Are you a "REAL" photographer?

How ironic that to be a "real" photographer, you're expected to use the equipment that makes all the decisions for you.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I got a strange comment from this over-confident, yet sadly ignorant country boy type, while I was using my Bessa at a friend's wedding. He said, "What is that, some kind of shutter bug camera? Is it digital?" I laughed and said, "No, I'm using film," and he just said, "I didn't know they even made film anymore."
 
colyn said:
Yesterday while out roaming around with my M3 and Nikon FE looking for photo ops I was approached by a "PROFESSIONAL" :eek: photographer who informed me I was not a "REAL" photographer because I was shooting film instead of digital. :(
Click to expand...

Colyn: next time just have enough self confidence to look them in the eye and say "Yes, I am". No explanation is necessary.

As we proceed though life we occasionally encounter those who come out of nowhere and insist that we justify ourselves. My experience is that these are people who struggle to justify themselves and are not worth dealing with.

FWIW, last week I was being photographed by the local press for a story about my new photo exhibit opening. The photographer held up his latest high zoot DSLR then pointed to my Mamiya 7 and said "I remember when I could shoot medium format b&w film, had a Mamiya 6.......... but the demands of the my job..........well, you know"
 
colyn said:
Yesterday while out roaming around with my M3 and Nikon FE looking for photo ops I was approached by a "PROFESSIONAL" :eek: photographer who informed me I was not a "REAL" photographer because I was shooting film instead of digital. :(

SO.......Are you a "REAL" photographer??? :D:D:D
Click to expand...

You run into people like that once in a while. I can find them anytime I want if I go to the top of Mill Mountain. They will be the ones trying to take flash photos of the Roanoke Valley at night.
 
My Digital SLR is the most difficult camera to use that I own. The CCD is sensitive to 1.1uM, it uses a blue SPD to meter, the disk drive hold 50 images before you have to download them, it's SCSI only, and it only works with Photoshop 3.0 running on WIN95. It has an LCD that tells you how many images are on the Disk and what the SCSI ID number is.

I love using it. Makes a cool sound when the buffer is flushing to disk. When the disk is rotating, you get a gyro effect that helps hold the camera steady.

Real Digital Photographers don't need no stinkin monitors and histograms to get exposure right!
 
I must be very lucky or very intimidating. Nobody ever has anything unkind to say about any of my cameras other than small children who look vaguely confused and disappointed if I happen to have a film camera since they can't see a preview.
 
I'm going to miss Polaroid. I always took the Polaroid to a "Kids Event" and handed them the picture. Would shoot off two or three packs at a Birthday party.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
My Digital SLR is the most difficult camera to use that I own. The CCD is sensitive to 1.1uM, it uses a blue SPD to meter, the disk drive hold 50 images before you have to download them, it's SCSI only, and it only works with Photoshop 3.0 running on WIN95. It has an LCD that tells you how many images are on the Disk and what the SCSI ID number is.

I love using it. Makes a cool sound when the buffer is flushing to disk. When the disk is rotating, you get a gyro effect that helps hold the camera steady.

Real Digital Photographers don't need no stinkin monitors and histograms to get exposure right!
Click to expand...

Sounds bizarre, can we see this beast?

Matthew
 
I was reading this thread yesterday and having a bit of a laugh, then today at work it happened! I was framing some prints for a very average photographer who was raving about his pics and the gallery that was showing them, when I stupidly asked what he shot them with. Well,he said, one of these(pulls out a 5D with crappy zoom)it`s a state of the art dslr, very expensive but worth it if your a pro. I nearly fell over laughing! After recovering, I said, oh yeah, my mother in law`s got one of those,she loves it, then said , (grabbed xpan out of bag) ,digital is fun, but for my serious photography I use a real camera!
Then , in a lame effort to redeem himself, he said...well,pro`s only shoot digital nowadays, then I said....that`s only because they don`t have a choice! :D
 
JeffGreene said:
He couldn't understand why I would go to all the "trouble" I do to make pictures. ... He couldn't understand delayed gratification. At his age, faster is always better.
Click to expand...

I can spend (literally) hundreds of hours studying a Mozart or Bach sonata just to play it in a rather mediocre way, or I can let Szeryng or Menuhin do it in a few minutes in the CD player. The second approach is obviously better, but yet I prefer the other way.

It would be very difficult to explain (to myself too) why. The good news is that I'm not forced to justify why I like or dislike things.

JeffGreene said:
Anyway, just thought I'd share this.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you did it. By the way, my spell checker seems to know who's Menuhin but not Szeryng. Hmmm ... not a great connaisseur, I guess.
 
The other day I shot 1400 images in five hours and that comes around 40 rolls of 36. even at $10 for the film and processing it would have cost me $400!

I'm not sponsored by Kodak like Salgado and I don't have my lab assistants processing my film for me. I also have a day time job which leaves me very little time.

So, for my style of shooting digital is my only option and the only option for anyone shooting a lot who don't have sponsors or client who pay for the film and processing.

I know, there is cult or sorts amongst film users who believe in shooting very few images, that's fine, if you're a weekend shooter but for those who work on a project or wait for an event months or years, that's not an option.

So, in other words, it's true that a lot of film users are not really serious photographers, because they simply can't afford to be due to film processing expenses and time.

I have my film cameras and I shoot once in a while with them.
 
Horses for courses.

If you're shooting for a paper and need to transmit images within a half hour of the event. You choose digital.

If you're shooting an event and anticipate 1400 images in 5 hours. You shoot digital.

If you need 9 stops of dynamic range, and movements, you shoot film. (granted not 35mm)

If you need to blow it up to 6 feet by 9 feet and still have good detail, you shoot film. (granted, not 35mm)

If you are shooting for yourself, can take your time, and either process yourself or are in charge of the look and feel of the story - you can shoot whatever you want.

I have more than a few "pros" look wistfully at my film rf's at events. But If I were in their shoes with their job requirements - I'd be holding a dSLR too. But since I'm shooting the event for myself, I'll shoot it the way I want to. Tho times like that make the m8 look attractive. I think part of the "wistfulness" is that they know I'm not under the gun, and just having fun. The job can be a chore.

For the working pro, film is very hard to justify. Especially 35mm (whose primary arguments used to be convenience and speed - traits frankly trumped by digital).

I use film because I chose to. Not because it makes the most sense from a business standpoint. (Although, for my architectural work, it does).
 
I also shoot keeping in mind that I shoot for regular people to see my pictures not amateur photographers. People don't give a damn whether an image was shot in film or digital, to them its the subject/look of the picture which matters.

Note that I said amateur photographers, because every time that I have discussed photos with a serious photographer (pro/artist) we hardly talked at all about the gear.

When I was new to photography I was overwhelmed with all the cameras and lenses etc... but the more I shot the more i realized that gear is the easy part. Taking good pictures is hard and making great pictures is virtually impossible.
 
Matthew Allen said:
Sounds bizarre, can we see this beast?

Matthew
Click to expand...


This is a picture of my DSLR camera with a Leica Thread Mount adapter and a "hacked" lens- a 1950s Canon 50mm F1.5 with the rear element removed to change the back-focus. The 1950s Kodak Retina viewfinder on top. I normally use the camera with Nikon lenses though!

DCS200IR.JPG


The camera uses a Monochrome CCD, and does not have an IR cut filter or AA filter.

And Photoshop--- I found the Kodak Twain drivers for Photoshop were throwing away pixels and applying some sort of "gamma curve" to the intensity. So less pixels and less dynamic range. So I wrote my own driver in FORTRAN and Assembly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom