Neil Snape wrote:
I learned a lot of how to for still life. With film it was an act of precision to do client work. Now it's just an act of pressing the button on a DSLR.


Dean was a great speaker, and teacher.

I will always be grateful for what he shared, and in person a very friendly kind person.

I don't know why you feel anything has changed, other then Polaroids vs digital preview but Dean was a talent and amazing teacher.

AJScalzitti wrote:

I don't know why you feel anything has changed, other then Polaroids vs digital preview but Dean was a talent and amazing teacher.

DSLR and auto will fetch you a decent picture almost always. With film it was not at all like that. IT took training, experience, a way of doing things that was not given. Of course you could be just making fun of the notion!

Neil Snape wrote:

DSLR and auto will fetch you a decent picture almost always. With film it was not at all like that. IT took training, experience, a way of doing things that was not given. Of course you could be just making fun of the notion!

High-end product work still does.  It may use digital, but it's a digital back on a technical camera, not a DSLR.  Being able to control perspective, refined lighting, etc., are still things that are valued by good clients.  There's a reason shooting a perfume bottle for an ad still costs close to $50k.

Paramour Productions wrote:

High-end product work still does.  It may use digital, but it's a digital back on a technical camera, not a DSLR.  Being able to control perspective, refined lighting, etc., are still things that are valued by good clients.  There's a reason shooting a perfume bottle for an ad still costs close to $50k.

Thanks. You give me hope that there is still some value in what I've learned and what I've shot.

It doesn't however take away from the number of truly large professional jobs that are shot with and by people who don't have a clue about what you just said, nor care. Why should they as their DSLR does what is needed for the the clients that once upon a time had to hire those who could produce a picture that required some degree of technical knowledge.

Neil Snape wrote:

DSLR and auto will fetch you a decent picture almost always. With film it was not at all like that. IT took training, experience, a way of doing things that was not given. Of course you could be just making fun of the notion!

Not at all, and 35mm SLRs had automatic settings during the film days.  I think film just 'scared' off more of the wannabes, lord know fixing something in the darkroom sounds way more difficult then photoshop.

Technology like the Internet just lets us all communicate better, so know that hack in green button running-man mode that was only know in their own small community is virtually everywhere.  I think they were always there but we just didn't notice them as much.

In the end its still about knowing how to create the image and what image to create.

Neil Snape wrote:

DSLR and auto will fetch you a decent picture almost always. With film it was not at all like that.

My Nikon N90s captures better shots on film in P Mode than my DSLR does.

Having the option to have the camera figure everything out for you, does not mean you should necessarily do so.  I sure as shit don't.

AJScalzitti wrote:

I don't know why you feel anything has changed, other then Polaroids vs digital preview but Dean was a talent and amazing teacher.

Although polaroids were at least an order of magnitude more of a hassle.
Also, for me (35mm polaroids), I always had to look at them through a loop to see much - kind of small.

Neil Snape wrote:
I learned a lot of how to for still life. With film it was an act of precision to do client work. Now it's just an act of pressing the button on a DSLR.


Dean was a great speaker, and teacher.

I will always be grateful for what he shared, and in person a very friendly kind person.

I see this sort of argument often from those who I don't feel have really mastered the craft and therefore feel the competition from folks who only know how to press a button.  I am surprised to hear it from you.

I never shot seriously with film personally, but have assisted with those who were and I still feel the real value of what is created is not in anything the camera is capable of doing for you (selecting an arbitrary exposure, bracketing or any other automatic function), but in the many decisions that go into creating the photograph long before the shutter button is pressed.

Certainly the very low end of the photography market can now be more easily served by those who don't know their craft (although even the Canon AE-1 was a fully automatic SLR over 25 years ago), but who cares?  Do you really want to be shooting for clients who can't tell the difference between your work and someone who just presses a shutter button?

