Keeping up with the Joneses

[rick_helmke]

I just finished a long phone conversation with a good friend and sometime

shooting partner. The upshot of it was how much work he is doing these days in

PS2 and how much time he is spending in front of the computer. I've known him

for several years and know that he is an excellent photographer. He shoots

weddings and some other events but would always prefer to be shooting some

sort of outdoor subject. He spends as much time as possible in the western

states and always brings back some beautiful images. He is currently trying to

get a large collection of stock photos together for an agency and has been

spending many hours PS'ing his work. He's gotten way into layers and masks and

sharpening sections of a shot and God knows what else. He loves to tinker on a

computer and is largely self taught. His position is that a deep knowledge of

Photoshop is a requirement, not an option.

 

As with most things, he and I see this issue differently. We don't do anything

the same way and tend to complement each other when working together. If we

both shoot the same wedding standing side by side it is obvious who shot which

photo. I find myself moving in the opposite direction photographically. While

I've added digital like many of us, it has lost its cool factor. I'm trying to

work out a wedding option that let's me shoot like I was still a newspaper

photographer. I have good understanding of the commonly used tools on PS but

the more esoteric stuff escapes me. What's more, I'm not sure that I care or

want to get so deeply into what is a very powerful tool. Am I making a

mistake? I like to get out and shoot, bring 'em home and download or get film

processed and scanned. I prefer to have a completed proof set in a day or two

and be finished. If I am shooting a band, nature, whatever, my tendency is

still to do everything I can to get the image correctly in the camera, digital

or film. Shooting in RAW and fixing careless errors later on the computer is a

copout to me. My photographs tend to be uncomplicated. I don't use gadgets in

my work simply because I have them ie. coloring the flowers in a b&w image

just because I can. It has to actually contribute to making a better image

before I will do it.

 

I guess I am really asking if I am burying my head in the sand? I like to

think people hire me based on word of mouth or by what is in my portfolio but

I see some shooters get by not on their work but because their image and

marketing effort makes them appear cutting edge. One of them is actually not

very good but he is very succesful and I just don't get it. I'm not sure I

want to work for someone who hires me based on my use of the latest tools and

sometimes that is a factor. Younger couples today and many commercial clients

want digital because it is digital, not because it gives better results, even

when it sometimes doesn't. I'm willing to suck it up and learn the things that

will keep me competitive because one has to continue to grow but I'm not

interested in doing superfluous work just because clients want to dictate how

I do my job. I don't know how many others here have this conflict but it is

starting to bug me. I want to produce the best work I can but these days I'm

having trouble deciding exactly how to get there. Maybe I should just move to

a small trailer in the desert where I can breathe fixer every day and get out

my 4x5 and shoot cactus plants or something.

 

Rick H.

[jim_marby]

Hi Rick,

 

I agree with you quite a bit, expecially with regards to people doing sloppy work and cleaning it up in RAW. Too many people don't know their craft at all, after all the only thing it takes to be a photographer is to set the camera on automatic, buy the latest gadgit, even if it does look like a milk jug, and now you're a pro.

 

I have to admit I spend a lot of time at the computer now, sometimes I wish I could just drop my compact flash card in the mail and get the proofs back, just like in 'the old days', but for some reason, no matter how much extra work digital has made for me I just couldn't go back to film, no matter how much I like the smell of fixer.

 

 

Jim Marby

 

pictureperfectstudio.biz

[picturesque]

I understand your concern. I also dislike most "actions" and overly fussy effects done in PS. I give my clients plain, old well exposed, well lit, sharp images (unless I used a Softar on it). I tend to concentrate on the content of the images, not the presentation of them. I may do some black and white conversions and if someone wants effects, I will do them, but don't do them of my own accord. You shouldn't feel guilty or feel your work is diminished because you don't want join the ranks of the trendy. Follow your own inclinations--in fact, strengthen and amplify them. Make your own marketing niche.

