[biz-engineer]

Sure, but how many pictures had you taken with all sorts of cameras and lenses in all sorts of conditions prior to taking that one image?

One picture, because I can visualize the picture in live view mode before it's taken. Pre-processing an image before it's taken or post-processing images is a deliberate choice. It's more difficult to get 1/1 success because it requires a lot of preparation and visualization, most people don't do it. I remember a time , I went days before on a landscpae location but I didn't take any picture, I came back again at the same spot in the evening but there wasn't any cloud so I didn't take any picture, I came back again the next day before sunset, dark moving clouds where here, and the sun setting at the horizon, I took one 2 minutes expose. I visualize the picture at the back of the camera and say "Bingo, I got it". I make two prints out of it. During that full week I took 15 pictures in total, got 6 prints. But I prepared weeks in advance, for selecting the location , finding the right time to go, looking a the weather forecast, scouting the location during the day for the next evening and early morning. I learned from Vieri Bottazzini (known as "The Madshutter" in PF, https://www.vieribottazzini.com/), Vieri is former Pentax 645 user, and he's now shooting with a Phase One XT system and he's a Phase One ambassador. This took me to a completely different level, now I shoot less than 1000 pictures per years, but the quality of the pictures I take is outstanding.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 01-17-2022 at 04:53 AM.

[BigMackCam]

Is photography dead?
A long time ago, common sense and skill ruled photography. If you needed to deal with alot of sun, you got a lens hood on your lens. If you were dealing with reflections in stuff, you got a CPL on that lens and fiddled till it was good again.

Now, in the world of photography those basics concepts are GONE.. I am serious. Really I am. I guess the ability to use the AI feature in photo shop has destroyed skill or common sense. Afterall the certified professional photographer course of study is 35% digital post production. And the CPP test itself is going by several older tests found online, roughly 40% digital editing based.

And roughly 10% based on basic camera knowledge like shutter speed, iso, aperture, and dealing with common issues solved with a lens hood.

On forums i have been, people who have sold services as a photographer for 10 or more years, have been excited by newbies to cameras, who have exclaimed "i did a shoot with a friend, i took 400 photos and I actually got ONE that was good enough to edit in photo shop".

And called them skilled...

I attended a wedding a few years ago. It wasnt great but i had taken my nikon d7500 and my vitomatic II to do some specialized photos. I wasnt allowed to take them out of the car sadly.

The so called professional photographer was an idiot. Sure the woman had scouted the the wedding spot 2 weeks before but had not been smart enough to go back the previous day due to the weather changing.. fall weddings outside require that effort you know. SO when the wedding started, the woman could only do half the photo work because she couldnt PUT A LENS HOOD on the lens..

Could not comprehend that she would have to change positions for shooting based on those conditions, just absolutely failed..

But worse yet was her "student/assitant". They TRIED to do a photo of the bride inside a room with the blinds closed... absolutely could not do a thing. They had to turn the lights on and open the blinds wide open.. Even though the camera being used by the 'profesional" was a Nikon D5.

And in the photos I saw.... the camera had been left in the auto exposure setting.....

For as long as photography has existed, there have been unskilled and simply bad photographers. That hasn't changed.

As for old concepts, they're still alive and well, and mostly still relevant... but they've been augmented with additional and alternative approaches and technologies. Things evolve... not always for the better, depending on the individual's point of view, but there it is. What matters is that we have the benefit of choice... we can fully embrace the latest technologies and methods, or cling to our old ways of doing things - or else, more likely, some mix of the two. We've no need to feel threatened or displaced by the inevitable march of progress, though.

[Sidney Porter]

I think there are more good photographers today than in the day of film. Digital allows instant feedback of what works and what doesn't work.

I did not keep great records back in the film days so I could not always reference what worked and what didn't. There were a lot of rules that people would remember (ie sunny 16) this would get you in the ballpark. But with digital there can be a lot more experimenting. I would think that course spent a lot more time explaining exposure because the impact of messing it up was greater

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Is photography dead?

