. When you control the very essence of the photo--The Light, anything can become an interesting photo. Even a sewege pipe. Shot with the Bessa on HP5. Shutter held open in bulb mode while I popped one Nikon SB-28 twice:
Perhaps I need to clarify something regarding film.
Sure, I would love it if folks used film in order to keep it alive; especially medium and large format. However, I totally understand where you and others are coming from, and I did not want to start a film vs. digital debate.
In Barabara's other thread (Reason's for not posting larger versions), where she was talking evaluating focus, I mentioned film and a loupe because there is no computer software or video required that may distort what the image actually shows.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
--P
I totally agree on all counts, Preston, and most certainly don't want to start (yet another) film v. digital debate. My post was more along the lines of how digital, in and of itself, has made my life so much less complicated. No matter how much I love results with LF film in particular.
And Barbara, considering going from simple to complex in gear, in recent years we're going the other way--- from complex to simple. We have the "luxury" of a mountain of gear, but for day to day use we carry as little as possible, and less each year. It's been my experience that a heavy load of "options" in gear actually cuts down on my productivity because it limits how far I'll walk and how long I'll stay out, even as it eats up time switching and swapping lenses in any setting.
Unless we really need the Nth degree of sharpness, the big HEAVY pro-grade lenses and massive tripods stay in the safe at the studio or in the truck at the trail head, and we carry consumer grade zooms and lightweight tripods into the field. I find lots more photo ops in changing scenes in front of me on longer walks than I do in multiple gear changes for fewer scenes on a short walk.
Or am I just getting lazy? I know for sure that I'm getting old!
Posted by Kent Staubus on January 1, 2011 at 2:42 PM
Hank--
I too find I'm going lighter and lighter. I'm replacing my Vagabond battery packs with the new lithium packs: 3 pounds vs. 15 pounds. I also carry less lenses etc., relying on all purpose zooms. Usually those are Nikon f2.8. However, last summer in Iceland I lost my 77mm polarizer. I watched it roll over the edge of Dettifoss. Without a polarizer, my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 was pretty much useless. So, I started using my back up lens, the Nikon 18-55mm VR with 52mm polarizer. Since it was daylight virtually 20 hours there, I stopped down to f8. I found no difference in image quality between the $1,200 lens and the $120 lens. Made me think a little.
Kent in SD
Posted by Brad Mangas on January 1, 2011 at 5:43 PM
You raise a valid point Barbara, those who chose to respond will have personal opinions of varying degrees and that is how a forum like this should be. You have fun here that is the bottom line, that is what makes an online forum like this work. There are many very talented photographers who are more than willing to answer questions when it comes to improving ones knowledge, that is the good side. There is also a side that caters towards perfection that can only describe such perfection as how "they" see it as if you must follow "these" rules or your work sucks. There are also those who will follow suit with the first few comments on say a well known photographers posting of an image, as if they really are unable to formulate their own opinion they simply go along with the crowd in hopes of "fitting in" with comment after comment of Super!, Great!, Wonderful!, Outstanding! Unbelievable!, Amazing!, and the lemmings just keep falling of the cliff if you know what I mean. After some time spent here you can determine quite easily one group from the other. One thing that I believe is helpful is that when someone critiques your photo and is quite harsh, don't take it personally, and just as important when someone critiques your photo and praises it, don't take it personally. Take opinions for what they are, opinions of a single person. You know the old saying, everybody has one.
Thank you all very much for your input here. I had wondered if anything I might ever achieve would be too shallow given that I don't have the background in film that some of you do. I mean, my knowledge of film was buying it, putting it in the camera, taking snapshots, taking the film out of the camera and taking it to be developed. So I don't have any of the deep background in photography that some of you do. But it sounds from your input that that isn't "required," so that's really a relief to me. If I want to be good at something I want to be really good at it, not just shallowly good at it.
Luke, a couple of years? Really? That gives me tremendous hope.
I really appreciate the information from you all about what to focus on, as well.
