Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

 

“Our autobiography is written in our contact sheets,  and our opinion of the world in our selects”  

"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."  

 

Bill Pierce is one of the most successful Leica photographers and authors ever. I initially "met" Bill in the wonderful 1973 15th edition Leica Manual (the one with the M5 on the cover). I kept reading and re-reading his four chapters, continually amazed at his knoweldge and ability, thinking "if I only knew a small part of what this guy knows... wow."  I looked foward to his monthly columns in Camera 35 and devoured them like a starving man.  Bill has worked as a photojournalist  for 25 years, keyword: WORK.  Many photogs dream of the professional photographer's  life that Bill has earned and enjoyed.  Probably Bill's most famous pic is Nixon departing the White House for the last time, victory signs still waving. 

 

Bill  has been published in many major magazines, including  Time, Life, Newsweek, U.S. News, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, New York Magazine, Stern, L'Express and Paris Match.  :His published books include  The Leica Manual,  War Torn, Survivors and Victims in the Late 20th Century, Homeless in America,  Human Rights in China,  Children of War.  Add to that numerous exhibitions at major galleries and museums.  Magazine contributions include  Popular Photography,  Camera 35, Leica Manual,  Photo District News, the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, the Digital Journalist, and now RFF.  Major awards include Leica Medal of Excellence, Overseas Press Club's Oliver Rebbot Award for Best Photojournalism from Abroad,  and the World Press Photo's Budapest Award. Perhaps an ever bigger award is Tom Abrahamsson's comment: "If you want to know Rodinal, ask Bill."

 

I met Bill in person through our mutual friend Tom Abrahamsson.  In person his insight and comments are every bit as interesting and engaging as his writing.  He is a great guy who really KNOWS photography.  I am happy to say he has generously agreed to host this forum at RFF  From time to time Bill will bring up topics, but you are also invited to ask questions.  Sit down and enjoy the ride!

 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 4 Days Ago   #361
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Because I've done both, and I found digital photography to be a relatively shallow and effort-free activity. YMMV as they say.

Just my experience and opinion.
Just because you approach digital photography in a shallow and effort-free manner, there is no cause to attribute that attitude to others.

I recall Dan Burkholder saying you are judged on your final work product, and you don't get extra credit for effort.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #362
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
It depends entirely how you shoot. I shot digital like I shoot film, so I have about the same percentage of keepers....
I too shoot digital like I shot film. My approach is the same. I really don't know any other way to do it. Of course, I approach color and B&W in different manners, whether digital or film.

Photography has always seemed pretty easy for me to do--again, whether digital or film. That's probably based on my incredibly simple tastes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #363
sjones
Registered User
 
sjones is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
I too shoot digital like I shot film. My approach is the same. I really don't know any other way to do it. Of course, I approach color and B&W in different manners, whether digital or film.

Photography has always seemed pretty easy for me to do--again, whether digital or film. That's probably based on my incredibly simple tastes.
For folks who started with film, the tendency to unleash like a machine-gun after switching to digital is probably not as pronounced. Embedded methods are not necessarily or universally subject to change.

And as I stated earlier in this thread, film did slow me down, but I’ll add that’s not to say if I had stuck with digital, I wouldn't have eventually adopted a more deliberate approach.

And of course, how different tools might affect a user, if at all, will depend on the individual.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #364
sjones
Registered User
 
sjones is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Just because you approach digital photography in a shallow and effort-free manner, there is no cause to attribute that attitude to others.

I recall Dan Burkholder saying you are judged on your final work product, and you don't get extra credit for effort.
Exactly, the means can provide an interesting backstory, and it can add value to the photographer’s personal experience, but in the end, it is, for the viewer, the photograph that matters.

For Ansel Adam’s ‘Moonrise, Hernandez’ photograph, Adams recalled how he pulled over the family car, quickly set up the gear, and used his knowledge of the moon’s illumination to meter. He further noted that after taking the first exposure, the lighting dramatically changed, effectively imposing a one time opportunity.

However, had this photo been created by someone using a full-auto digital camera, the photograph would ultimately still retain its aesthetic appeal, at least for me.

If we are to place value and importance on measures of complexity and difficulty, I would think we should be arguing for the use of glass plates and similar methods of the past.