Maybe I need to spend some time shooting film because I really don't see how "digital" makes it all so much easier to the point that skill, knowledge, creativity and experience don't easily trump anything a fancy new camera body can do in the hands of the unskilled.

I think the biggest change in photography has been the ease with which one can learn it these days.  Cameras are more affordable than ever and there is lots of great information available freely on the internet for those that wish to learn.  I think this has had a much larger effect on the photography industry than any advancements in cameras including the change from film to digital.  There are now lots of guys teaching seminars etc. about all manner of photography - I don't think that was the case before "digital" and the only reason it exists now is because everyone can afford to own a decent dSLR.

Maybe you can help me to see things differently?

David Kirk wrote:
Maybe you can help me to see things differently?

You need only to buy yourself an 8x10 Sinar and shoot away. Then you'll realise why anyone picking up a DSLR and pressing the button on Auto will have a better result.

I am actually surprised by all the people here responding that their old 35 mm on Auto would produce anything close to a modern DSLR. None of you have every gone through the process then of what had to be done to get to a hi res scans off a drum scanner to get a digital file.

I did and often. If you didn't get it right throughout the process on film, technically, you couldn't just change sliders in RAW settings.

Degrading what others do with shooting DSLR for production isn't taking away from the fact that indeed many jobs are being done everyday with those who do shoot with less complication than any film camera would have ever had.

The esthetics have nothing to do with this, never would I say anything so stupid.

Mike Collins wrote:
Dean was not only one of my dearest friends, he is my sole reason for still being in this business.  He was actually the first photographer I ever assisted.  And I did it the day after I met him.  After that we remained close friends and I would assist him  here and there and with several of his seminars.  Know those things by heart!  To this day, no one puts on a show like he did and delivers as much content or entertainment! 

If not for him, I may have given up right after school.  It was the WAY he taught light that made it so clear to me.  He explained it in a way no one, not even my teachers, who were good, couldn't. 

Even though his breakdown of all the controls of lighting seems so simple to me now, when I first learned them it was a true revelation for me. 

He was probably a better business man that he was a photographer.  And the best piece of advice I ever learned from him was:

"It's not who you KNOW.  It's who knows YOU!"

Mike, it is an honor to speak with anyone who has known Dean. You are spot-on in the way that he could communicate seemingly complicated theories and techniques in simplified terms, and I WISH he was here today to infuse his humor into the subjects of things like "RAW-vs-Jpeg", or explain HDR and tone-mapping in the way that ONLY Dean Collins would be able to.

I only wish I would have discovered him sooner!

Neil Snape wrote:
None of you have every gone through the process then of what had to be done to get to a hi res scans off a drum scanner to get a digital file.

I did and often. If you didn't get it right throughout the process on film, technically, you couldn't just change sliders in RAW settings. one picking up a DSLR and pressing the button on Auto will have a better result.

Neil, I do have some questions about FILM/slide conversion and comparisons, so I'm going to start another thread for it here...(let's take it over there)
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=870435

David Kirk wrote:
To the OP, sorry for the hihack/detour above.

I never heard of Dean Collins until this thread, but did find some of the video clips I viewed very helpful.  I can imagine that a course with him would have been very worthwhile as he explains not only what he is doing, but his line of thinking as he works his way through the plan.  Thanks for posting.

No worries, and you are welcome! It's all good.

I will be ordering anything I can as far as Dean's teaching after the bank account refills after the holidays. I just don't find anyone else get's across to me the way his style does.

And I just love to hear the stories and tips/tricks and quotes that people who knew him, or were blessed with his instruction, actually remember.

Neil Snape wrote:

You need only to buy yourself an 8x10 Sinar and shoot away. Then you'll realise why anyone picking up a DSLR and pressing the button on Auto will have a better result.

I am actually surprised by all the people here responding that their old 35 mm on Auto would produce anything close to a modern DSLR. None of you have every gone through the process then of what had to be done to get to a hi res scans off a drum scanner to get a digital file.

