Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,279   Posts: 1,534,853   Online: 752
      
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 86
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    607
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven L View Post
    You can learn the craft of photography with digital, settings to manual, limited shots and no peeking.
    You can also learn the craft of photography with digital, settings to TV or AV, as many shots as you want, and peeking after every shot. The only thing that's necessary for someone to learn that way is the desire to learn.

    If film had never been invented, and there was no photography until digital sensors appeared, I suppose there wouldn't be a single photographer worth a damn on the entire planet.

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven L View Post
    My point is, if you don't know how to hold a brush, you won't use the technique of painting to the fullest. You can paint-by-numbers and create a wonderfull painting, but that doesn't make you a painter. You have to learn the basics.
    No, this sounds more like an oils vs acrylic debate. Yes both are different but they both can be used to make paintings. Which is better to learn with? Most likely neither. Actually since you mentioned brushes, it sounds also like a hog bristle vs synthetic brush debate. Both of these can also be used to make paintings. Painters that use either generally know how to hold a brush. But is that even necessary to be a good painter?

    Light is the factor in both analog and digital. If you know how to see and use light then the camera doesn't matter. Otherwise, we should all have to learn with a pinhole first. Some classes do.

    I know a lot of people who take crap photos who have only shot digital. The reason that their photos are crap is because they are lazy and lack the passion to learn the basics which can be learned with analog or digital. All analog does is maybe reinforce slower thinking if you are using an all manual camera. The only difference between shooting analog manual and digital manual, is the ability to chimp in digital. Most of the people I am talking about don't know what a histogram is or how to read it. This is because they don't really want to take the time to know how to.
    Last edited by Darkroom317; 06-08-2012 at 09:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014

    Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa

    http://darkroom317.deviantart.com/

  3. #73
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    It all boils down to the photographer. The big key is to learn to think and take your time no matter what system you use. My 8x10 enforces discipline across the board, taking me 15 minutes to an hour or more to take a shot. By the argument I should tell people using roll film that they should shoot 8x10 if they really want to learn photography, and I believe that is absolutely correct within a very narrow interpretation. The reality, however, is that how effort is focused up to the student. Students simply find their place, churning out massive numbers of over saturated kittens and sunsets, making rare and elegant PT/PD prints, or for many, somewhere in between. There is no free lunch, and not everybody is cut out to be a photographer, and those that are destined to be, become so, regardless of equipment, because being a photographer in the true sense of the word is a mental rather than mechanical discipline.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    It all boils down to the photographer. The big key is to learn to think and take your time no matter what system you use. My 8x10 enforces discipline across the board, taking me 15 minutes to an hour or more to take a shot. By the argument I should tell people using roll film that they should shoot 8x10 if they really want to learn photography, and I believe that is absolutely correct within a very narrow interpretation. The reality, however, is that how effort is focused up to the student. Students simply find their place, churning out massive numbers of over saturated kittens and sunsets, making rare and elegant PT/PD prints, or for many, somewhere in between. There is no free lunch, and not everybody is cut out to be a photographer, and those that are destined to be, become so, regardless of equipment, because being a photographer in the true sense of the word is a mental rather than mechanical discipline.
    Yes, the most important bit of equipment is between the ears.

  5. #75
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    I read a lot of nonsense on this site about chimping.

    In my Hasselblad days when we wanted to check our setup or exposure on tricky lighting situations we put on a polaroid back and shot a polaroid, waited a minute or 90 seconds and checked the picture. Naturally the polaroid sucked as they all did, but it gave us a idea of what we had. Sometimes on highly nuanced lighting, we would shoot maybe 5 to 10 polaroids to get where we wanted to be.

    Now with digital, we don't have to waste all that time and money and calculations (polaroid had a different ISO than the film usually). With the back of the camera now we can see the image, the histogram and know exactly what we have. Within 10 seconds we can shoot again and again to get the setting we want with both our lights and our exposure.

    You can even tether the cameras directly to a laptop to see a large image, save the file, and/or show another person the shot.

    Add to this, what if you were shooting a once in a lifetime event, or a shoot with thousands of dollars worth of talent, or something that could not be duplicated, what would your rather do: hope and pray until you could develop an image that you nailed it or look at the back or your camera? What if you fucked up? With chimping, you don't.

