Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-02-2013, 03:01 PM   #16
dms
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,623
It used to be said: it's legal but its not photography" and it's still true. Of course if you allow for intelligent looking and/or cropping then it was and is photography--even if camera operates automatically. But the fraction of pictures that are good improves with technical competency.

05-02-2013, 03:08 PM - 1 Like   #17
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,264
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
I am actually slowly losing interest in photography because its looking like as the DSLR's automated features get better and better, you literally can just hand any idiot a camera, give them 5 minutes of pointers on composition and they will be able to produce a frustratingly large number of fairly good shots, especially standard shots like recording a family event.
We aren't obviously to the point just yet where automated controls have replaced a pro with manual controls, but they are good enough that an amateur just leaves the camera on A now and its embarrassing how often even pros just leave things on auto in their everyday photography now.

Now add in photoshop. Not even the really detailed manually controlled kind of photoshop, but the auto level, highlight and shadow recovery, fix the screw ups automated sort of photoshop and many of those fairly good shots become really great shots.

I actually watched a Nikon sponsored mini series from Korea where they basically handed a Kpop group 4 mid range DSLR's (basically Nikon K30 equivalent as I recall) and had a mini photo contest among them. They actually did surprisingly well for having no training and only automatic functions on a mid level.

This is really more of a venting at this point but I find myself reverting all the way back to darkroom developed black and white from a K1000 just so I can say "HA lets see you do that!" and stay interested.

I'm actually seriously tempted to sell the K20D and pick up a WG3 since it would get used WAY more and I could keep the film stuff for the real photography. I'm not so sure about the battery tech used in it or I would have done it already.
It's exactly the opposite of what I felt - more and more people can afford high end camera but still producing crappy shots. Really, photography is more than just camera.
05-02-2013, 03:47 PM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,434
FWIW, these days instead of being able to pay a lab to develop my film, and have a relationship with a good printer who knows me and will discuss contacts and negs and options and then produce what we discussed, now I have to fart around in Photoshop, which I can't do very well and i have to print, which I don't have the gear to do anyway. (Actually, all of the above is my wife's lament, but whatever).

The curse of modern photography is they've somehow convinced us all that with modern technology we can be as good at the entire workflow as the specialists were at each piece of it 30 years ago - so long as we buy all their software and gear (and that lie about, "The computer is there anyway.").

Last edited by monochrome; 05-02-2013 at 04:41 PM.
05-02-2013, 04:32 PM   #19
Senior Member
JenniferLeigh's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 280
Just wait until they tweak that deblurring tool and it reaches the public - then we'll really be in trouble

We have the knowledge and technology at our fingertips, it's a lot easier to learn photography than it was 20 years ago. The only thing that bothers me is the comment "oh that's a beautiful photograph, you must have a good camera". In my option, the camera is just a tool, and how you use it makes all the difference. For me I like to strive to create work that captures something more than my technical skill.

Oh and btw, the battery on the WG2 is bad, I hear the WG3 is worse.

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
FWIW, these days instead of being able to pay a lab to develop my film, and have a relationship with a good printer who knows me and will discuss contacts and negs and options and then produce what we discussed, now I have to fart around in Photoshop, which I can't do very well and i have to print, which I don't have the gear to do anyway. (Actually, all of the above is my wife's lament, but whatever).
Printing is a whole nother beast. This is where I am blessed. I co-founded a fine art print studio years ago, and my boyfriend still runs it. While my print skills are basic, I have access to a pro who knows the ins and outs of printing.


Last edited by JenniferLeigh; 05-02-2013 at 05:36 PM.
05-02-2013, 04:38 PM   #20
Site Supporter
JimJohnson's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Superior - Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,271
If modern photography is idiot-proof, then I'm worse than an idiot because I still take any number of clunker images. Just a couple days ago I had bumped exposure compensation without resetting it when putting the camera away. Luckily I blew out the highlights on only a few shots before I noticed. That's only the most recent screw-up.
05-02-2013, 05:33 PM - 1 Like   #21
dms
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,623
Agree about printing--as we get used to more prints by amateurs--the level of acceptable prints is reduced--and we accept poorer images than we used to.
05-02-2013, 05:47 PM   #22
Veteran Member
Bcrary3's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 364
QuoteOriginally posted by dms Quote
Agree about printing--as we get used to more prints by amateurs--the level of acceptable prints is reduced--and we accept poorer images than we used to.
However, in our defense, the prices to have anything done professionally is just too high, so people start doing it themselves. I personally am no expert, but I am very happy with the printing results I get from my printer, even without doing all kinds of fancy things to it. Mostly because I don't want to break my printer... I think with the right tools, and a tiny bit of know how anyone can be good at printing, with acceptable quality images to begin with... None of that JPEG crap. IMHO it is best to either print TIFF or PDF files.. I typically use PDF (works better with my HP Designjet z2100)
05-02-2013, 06:14 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,434
QuoteOriginally posted by JenniferLeigh Quote
Printing is a whole nother beast. This is where I am blessed. I co-founded a fine art print studio years ago, and my boyfriend still runs it. While my print skills are basic, I have access to a pro who knows the ins and outs of printing.
Well a friend just told me to come get his entire darkroom before it gets thrown out. Omega DP2, I think, stainless tanks, spools, frames, easels - so I guess I'll have to print.