I did and often. If you didn't get it right throughout the process on film, technically, you couldn't just change sliders in RAW settings.

Degrading what others do with shooting DSLR for production isn't taking away from the fact that indeed many jobs are being done everyday with those who do shoot with less complication than any film camera would have ever had.

The esthetics have nothing to do with this, never would I say anything so stupid.

Thanks for the clarification - I mistakenly assumed you were arguing that modern dSLRs have made photography as a whole much easier.  Having no experience in film processing myself I appreciate you sharing your perspective.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
RIP, Dean.

Wasn't that back in 2005?

Smedley Whiplash wrote:

Wasn't that back in 2005?

Some time ago, time flies, but will never forget Dean. When the news came in I think it was on Dpreview where people could send him wishes and courage up until his very last days.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
Mike, it is an honor to speak with anyone who has known Dean. You are spot-on in the way that he could communicate seemingly complicated theories and techniques in simplified terms, and I WISH he was here today

Indeed, agreed on all counts.  The only other I know alive today who comes close (and regularly teaches) is Don Giannatti (another of Dean's disciples, and also a thoroughly nice bloke - even when he's writing grumpy comments on my Facebook statuses).

Neil Snape wrote:
You need only to buy yourself an 8x10 Sinar and shoot away. Then you'll realise why anyone picking up a DSLR and pressing the button on Auto will have a better result.

I am actually surprised by all the people here responding that their old 35 mm on Auto would produce anything close to a modern DSLR. None of you have every gone through the process then of what had to be done to get to a hi res scans off a drum scanner to get a digital file.

I did and often. If you didn't get it right throughout the process on film, technically, you couldn't just change sliders in RAW settings.

Degrading what others do with shooting DSLR for production isn't taking away from the fact that indeed many jobs are being done everyday with those who do shoot with less complication than any film camera would have ever had.

The esthetics have nothing to do with this, never would I say anything so stupid.

I agree with this opinion ...

I think learning about Zone System & pre-visualization and then doing those film testing will make half amount of photographers now quit ... and take on knitting & drawing ... lol
And we are not talking about how to do Unsharp Masking & Gamma Infinity ... sigh

David  wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - I mistakenly assumed you were arguing that modern dSLRs have made photography as a whole much easier.  Having no experience in film processing myself I appreciate you sharing your perspective.

Modern DSLRs HAVE made photography as a whole much easier ...

Yes, Aesthetic & the degre of creativity is a must and indeed are the most important of all - but I've found that when I'm not thinking about the technicalities too much ... I can be more creative in the process ...

But of course I'm just saying this from my own experiences ...

Neil Snape wrote:

DSLR and auto will fetch you a decent picture almost always. With film it was not at all like that. IT took training, experience, a way of doing things that was not given. Of course you could be just making fun of the notion!

+1

Film required talent.  Digital doesn't require it but talent still helps.

David Kirk wrote:
Thanks for the clarification - I mistakenly assumed you were arguing that modern dSLRs have made photography as a whole much easier.  Having no experience in film processing myself I appreciate you sharing your perspective.

Well particularly for studio photographers it definitely has. Shooting manual with studio lighting on film takes some real skill and practice. I shot it for like 10 years and it's a tedious learning process and you basically have to get things virtually spot-on (particularly with chrome). Not saying digital is push-a-button, but anyone who's shot studio film, knows digital is nowhere near as difficult.

Neil Snape wrote:
Thanks. You give me hope that there is still some value in what I've learned and what I've shot.

It doesn't however take away from the number of truly large professional jobs that are shot with and by people who don't have a clue about what you just said, nor care. Why should they as their DSLR does what is needed for the the clients that once upon a time had to hire those who could produce a picture that required some degree of technical knowledge.

Neil I do not often disagree with you, but I must.
It is not that the DSLR is at fault, it is that the clients and the public no longer care about quality. The clients who still care, still hire the big guns, and spend big bucks. Digital has made life easier, not easy. Yes, anybody can now get a decent shot, even with a camera phone. But great shots still take knowledge and technique.