While the increasing ‘convenience’ of photography appears to undermine the craftsmanship of the process, it actually proves that simplicity’s ongoing infusion, whether marked by the introduction of the Brownie box or advent of digital, has failed to curtail the elusiveness of exceptional photography.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #365
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 830
After much thought about Mr. Pierce's question I am shooting film again (after about a four year hiatus) because my skills have grown enough (after four years of immersion in digital) to cause a desire to see if I can become as competant with a film camera as I now am with a digital camera. The act of creating with the two processes is also very important to me. I only seriously got into the hobby in about 2010 so many of you are way ahead of me photographically speaking. I genuinely love both. They say no question is a bad question and I believe BP's question and the replies in this thread have been enlightening for me. Thanks to all involved in this thread.
__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #366
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,734
What I find with work related stuff..photos for money.. is art directors don't want to pay for the detailed prep time that went into much "Film" studio work. They want all those little things fixed in post production. And, they don't want to pay for the post production time. Lots of photographers who can get away with it refuse to do this. And, many have raised their rates. Many jobs are bid on these days and many costs are added to the agreed bid amount as per changes made during the shoot.

I didn't like darkroom work. I didn't see the Magic BS of a print coming out of the first tray that some others see. I also really dislike doing post production work. I'm happy to do it for my personal work, but would rather not be in front of a monitor. I do love the finished product, silver or digital.

Almost no work related stuff is quality printed by clients, unless it's for office décor.

Photography has really changed in the past 10-15 years. The art collectors still want a quality crafted print, silver or pigment. Most curators want silver if available but, pigment prints have made their way into galleries and are equal to silver for their archival qualities. Chromogenic prints are great for proofing and the latest C technology is far better than in the past. Fujifilm claims their C materials archival, making big machine prints my choice for big stuff.

In my experience, hand crafted Silver still is the most preferred media for most art buyers.

Gursky's Rhine II is a large (machine made) Chromogenic Silver Print. He's no longer called a photographer.. but now a "Visual Artist".

"Extraneous details such as dog-walkers and a factory building were removed by the artist using digital editing.[4] Justifying this manipulation of the image, Gursky said "Paradoxically, this view of the Rhine cannot be obtained in situ, a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

As art goes, I think you can alter a photograph anyway you like, as long as you're honest about what's been done. This obviously doesn't apply to Photo Journalism or Evidence Photos where, I'm sure it's done more than we know.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Days Ago   #367
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,320
I have a friend who uses the term "tryhardability" when referring to those who seek credit for "effort". Viewers, buyers, etc. don't care about tryhardability. But tryhardability is distinctly different from craft. Saying viewers, buyers, only care about what a photo looks like is to dismiss such people as only caring about the art on the most superficial level (or as not caring about it at all). Craft does matter, as do materials - and if materials and craft are intertwined with a concept, may mean as much in the final work as the image itself. True, probably nobody cares that you took the time to make a platinum print over a silver print on RC paper, but a lot of people will appreciate that it is a platinum print. And they are usually willing to pay for it too.

Back to the original post, I don't buy that digital "quality" is equal to or better than film. I don't know what that means. What quality? This is like saying a clarinet has better quality than a piano, or that a watercolor has better quality than an oil painting. If we're not specifying which qualities we're talking about, it's sort of a useless comparison. Film has qualities digital does not - cannot have - and digital has qualities film does not have.

I'll have to add, I've yet to find a digital camera that is satisfying to use, even if I've found many that, at least on a technical level, are capable enough.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #368
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Craft does matter, as do materials - and if materials and craft are intertwined with a concept, may mean as much in the final work as the image itself. True, probably nobody cares that you took the time to make a platinum print over a silver print on RC paper, but a lot of people will appreciate that it is a platinum print. And they are usually willing to pay for it too.
I have a bunch of archivally processed fiber based silver gelatin print rejects in a box. I use them to test toners and practice spotting. Maybe I should try to sell them instead. I'm sure a purchaser would appreciate the materials and craft that went into making them, even though the resulting images aren't up to my standards. Come to think of it, I see a lot of those kind of images on gallery walls. I also do platinum printing. Maybe someone would buy my rejects of those too since they are platinum. Seriously, I may be in the minority here, but if the image isn't compelling, I don't think process matters much.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #369
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I have a bunch of archival processed fiber based silver gelatin print rejects in a box. I use them to test toners and practice spotting. Maybe I should try to sell them instead. I'm sure a purchaser would appreciate the materials and craft that went into making them, even though the resulting images aren't up to my standards. Come to think of it, I see a lot of those kind of images on gallery walls.
I like that you took "materials matter" to mean "only materials matter".

