I didn't start a (another) debate about which is better... it's the "flow" of work.
Economically, the barriers to entry have fallen, the ability to do competent work (on the surface) has been removed.
There are too many small studios and people with blogs saying they are commercial photographers that are not.
The ability to earn a decent living has been damaged by too many putting shingle out by undercutting the establishment, yet they do not realize that another is waiting in line to do the same.
I do think a return to film work might be my last salvation to differentiate myself form the 20 something DSLR "chimps".
+1. I could not have said it better.
Originally Posted by mbsmith
For you perhaps.
Originally Posted by bwrules
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
The computer I use for digital/hybrid stuff, I do not use for recreational web browsing. It's too easy to get a virus/spyware/malware, and that would be bad, real bad for my precious digital photos. No distractions then. But I have another computer right next to it that I use for facebook/apug/lfinfo, etc...
I don't do it professionally, but I have a happy mix of digital, hybrid, and pure analog photography. The different methods have their uses.
I think wider availability and democratization of photography is a good thing as more people can enjoy it. I betcha it doesn't affect the percentage of those who are truly good at it though, so there shouldn't be much of increased competition for them or cheapening. I think if work stands out and clients like it, then that photographer will get more clients over the crowd.
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
In a sense i know what you mean, I am not a professional but I do shoot for pay occasionally. For me digital can be a bless but it can also be a nightmare, and as you say the biggest nightmare is infront of the computer (I also shoot digital for some of my own work). I get the same feeling as you when its to much digital I just loose the connection to the work. Now this is what I usually do
1: When i shoot digital I dont look at the image. I have a M9 for street and I have actually covered the display (black duct tape). I dont want to see it the image when i am shooting
2: I have a digital back for my hasselblad, most used in studio and at weddings but here I dont look at the image instead I only look at the histogram, but I see this information as a "polaroid".
Doing these to things I get in to the process that there is no image, it becomes as I would have film in the camera and I stop shooting all the time. I just need 2-3 really good shoot of the bride, maybe I bracket one because that highlight looks a bit funny (which i would have done with film) and I am done. This means that I dont end up with 50 images of just the bride from that pose.
In my dayroom (which I also use as computer editing room) I have internet but when I work I work, no distraction. I do have a phone but I dont check my email every 5 min (and I close the email program when I work).
In all my work (professional and personal) I use the method of GTD (Get Things Done), which makes me focus 100% of what I am doing instead of thinking of what I need to do, I know that and I know what I have to do. If you done use a time management method you really need on because you sound like you are swamped.
Last remark. Do you have to shoot digital in all your work? There are plenty of photographers out there who make a good living of shooting film because there results looks "different" from the digital stuff. If you can shoot film why dont you do it? In what I do 1 out of 10 has to be send ASAP, which I then have to shoot digital and send of, but if the customer needs it in 2 weeks and they want good results, the process is up to me. Shoot film, develop, then either scanning of to the client or put it down on paper the old way
To sum up. Think about your time management and work environment. Think about if you really need to use digital and if you do try to get into thinking its film, which helps you from over shooting.
Last edited by sandholm; 03-23-2011 at 11:28 AM. Click to view previous post history.
At the end, it's the man, not the machine. But somehow digital feels different. Perhaps because publishing of pictures is so easy with internet that you see a lot of poor photos. Most of them digital.
As i have to sit in the front of computer in the work, i would not like to do that much on free time.
Ironically, the rise of digital photography has also created kind of a need for scanning.
No one will any more ask if they can see my latest albums or color slides.
Instead everyone seems to expect pictures to appear in the net galleries fast.
People do not have patience enough for waiting to see real photographs of some event or my children.
Even the week or so that takes to develop films and scan them seems to be too much.
I don't understad it.
One think that causes a kind of loss of inspiration is the massive flood of pictures you can easily see daily in the internet.
Many of these looks good. In the monitor, watched at typical web size.
While the creativity of most pictures isn't that great, there is still pile of good looking photos. Again, when viewed on monitor.
However, at least I forgot too often that the photos I see are small web photos and I have no idea how good they would look when viewed in bigger print.
Even 30cm wide print. I bet that majority of them would show lack of quality.
As this huge picture flow goes thru your brains, you begin to see own work less unordinary or personal creations.
During the days before digital cameras really took the market, the typical amount of photographs that i saw daily was low. Perhaps something like 20-50 including web sites of that time.
When going back to times before web really break thru, the amount of photos to see was limited to photograph books, photography magazines and occasional opportunies to watch photograph exhibitions.
Thus own creativity had much more room. Not forgetting that the pace of life was slower.
Perhaps it would do good to limit amount of web photos and concentrate only to own photography. Regardless of other people's demand.
That's because the digital PROCESS has created a huge dilution of talent. Anyone running around with an iPhone and fairly basic knowledge of Photoshop or various plug-ins can turn a masterpiece. The process (or post process) is easy, given enough time and computer knowledge. On the other hand, the requirements for film PROCESS are different and yes, likely more difficult and time consuming. But the pleasure is indeed in the process which, as others have mentioned, takes us away from these damn screens and fuels creativity in different ways. So, yes, if film is what's going to make you different, happier, and your work shine brighter than the next guy running around with a Nikon D7000, you have certainly made the right move.
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
What mbsmith said x10. The path is as important as the product.
Last edited by 36cm2; 03-23-2011 at 11:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"There is a time and place for all things, the difficulty is to use them only in their proper time and places." -- Robert Henri