David Kirk wrote:

I see this sort of argument often from those who I don't feel have really mastered the craft and therefore feel the competition from folks who only know how to press a button.  I am surprised to hear it from you.

I never shot seriously with film personally, but have assisted with those who were and I still feel the real value of what is created is not in anything the camera is capable of doing for you (selecting an arbitrary exposure, bracketing or any other automatic function), but in the many decisions that go into creating the photograph long before the shutter button is pressed.

Certainly the very low end of the photography market can now be more easily served by those who don't know their craft (although even the Canon AE-1 was a fully automatic SLR over 25 years ago), but who cares?  Do you really want to be shooting for clients who can't tell the difference between your work and someone who just presses a shutter button?

Maybe I need to spend some time shooting film because I really don't see how "digital" makes it all so much easier to the point that skill, knowledge, creativity and experience don't easily trump anything a fancy new camera body can do in the hands of the unskilled.

I think the biggest change in photography has been the ease with which one can learn it these days.  Cameras are more affordable than ever and there is lots of great information available freely on the internet for those that wish to learn.  I think this has had a much larger effect on the photography industry than any advancements in cameras including the change from film to digital.  There are now lots of guys teaching seminars etc. about all manner of photography - I don't think that was the case before "digital" and the only reason it exists now is because everyone can afford to own a decent dSLR.

Maybe you can help me to see things differently?

What he said.

The real learning advantage to digital is ... instant feedback.

Neil Snape wrote:

DSLR and auto will fetch you a decent picture almost always. With film it was not at all like that. IT took training, experience, a way of doing things that was not given. Of course you could be just making fun of the notion!

This is not really true in a conversation about Dean Collins.  No DSLR and auto can do what he did.  Dean Collins was a master of seeing light and using it in any situation to make amazing images.  My favorite was when he shot a motorcycle ad on 8x10 with hot lights and moved the wheels during the exposure with fishing line to make them blur.  Awesome stuff!

Robert Helm wrote:
Dean combined the rare talents of not only being a skilled and talented photographer but the ability to communicate effectively in simple terms what he was doing. He was a master of controlling light.

Besides chromozones the two things I remember most was how he debunked the theory that you needed tons of high powe professional lighting gear by shooting with Vivitar strobes, dialed down to lower power setting. In a sense he was a strobist long before the term was created. Then he got sponsored by a studio flash company

The other was a series of shots where he demonstrated how to shoot under any ambient lighting conditions to get any type of lighting you wanted thru light control.

Light control.
Easy to say.
Easy to plan.
Damned hard to do.

Kaouthia wrote:

Indeed, agreed on all counts.  The only other I know alive today who comes close (and regularly teaches) is Don Giannatti (another of Dean's disciples, and also a thoroughly nice bloke - even when he's writing grumpy comments on my Facebook statuses).

Don is grumpy?

Linking Don for the participants of my lighting workshops (camera club).

GD Whalen  wrote:

+1

Film required talent.  Digital doesn't require it but talent still helps.

Disagree. See the other points.

Ezhini wrote:
Whether a writer uses a quill, a mechanical typewriter or a wordprocessor on a computer, it is the writer who creates the literary work.

Even though progressively newer technologies have made the physical act of writing easier, no amount of technological development will substitute having a clear and factual understanding of the elements of syntax, extents of semantics and the potential for pragamatics in making a great writer.

This goes for all media, including photography!

The primary element of syntax in any visual art is Light, especially so in photography.

Without learning light, one may make acceptable images. But, there wont be anything to write home about.

Absolutely right.

Neil, I'll bet I could hand you one of my Box Brownies and you would kill 90% of the photographers on MM.

And I am familiar with the PITA of scans, which is why any negs and slides I still have, have never been converted. The mechanics are easier, the photography is not.