[anner]

The market will tell you if you need to make changes. If you find yourself losing business

over the course of time, than it's time to analyze what's going on. If you find yourself

doing fine and getting a lot of repeat business, than you're doing something right.

 

While RAW can be a saving grace for people who make trivial errors, it's so much more

than that for someone who gets it right in the camera the first time. With the right tools,

post-production time on digital (RAW or JPEG) can actually be shorter than it used to be

when you had to drop off your film at a lab and wait 7 days. Yes, it requires more of your

time, but you also have more control over the creative decisions that are being made.

Actions and Batch Processing in Photoshop are a photographer's friend, and will help give

you more time away from the computer.

 

If you're happy with how your business is doing, than I agree there's no reason to get

caught up in the hype. However, the longer you put off learning new tools to help your

productivity, the further you'll be from the competition in the future.

 

I feel there will be a pendulum swing back to simple, beautiful photography... but as long

as Photoshop can make an image look better than the camera can (sharper, more contrast,

bolder color, etc.), it will remain a part of the digital photographer's tool kit.

[al_kaplan1]

Rick, we live in confused times. A lot of the younger generation today are convinced that digital capture is the way to go because it's new and it's gotta be better. Years back (the 1960's) when I was first starting out I thought that large format was a waste of time and money. It was only ater that, when I started to discover all the things you can do with the swings and tilts of a commercial view camera, things that CAN NOT BE DONE with digital manipulation after the fact, that I believed the old timers, bought a 4x5 and some lenses and learned to use it. But try telling that to the new generation.

 

What amazes me is that a lot of these younger folks buy tube amps for their electric guitars and are jealous that I have a collection of what's now called "classic rock" on 12" vinyl and a turntable to play them. "Sounds better than CD's" they tell me.

 

The wedding market is strange. Your wedding clients are mostly young and have no concept of photography, what it is and what it does. Art directors and editors, if it's not a situation where "we need it yesterday!" seem OK with film, and many prefer it.

[hooman_b]

I debated writing, but hey, why not! lol - with all due respect, I get the feeling this is more of one of those "dman, i hate technology and having to learn something new" threads.

 

I mean, it sounds like one of those "i used to walk to school" or damn computers in cars, what happened to good old carbs?

 

I mean, 20 years ago, it was people complaining about people who send pics off to a lab and didn't have a darkroom at home.

 

Hey, if you don't want to go digital, don't. If you don't want to use PS, don't. But bottom line is, the future is digital. It means more people will get into it, it means more people can develop their own pics, and it means more people will come up with new trends. Which all means more competition and you need come out of the "trailer in the desert" and get in the game and meet the challange!

[Gary Naka]

Here is my opininon.

 

It is simply a work style.

 

You don't have to do your own PS if you have a good "lab" to do if for you. It boils down to the same thing as back in the film world. Do you do your own developing and printing or do you have a lab do it for you? I know one photog who told me he only does basic PS, anything more than that he has his lab do it. His logic is, he rather spend time shooting and generating revenue than do the back shop, where he isn't no where as good as his lab. As a comparison he also used to print his own color prints before converting to a pro lab. So for him outsourcing the digital computer work is really no different than what he did with film.

 

The other concept is a generalist vs specialist. You only have so much time. There is an old saying "jack of all trades, master of none." This is why you have specialists, so you can become a master.

 

Also you do need to budget the computer time into the qutoe, or you could be working for minimum wage. If you spend 10 hrs at the shoot and another 20+ on the computer, did you budget for that extra 20+ hours?

 

Gary

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

I don't think it could be said any better than Anne did. This (Photoshop, etc) is the new darkroom. Did Ansel have finshed images out of his camera? Of course not. He spent lots of time in the darkroom creating his magic. How is the digital world any different? The "lightroom" is just the second half of making a finished image. Nonetheless, you've got to do what makes you happy, and you should. Just don't get so far behind that you can't catch up if you need to.

[lb-]

"Shooting in RAW and fixing careless errors later on the computer is a copout to me"

 

and relying on print film and a lab isn't?

 

"I guess I am really asking if I am burying my head in the sand?"

 

Long term, yes. it's a transitional time blah blah blah but there's simply no question in my

mind that digital capture will be the only practical commercial option in the future. I'll

shoot film till I die I'm sure but I doubt that in 20 years I'll be using it for work. I figure I

might as well get with the program sooner than later. I plan to be in this business for the

rest of my working life.

 

the idea that if one shoots digital then one must spend their life in front of the computer

doing complex manipulations is silly.

 

I don't do any of that stuff. I shoot raw files that are usually spot on or near it. I do very

basic corrections to density etc, I crop occasionally and I'm done. really nothing more

than I ever did with my film workflow.

 

If you simply don't ENJOY spending time at the computer then I totally understand, I dont'

either. I make myself feel better about it by CHARGING for it. I never enjoyed going back

and forth to the lab and spending hours with them when they'd mess something up either.

 

just part of the gig rick.

 

regardless of what sort of workflow you end up with don't let anything stop you from

getting the trailer and breaking out your 4x5. I just bought some land in the desert and

I'm shopping for the Airstream right now. Got my technika III all fixed up and ready to go.

feel free to stop by sometime, I got nothing but cactus far as the eye can see!

 

cheers

 

lucas

[cariad]

I think this whole thread is so typical. Why can't everybody just do what they like and the other person appreciate their effort. We are not sheep and nobody has to do the same or think the same as the other. I appreciate a clean, well exposed photograph, but I also appreciate what some of us can do in photoshop.

Why can't we all be more tolerant to other peoples creations, why do we have to tear people down, because they like to adventure out into

the technical age instead of staying put in their own little safe world. When I painted I would have never been as successful as I ended up being if I had not tried different and new things with my brush. Photography today is just the starting point of so many wonderful things, an adventure. Some people thought Picasso's work was horrible and some people loved it..... beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder also remember, Photoshop is not a tool just to FIX a bad photo, but to create a wonderful artistic vision (that is if you are willing to have an open mind and let your creative juices flow :) and know HOW to bring them into reality.......

So guys, take a deep breath and enjoy this adventure called digital!

[fotografz]

It'll be interesting in the years to come when some folks look back at PS work they thought

was so "creative". "What was I thinking" comes to mind : -)

 

IMO, listen to Nadine.

 

As far as following market trends, that's one way to get business ... give them what they

want, just like everyone one else. Another way is to sell what you do well, and more

importantly, what YOU want to do ... if that isn't sitting in front of a computer, then don't.

 

If you "suck it up" and do stuff you hate, you'll get burned out in no time flat.

[picturesque]

Steffi--who's tearing people down? The above comments from various people don't seem to be tearing anyone down. I can appreciate what can be done in Photoshop as much as the next photographer, but I don't think that knowing how to make PS spin makes one creative. In fact, it can go the other way--image after image of the same type of heavily manipulated PS effect--its completely un-creative. I think there is a place for PS work and effects beyond just post processing, and I am not criticizing people who do it. I just don't like it when they use an effect just for it's own sake and overdo it ad nauseam just to be trendy. It isn't required that I like it or become a PS guru in order to be a creative wedding photographer either--tolerance goes both ways, as you pointed out.

[robert x]

Hi Rick -

 

I'm not a wedding photographer, but I will give you my gut feeling on this anyway.

 

I think Anne's point - that the market will tell you if what you are doing is working or not -

is the bottom line.

 

It also seems from your post that you *know* how to produce the best work that you can,

its more that you are concerned that the market doesn't want what it is that you want to

provide.

 

So it seems to me that your best way forward is to come up with a way to market what it is

that you want to do - and what you know you do best - in a way that will make people

want that. As you said - everyone wants digital. Surely this gives you an opportunity to

market what you want to do (correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to be high quailty film

?) as an elite service - something different. Medium or large format pictures - high quality

platinum prints perhaps ? Heck - why not include a couple of 4x5 shots of the whole

group ? Nothing will impress more than you flipping a black sheet over your head.

 

The wedding industry is based upon upselling. The industry cannot make more people get

married, so the only way to increase the turnover of the industry as a whole is to come up

with new ideas - witness candle ceremonies, wedding planners, etc etc. No-one wants to

appear cheap at their wedding and so if friend A had something at her wedding, often

friend B will want the same - or better - at hers. If you can market what you propose to do

as a premium service and perhaps more importantly actually deliver something that is

clearly better on delivery than the average, then surely this will lead to more business ?

 

The key is in the way you market it - the way you speak to clients so that they come away

believing that what you offer is the best available.

 

Before I get heavily berated by anyone here, I am offering no judgement as to whether film

is better than digital. My point is that WHAT IS IMPORTANT is the way Rick presents the

idea to potential clients, the image he presents. Clients and potential clients want pictures

taken. They will, I imagine, have little idea about photography barring what friends had at

their weddings or what they have picked up. You are the "expert" that they have come to

to tell them how it should be done. It is up to you to SELL them what you have to offer and

to make them believe that what you have is what they want, or perhaps more importantly,

what they NEED.

 

I say again - I have no experience with wedding photography, but I have many years

experience in sales.

 

I would be interested to hear what people think - though please I would ask that no-one

jumps down my throat to tell me I am a clueless fool.

 

RX

[fotografz]

I agree with Nadine. While it is a lot of fun to fool around with stuff in PS, and some nice

techniques can be achieved, it needs to start with a good image in the first place.

 

It seems that many of the PS tricks are an attempt to mask a poor initial image. Perhaps more

concentration on the basics would yield better quality ... then go from there.

 

Not an easy thing to discipline one's self to given all the cool stuff PS offers. Yet, look a some

of the PS work being done ... just awful, and what's worse, the perp doesn't know it's awful.

[Dave Gardner]

I totally disagree with Marc and Nadine. PS is in no way trendy or stagnates creativity. It is THE most preferred tool(software) of 'creative artistes' around the world. To say it's a trend...just shows ignorance. It's just another tool to expand on your creativity.

 

I will agree that sometimes it's over done...but as stated...it's in the eye of the beholder. Also i agree that most of those that are negative about PS is because they are not 'educated or trained or spent the time' in it and do not know it's potential and are not willing to 'learn'.

 

Guy's.....come on....it's a tool...like a different type of paint brush or lens for us to use in creative ways. This tread is like questioning who is more creative...the photographer who takes the photo or the painter who paints it.

 

Dave

[wedding-photography-denver]

Rick,

 

you are not loopy from sniffing the 'juice' as far as I can tell. I think it is valuable to concern yourself with, and remain true to you own vision. Pureist photography (no PS'd to bits with effects and so forth) is great and sells to the market that wants that work.

 

I think however, that to skip learning PS may be somewhat of a mistake. Why? Because you are somewhat placing your head in the sand.

 

I.e. If you shoot cacti, you still have the work of development to do. Even Ansel spent a good deal of time coaxing the best he could from a image in order to have it print to its fullest potential. So based on the assumption that you will be in the digital realm for some of your work, I would think it wise to be competent in what will give your picture the best possible results (whether you see that as purist or effects). OTOH, if you are only shooting to please yourself, do what you want. But if you hope to work for hire, you must identify a market that will use/purchase what you want to sell or you are going to suffer the consequences.

 

I like to 'play' sometimes with PS and am constantly looking for ways to give the best results to a shot. Funny thing is, 90% of my work (paid) is relatively pure. I do PS some effects for a few images, but mostly I use PS to get the best from an image in terms of the most pleasing color rendition, B&W rendition, contrast, sharpness, crop and some other basic things that are normal, even to film processing. Ideally the manufacturers will place importance on the same things and we will begin to see cameras that have better abilities in these areas.

