Originally Posted by ptpdprinter
Hardly. I only brought up Penn (I could have included Avedon, Halsman, and others) because you said "backstage/fashion show coverage kind of sucked in the film era."
I stand by this statement. Especially the part where I qualified the above statement further by saying: "especially from a production standpoint." This was meant as a crittique of the deficiencies of film in the digital production
era of print, and not necessarily a blanket statement, but whatever. When the greats were in their prime, for every Avedon and whomever else was out there, there were 1000s of less-talented photographers who produced, on average, much crappier results than the masters did backstage. And every master you've cited would likely have had a higher percentage of keepers with better technology. And might I add that back in the day where Avedon or Penn had a small entourage of assistants and lab technicians doing their film changes, processing, and other photographic mise en place for them...nowadays modern staff photographers have just themselves and a laptop to do the same job in 1/10 the time. If they're lucky and their publisher bought them a laptop that is, LOL.
Bottom line, yes there were people who used the tech of their era to great effect and produced images that are kick ass. But also, I believe that if you pay attention to the average
quality of the work being produced back then, it is also lower than the average
quality of work being produced today.
Most (if not all) of us are NOT
the next Penn or Avedon or Leibowitz, etc. In fact most of the working photographers in media never, ever got the vaunted status that a few achieved. I’ll be the first to admit that I suck compared to anyone on your list, but hey I got over it a long time ago and now I use every tool I can as an advantage, because I need all the help I can get. And for all of us unfamous slobs, having better technology has allowed us to do more than we would have otherwise. And media consumers have, as a whole, benefitted from a lot better coverage on average. Unless you're going to tell me that the few great names you're dropping took ALL the backstage photos in the world back then.
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter
I'm critical of a spray and pray approach and, when you don't get the shot, complaining the camera isn't fast enough. But if you think you need those capabilities for runway/backstage, there's the new Sony A9 which is about the same size as the Fuji, so you can still ditch your Canons. Beware though, the best shot is often the one between the frames, and the only way to get it is through skill and practice.
Oh gosh thanks a bunch, Obi-wan. I'm so glad you graced us with your constructive
opinions and saw fit to write off the abilities of anyone using continuous AF and a framerate that goes over 3 FPS because you do not approve of it. I also apologize for not being as skilled as your heroes, and for using technology to produce the results I need to earn a paycheck. But. While I compared a few cameras in my review, I did not blame anything for any missed shots, I simply stated which cameras I felt were up to the task and which cameras were not.
And if your so-called "best shot" is in between frames, how do you capture it? That's like saying the best part of a song is the second of silence in between tracks.
It sounds like ridiculous, pretentious drivel. When you take photos for a living, you learn that the best shot is the one you ACTUALLY HAVE IN HAND. Full stop. Nobody (well no editor at least) cares how you shot it as long as you didn’t steal it. I should use that best shot argument on one of my art directors next time they're upset I missed a look on the runway...I'm sure once I bring up Avedon and Penn they'll totally understand.
Look, I get what you're saying about the importance of "art" and composition, and deliberation. I like that stuff too. That's why I shoot film myself, and why my favorite digital camera ever is the M9. But if like me, you're just a working stiff with a camera, a 9-5, and an art department you have to keep happy, you use what you have and appreciate that tools like continuous focus and ultra high framerates are a thing now and you're glad your work day just got a little less stressful. And you welcome better, newer technology because it lets you focus less on what you are doing, and more on what you are capturing.
Because when I am on the job, it's not about my ego or my photographic sensibilities (which, like yours, f*cking LOVES the photographers we've mentioned in our exchange). If I wanted to work by such lofty creative standards I would have kept photography as a hobby, not taken it on as a career. I think that the loss of "art" in publishing is a bummer too, but since it's beyond my power to change the entire publishing industry, I live with it and try to be grateful to have the experiences and opportunities that I do.
I'm sorry you do not like faster cameras and high framerates but please do not make the mistake of assuming that anybody who does must somehow not be able to find your mysterious missing frame or have artistic vision...or that their concept of photography is inferior because they don't idolize a bunch of extremely talented photographers from the last century and frown upon modern equipment. That way lies a slippery slope which will find you using a tintype camera with an ISO of 12 because all that newfangled 35mm business gives you triple digit ISOs and 36 whole frames in between film changes…that’s just spray and pray yo. LOL.
I posted this review in the hopes that someone with similar working requirements might find my experiences helpful, not to debate over the merits of the technology itself. I’ve enjoyed this debate (well ok not really), but will not engage any longer as it’s clear we’re not talking about the same thing here.
Enjoy your hobby, and I will enjoy mine as well.