Successful Old-timers

I read through photography threads in a lot of different forums, most of them as far back as they're available. I'm not into wedding photography but find tips about shooting weddings relate to everyday stuff I do. Getting a decent shot of the white dress next to a black tux, as an example, is similar to getting a decent shot of a Tree Swallow or a crow in the snow, and other themes can also relate to everyday shooting.

Yesterday I realized I was reading wedding threads from the early 2000's. Most of those posts were related to film, but I was a surprised to see several wedding photographers said they were shooting only in auto mode. For whatever reason, most all of the posted sample photos and links are no longer available. That got me wondering how many of them evolved into successful photographers and are still shooting today, whether it's weddings or portraits or whatever.

Does anyone know of a successful relic who started posting that far back?

Frank, I have zero experience with doing wedding photography, but I'm in awe of the job they manage to handle. However, I'd think their people-handling skills would rank way above their technical whizzery — kind of like how an undertaker's people-skills are more important than their corpse-handling skills.

Hmmm ... that didn't come out quite how I meant ...

Black and white film is extremely tolerant of overexposure, and was more common than color until the late 60's. Medium format, including the RapidOmega, was commonly used. 35 mm was not used that much except in large cities, like the Chicago area, where you clicked every table and combination of people to sell as many 4x5" prints as possible. Not many people developed their own, but use a service bureau to do the prints and sometimes albums. You usually cut the negatives into single frames and marked the cropping in the borders with a grease pencil (precise - NOT). The key to handle white against black was the same then as now - use an incident light reading, or for flash, a table based on test rolls. Then, as now, it was more important to be consistent than absolutely correct. I didn't have an automatic camera until the late 90's.

Right on about dealing with people under stressful conditions. Speed and organization was a priority for formal groups. Grandparents first (to not keep them standing around), then large groups to small, finishing with the B&G. Party poppers were more of a nuisance than commercial threat, "Just one more shot" bogged things down. I asked them to wait until they saw my flash before shooting. That kept things moving, and almost guaranteed everyone had their eyes shut ;)

Frank, I have zero experience with doing wedding photography, but I'm in awe of the job they manage to handle. However, I'd think their people-handling skills would rank way above their technical whizzery — kind of like how an undertaker's people-skills are more important than their corpse-handling skills.

 

Hmmm ... that didn't come out quite how I meant ...

I smiled at your comparison but know exactly what you mean. :D I'm also impressed at what wedding photographers do. As much as things change camera-wise, people skills will always be necessary.

Why don't you post this question on the Wedding and social event forum? I think quite a few of the regulars there are old timers (e.g., Marc Williams), although I am not sure they use (or have used) auto mode.

Might do that but fear it would be kind of a double post. It's more of a general curiosity about those who were having difficulty getting their potential photography business off the ground anyways, wedding or otherwise. I've seen businesses (unrelated to photography) come and go after they showed a lot of promise at the beginning and are now forgotten. I'm wondering how many of the then-starting-out wedding photographers lost out because they didn't believe digital would ever replace film... and makes me wonder if something similar will happen with those who are insisting mirrorless is the wave of the future.

Black and white film is extremely tolerant of overexposure, and was more common than color until the late 60's. Medium format, including the RapidOmega, was commonly used. 35 mm was not used that much except in large cities, like the Chicago area, where you clicked every table and combination of people to sell as many 4x5" prints as possible. Not many people developed their own, but use a service bureau to do the prints and sometimes albums. You usually cut the negatives into single frames and marked the cropping in the borders with a grease pencil (precise - NOT). The key to handle white against black was the same then as now - use an incident light reading, or for flash, a table based on test rolls. Then, as now, it was more important to be consistent than absolutely correct. I didn't have an automatic camera until the late 90's.

 

Right on about dealing with people under stressful conditions. Speed and organization was a priority for formal groups. Grandparents first (to not keep them standing around), then large groups to small, finishing with the B&G. Party poppers were more of a nuisance than commercial threat, "Just one more shot" bogged things down. I asked them to wait until they saw my flash before shooting. That kept things moving, and almost guaranteed everyone had their eyes shut ;)

Good points that I didn't know. There are a lot of things I tend to take for granted when taking pictures, but some of the old "tricks of the trade" are timeless. :D

Near immediate post processing and making photos available so quickly must have been a huge selling point for those who were moving away from film.