05-02-2013, 06:18 PM   #24
Veteran Member
Bcrary3's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 364
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Well a friend just told me to come get his entire darkroom before it gets thrown out. Omega DP2, I think, stainless tanks, spools, frames, easels - so I guess I'll have to print.
They still make photographic processing chemicals that are available to the public? I've got all my grandfathers old darkroom stuff, however I have little to no clue how to use it, or if I even have it all... I do know I have a very nice Durst M (something or another) colour enlarger... Would any of that stuff even have any value left in it?
05-02-2013, 06:25 PM - 1 Like   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,434
QuoteOriginally posted by Bcrary3 Quote
They still make photographic processing chemicals that are available to the public? I've got all my grandfathers old darkroom stuff, however I have little to no clue how to use it, or if I even have it all... I do know I have a very nice Durst M (something or another) colour enlarger... Would any of that stuff even have any value left in it?
I personally know as much as you do. My wife and daughters are the darkroom rats. From what I read here chemicals and paper are available, but my guess is, over time, they will become expensive art craft supplies for real printing artists rather than middle class hobby supplies.

I'm going to go get the stuff for the same reason I keep old Takumar lenses - it is still useful and I admire the engineering. I guess I'll have to take something at the Community College, but what else do I have to do with my Thursday nights?

Last edited by monochrome; 05-02-2013 at 07:34 PM.
05-02-2013, 06:43 PM   #26
Veteran Member
Bcrary3's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 364
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
IU personally know as much as you do. My wife and daughters are the darkroom rats. From what I read here chemicals and paper are available, but my guess is, over time, they will become expensive art craft supplies for real printing artists rather than midlle class hobby supplies.

I'm going to go get the stuff for the same reason I keep old Takumar lenses - it is still useful and I admire the engineering. I guess I'll have to take someting at the Community College, but what else do I have to do with my Thursday nights?
I know B&H carried them a few years ago, Kodak announced that they'd no longer be in the photographic world, I don't know if they are still producing anything or not. I know B&H still carries Kodak film, however I don't know if it is just stock stuff they are getting rid of, or if they are actually able to get it from the Eastman Kodak company.
05-02-2013, 07:01 PM   #27
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,872
QuoteOriginally posted by Bcrary3 Quote
I know B&H carried them a few years ago, Kodak announced that they'd no longer be in the photographic world, I don't know if they are still producing anything or not. I know B&H still carries Kodak film, however I don't know if it is just stock stuff they are getting rid of, or if they are actually able to get it from the Eastman Kodak company.
Kodak still produces film and chemicals. They just had a big press release about Amazing Spiderman 2 being filmed on Kodak film, and a car chase being filmed in Rochester. Kodak has stopped producing E-6 film, but Fuji still makes it and Kodak will make the chemicals as long someone is making film.

Even if color film is no longer produced B&W film and chemicals will be produced, but as Monochrome says, it may be more costly.
05-02-2013, 07:22 PM   #28
Pentaxian
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,295
QuoteOriginally posted by Jimfear Quote
This is an interesting question that I have been thinking about before. I absolutely think that the story behind the photo is a part in making it special. Thus photos that are harder to make tend to appeal more to me.

Take for example this picture and this picture. If judged only for the final image, they are both quite blurry and unspectacular in just about every way. It is only when you know that these are actual pictures of American troops landing at Omaha beach on D-day that they make an impact. And such an impact that both have become some of the most iconic pictures of the 20th century. If they had been produced in a studio two weeks ago nobody would even raise an eyebrow.