    So while some smug people here have a good laugh about chimping, what kind of idiot would not check their work while they were doing it, if they had the opportunity.

    Remember some people HAVE to produce results with their shots, not just trudge off home and home like hell they maybe got one decent shot.

    I know people from the film days that shot an entire wedding with their ISO set to something they had their light meter set to the night before, and forgot to change it. I had a Metz flash that flashed but not at the proper power for half a wedding. I had a lens that jammed at the wrong aperture from what I had set it at.

    So while it's fun to think that chimping is some amateur reflex, let me tell you that after shooting over 500 analog weddings and waiting a week for the film to come back and uttering the usual "thank God" because everything worked, you'd understand that chimping is one of the best things ever invented in photography.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    593
    I find it rather intuitive to look at the screen . It's placement sort of demands my attention. It's not an amateur thing at all but just an aspect of digital. I don't even think about the difference when I am shooting a film camera. It doesn't occur to me. The two paths just have a different mindset for me.
    Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014

    Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa

    http://darkroom317.deviantart.com/

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    I read a lot of nonsense on this site about chimping.

    In my Hasselblad days when we wanted to check our setup or exposure on tricky lighting situations we put on a polaroid back and shot a polaroid, waited a minute or 90 seconds and checked the picture. Naturally the polaroid sucked as they all did, but it gave us a idea of what we had. Sometimes on highly nuanced lighting, we would shoot maybe 5 to 10 polaroids to get where we wanted to be.

    Now with digital, we don't have to waste all that time and money and calculations (polaroid had a different ISO than the film usually). With the back of the camera now we can see the image, the histogram and know exactly what we have. Within 10 seconds we can shoot again and again to get the setting we want with both our lights and our exposure.

    You can even tether the cameras directly to a laptop to see a large image, save the file, and/or show another person the shot.

    Add to this, what if you were shooting a once in a lifetime event, or a shoot with thousands of dollars worth of talent, or something that could not be duplicated, what would your rather do: hope and pray until you could develop an image that you nailed it or look at the back or your camera? What if you fucked up? With chimping, you don't.

    So while some smug people here have a good laugh about chimping, what kind of idiot would not check their work while they were doing it, if they had the opportunity.

    Remember some people HAVE to produce results with their shots, not just trudge off home and home like hell they maybe got one decent shot.

    I know people from the film days that shot an entire wedding with their ISO set to something they had their light meter set to the night before, and forgot to change it. I had a Metz flash that flashed but not at the proper power for half a wedding. I had a lens that jammed at the wrong aperture from what I had set it at.

    So while it's fun to think that chimping is some amateur reflex, let me tell you that after shooting over 500 analog weddings and waiting a week for the film to come back and uttering the usual "thank God" because everything worked, you'd understand that chimping is one of the best things ever invented in photography.
    Plus 1 on the weddings. The angst of awaiting those negatives, whether I was developing them or the lab, just wasn't worth it. I used Polaroid on product shots, too, whenever the lighting was something new or complex. Digital would be a Godsend to do a wedding with.

  8. #78
    JohnArs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,068
    Images
    40
    + two about weddings and everything thad have to get fast results!!!!

    Cheers Armin
    Good light and nice shadows!

    www.artfoto.ch

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,373
    Back in the pre-digital 1980s, I and a friend photographed the start of the Icebreaker canoe race in Saranac Lake New York. We developed the E-6 film, in a janitor's closet at the town hall, dried it with hairdryers, cut and mounted the slides, and had a slide show of the start at the after race party. Think of how easy this would have been to do with digital, all of you who say digital sucks.

  10. #80
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,310
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    434
    The only objection I have to chimping is when people do it in lieu of understanding how to meter their strobes and adjust accordingly. I have met people who have strobe outfits (often AlienBees, but that's an entirely different discussion) and have not the faintest idea of how to control their flashes, and who say, "but I don't need a meter - I'll just chimp until it looks right". Technically they're correct: if it looks good it looks good, but c'mon - make a little effort to understand what you're doing and learn about lighting ratios, the inverse square rule, and basic light modification.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin