Photo editor's G9 breaks before trip; uses disposable cameras

[easyrider]

When her much loved Canon G9 gave up the ghost just before a trip to Cuba with her two daughters, Theresa Suzuki, a photo editor at the Canadian newspaper National Post, decided to take along three disposable cameras.

"I briefly considered going to Cuba without a camera, but I knew I'd regret it. I also considered lugging my professional gear with me, but knew wrangling all that equipment as well as my daughters, Sophie, six, and Melissa, 19, would be too much of a hassle.So I decided to cut my losses and buy three disposable cameras," she wrote in the newspaper.

She bought two more disposables at her hotel in Cuba. Her lab back in Toronto reported that they had been reused, new film put in and sealed with electrical tape. Her pix turned out just fine.

The newspaper gave her disposable camera photos a two-page spread and posted them online.

As Ken Rockwell and others keep on saying, it's not the camera but the photographer who takes good pictures.

.
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/life/tra...#ixzz0m4TC1fef


Here is a link to the gallery:

http://www.nationalpost.com/multimed...tml?id=2910785

[weetsie]

im sorry but i really hate articles like this. her camera broke so she used disposables, big deal?

"disposable cameras and permanent memories"

she used a disposable camera and got some ok results, thats probably because disposable cameras do actually give ok results. its almost as if she was surprised by this, for years i have been using disposable cameras like thousands of other people to take "permanent memories" while on holiday.

"Back in Toronto, handing over the disposables to be developed was entirely stress free."

why wouldnt it be? i really dont get the point of this story. its maybe something you would put in a blog or on flickr but hardly worthy of an article in a big newspaper.

[Krzys]

Big-shot professional photographer experiences life as amateur, shocked.

[Spleenrippa]

I'm gonna go round up the boys and tip a couple cop cars cuz of this.

[sevo]

It does not really come as a surprise that newspapers hire photo editors which seem to have a depth of photographic knowledge that does not exceed that of a 25 year old consumer without any photographic ambitions, and don't even pretend anything better. But it is sad nonetheless...

[Roger Hicks]

The clue does seem to lie in the word 'editor' and not 'photographer'.

This was a feelgood piece for the readers, and virtually nothing to do with photography. Of course you can get publishable pics with disposables. You cannot however get a very wide range of publishable pics, when you're stick with a fixed f/12 lens, a shutter speed of 1/40, no focusing...

Only a cynic would suggest that her position as photo editor, i.e. already on the inside of the organization, had anything whatsoever to do with her pictures being published.

Cheers,

R.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Nice article, thanks!

[Leigh Youdale]

I make no comment on the quality of the photographs - or whether the paper would have printed them if I'd turned them in with a story about my holiday.
All I would say is that in the same circumstances I would buy an inexpensive digital P&S at the airport and be a lot more confident of getting good results than using disposables.

[Pablito]

The whole premise is "human interest". The photos are inconsequential. She is an editor, not a photographer. The article is like a meal at McDonalds.

[jsrockit]

But these photos don't have that leica glow! (joking)

[aperture64]

Good article and cool photos. Should be a lesson to RFF members that they should just go out and shoot and not be so obsessed with gear and acquiring more of it.

[sig]

It is probably a bit late, but what on earth is it in this article that can provoke anybody?

Sorry it is probably me, a bit tired....

[blackwave]

Keep in mind the photographic knowledge base of the general public (ie. the audience this is written for.) I doubt the average reader frequents photo blogs or forums, or even thinks twice about the technical aspects of photography. For them, it likely IS surprising that good (relative!) photos can be produced with a disposable camera. The article isn't meant to be earth-shattering to the photographic world.

[bigeye]

I use the same brand brushes that Michaelangelo did, but I don't get the same results.

[easyrider]

Originally Posted by aperture64

Good article and cool photos. Should be a lesson to RFF members that they should just go out and shoot and not be so obsessed with gear and acquiring more of it.

Phew! Finally someone understood what point I was trying to make by posting it. Thanks.

The rest of you go back to polishing your $8,000 Leicas.

[jarski]

Originally Posted by easyrider

Phew! Finally someone understood what point I was trying to make by posting it. Thanks.

ahha! I knew this was one of those "get a life" threads..

[Roger Hicks]

Come on! This has been a standard stunt on a slow news day for decades: send out a staff photographer with a box camera to show that you can get half-decent pictures under undemanding circumstances. The only difference is that they didn't send out a staff photographer. Try the Bert Hardy picture here, from Picture Post in the 1950s: http://www.whitewallimages.com/image...lifestyle.html (second down, second from left).

As for 'polishing our $8000 Leicas', here are a couple of pics from the last few days for an article I'm working on. Sure, Frances could have used a box camera for the ford picture (I was driving), but the church interiors would have been a bit more demanding.

Are mine Great Art? No. They're (provisional) illustrations for an article. So were hers, but the point of her article was happy-snaps with disposables. Any sane photographer uses whatever tools he/she is happiest with; can afford; and believes will deliver the results he/she wants. Professionally, you add 'the results the client/editor wants'. Most of the time, most editors want pictures that are technically better than a box camera can deliver, and often they want pics that aren't taken in bright sun or with on-camera flash.

Cheers,

R.

[not_in_good_order]

I think the photos show that she has a good sense of composition. The disposable camera's lens obviously isn't very capable regarding sharpness or contrast, but in most cases content trumps technical perfection, particularly with people pictures. The funny thing is that she captured significantly more dynamic range with a disposable loaded with cheap consumer film than she would have had she used her G9.

[easyrider]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Come on! This has been a standard stunt on a slow news day for decades: send out a staff photographer with a box camera to show that you can get half-decent pictures under undemanding circumstances. The only difference is that they didn't send out a staff photographer. Try the Bert Hardy picture here, from Picture Post in the 1950s: http://www.whitewallimages.com/image...lifestyle.html (second down, second from left).

As for 'polishing our $8000 Leicas', here are a couple of pics from the last few days for an article I'm working on. Sure, Frances could have used a box camera for the ford picture (I was driving), but the church interior would have been a bit more demanding.

Are mine Great Art? No. They're (provisional) illustrations for an article. So were hers, but the point of her article was happy-snaps with disposables. Any sane photographer uses whatever tools he/she is happiest with; can afford; and believes will deliver the results he/she wants. Professionally, you add 'the results the client/editor wants'. Most of the time, most editors want pictures that are technically better than a box camera can deliver, and often they want pics that aren't taken in bright sun or with on-camera flash.

Cheers,

R.

Oh dear! I seem to have upset the great Rogers Hicks! That was not my intention. But my dear Roger you are really missing the point. I did not post it because it was new and revolutionary but because I thought some on this board might find it interesting or at least mildly interesting. Not because it was great photography.

There is another point to be made about the National Post spread: She wrote a story to go with it. Alas a travel story and she nicely weaved in the use of the disposable cameras. She did not say that everyone should from now on travel with disposable cameras and do what she did.

There is a lot of moaning on news photographers' boards about the death of their craft. Well, there is no rolling it back. Many younger and not so young journalists now take their own pix and in some cases videos. Multi-skills are required and it sometimes is not easy.

(And, yes, I know Roger that you and your wife also write.)

And thanks for posting that 1950s series. Ah, those were the days! Makes me want to take out my my Leica IIIc and the Rollei Automat.

[antiquark]

I notice the corner sharpness is lacking in a few of those pics.

The pics may be good, composition-wise, but she might be disappointed some day if she wants to enlarge one to hang on her wall.

[easyrider]

Originally Posted by antiquark

I notice the corner sharpness is lacking in a few of those pics. . . .

.

Yes, I think she should send the disposables out for a CLA!

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by easyrider

Oh dear! I seem to have upset the great Rogers Hicks! That was not my intention. But my dear Roger you are really missing the point. I did not post it because it was new and revolutionary but because I thought some on this board might find it interesting or at least mildly interesting. Not because it was great photography.

There is another point to be made about the National Post spread: She wrote a story to go with it. Alas a travel story and she nicely weaved in the use of the disposable cameras. She did not say that everyone should from now on travel with disposable cameras and do what she did.

There is a lot of moaning on news photographers' boards about the death of their craft. Well, there is no rolling it back. Many younger and not so young journalists now take their own pix and in some cases videos. Multi-skills are required and it sometimes is not easy.

(And, yes, I know Roger that you and your wife also write.)

And thanks for posting that 1950s series. Ah, those were the days! Makes me want to take out my my Leica IIIc and the Rollei Automat.

What upset me was not the original post. which was, as you said, certainly interesting enough to warrant drawing our attention to it. Rather, I was upset by the 'polishing your $8000 Leicas' remark, rather than (for example) 'polishing your 23 mediocre fixed-lens compacts', because I suspect that most people who buy a Leica (and later, perhaps another) take more pictures than the people who end up spending the same amount of money on buying and selling cameras they 'can afford'.

Before that, of course, there was the post from aperture64: 'Should be a lesson to RFF members that they should just go out and shoot and not be so obsessed with gear and acquiring more of it.' Would anyone, after all, tell a musician he should stick with the penny whistle he had when he was six?

Of course there are people who are primarily camera collectors, and who waste a lot of time buying and selling and worrying instead of taking pictures, but both those posts effectively tar with the same brush the people who take good or even excellent photos with good or even excellent gear.

Yes, news photography as a profession is dying, for exactly the reasons you give. There's also an awful lot of really bad writing about, but then, there always was. The article was at best workmanlike, but again, she's a photo editor, not a writer or photographer. In fact, given that she's in some of the pictures, she didn't even take all of them.

Better than most people, I know that it's a bloody sight easier to get pubished 'from the inside', when you know the editors, etc. Would her story have been published if she'd set it in as a freelance? I suspect not.

Cheers,

R.

[antiquark]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Would her story have been published if she'd set it in as a freelance? I suspect not.

Sure it would have! It's a unique and compelling story: "disposable camera used during vacation!"

[wgerrard]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

The clue does seem to lie in the word 'editor' and not 'photographer'.


R.

Yes. She's paid to ride herd on the photos the paper uses, and doesn't use, not to take pictures.

It is a feel-good piece, and her position at the paper had everything to do with the publication of the article. (It appeared in the travel section, too.) It's the fact that this article will make most reader feel good that's really interesting. It rests on the fact that most people want, and expect, the camera to do all the work, whether the camera is a cheap disposable or an expensive DSLR. Most people want only to point and shoot.

[antiquark]

Why am I not surprised that the article ran in the Canadian paper, National Post? They've been losing money hand-over-fist for years now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post

They're also forced to publish columns by their founder, Conrad Black:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...nradBlack.html

Black writes his pontifications from a JAIL CELL in the US! He's serving time for fraud, which makes it hilarious when scolds the Canadian masses for their lapses.

The Winnipeg Free Press published his column once, and the letters page was deluged with mockery. That was the first, and last, Black article the WFP published. (Since he was incarcerated.)