You need to up your troll game if you want to fool people into believing you're the sort of person who lives in a cardboard box because a house made out of wood and stuff would be pointless to you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #370
valdas
Registered User
 
valdas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I have a bunch of archivally processed fiber based silver gelatin print rejects in a box. I use them to test toners and practice spotting. Maybe I should try to sell them instead. I'm sure a purchaser would appreciate the materials and craft that went into making them, even though the resulting images aren't up to my standards. Come to think of it, I see a lot of those kind of images on gallery walls. I also do platinum printing. Maybe someone would buy my rejects of those too since they are platinum. I may be in the minority here, but if the image isn't compelling, I don't think process matters much.

I guess saying that materials and craft do matter does not mean it is a sufficient condition (or guarantee) of value... However materials and craft that leads to "rejects" does not prove the opposite is correct.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #371
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 43
Posts: 18,215
Quote:
and the latest C technology is far better than in the past. Fujifilm claims their C materials archival, making big machine prints my choice for big stuff.
Quote:
Gursky's Rhine II is a large (machine made) Chromogenic Silver Print. He's no longer called a photographer.. but now a "Visual Artist".

"Extraneous details such as dog-walkers and a factory building were removed by the artist using digital editing.[4] Justifying this manipulation of the image, Gursky said "Paradoxically, this view of the Rhine cannot be obtained in situ, a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

As art goes, I think you can alter a photograph anyway you like, as long as you're honest about what's been done. This obviously doesn't apply to Photo Journalism or Evidence Photos where, I'm sure it's done more than we know.
I was wondering about that today... when I read his huge prints were C-Prints. We know they are some of the most expensive photos ever sold. I figured something had to have changed in the technology or people wouldn't be buying these C-Prints.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #372
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 43
Posts: 18,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Craft does matter, as do materials - and if materials and craft are intertwined with a concept, may mean as much in the final work as the image itself.
I think this is a good point. One can have a great concept, but if the craft and materials used are poor, it could break the project. However, even sometimes that works too... at least it has in music.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #373
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by valdas View Post
I guess saying that materials and craft do matter does not mean it is a sufficient condition (or guarantee) of value... However materials and craft that leads to "rejects" does not prove the opposite is correct.
I believe materials and craft can enhance the value of a compelling image, but do not create value in and of themselves.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #374
ktmrider
Registered User
 
ktmrider is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: el paso, texas
Age: 64
Posts: 880
I shoot film because I know how (doing it since 1966), I like the cameras, and hate sitting in front of a computer. I don't have to justify this to anyone because it is just for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #375
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,734
I watched these years ago John.. The Düsseldorf School..

Hilda Becker is in the beginning, Giving Her Blessing to Rhine II.

Gursky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTAYMeI9hlg

Edit: I re-watched some of this.. for the Camera People & The Film vs.Digital people" ..

Gursky uses a pocket digital camera to preview possible camera positions and a 4x5 Rail camera with Bag Bellows, indicating the use of a WA lens. He photographs with a Digital Back on the 4x5 and also runs Fuji positive film (from the Green Fuji Film Box seen at his light table).

So, he gets huge amounts of money for his digital prints (maybe made from the digital back or maybe a scanned 4x5)? I'm not German fluent, maybe someone who is, will watch and tell us?

The image files are digital, as seen by the image "adjustments" made by his help. The final prints are a digital - silver product.

I think he covered all the bases as per the, film vs. Digital.. or Digital vs. Film, argument. He uses it all - No big surprise. Also, notice the use of studio electronic flash. Speed lights won't provide enough light for a 4x5 film exposure in one pop, especially at the DOF shown in the finished image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #376
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 254
I find it funny that C-prints have reached such exalted status. They are what we used to get back from the drugstore.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #377
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 43
Posts: 18,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I find it funny that C-prints have reached such exalted status. They are what we used to get back from the drugstore.
Well, unless you were doing cibachromes or dye-transfer its what we all used for color ... until digital.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #378
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I find it funny that C-prints have reached such exalted status. They are what we used to get back from the drugstore.
If you take the time to study the changes in the Ektaprint process over decades, you will see the current product it's not the same paper or chemistry as in the past. The change in the 70s from Ektaprint II to Ektaprint Iii was a major change. Advances were constant over the years. You might do a little reading?