Brad, I have noticed what you say about groups of people. I have been working, really working, lately at getting my post to comment ratio where it needs to be, and on putting at least one substantive thing that I like in my comments, and even on making some suggestions, and in spending the time I've spent looking at All Photos to comment I've noticed how some people will post and get 35 comments within an hour or so, and others who probably need or wish for actual critique more will be lucky to get 2 or 3 comments over a several-hour or even several-day period. That kind of makes me sad for people. (I am almost at a 1 post to 3 comments ratio now, which considering my posting blitz at first is pretty good, I think. But I'm going to keep on until I pass 1 to 3 and then 1 to 4 and then 1 to 5 and keep going from there.)
I do think I've done a pretty good job of not taking things personally either way, good or bad, but if I were king I would say that I think people should say something good along with whatever suggestions they have (and some of you do that unbelievably helpfully). Otherwise it's like people do all the work they do with an image and post it for people to just look right over the good and comment only on the bad. I personally don't think that's helpful. When I am out taking pictures now I have in my mind the things people have liked, so I can try to keep doing those things, just as much as the things people don't like, so I can try to avoid those things.
As far as having fun and shooting what I enjoy shooting, I'm definitely still doing that. I did wonder for a period of time, as I said in a couple of my posts, whether my "vision" was different from everybody else's, but since then I've realized that my vision is different from some people's but not from everybody's, so I'm actually doing both now, doing things I like and maybe not even posting them here but also trying to do things according to the feedback I get here and posting those.
Bottom line for me, you all have relieved my mind here about the fact that I don't have to have a deep background in film in order to have my future work be worth anything much. Thank you for that!
Honest reaction from teaching photography both in the era and film and in the digital age?
I've seen that the learning curve is much shorter with digital, simply because a shooter can get instant feedback from the LCD right there on site, rather than waiting hours or days to find out if something worked or not. It's still hard to contain the Machine Gun Kelly approach of shooting lots and sorting later, but if you're thoughtful and studious while shooting, that instant feedback is invaluable. Your work still needs to see the light of day in reviews by others, but that's useful with both film or digital for helping you tune your eye.
And having your own vision? That's the hardest thing to learn and the easiest to loose under the hail storm of critical reviews. There's a tremendous impulse to conform to the taste of others and fit in, to the detriment of developing your own vision. If you started out with that, you're already miles ahead of average photographers. Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead toward continued development of your own vision!
Posted by Kent Staubus on January 1, 2011 at 11:30 PM
Barbara--
You don't have to know much of anything about film. Just learn how to see and use Light. Really, it's that simple. When you are looking at photos you want to comment on, analyze the light and how they used it. That's about all that matters.
Thanks, Kent. I completely agree with that. I do like "different" types of light (I really like contrast between light and dark), but I am still so much more careful now than I was before learning more about light here. There are a dozen or more people here who have been, and still are, what to me is extraordinarily helpful in teaching me about light and everything else, and I'm so grateful for that.
Discussion
14 repliesOne never knows what is going to happen, even from one minute to the next, I know, but at this point I don't visualize any of that for myself. As you all know, I know that I need a DSLR camera and the best lenses I can afford at any point, but beyond that and accessories like a bean bag and a white umbrella and those kinds of things I don't foresee getting more complicated than that. I can't imagine I'm the only one here whose digital photography falls at that point on the spectrum or who has wondered about this.
If you feel free to express them, what thoughts do you all have about the very simple and the very complicated and everything in between when it comes to digital nature photography? Thank you for any input.
I've been doing this photography thing for a couple of years and still don't own a tripod (I've been meaning to get one, but it's just not a priority). There are some photographers (bird and macro photographers in particular) who could not fathom shooting WITHout a tripod.
I don't own a flash and don't have much of a need for one - outside of the occasional macro work. I only use Photoshop for my processing and like to keep things pretty simple.
