|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/31/2006 12:32:40 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by shanelighter:
You are in fact right, that does seem rather trivial. I believe someone else added up a 35mm frame as being like 29 cents. While that does surely add up, that never stopped most of us from shooting film like mad anyways. |
It always stopped me.
To me, the digital revolution meant that I, too, could "snap away like mad" just like "real photographers" or those who have their costs paid for by the magazine or whatever ...
I think there's a lot of agreement that the way you get better at any skill is to practice it, which for photography means snapping the shutter.
Digital is not free -- I estimate between hard disk space and backup media (CD/DVD, etc.) that each frame still costs about 5 cents, and a $500 camera which lasts for 200,000 shutter actuations means each one costs 4 cents -- though that cost would exist for a film camera as well -- but it's cheaper than film, and most of all, stays within your control, even if you don't have a darkroom and chemistry skills ... |
|
|
|
05/31/2006 12:37:52 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If you were printing it in a brochure, then it was almost certainly adjusted by the process camera/scanner operator and/or graphic artist before it went to press. |
Yep that is true but only to a very very limited amount. When the Advertising Agency bought us the transparencies, they were always as we expected to see them in print. It was my job to review and approve what we used and it was never our expectation that we would see anything other than what the transparency showed.
I would inspect the start of the print run and if the colour was not faithful to what we had approved (i.e. the transparency) the presses were stopped and the plates re-made. When I was doing this in the 80's digital manipulation was just beginning but was so expensive it was never used. Fascinating process.
Brett |
|
|
|
05/31/2006 12:42:38 AM · #28 |
You might be able to pick up a Crosfield scanner cheap these days : )
It's true, usually the scanner operator was supposed to be trying to match the transparency, but often, when they saw how that translated into actual CMYK inks/proofs, further adjustments were necessary.
Also, if you're doing professional product shots like that, you'll probably have plenty of balanced light and reflectors and a gray card and stuff not always available to most of us. |
|
|
|
05/31/2006 01:33:20 AM · #29 |
I finally got around to reading the essay and I have mixed feelings on it. I haven't read this entire thread, so please forgive me if some of my thoughts have already been posted...
I think the essay is a bit presumptuous, to say the least. I suppose if I was an avid landscape photographer, most of what is covered in that essay would hold true. I can't think of many other types of photography that it would apply to, so, it seems very narrow-minded.
Even if I was an avid landscape photographer, I would not likely take this approach in my own work. I have lots of advantages that William Henry Jackson did not. I tend to explore with my camera, review what I saw, and then determine what is worthy of extended attention. When I visit a new place, I have the advantage of a 4-wheel drive donkey that never gets tired, and my entire camera bag weighs less than one of his 20x24" wet plates. I can survey with my camera, review my results at my leisure, and return to the scene, if I want to. My camera is more of a multi-purpose tool than his was. I can afford to use my camera for documentary purposes, as well as creating a 'fine art' photograph if I choose.
If I visited Yellowstone, I would likely do just this. I would not spend any significant amount of time working a single scene. I would do 'drive by shootings' and review what I had at a later time. If I saw additional potential, I would return to the site and perform the more inclusive exploration.
On another note, I'm very fond of prints that I have seen made from wet plate negatives. They are beautiful for sure. I respect the 'suffering' that our forefathers endured to create what I have available to me today. I do not, however, believe that I should mimic their processes when I have more efficient methods at my disposal today. I have studied, and continue to study, those methods and techniques for my own benefit, but I don't intend to use them :) I prefer to advance my techniques rather than revert to what was done over 100 years ago.
If my effort is diluted, then it is diluted. What matters the most is whether or not "I" am happy with what I'm doing. If I present a photograph for public viewing, the viewer has no way of knowing whether or not I spent 30 seconds, 3 hours, or 3 days in creating what they are viewing. If the content of the image doesn't speak loudly enough, it doesn't matter what went into making it. The suffering of the artist who creates an image is only important in pop culture. It doesn't change what a viewer sees.
This essay seems to say that if I find something interesting, I should spend significantly more time that I would normally think necessary to 'work' the subject. I do agree that extra attention to any subject will usually render a finer result. I don't agree that it will make the image any more meaningful to me or anyone else who may view it. WHAT we point the camera at is quite often more important than how we point the camera.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2006 01:50:57 AM · #30 |
I was reading somewhere that one of the famous picture magazines, the National Geographic, averages 29,000 shots taken for each story published. Yes, even the pros are shoting a lot to try to get that one good shot. But I would agree that advances in technology of photography- especially home digital editing, can make modern photographers lazier, allowing them to get away with correcting mistakes that would have been considered rejects in the past. But by taking large numbers of pictures and seeing what adjustments you need to make - even in the digital darkroom- help the photographer learn what they need to do to make a better picture in the first place. The ability to take many photos cheaply- almost at no additional cost- allows for greater experimentation and a shorter learning time than with film. I take massively more pictures than I used to with film and I am learning better how to do it than I ever did.
[/url] |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 10:16:34 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 10:16:34 PM EDT.
|