Dye Coupler technology has changed along with materials; they are much more stable now. Fuji is now, the major supplier of these products.

"Dye coupler technology has seen considerable advancement since the beginning of modern color photography. Major film and paper manufacturers have continually improved the stability of the image dye by improving couplers, particularly since the 1980s, so that archival properties of images are enhanced in newer color papers and films. Generally speaking, dye couplers for paper use are given more emphasis on the image permanence than those for film use, but some modern films (such as Fujichrome Provia films) use variants of couplers that were originally designed for paper use to further improve the image permanence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_coupler
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #379
gns
Registered User
 
gns is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I find it funny that C-prints have reached such exalted status. They are what we used to get back from the drugstore.
https://www.phillips.com/detail/WILL...Y/NY040210/267
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #380
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Just because you approach digital photography in a shallow and effort-free manner, there is no cause to attribute that attitude to others.

I recall Dan Burkholder saying you are judged on your final work product, and you don't get extra credit for effort.
Did I say I approached it in a shallow way?
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #381
sjones
Registered User
 
sjones is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 94
How in the world is it superfluous to enjoy a photo for simply what it looks like.

To be sure, the medium and the material can matter for certain folks (including me!); and for a lot of collectors, scarcity matters as does good marketing.

And if cost was not an issue, I would certainly choose an original Adams print, one that he personally created in his darkroom, over a poster reproduction. But I wouldn’t consider any variant if I did not like the way the photo looked like.

However, the output of a medium’s quality or visual impact is not proportionally linked to craft or effort, and at least for me, it was the latter two that I was addressing.

For example, dye transfer prints involve a ton of craft and effort, at least from what I understand, but some folks might actually prefer the inkjet version.

I’ve seen Adams’ original prints; and they are exquisitely impressive. But I came to enjoy his work while spotting an Adams calendar in my coworker’s cubicle back in 1991, long before I ever got into photography.

I can appreciate a highly produced recording through mono blocks and electrostatic speakers, but if it kicks out on an AM-only car radio of decades past, I’ll enjoy it as well.

In fact, one could possibly argue that snubbing off a song you like because it’s not being cranked out of a high end system is superficial. God knows my college roommate, an actual and very talented musician, gave me grief over my then stereo geek proclivities.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #382
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Did I say I approached it in a shallow way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Because I've done both, and I found digital photography to be a relatively shallow and effort-free activity. YMMV as they say. Just my experience and opinion.
I took you at your word that you were speaking from personal experience.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #383
John Bragg
Registered User
 
John Bragg's Avatar
 
John Bragg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Penwithick, Cornwall U.K.
Age: 56
Posts: 1,269
Because it just works for me. I have never shot digital apart from smartphone and feel zero inclination to do so. The crusty luddite within me is 100% satisfied with my collection of cameras and lenses and I enjoy using them from the tactile satisfaction they give to the quality of the images they produce.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #384
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
I like that you took "materials matter" to mean "only materials matter".

You need to up your troll game if you want to fool people into believing you're the sort of person who lives in a cardboard box because a house made out of wood and stuff would be pointless to you.
Yeah. He Seams to be at that..

I was taught (in school) that craft, the making of a good finished print, was expected. The art (I think) can't be taught. But, if you want your "art" to be taken seriously, you master the "craft" portion of your effort.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #385
Chris101
stubborn
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,215
I just read a fun article about this subject by Nick Holt. Holt stated that his attraction to film was due to the "chance and magic".
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #386
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I took you at your word that you were speaking from personal experience.
You didn't take me at my word at all. You're either not reading and understanding what I'm saying, or deliberately twisting my words in an effort to annoy. If you don't agree with my point of view, that's fine. But don't respond by trying to dismiss my opinion by creating counter-arguments against something I didn't say in the first place.