The more you get into it and more time you spend, the more you'll fall into your niche and discover what you need and what you want. There are some photographers who are caught up in the technology and try to get every new piece of tech and software that comes out - but I've never noticed that their photography was better than someone else's. The most important "accessories" are your lighting and your subject, and God has most of the control there
My photography tools are pretty basic...
A light-tight box with a piece of film at one end and a lens with a shutter and aperture at the other, and a spot meter to measure the light. Once I have my developed film in my hand I use a scanner and Photo Shop to bring my images to the web, and/ or final print.
The intensity arises at each of four stages in the process:
1. Carefully evaluating a scene in terms of compositional elements, quality of the light and subject brightness range, and how I want the final image to look.
2. Carefully adjusting my camera's controls so that when I expose the film I have a 'score' from which I can create the 'performance'.
3. Carefully evaluating my developed film and adjusting scanner controls in order to obtain a digital file that requires the least amount of post processing in Photo Shop.
4. Carefully evaluating my scanned image in Photo Shop and then making creative adjustments in order to realize the visualization I had in mind in stage one.
Any of the 'tool's of photography can be placed on a scale from very simple to very complex, and anywhere between those extremes. As with any tool, we begin by learning and mastering the simple and move through stages to the complex. If we attempt to start at the high end of the scale, frustration and, possibly, failure will be the result.
When I look at your work here at NPN I see that you are making excellent progress with the tools you already have. I can also see that you are experiencing a level of frustration. Don't worry about it. We've all been there at one time or another. The key is to evaluate and learn from what you have done so that you can apply those lessons in the future. In doing so, you will continue to make good progress, and then the more complex and advanced tools and techniques will follow in due order.
Above all, Barbara...Have fun!
--P
Perhaps I need to clarify something regarding film.
Sure, I would love it if folks used film in order to keep it alive; especially medium and large format. However, I totally understand where you and others are coming from, and I did not want to start a film vs. digital debate.
In Barabara's other thread (Reason's for not posting larger versions), where she was talking evaluating focus, I mentioned film and a loupe because there is no computer software or video required that may distort what the image actually shows.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
--P
Let your interest in the world drive what you photograph. Keep taking photos until you master the basics of sharpness and exposure. Pay attention to the light. Read a couple good books on photoshop for nature photographers and learn the basics of post processing (understanding the histogram, adjustment layers and masks). When your skills and interests outgrow your camera and lens you can upgrade your gear to fit what you really need.
Here's what I've come to think. The camera I have, the lens, etc. just don't matter. I'm going to make some nice images no matter if my camera is the Nikon D300 from 2008 or the Kodak Special from 1914. Sure, the look of the images is quite different, but none the less I'm going to get the shot I previsualized no matter what I'm shooting with. For some kinds of shots I have to use specific gear of course. My 1914 or 1937 cameras just can't take photos of fast moving freight trains at night using flash as they have no sync port. However, if I were to take either my Nikon system, 4x5 system, or just my 1914 Kodak out for a weekend, I'm going to come back with some nice shots. Different shots, but nice all the same. What I've learned is that the ability to "see" and use light is the whole thing, along with being able to previsualize the shot. You then use the gear to get what you want. Another thing I'm beginning to believe is that software skills are now at least a third of photography, maybe more. It's software that's helping me match what my camera captures up to what I previsualized before I took the shot.
I'm going to disagree with Richard a little and say that I don't think even sharpness matters all that much. My 1959 Kodak Brownie Hawkeye has a simple plastic meniscus lens which is anything but sharp, but some of my favorite shots the past year came from it. I think it all comes down to using Light effectively.
Luke, I agree that the most important thing is the lighting, but I think the Light itself is generally the subject. As for God controlling the light, well maybe during daytime. At night, my seven high powered monolights give ME the power to create the light. That gives me near total control. When you control the very essence of the photo--The Light, anything can become an interesting photo. Even a sewege pipe. Shot with the Bessa on HP5. Shutter held open in bulb mode while I popped one Nikon SB-28 twice:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s5/duckgrabber/U-Pipe.jpg
Kent in SD
I totally agree on all counts, Preston, and most certainly don't want to start (yet another) film v. digital debate. My post was more along the lines of how digital, in and of itself, has made my life so much less complicated. No matter how much I love results with LF film in particular.
And Barbara, considering going from simple to complex in gear, in recent years we're going the other way--- from complex to simple. We have the "luxury" of a mountain of gear, but for day to day use we carry as little as possible, and less each year. It's been my experience that a heavy load of "options" in gear actually cuts down on my productivity because it limits how far I'll walk and how long I'll stay out, even as it eats up time switching and swapping lenses in any setting.
Unless we really need the Nth degree of sharpness, the big HEAVY pro-grade lenses and massive tripods stay in the safe at the studio or in the truck at the trail head, and we carry consumer grade zooms and lightweight tripods into the field. I find lots more photo ops in changing scenes in front of me on longer walks than I do in multiple gear changes for fewer scenes on a short walk.
Or am I just getting lazy? I know for sure that I'm getting old!
I too find I'm going lighter and lighter. I'm replacing my Vagabond battery packs with the new lithium packs: 3 pounds vs. 15 pounds. I also carry less lenses etc., relying on all purpose zooms. Usually those are Nikon f2.8. However, last summer in Iceland I lost my 77mm polarizer. I watched it roll over the edge of Dettifoss.
Kent in SD
Luke, a couple of years? Really? That gives me tremendous hope.
I really appreciate the information from you all about what to focus on, as well.
Brad, I have noticed what you say about groups of people. I have been working, really working, lately at getting my post to comment ratio where it needs to be, and on putting at least one substantive thing that I like in my comments, and even on making some suggestions, and in spending the time I've spent looking at All Photos to comment I've noticed how some people will post and get 35 comments within an hour or so, and others who probably need or wish for actual critique more will be lucky to get 2 or 3 comments over a several-hour or even several-day period. That kind of makes me sad for people. (I am almost at a 1 post to 3 comments ratio now, which considering my posting blitz at first is pretty good, I think.
I do think I've done a pretty good job of not taking things personally either way, good or bad, but if I were king I would say that I think people should say something good along with whatever suggestions they have (and some of you do that unbelievably helpfully). Otherwise it's like people do all the work they do with an image and post it for people to just look right over the good and comment only on the bad. I personally don't think that's helpful. When I am out taking pictures now I have in my mind the things people have liked, so I can try to keep doing those things, just as much as the things people don't like, so I can try to avoid those things.
As far as having fun and shooting what I enjoy shooting, I'm definitely still doing that. I did wonder for a period of time, as I said in a couple of my posts, whether my "vision" was different from everybody else's, but since then I've realized that my vision is different from some people's but not from everybody's, so I'm actually doing both now, doing things I like and maybe not even posting them here but also trying to do things according to the feedback I get here and posting those.
Bottom line for me, you all have relieved my mind here about the fact that I don't have to have a deep background in film in order to have my future work be worth anything much. Thank you for that!
I've seen that the learning curve is much shorter with digital, simply because a shooter can get instant feedback from the LCD right there on site, rather than waiting hours or days to find out if something worked or not. It's still hard to contain the Machine Gun Kelly approach of shooting lots and sorting later, but if you're thoughtful and studious while shooting, that instant feedback is invaluable. Your work still needs to see the light of day in reviews by others, but that's useful with both film or digital for helping you tune your eye.
And having your own vision? That's the hardest thing to learn and the easiest to loose under the hail storm of critical reviews. There's a tremendous impulse to conform to the taste of others and fit in, to the detriment of developing your own vision. If you started out with that, you're already miles ahead of average photographers. Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead toward continued development of your own vision!
You don't have to know much of anything about film. Just learn how to see and use Light. Really, it's that simple. When you are looking at photos you want to comment on, analyze the light and how they used it. That's about all that matters.
Kent in SD