Mirrorless cameras offer one thing denied to SLRs - silence, completely silent operation. Some SLRs, notably the Canon 5D are quiet, but not silent. That may be the competitive edge which will drive SLRs out of the wedding market in favor of MILCs. The other is resolution. We now have medium format resolution and dynamic range available in (almost) affordable packages. The Hasselblad X1D is a notable departure from traditional medium format, but is not completely silent, and lenses designed to cover the larger sensor are 2-3 times as expensive. The X1D (and MF in general) will continue to rule in daylight fashion photos with flash, and possibly in the studio. They also offer a pricing advantage for high-end weddings, implying success (like doctors driving Cadillacs or attorneys, Jaguars).

Mirrorless lenses are intrinsically simpler in the absence of the strong negative objectives needed to increase the back focus distance, and the plethora of elements needed to correct that distorting factor. The relaxed design constraints can also allow for more highly corrected lenses, as we see in many Zeiss offerings and the Sony GM line. Not inexpensive, more complex, and larger, but with superb image quality.

I did not 'start' doing any wedding photography until the mid-80s, when I had acquired a pair of Canon A-1's on the used market for a reasonable price. For the majority of interior shots, I set the aperature, and let the camera decide the speed. The variance to this portion was when the speeds were too low for crisp shots and required some control. Reception work was almost inevitabley on full auto and bounce flash--rarely were there any duds. After a while of dealing with wedding customers I simply had enough. It takes a rather tolerant, and deferential soul to be really successful in dealing with people who manage to make such affairs a venue of crisis and angst... :oops:

When wedding and portrait photography began the strong transition from MF to digital, it was indeed a boon for many of us doing other sorts of photography--as the Mamiya's, Bronica's, and Pentax rigs began flooding the market for cheap as photographers sold them off. As we know, shooting digital has the benefit of immediate review and multiple exposure in a bracket mode. I know several current bridezilla specialists that shoot completely in auto--usually with a custom set of settings they have come to like. There is an overarching philosophy these days that EVERYTHING can be fixed in post!

Mirrorless cameras offer one thing denied to SLRs - silence, completely silent operation. Some SLRs, notably the Canon 5D are quiet, but not silent. That may be the competitive edge which will drive SLRs out of the wedding market in favor of MILCs. The other is resolution. We now have medium format resolution and dynamic range available in (almost) affordable packages. The Hasselblad X1D is a notable departure from traditional medium format, but is not completely silent, and lenses designed to cover the larger sensor are 2-3 times as expensive. The X1D (and MF in general) will continue to rule in daylight fashion photos with flash, and possibly in the studio. They also offer a pricing advantage for high-end weddings, implying success (like doctors driving Cadillacs or attorneys, Jaguars).

 

Mirrorless lenses are intrinsically simpler in the absence of the strong negative objectives needed to increase the back focus distance, and the plethora of elements needed to correct that distorting factor. The relaxed design constraints can also allow for more highly corrected lenses, as we see in many Zeiss offerings and the Sony GM line. Not inexpensive, more complex, and larger, but with superb image quality.

Had to look up "MICL" but am on track now. I can understand the desire for silent operation, especially at weddings, but can see the benefits of quietly shooting wildlife, too.

Sadly, I don't have the imagination for creating new stuff. My dad was a musician and recorded on a wire recorder, and I can remember how fascinated I was when he started recording on tape. I wondered how it could EVER get better than that. I have the same lack of vision with advances in cameras today.

I did not 'start' doing any wedding photography until the mid-80s, when I had acquired a pair of Canon A-1's on the used market for a reasonable price. For the majority of interior shots, I set the aperature, and let the camera decide the speed. The variance to this portion was when the speeds were too low for crisp shots and required some control. Reception work was almost inevitabley on full auto and bounce flash--rarely were there any duds. After a while of dealing with wedding customers I simply had enough. It takes a rather tolerant, and deferential soul to be really successful in dealing with people who manage to make such affairs a venue of crisis and angst... :oops:

 

When wedding and portrait photography began the strong transition from MF to digital, it was indeed a boon for many of us doing other sorts of photography--as the Mamiya's, Bronica's, and Pentax rigs began flooding the market for cheap as photographers sold them off. As we know, shooting digital has the benefit of immediate review and multiple exposure in a bracket mode. I know several current bridezilla specialists that shoot completely in auto--usually with a custom set of settings they have come to like. There is an overarching philosophy these days that EVERYTHING can be fixed in post!