I can fully understand the "final image" viewpoint, but for me it's interesting to know if the photo is a product of photoshop or what was actually in front of the lens when you pressed the shutter. It probably boils down to personal preferences in photography and what you find interesting.
I understand the OP's frustration.
There are many aspects of appreciation of a photo. The historical moment captured (as per your examples), or even the more mundane historical records of interest. After all, photography is first of all, about capturing a moment . A pretty image, to me is a secondary aspect, and one I am becoming less fascinated with it. Silky water and HDR have become so "Calender cliche" to me now. I see them as manufactured images that have lost their natural 'spontaneity' and are common now that processing is so much a part of modern photography. Someone else equated it to 'elevator music', which is a bit harsh as there are some skillful examples aplenty.
I find myself responding subconsciously to the typical film shot of the past, as it was seldom altered from the original. A good picture on a slide really locked in what you took. Your framing, your exposure, your focus. You had to be good to make it good. (I am not addressing the ability of photographers being better or worse in any given time period, but rather what they choose to be good at).
More and more I see my own preferences shifting to freezing a moment of interest for posterity, and trying to keep that image natural. By natural, I mean that it doesn't look processed, which is a look I am rapidly becoming tired of despite some stunning work done in PP. Just not my thing.

Last edited by arnold; 05-02-2013 at 08:06 PM.
05-02-2013, 07:55 PM   #29
Site Supporter
JimJohnson's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Superior - Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,271
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Kodak has stopped producing E-6 film, but Fuji still makes it

B&W film and chemicals will be produced, but as Monochrome says, it may be more costly.
It was the loss of Kodak Ektachrome (E-6) that caused me to substantially stop doing SLR photography for many years. I wasn't a Kodachrome fan and Fujichrome just never did anything for me. I liked B&W work when I had my own darkroom, but 'drugstore' prints did nothing for me, and I couldn't afford to work with the pros long distance.

The only costly part of B&W photography is the film and paper - and that's because it uses silver, and while there are of course practical limits, the more silver the better the image. Even if you can't find a photo specific source for the chemistry, many of the most popular commercial formulas were published. You can buy what you need mail-order from chemical supply houses. Your primary tool to make your own photo chemicals is an accurate scale.
05-02-2013, 08:56 PM   #30
Veteran Member
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 847
Original Poster
If you are getting into film check out Ilford, they are in my opinion the best one stop shop for everything and their website was geared to have all the data an expert would need but be simple enough to explain the differences between developer A and developer B when you are trying to choose everything for the first time.
First read the many online darkroom tutorials people have so you know what it is you are actually buying.

The satisfaction level from a good darkroom wet print taken from a manual camera is so impossibly freaking higher that I consider it a must for everyone to try it at some point.
Darkroom "photoshop" is different from electronic photoshop in my opinion because it is much more technically demanding and precise (you get it right or you start totally over) and everything has to be done manually, no shortcut tools or auto functions. That might be considered a bother for many but its what makes the end result satisfying.
I would pay a great deal in some cases for a real darkroom wet print that I liked since every single one is unique and hand made. The stuff photo shop coughs through your printer has no value to me except as a record of something.
Ansel Adams and other greats did indeed use a great deal of darkroom trickery but it was truly a work of art to see it done, the worksheets they used when planning exposure look like charts for football plays and the masks for the photo looked like someone was trying to cut out snowflakes.

These are random thoughts with no real coherent message. I accept that I have issues, am often narrow minded or even bitter and am a bit of a film camera snob. I am glad that photography is available to the masses and people can cheaply and easily record their lives in high quality and then post it all on facebook. It is better for news and documentary photographers to be able to shoot rapidly changing situations in automatic modes without having to focus or even hold perfectly still, instead of fiddling with controls.
I just miss the time when making a photo really well meant something, now it seems to be taken for granted and I hate working hard and then having the work taken for granted.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
auto, camera, controls, dslr, level, mini, nikon, photography, photoshop, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Modern Photography tests Pentax 645 - 1985 Nesster Pentax Medium Format 7 03-20-2012 09:09 PM
Bachmann is an idiot jogiba General Talk 22 11-13-2011 07:46 PM
Modern Photography Theory mikemike General Talk 11 05-19-2011 01:14 PM
Inside your K2 - '76 Modern Photography Nesster Pentax Film SLR Discussion 10 05-18-2011 07:47 AM
DA* 55mm f/1.4 - I'm an idiot, but oh well... DRabbit Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 05-12-2011 04:29 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:05 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top