I DID NOT say I approached digital photography in a shallow way and put no effort into it. I said I found it a shallow and unrewarding experience. Completely different things.

I put a hell of a lot of effort into my photography, but ultimately the digital process did nothing for me. I found it unsatisfying from start to finish. Plastic, soulless cameras with failing electronics. Nasty looking digital files. Long, tedious hours in Lightroom and Photoshop. The endless megapixel upgrade cycle. The boring reality of the instant-response video screen. Yawn.

Film photography is the complete opposite for me. I love *almost everything about the process, from loading film into beautiful mechanical cameras, to washing the blix off fresh prints. It's just a bonus for me that the performance of film is superior in many ways, as are the end results.

* Except loading film onto plastic reels in hot weather with sweaty hands
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #387
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,402
It's interesting reading back through this thread and noting how the process seems to be more important to many people than the end result. Sorry but I really don't get this!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #388
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
It's interesting reading back through this thread and noting how the process seems to be more important to many people than the end result. Sorry but I really don't get this!
Equipment fetish? Not very many here (RFF) seem overly concerned with photographs; especially printed ones.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #389
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
 
Tompas's Avatar
 
Tompas is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ostfriesland - Northwestern Germany
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
It's interesting reading back through this thread and noting how the process seems to be more important to many people than the end result. Sorry but I really don't get this!
Because it's about fun? The whole thing, I mean. (Unless you earn your money with photography, of course.)

That said, I make better / more good images using film cameras. It's a fact; I've actually done the numbers.

So you might say, the more pleasant process gives the better results. For me, that's true. I suspect it's true for others as well.
__________________
-- Thomas
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #390
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tompas View Post
Because it's about fun? The whole thing, I mean. (Unless you earn your money with photography, of course.)

That said, I make better / more good images using film cameras. It's a fact; I've actually done the numbers.

So you might say, the more pleasant process gives the better results. For me, that's true. I suspect it's true for others as well.

I can accept that because we all have our own reasons for what we do, why we do it and of course how we do it. When people start to preach that their path is superior I become uneasy. Not accusing you of course but I do a see it in these threads from time to time.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #391
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
I DID NOT say I approached digital photography in a shallow way and put no effort into it. I said I found it a shallow and unrewarding experience. Completely different things.
You previously said that digital was a "shallow and effort-free activity". You are now saying that it is a "shallow and unrewarding experience". Two different things. Activity is doing; experience is feeling. You need to express yourself clearly to avoid being misunderstood.

I get it if you prefer film to digital. That's all it is - a preference. Just say: "I prefer film." No need to denigrate digital and rant. Not everyone shares your preference.

I have said it before. I do not understand the road rage response on the part of film aficionados to this issue. Why all the anger?

By the way, if you dislike loading film onto plastic reels in hot weather with sweaty hands, try using stainless steel. I tried both when I was first starting out four decades ago, and found stainless steel both easier and more satisfying. As a bonus, you use less chemistry. But it is just a preference. I can happily co-exist with others who prefer plastic tanks and reels.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #392
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is online now
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 69
Posts: 1,917
I'll share some of my experiences garnered from my business.

When I first started to use a digital camera for my business, I also used a film camera. At a wedding, two cameras, one medium format film camera mounted on a tripod the other a digital on a tripod. My first few digital gigs were all jpeg's made in camera. Then I got brave, saw the light, and went with 100% diigital capture, process and various ways to view the photographs.

Boy did I have a lot to learn.

Once I got going with digital there was no stopping me. I was making wedding albums back in 2004 with layers in Photoshop, flatten them into jpeg's, then having the lab print each page and sending the prints to an album vendor (Pictobooks). I saved each page as a psd as well, if the bride wanted changes made it was simple. I had Pictobooks use real leather for the front and back covers. They had, amongst many choices, a rich looking beige leather. The final product looked like a fancy book! No big deal now but it was back then. I used the jpeg's of the pages as a tool, sending the flatten album pages jpeg's to the bride, email, got her work email address, then it not only became an approval to process but it also became a marketing tool for my business. I really enjoyed this!

I had a steep learning curve getting around Photoshop. From my view, Photoshop is all about layers and blending. At first, I didn't know what either of those could do for my photographs! I did have help along the way with my coach, Monte and also Eddie Tapp.

Another important change I made was capturing in RAW mode. It's the only way to go, at least for me.

The equipment can only make a photograph as good as the person working the tools.
__________________
I use my real name. How about you?
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #393
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
 
Tompas's Avatar
 
Tompas is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ostfriesland - Northwestern Germany
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
(...) When people start to preach that their path is superior I become uneasy. Not accusing you of course but I do a see it in these threads from time to time.
Yes, of course. I didn't read the whole 10 pages of this thread -- probably I missed all the bad stuff.
__________________
-- Thomas
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #394
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
It's interesting reading back through this thread and noting how the process seems to be more important to many people than the end result. Sorry but I really don't get this!
It's simple: Life is about the journey, not the destination.

Hence I refuse to drive boring modern cars, listen to crappy digital music, eat microwave meals, and use photographic equipment that I find dull and uninspiring.

It's got zero to do with having an 'equipment fetish' and everything to do with making the most of what you enjoy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #395
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
It's simple: Life is about the journey, not the destination.
In photography, while I agree that the journey (process) is important, ultimately it is about the destination (final print).
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #396
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
I get it if you prefer film to digital. That's all it is - a preference. Just say: "I prefer film." No need to denigrate digital and rant. Not everyone shares your preference.

I have said it before. I do not understand the road rage response on the part of film aficionados to this issue. Why all the anger?
Okay. I prefer film.

"Why", you ask?

Sorry, but I'm not allowed to say, in case it's deemed an outpouring of rage
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #397
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
While I agree that the journey (process) is important, ultimately it is about the destination (final print).
Not for me. But enjoy the ride home in your Focus. When you get in you can listen to a streamed MP3 while you wait for the microwave to ping.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #398
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 40,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
You didn't take me at my word at all. You're either not reading and understanding what I'm saying, or deliberately twisting my words in an effort to annoy. If you don't agree with my point of view, that's fine. But don't respond by trying to dismiss my opinion by creating counter-arguments against something I didn't say in the first place.

I DID NOT say I approached digital photography in a shallow way and put no effort into it. I said I found it a shallow and unrewarding experience. Completely different things.

I put a hell of a lot of effort into my photography, but ultimately the digital process did nothing for me. I found it unsatisfying from start to finish. Plastic, soulless cameras with failing electronics. Nasty looking digital files. Long, tedious hours in Lightroom and Photoshop. The endless megapixel upgrade cycle. The boring reality of the instant-response video screen. Yawn.

Film photography is the complete opposite for me. I love *almost everything about the process, from loading film into beautiful mechanical cameras, to washing the blix off fresh prints. It's just a bonus for me that the performance of film is superior in many ways, as are the end results.

* Except loading film onto plastic reels in hot weather with sweaty hands
are you the fujilove that has the magazine, the website and workshops? all dedicated to fuji?

this guy...https://fujilove.com/about-fl/
__________________
heart soul & a camera

xt20/xe2/xe1
16/23/23/27/35/50/56/55-200
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #399
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
It's simple: Life is about the journey, not the destination.

Hence I refuse to drive boring modern cars, listen to crappy digital music, eat microwave meals, and use photographic equipment that I find dull and uninspiring.

It's got zero to do with having an 'equipment fetish' and everything to do with making the most of what you enjoy.
I'm sure, if you've read through the thread, you know I work with both film and digital gear. For me, the end result, a photograph, is my prime interest. We are surely very different people.

The comment you made in a previous post:

"I love *almost everything about the process, from loading film into beautiful mechanical cameras, .."

Lead me to think you might be overly interested in your camera.. ? it's not a problem for me, but to then extend that your "journey" in photography is superior to those who use inferior plastic digital cameras is a bit much. People make good and bad pictures with all kinds of photo equipment.

Enjoy your romance with The Process, but to imply that others who choose a different path (plastic digital camera) are of a lesser value is elitist and ugly, to my thinking.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #400
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujiLove View Post
Not for me. But enjoy the ride home in your Focus. When you get in you can listen to a streamed MP3 while you wait for the microwave to ping.
I don't drive a Focus, only listen to vinyl and lossless digital, and use the microwave to heat water for my tea. This is the just the kind of response I expected from you. You've gone from a film aficionado to an angry Luddite. Tin hats anyone?
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:56.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.