Forums > Photography Talk > To all the old farts,

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 10594

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

How the hell did we manage to take pictures before digital?
Despite all the complaints of menus, extensive post-processing etc. Photography today is dead easy, compared to the days of film where you saw the results days if not weeks later. You had a choice of many ASA's, pretty much whatever you had loaded in the camera. Speeds from 25ASA- 200, and the wonders of 400ASA that was usable. Cameras that had 3 buttons (actually might have been an advantage). Flashes with 2 settings, full power or off, and no modelling light. Anybody remember the brilliant piece of new tech. the Wein Flash Meter? Infrared triggers the size of some of today's small cameras.

How did we survive, and actually take some decent pictures?

Jul 16 17 10:24 am Link

Photographer

Shadow Dancer

Posts: 7495

Bellingham, Washington, US

What is the concept? Are there variables or is the concept concrete?

What is the setting? Are there variables or is the setting concrete?

What is the lighting? Is the lighting subject to variables or is the lighting concrete?

Once those problems are solved, you can work on creating an image. Or, you can "wing it". Either approach can work and one may be more appropriate than the other depencing on circumstance (a still life vs. street shooting).

The basics remain and there is some flexibility in adjusting the parameters.

Will there be motion? You must solve the equation based on shutter speed or available flash sync depending on circumstance.

Do you need shallow or less shallow depth of field? You must solve the equation based on aperture.

Is there plenty of light or not much at all? You must solve the equation based on ISO.

Digital has not changed the fundamentals, other than providing more tools in some cases.

Jul 16 17 10:50 am Link

Photographer

BCADULTART

Posts: 2103

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Herman,

I miss the "Good Old Days" of film, E-6, K-14 and D-76 and the martini's drank while waiting for processed film.
Now I spend my nights sitting at the computer not a bar, it is good for my "Good Old Liver"

Jul 16 17 11:49 am Link

Photographer

Box Top Photography

Posts: 96

Hoboken, New Jersey, US

I am one of those that never would have gotten into photography if not for digital. I started out using photoshop for work and got the bug to take my own photos.  Somethings may be easier now from a technical point of view but creating a memorable image is still hard as hell.

Jul 16 17 11:55 am Link

Photographer

Vector One Photography

Posts: 3336

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US

Because we knew what we were doing and had a working brain. You had to know because the machine couldn't make any decisions for you and didn't give you a menu of choices to make it easier for you to decide.

Jul 16 17 02:33 pm Link

Photographer

Jason Hamper

Posts: 68

Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada

A medium format camera with a polaroid back definitely helped.

Jul 16 17 02:49 pm Link

Photographer

Nostromo Images

Posts: 10

Asheville, North Carolina, US

The biggest thing for me is selecting ISO at will without money spent on killing off a roll because the light or location changed.   
Used to love Ilford 400 because back then it seemed to have a lot of range despite the grain.  The fundamentals haven't changed but I don't go broke spending money on film and developing anymore; just hiring models!

Jul 16 17 03:09 pm Link

Photographer

Mike Collins

Posts: 2739

Orlando, Florida, US

We shot more slowly, or until we knew everything was good to go.  Because every click of the shutter cost us.  There's a reason so many can get into wedding photography today.  No film to buy.  No processing.  No proofs.  Good lord, NO ONE shot thousands of shot at ANY wedding.  Maybe 10 rolls of medium format.  Yes, medium format was the choice of most.  Granted the shots were usually not so exciting.  Mostly "have to get shots" and a few pretty bridal/couple shots.but still.  Back then, that was the norm.  Mostly posed, set up shots. 

Commercially, especially large format like I shot was very expensive.  Film, Polaroid, processing.  Very high powered lights.  4000 watts was normal for a typical shoot in our studio.  Sometimes a lot more.  Today?  Hell, a few cheap 300 watter's and your good to go. 

So again, we HAD to be sure we got the shot.  Hand retouching was very expensive so you had to "PRE touch" as much as possible and make everything look as good as you can before hand.  If you could do an in camera effect, even better.  That's all we had.  At least with chrome.  Double exposures.  Polaroid masking.  Good times.

Jul 16 17 06:35 pm Link

Photographer

R E Baker Photography

Posts: 105

Owego, New York, US

Yep I had a Wein Flash Meter!

When shooting B&W with an RB67 every time
I hit the shutter my brain went......50 cents!

I do not miss developing film.

I sorta miss printing photos in the Dark Room.

(should I mention the red filter I had over the screen of the
small TV I had on the corner shelf of the Dark Room)

Jul 16 17 06:53 pm Link

Photographer

NewBoldPhoto

Posts: 5200

PORT MURRAY, New Jersey, US

These threads always make me nostalgic for my A-1. Somehow the feeling never lasts beyond the moment that I mount the Fd50/1.4  and look in the fridge... no Velvia, no Tri-X, no Neopan... just food.
As I think about it somehow the food started appearing in the fridge about the same time the film started disappearing... cause and effect or just coincidence?

Jul 16 17 07:43 pm Link

Photographer

martin b

Posts: 2269

Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines

Jason Hamper wrote:
A medium format camera with a polaroid back definitely helped.

I had an NPS polaroid back for my 35mm.  I had two f5s so one had the polaroid back.  I remember having my friends see how I shot chrome with strobes and then they weren't impressed once they saw how I used polaroids to check my lighting.  They did love seeing the tiny polaroids.  I think it was two shots per roid.  i don't really miss how slow it was although I used to enjoy the 2 min of chatting up the model while i waited for the polaroid to develop.

I know most amatuer people didn't shoot that way but it was pretty standard for prefessionals to have polaroid backs for everything back in the film days.  Especially because I shot all the formats. 

Something else I don't really miss was buying film by the brick to match emulsions to match the exposure and cc (color corrections) of the batch.  Damn that was expensive.  I had a credit card with a $5000 limit back in the 80s just for film purchases down at A&I.  That would break me now.  It would be like buying a new digital camera every month.

Jul 16 17 07:46 pm Link

Photographer

JT Life Photography

Posts: 500

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Loading bulk film into 35mm cassettes, anticipation of the negatives coming out of a Durst tank, getting temperatures right, selecting paper hardness, dodging and burning and, watching the magic in the tray of developer.

But, long before that, planning what I wanted the image to be. And, remembering the basics to get that shot. That at least hasn't changed.

JT

Jul 16 17 11:10 pm Link

Photographer

Photography by Riddell

Posts: 810

Hemel Hempstead, England, United Kingdom

Asides from the ability to adjust ISO on the fly and the ability to have a quick verify on the screen, I don't think there is any difference to digital. I still largely work in the same manner as I would with film.

I think large amount of successful photographers do, if if they don't realise it.

Th biggest reason I originally went digital was to save money in the long run. Back then I was spending a grand a month on film and development. Digital got rid of that cost as well of course as giving me the advantage of speed.

Jul 17 17 02:19 am Link

Photographer

Charlie Schmidt

Posts: 792

Kansas City, Missouri, US

R E  Baker Photography wrote:
Yep I had a Wein Flash Meter!

When shooting B&W with an RB67 every time
I hit the shutter my brain went......50 cents!

I do not miss developing film.

I sorta miss printing photos in the Dark Room.

(should I mention the red filter I had over the screen of the
small TV I had on the corner shelf of the Dark Room)

RB67 and roll film...10 images per roll of 120
we spent more time changing rolls than making images
red gels over the tv....and it was antenna tv back then
you make me wanna laugh and cry......
I gave up the darkroom last summer....

Jul 17 17 07:51 am Link

Photographer

Michael DBA Expressions

Posts: 3509

Lynchburg, Virginia, US

Yeah, I briefly had a Wein flash meter. Total piece of junk. For the longest time, the only thing that DID work was a Polaroid film back for the ol' RB-67. Sometimes took 2 or 3 sheets of it to dial in the lights, along with a lot of experience knowing what they would do beforehand.

But watch it with the "old farts" stuff. I resemble that remark.

Jul 17 17 08:07 am Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 10594

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
But watch it with the "old farts" stuff. I resemble that remark.