As we know it, yes! I am afraid that the big names are all moving towards "easy photo making". Only in specific cases one will lug around a bag full of camera's and lenses. In all other cases people will search for a medium that is as easy handling as their mobile, and about the same weight and size and perhaps even smaller so they fit in a pocket or a lady's handbag. And if possible a bit better than their phone, so the gadgets like Theta will be a possibility and they are aimed at businesses and taking fun shots. I think that is the future, it is not photography but it certainly will be point and shoot. And the smaller, the more attraction it has to others.

[jgnfld]

Robert Frank’s classic The Americans has 83 photographs in it, shot in the 1950s. To get to those 83, he shot almost 28,000 in the heydays of film.

I’ll just park that thought there.

But not 28,000 copies made at 10 frames/sec and up. Just think how many frames there'd have been if he'd had a Z-9. Or even a K-50.

But would that have improved the final result?


I doubt it.

[StiffLegged]

As we know it, yes! I am afraid that the big names are all moving towards "easy photo making"…

May I politely and respectfully say that’s ripest tripe: there have been conveniently small, automated, pocketable cameras around for the past fifty years. Photography as we know it practiced has always been a mix of happy snappers, hobbyists, hardboiled professionals and Henri Cartier Bresson/Ernst Haas. It’s still no different. Of course someone will bewail the demise of Kodachrome or the collodion process, but what exactly is the difference between digital convenience and film convenience in terms of finished results?

Just my take on things, no offence intended or taken.

[StiffLegged]

But not 28,000 copies made at 10 frames/sec and up. Just think how many frames there'd have been if he'd had a Z-9. Or even a K-50.

But would that have improved the final result?


I doubt it.

Do you honestly think he’d have got the results he did carrying as noticeable a camera as a Z9 or as noisy as a K-50 on 3-4fps? I doubt that, in fact I think he’d have been knifed.

[JohnMc]

That's why I shot only Kodachrome for years, everything was controlled to Kodak specifications in authorized processing labs. Also zero post processing as well, just get out your Carousel projector and enjoy.

Phil.

Long before Kodachrome was glint in the eye of the musicians Mannes and Godowsky, painters knew the importance of good drapery.

The real question is, is the question of is photography dead, dead yet?

[niels hansen]

The digital area where film costs are almost zero has created a huge rise in the number of taken photos. The majority are technical rather good but the percentage of good pictures has not increased, maybe the opposite. If you make 100 poses of a scene one of them is obvious the best, but that does not always mean that it is a good picture. All of us oldtimers( I am 79) where economy was of concern had to concentrate, both in choosing the motives and the way we worked with the fundamental craft
There was a difference between black and white and colors. Only few amateurs made color in their own darkroom, I tried but the results were not great, probably lack of precise temperature control .
I consider myself as rather skilled in analogue black and white, I am among the least skilled in digital PP. I am impressed by the technical knowledge by many PFers,
Generally I find many digital photos without esthetic values, because there only seems to be one way to PP, maximum values on all the "buttons" They are "overshopped". The result is harsh contrasts and ugly colors. I often ask myself : Why is this photo published? What is the "story"?

Concerning weddings: " 2 - 5 times a year I am asked to make wedding photos in Black and White with my Mamiyaflex 330 tlr The concept is always the same: the couple is placed in front of the church door, looking out at their future life. The couples are happy, they get what they wanted, but often the mothers and girlfriends are a pain. WE miss the colors on the flowers etc .That single picture is my gift to the couple.
Ease in use -without reflections-causes misuse.
Of course I am happy with some of the digital possibilities' above all the lowlight performance. It would be nice if pdaf were more reliable

[filmmaster]

Just as photography requires skill and technique behind the camera, participating in online communities requires some skill and technique behind the keyboard. What we say is important, but also how we phrase it and the manner in which we present. It benefits from an appreciation of, and adherence to, current social norms when dealing with potentially sensitive topics, careful use of associated terminology, healthy doses of tolerance, tact and diplomacy, and adherence to membership and posting rules. Generally, folks in these communities want to enjoy their involvement and get on well with each other, and they don't like it when someone upsets the apple cart.

Over my years on PentaxForums I've seen quite a few members come and go, some with much useful knowledge and opinion to share who nonetheless seemed unable to do so in a manner that endeared them to other members and/or moderators. There are countless ways to say essentially the same thing; to get the same message across... but some folks don't put much thought into it. Most of us manage to tick someone off occasionally (I know I have ), usually unintentionally - but some make a habit of it, and some even seem intent on it. A small few such members still participate here, but not many. Most have either been banned or choose not to post any more (or only post infrequently).

Being booted from one online community is unfortunate, but I guess it could happen to anyone. Being booted from multiple communities might suggest there's a common underlying reason. I'm not saying you're at fault - but you might consider whether a different approach in your posting could have avoided any reaction, and prevent it from happening in future. We can all use an occasional reset

LOL when the same moderator does the booting on two different sites, its a moderator issue. And ironically if you get booted from a site for "spamming" because you posted 5 questions in a single week, on an item or brand sad moderator despises....

[vonBaloney]

Photography forums are the worst, I'll give you that. This place is a shining exception. Most gear-centric forums are like that. I've been kicked off forums before for stating the most simple objective facts you can think of because they were perceived as some kind of finger-wagging (they weren't, but they are still facts).

[filmmaster]

how is it skill if every single basic knowledge of film photography is rendered unwanted and unused by photo shopping it?


There was a dispute a year ago on photo.net about a guy with a high end mirrorless camera who had a hard time getting good shots of a clump of trees. Most of which were in shadow and the gaps between them horribly bright. His best image took half an hour to make with photo shop... but was just as grainy as the two images i made in a rebuttal that "you cant deal with that in camera". All i did was follow the horenstein brown book of photography comments on taking pictures of a person in heavy shade with a bright background.

[VSTAR]

Photography is not dead, and neither are good photographers. In the film days you had your camera body(ies), lenses, film, filters, and flash. But that was only half the job. Once the film was developed you were likely in your darkroom for hours and hours. And most amateurs were not doing weddings or special events as you never knew how the photos would turn out, so if you messed someone was going to be very upset and there was no recovering the event or the photos. What changed with digital…you now could see the photo instantly,built in filters, no darkroom, post processing. So now every amateur thinks they are a professional. Unfortunately not all their results look professional. And you also have videographers who think they are experienced enough in print photography and vice versa.
BTW…I probably posted this once before. Professionalism between a photographer at an event and another photographer at the event? Reminds me of the photog at my brothers wedding who walked up to me and flashed me a few times directly in my eyes. Why, because his remote flashes were triggered whenever I took a photo(my family asked me to take extra photos). Result…he was walking out to have a fight with me unti a relative intervened. And at his second marriage, accidentally left the 120 film at home. Asked the photog if he had extra and I would buy it from him. Realized I had no money, asked to bill my brother, nope. Got my father in law to give me the cash and the guy charged me double the going price.

What’s changed? Everyone believes they are a professional. The good side to it IMO, everyone now has the ability to produce professional photos and magnificent pieces of art on their own. And without days alone in the darkroom!

[BigMackCam]

LOL when the same moderator does the booting on two different sites, its a moderator issue.

I was a mod on PentaxForums for a couple of years, and you wouldn't believe how many times I've heard "it's a moderator issue", or words to that effect. If I learned anything as a mod, it's that the few folks who get banned are never at fault...

I was actually trying to help with my last post; I thought it might prompt a modicum of introspection... though I'll admit, my hopes weren't high

[StiffLegged]

how is it skill if every single basic knowledge of film photography is rendered unwanted and unused by photo shopping it?


There was a dispute a year ago on photo.net about a guy with a high end mirrorless camera who had a hard time …

The complaint about Photoshop is given the lie by your example. If the photographer doesn’t get the basic exposure right, all that digital post-processing is, to a greater or lesser extent, polishing a turd. It’s just the same in B&W printing when using a hard paper grade with much dodging to make something out of over-thin shadows - the results are muddy and grainy. I’ve done both over the years and have the turds to confirm it.

Owning a high-end camera of any sort doesn’t make you Alfred Stieglitz. Having Photoshop doesn’t mean you can shoot anything, at any setting, and always “fix it in post”. The basics of photography will always get you, like gravity always gets the skydiver.