The shooting is automatic part is interesting. Most of the posts I read these days pretty much poo-poo the idea of shooting in auto, especially for a wedding.

Several of the older posts I mentioned appear to be by successful photographers who used full auto for weddings. None of their links work today so I can't view them, but follow up comments met with (mostly) positive comments. I had the impression that post processing was in it's infancy and not everyone was using it yet, so a lot of shooters were depending on the camera to make the image.

Judging from posts I read it does look like a lot of people depend on post processing but there are still a few who insist that a "good" photographer knows how to take a photo, and a minimum amount of post processing is best, even if it's only to save time. Most of that stuff is over my head though.

Their complaints about digital shooters undercutting film shooters reminds me of the complaints about Craig's List shooters today.

I'd LOVE to visit 1960 with a top-of-the-line camera from today. :D

A fact is that many people handling cameras--P&S or DSLR--have them in some auto or 'scene' type mode. By and large, the type of knowledge that was necessary to produce successful images with a manual camera in the 'film days' is receding. In my area of the world, most of those commanding the bridezilla world are young, female, and have emerged in a totally digital world-complete with advanced cameras, flash gear, and post-processing software and defined filters/macros. Almost every one of them I have met started out doing photos for friends--and slid into the business. There seems little in the way of apprenticeships these days.

I see the carryover effect bearing on those threads you allude to. This was a time of real transition. Those "old timers" were rooted in several facts--one of the most important being the number of shots possible without having to reload or swap bodies. I never ever saw a wedding photographer who used a bulk film back--this means 36 exposures at the most in 35mm. Sometimes you got a bonus exposure or two. If shooting MF in 220, the max was about 30 in 6x4.5" format, less for other sizes. And 10-12 for shooting 120. This sort of limitation made us think a bit more 'back in the day' about the quality of the shot--its composition and exposure factors. Things were checked with light meters. Sure, there are those in digital rigs--but a consensus of practice seems to revolve around my old strategy--find the best aperture for the lens--choose a solid ISO that does not 'grain out" the exposure, and so forth. Most better prosumer and pro bodies allow one to confine the ISO ranges, as well as other factors. Even setting a custom configuration is a form of auto exposure...

Old guy now folds up soap box and heads off for afternoon nap... :rolleyes:

Hmmm ... that didn't come out quite how I meant ...

Hey, Julie, does this mean you're going to take back the scolding you gave me on another thread? I would have preferred saying this via private message, but apparently you don't accept them.

I don't have a photography background, so I tend to use unrelated stuff I know about to make comparisons... like upcoming generations won't know much about troubleshooting a poorly running 351 Cleveland or something like that. There will be a lot of upcoming and successful photographers who might have a basic idea about the things you mention in your last paragraph, but they won't be able to adjust or use an "old fashioned" camera.

Shots possible with each roll of film caught my eye in the older forums, along with questions about how many rolls and what type of film was recommended. That's something ELSE I knew about but never really thought about. As long as I have an extra battery and maybe an extra card I'm good to go.

It's a sad but true statement about apprenticeships going out. Not many people are making their own butter these days. Lots of knowledge and history being lost due to "progress."

"You will be courteous to your elders who have explored to the point from which you may advance, and helpful to your juniors who will progress farther by reason of your labors." - Abbott L. Lowell

Hope you had a good nap. :D

Lets not forger that today's "Auto" is a completely different beast from the old "averaged", "Center weighted", or "Spot" choices of yesteryear. Thee have been huge advances in both how meters meter & the automated "modes" for "portrait", "Action" & so on have made a difference too.

I don't 100% trust my automation, but I do use it frequently, albeit modified with program shifts, exposure compensation & so on.