Hey, I is one, so I can get away with it.
wink

Jul 17 17 03:02 pm Link

Photographer

sospix

Posts: 22875

Orlando, Florida, US

Between my trusty D800 (on full auto), and my limited PS skills, even I kain't screw it up EVERY time anymo'  .  .  .  wink  Although, I do still miss shootin' with my old reliable F model  .  .  .

https://www.destoutz.ch/slides/typ_finish_black_used2.jpg

.  .  .  now THAT was a piece o' iron ya could really feel in your hands whilst shootin'  .  .  .  still didn't guarantee a usable image every time though, at least not with me behind the viewfinder  .  .  .  wink

SOS

Jul 17 17 03:23 pm Link

Photographer

Shadow Dancer

Posts: 7495

Bellingham, Washington, US

sospix wrote:
Between my trusty D800 (on full auto), and my limited PS skills, even I kain't screw it up EVERY time anymo'  .  .  .  wink  Although, I do still miss shootin' with my old reliable F model  .  .  .

https://www.destoutz.ch/slides/typ_finish_black_used2.jpg

.  .  .  now THAT was a piece o' iron ya could really feel in your hands whilst shootin'  .  .  .  still didn't guarantee a usable image every time though, at least not with me behind the viewfinder  .  .  .  wink

SOS

I've had a couple of Nikon F bodies, still one of my favorite film cameras. That was a nice thing about film, a good body would last for decades. Now, we invest in lenses and bodies come and go. Fortunately that has slowed down now that everything made by everybody is so good.

As a side note, I had a friendship with a camera repairman in California and when I took my F body in for new foam seals he said he had only ever had 2 of them come in that he could not repair. One of them was dropped from a tall building in New York and luckily hit the sidewalk instead of crushing somebody's skull. It was too far out of alignment to use but he got some good parts off of it. The other was found in the water on the Florida coast and had been there for some time. It was a total loss, salt water corrosion had destroyed it.

Jul 17 17 03:33 pm Link

Photographer

sospix

Posts: 22875

Orlando, Florida, US

Shadow Dancer wrote:

I've had a couple of Nikon F bodies, still one of my favorite film cameras. That was a nice thing about film, a good body would last for decades. Now, we invest in lenses and bodies come and go. Fortunately that has slowed down now that everything made by everybody is so good.

As a side note, I had a friendship with a camera repairman in California and when I took my F body in for new foam seals he said he had only ever had 2 of them come in that he could not repair. One of them was dropped from a tall building in New York and luckily hit the sidewalk instead of crushing somebody's skull. It was too far out of alignment to use but he got some good parts off of it. The other was found in the water on the Florida coast and had been there for some time. It was a total loss, salt water corrosion had destroyed it.

Nutz, I knew I dropped that danged camera in the ocean, no wonder I couldn't find it  .  .  .  wink  I DID drop several of my old F bodies from considerable heights from time to time, but, they always just kept on a shootin'  .  .  .

SOS

Jul 17 17 03:42 pm Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 6331

Glens Falls, New York, US

I started with film (like there was a choice then) , went digital, and for the most part came back.

Film isn't just easier because their are fewer buttons; it's also easier because of the compression effect. The more you expose it, the more it resists exposing. That has a lot to do with the tonal range (especially for BW stock) , and also means that if you're careful with your developing, you can kinda' half-ass your shooting. You also got those nifty hyperfocal meters, so during the day you often didn't even need to focus - just be further away than ten feet or so.

But I think the biggest advantage is NOT being able to see your photo. Not for some things, obviously - it sucks for any professional work. But how many times have you taken thirty shots of the same thing, trying to get it just right? And then used the second or third shot anyway? When you can't see your photo, you can't fixate on making so many little changes that you kill the interest or spontaneity; you're just focusing on looking for pictures, and not on polishing stones. Or turds.

I'm very much looking forward to being able to replace my 4x5 studio camera with a digital model, when such a thing becomes affordable. But for that reason, I don't see myself ever replacing my 6x6 as a walking around camera.

But "ever" is a long time, and almost every claim about "ever" and technology has been proven false.

Jul 17 17 04:35 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 10594

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

sospix wrote:
Between my trusty D800 (on full auto), and my limited PS skills, even I kain't screw it up EVERY time anymo'  .  .  .  wink  Although, I do still miss shootin' with my old reliable F model  .  .  .

https://www.destoutz.ch/slides/typ_finish_black_used2.jpg

.  .  .  now THAT was a piece o' iron ya could really feel in your hands whilst shootin'  .  .  .  still didn't guarantee a usable image every time though, at least not with me behind the viewfinder  .  .  .  wink

SOS

At the time of the Photomic I was shooting a Topcon RE Super. ( Bessler Topcon Super D in the USA) My black body one looked like that by the time I got rid of it. And I only got rid of it because I needed autofocus, and when I say needed, I mean it. I might get a building in focus, but apparently not much else.

Jul 17 17 11:16 pm Link

Photographer

Chris David Photography

Posts: 553

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

When I started studying photography it was all film and darkroom work.
We were using medium and large format during the class time and 35mm on our own time.
Except on the action shots I would think and compose the scene in my head first and the exposure/look I wanted prior to pressing the shutter then use the light meter and take readings of highlight and shadows, calculate my exposure then shoot.. I knew roughly how much stop of info the film stock held and also the paper I was printing on and most times the subject/scene especially outdoors does not fit so more decision making and maths required. Now its dead easy with digital and sadly these days I've met and worked with too many 'professional' photographers that still don't understand most of the fundamentals especially exposure, aperture, ISO and white balance yet earn a full time living taking pictures.

Jul 18 17 04:14 am Link

Photographer

hbutz New York

Posts: 3668

New York, New York, US

Film is to digital as rock climbing is to sky diving.  True, gravity is involved in both sports but one requires a bit more thought than the other.

Jul 18 17 05:11 am Link

Photographer

G Reese

Posts: 568

Marion, Indiana, US

OMG, old home week. The 16x20 of a humming bird was all it toke to get me to go digital. The Speed Graphic and Polaroid back set on the shelf to remind me of the good ole days. 
        There was more respect for the craft. Now everybody with a phone is a photographer.

<----- Shot with Yashica F-X 3 super 2000, scanned to digital. (No retouching )

G Reese

Jul 18 17 05:35 am Link

Photographer

Visual Delights

Posts: 169

Austin, Texas, US

I don't at all miss the hundreds and hundreds of hours breathing chemicals in a small room. All those fumes can't have done my body any good.

Jul 18 17 06:04 am Link

Photographer

AE Photography

Posts: 114

Eugene, Oregon, US

lol... auld pharts indeed!

How about (for the lab tech types) sensitometers, densitometers, spec grav, Ph, retouching negatives, hand processing sheet film (dunk dunk, tap tap, tilt, tilt...) or sitting in a closet for 8 hrs splicing roll after roll of 35mm, hypnotized by the clicks, whirs and air bursts of the splicer.

Shooting film (esp transparencies, K25 and K64) made me a more precise judge of light and exposure. And digital... after shooting my first 500 frames on my new DSLR and realizing I paid $0 for film and processing was enough to make me a digital believer.

Jul 18 17 07:06 am Link

Photographer

fotopfw

Posts: 874

Kerkrade, Limburg, Netherlands

Then, you knew your stuff, or you were unemployed. In assignments there was no trying, it was succeeding time and time again, knowing it was on film without seeing. For exposures that were on the edge, you waited in the hope that it would come out alright. Couldn't do that much in post. Had to get it the first time: on film.

I don't miss messing with the chemicals, but never got used to the 35mm FF format. Loved the 6x7 and 6x8 formats way better when doing weddings on film. The Fuji NPZ800 worked wonders. Shot my last wedding on film with that, in 2003. Feels ages ago....

I still shoot portraits and landscapes on film (6x7 - 4x5" - 8x10").

Jul 18 17 08:07 am Link

Photographer

Shadow Dancer

Posts: 7495

Bellingham, Washington, US

AE Photography wrote:
lol... auld pharts indeed!

How about (for the lab tech types) sensitometers, densitometers, spec grav, Ph, retouching negatives, hand processing sheet film (dunk dunk, tap tap, tilt, tilt...) or sitting in a closet for 8 hrs splicing roll after roll of 35mm, hypnotized by the clicks, whirs and air bursts of the splicer.

Shooting film (esp transparencies, K25 and K64) made me a more precise judge of light and exposure. And digital... after shooting my first 500 frames on my new DSLR and realizing I paid $0 for film and processing was enough to make me a digital believer.

I was a Lab Rat. Worked at the only Kodak Q Lab in the San Joaquin Valley in California. My official job was running the Type R (positive to positive) printing department but I did a bit of everything from time to time.

Dip and dunk E6, we had a camera and alarms so we would know on the rare occasion the processor would "throw a rack". It happened to me once, NIGHTMARE NIGHTMARE!!!!! I managed but you are dealing with total darkness, a time factor and racks of film shot by professionals. Nerve wracking.

Ran a chart daily tracking my red green and blue lines from test strips read by color densitometer. If the green line went fugitive it was usually time to measure specific gravity while adding water to get the balance correct.

Finding mold growing in the chemistry was always delightful. Dumping tanks, cleaning them, starting over with fresh chemistry in a replenishment process that was accurate only when "seasoned" by processing. Ugh!!!!!

On the other hand, I got to print lots of medium format and 4x5 film to large prints and often spoke to the shooters to find out what they needed. Since I was not particularly paid well I took the opportunity to become a master at dodging and burning. I cut a cardboard mask for the foam on the wake of a wave once, to dodge it and maintain detail until the darker parts of the water lightened up. I also stopped the lens way down and ran LONG exposures while changing the color pack to reduce the blue cast in the shadows of a few prints.

When I left I was feeling sorry for whoever followed me should one of owners of a specially handled print come back in and want another.

Jul 18 17 08:09 am Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 6331

Glens Falls, New York, US

I have to disagree with most of you that say digital removes the "intelligence" of photography. When it comes to printing, that's absolutely, 100% correct. I've ranted and raved about that many times here, so anybody that cares can use the search function. But when it comes to actually shooting, there wasn't nearly as much intelligence in the first place as many of you seem to think.

Look no further than the Kodak Brownie, the Pony (the 35mm version) , Instamatic, Polaroids, or disposable cameras. With the exception of very early Polaroids and very expensive Polaroids and Instamatics, none of these cameras had more than one shutter speed ... Unless you count "day" and "night" as multiple exposure options ... even then, that was usually an aperture setting, made (essentially) by an internal Waterhouse stop. Most of them didn't have focusing either: they were zone focused from about 2.5 meters to infinity.

Those are the cameras that most people used until the early 80s - at which point they switched to compact automatics. I'd go so far as to say that there was only a brief period of time between about '95 and 2010 where the average consumer owned a camera with any sort of manual controls beyond flash on/off, and most didn't even use the them. Hell, two of the three best-selling SLRs of the 70s (Canon AE-1/program and T50) only had to be focused. Pentax's K1000 may have sold more units, but it was also around for at least three times as long as those other units, and had the advantage of being the go-to school model. Break it down to non-academic sales by year, and the top-selling cameras have all been automatic or preset, going back all the way to when the Brownie came out in what, 1904? 1894? I forget the date, but I know it was turn of the century and there was a 4.

When we talk about people using phones, we're not talking about replacing a Spotmatic with a phone - we're talking about replacing a Stylus, or a One-Touch Zoom. Generally. I know there are exceptions, just as some Stylus users traded in their cameras for Rebels.

Shit, you can go way back. A lot of well-known, early photographers we're just as horrible by today's standards as your average wedding photographer was in the 50s. But they got work and/or respect because they were the only game in town.

So no, I don't think current tech makes anybody worse photographers ... I think it's all rose colored glasses, and people not equating apples to apples.

Jul 18 17 11:14 am Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 10594

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Zack Zoll wrote:
I have to disagree with most of you that say digital removes the "intelligence" of photography. When it comes to printing, that's absolutely, 100% correct. I've ranted and raved about that many times here, so anybody that cares can use the search function. But when it comes to actually shooting, there wasn't nearly as much intelligence in the first place as many of you seem to think.

Look no further than the Kodak Brownie, the Pony (the 35mm version) , Instamatic, Polaroids, or disposable cameras. With the exception of very early Polaroids and very expensive Polaroids and Instamatics, none of these cameras had more than one shutter speed ... Unless you count "day" and "night" as multiple exposure options ... even then, that was usually an aperture setting, made (essentially) by an internal Waterhouse stop. Most of them didn't have focusing either: they were zone focused from about 2.5 meters to infinity.

Those are the cameras that most people used until the early 80s - at which point they switched to compact automatics. I'd go so far as to say that there was only a brief period of time between about '95 and 2010 where the average consumer owned a camera with any sort of manual controls beyond flash on/off, and most didn't even use the them. Hell, two of the three best-selling SLRs of the 70s (Canon AE-1/program and T50) only had to be focused. Pentax's K1000 may have sold more units, but it was also around for at least three times as long as those other units, and had the advantage of being the go-to school model. Break it down to non-academic sales by year, and the top-selling cameras have all been automatic or preset, going back all the way to when the Brownie came out in what, 1904? 1894? I forget the date, but I know it was turn of the century and there was a 4.

When we talk about people using phones, we're not talking about replacing a Spotmatic with a phone - we're talking about replacing a Stylus, or a One-Touch Zoom. Generally. I know there are exceptions, just as some Stylus users traded in their cameras for Rebels.

Shit, you can go way back. A lot of well-known, early photographers we're just as horrible by today's standards as your average wedding photographer was in the 50s. But they got work and/or respect because they were the only game in town.

So no, I don't think current tech makes anybody worse photographers ... I think it's all rose colored glasses, and people not equating apples to apples.

Most of what you are talking about is the average snapshooter. The person who has a D5 and never takes off "P" for professional. Or the average iPhone shooter = box brownie. Same same, except everybody has better than a box-brownie with an iPhone.

My OP was about those who went beyond snapshots.
So you are not wrong, but on a total tangent.

And I do not miss the chemicals.

And at times I will put on a prime, and pretend each click of the shutter is an 8x10 sheet film.
And no way in hell would I want to give up digital.
And a creative mind will outperform whatever the hell we are using. And with digital, it has liberated the creative mind from many of the constraints of technology. But you still need to know what you are doing.

And the OP was mostly to reminisce, and partially to rant against all the new kids on the block, that every year think they have invented 'fire'.

Jul 18 17 12:42 pm Link

Photographer

Zave Smith Photography

Posts: 1546

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

I am 62 and in excellent health.  Part of the reason that my health is good is that since 2001 I have not breathed, mixed, touched and been close to any photo chemistry.  From regular B&W fixer, to the acid baths we used in Platinum printing and with the toxic mess that was e-6, I am chemical free.

I love the freedom that digital cameras give me.  With my Canon 5d Mark 4, I set the shutter speed and F-stop for the look I want and let the ISO go where it needs to.  When I go from scene to scene I don't have to juggle different films to work with the different color temperature in of my new set.  No worry about film being scratched or lost or Fucked Up in the processing. 

I can shoot tethered and my client can see what we have in real time which saves time since we don't have to overshoot so much.  On my laptop, I or one of my crew can spot that little crap that often creeps into a shot unnoticed like a sign or a lightbulb hanging over a subject's head.

I mainly shot 8x10 and 4x5, and while I enjoyed the zen of it, I love the energy my present work can achieve because of the technical freedom that digital offers in comparison to shoot chrome.   

It is amazing how much skill I needed and knew back then, it is amazing how much freedom the digital age has given me.

Zave Smith
www.zavesmith.com

Jul 19 17 04:39 am Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 10594

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
SNIP

It is amazing how much skill I needed and knew back then, it is amazing how much freedom the digital age has given me.

Zave Smith
www.zavesmith.com

Pretty much.

With the current technology the old skill level makes an amazing combination.
I am much better than I ever was.

And the uber creative, talented kid, will still kill me.

Jul 19 17 03:39 pm Link

Photographer

Yani S

Posts: 1038

Los Angeles, California, US

They had:
skill
talent
brains for that kind of work
practice
Knowing their tools
Reason why there where so few and made a ton of $$$
Now the camera thinks for you.
You can be piss ass drunk and still take a sharp - great image.
I know, I done it, with my X-Girl friends
The next thing will be a personal drone that follows you around taken pics of what ever you look at.
It will even decided whats a good picture for you. So you dont have to look threw all the millions it takes.
Watch! This will be the next new thing! I will just hover over your shoulder.

Jul 21 17 02:59 pm Link

Photographer

Shadow Dancer

Posts: 7495

Bellingham, Washington, US

Yani S wrote:
They had:
skill
talent
brains for that kind of work
practice
Knowing their tools
Reason why there where so few and made a ton of $$$
Now the camera thinks for you.
You can be piss ass drunk and still take a sharp - great image.
I know, I done it, with my X-Girl friends
The next thing will be a personal drone that follows you around taken pics of what ever you look at.
It will even decided whats a good picture for you. So you dont have to look threw all the millions it takes.
Watch! This will be the next new thing! I will just hover over your shoulder.

Google is doing R&D on contact lens cameras for stills and video. Stealth.

Jul 21 17 03:44 pm Link

Photographer

Ken Marcus Studios

Posts: 8928

Los Angeles, California, US

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
I am 62 and in excellent health.  Part of the reason that my health is good is that since 2001 I have not breathed, mixed, touched and been close to any photo chemistry.  From regular B&W fixer, to the acid baths we used in Platinum printing and with the toxic mess that was e-6, I am chemical free.

Zave Smith

Ansel Adams had a theory as to why photographers seem to live longer than most other occupations . . . He believed that when you are in an enclosed darkroom for as many hours as most of us were in those days, you breathed in a lot of Acetic Acid fumes (strong vinegar) and other chemical fumes. He felt that those fumes cleared out your lungs and allowed for a more healthy life. He lived a full life and passed at age 82.

Jul 21 17 03:45 pm Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 6331

Glens Falls, New York, US

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

Ansel Adams had a theory as to why photographers seem to live longer than most other occupations . . . He believed that when you are in an enclosed darkroom for as many hours as most of us were in those days, you breathed in a lot of Acetic Acid fumes (strong vinegar) and other chemical fumes. He felt that those fumes cleared out your lungs and allowed for a more healthy life. He lived a full life and passed at age 82.

I'm sure the fact that he got a fair bit of exercise for most of his life helped too.

Jul 22 17 12:04 pm Link

Photographer

Jeff Cole MFA ASMP

Posts: 1478

Atlanta, Georgia, US

A partial list of "old farts" having transitioned successfully from film to digital.

For any smug newbies,  unaware of actual industry leaders, A list names are provided with age:

Albert Watson 75
Howard Schatz 77
Patrick Demarchelier 74
Peter Lindbergh 73
Annie Lebovitz 68
Mario Testino 63

Jul 22 17 02:03 pm Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 32185

Dearborn, Michigan, US

When I bought my digital SLR I set down my F2 and haven't picked it up since!

Jul 22 17 02:14 pm Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 6331

Glens Falls, New York, US

Fotopia wrote:
A partial list of "old farts" having transitioned successfully from film to digital.

For any smug newbies,  unaware of actual industry leaders, A list names are provided with age:

Albert Watson 75
Howard Schatz 77
Patrick Demarchelier 74
Peter Lindbergh 73
Annie Lebovitz 68
Mario Testino 63

Just to play Devil's advocate ... Who transitioned unsuccessfully? How can we tell? Since so much of today's culture is based on irony and reappropriaton (fashion especially so) , what is the difference today between a bad imageade accidentally and one made on purpose?

Jul 22 17 02:25 pm Link

Photographer

Jeff Cole MFA ASMP

Posts: 1478

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Zack Zoll wrote:
Just to play Devil's advocate ... Who transitioned unsuccessfully? How can we tell? Since so much of today's culture is based on irony and reappropriaton (fashion especially so) , what is the difference today between a bad imageade accidentally and one made on purpose?

Wouldn't it be a worthy ambition to try not producing bad images, whether deliberate or acidentally? There are already enough truly atrocious images online.

All I intended was to simply point out how many senior, (old farts) talents are at the highest level of contemporary photography.

Jul 22 17 03:44 pm Link