 

Well there are some thoughts from my perspective.

Best, D.

[Spearhead]

<i>It seems that many of the PS tricks are an attempt to mask a poor initial image</i><p>

 

Having spent a lot of time in a commercial lab that did a fair amount of wedding work, I can say that a lot of the value of a good lab is the ability to mask a poor initial image.<p>

 

The problem with these types of posts is that people don't realize what they have been paying the lab rats to do. It's nothing new to have to fix images. It's as old as it goes.<p>

 

And I agree with the last couple posters, most of the complaining about PS is an unwillingness to learn the tools of the trade. Whether it's laziness or fear is hard to tell, but PS is no different than learning to mix the chemicals. It's something you have to learn.

[rick_helmke]

It's great when you can get so many well thought responses from a number of perspectives. It goes a long way towards solving such an esoteric problem. I probably didn't make it clear before that I've been a fan of Photoshop for many years. I was always intrigued by the ability to do digitally what I did so often in the darkroom such as burning, dodging etc. The color corrections were something I had done during my days in color labs and I learned to do it even if I didn't enjoy it. The clone tool is way cool but seems like I'm cheating somehow. The healing tool is a godsend. In short, I have nothing against PS or digital, use them everyday and a D200 is my next planned purchase to go with my D1-X. BUT....

 

I've recently run in to two photographers that have simply brought me up short. Both are portrait shooters and their B&W work is magnificent. One I found on OneModelPlace, a guy named Wagnerin I think. His 40's style Hollywood lighting is stunning. I don't know if he shoots and processes digitally or with film and I don't care. It's gorgeous. The other is a local long-time portrait shooter. He's been one of the best locally since he was in his 20's. His B&W looks like film to me and I can't explain why. It is old-school style and he charges, and gets, a fortune for it. I think he shoots an old RB rig and TMax film and does his own printing. Whatever, the results speak for themselves and again, I find it is the kind of work I want to do.

 

I guess what I am trying to decide is, what do I need to do to keep growing and stay current while still doing the kind of work I want to do and make a living? I don't want to fall so far behind the tech curve that I am hopelessly out of date and forced to begin again. Neither do I want to become a PS know it all. I think either Anne or Nadine mentioned finding a niche market and that may be the answer. Upscale clients that are interested in results, not how I get them. I wonder if those won't be the long term clients anyway. And if I can find a way to produce portraits that have the same effect they had on me, well....Thanks for all the comments, you guys are helping me to crystalize a bunch of so-far murky concepts. I may get the passion back yet.

 

Rick H.

[fotografz]

The subject was special effects not basic processing Jeff. Tricks, not regular processing.

That's the "masking" of poor work I'm talking about.

 

No one is arguing about digital or PS, If I shoot film, it's scanned and the rest is the same. I

just don't have to do it on 400 images since the lab proofs are quite good with no labor on

my part. Then only work on the select stuff.

[picturesque]

Dave--I don't see where anyone said the use of Photoshop was trendy or stagnates creativity. I did say that mindless PS effects overuse in the pursuit of keeping up with the Jonses can be totally un-creative. Just to be clear about what you're disagreeing with... I do agree that it is just another tool to expand one's creativity, though. I don't know why people have assumed that Rick doesn't want to learn Photoshop. I never got that impression from his original post. He said he had a good grasp of it already. He just didn't know if he wanted to go on to become a PS guru and delve into the more esoteric parts of it. I don't even see anyone making any negative comments about Photoshop use itself. Maybe this is another endless war topic, like film vs. digital, where jumping to conclusions fuels much debate. Also, I was amused to read your statement that anyone making negative comments about Photoshop is ignorant and uneducated. You might be able to say that about me, since I consider myself "medium-ly" proficient, but we all know that Marc IS a PS guru. Reminds me of an evangelist trying to convice someone to believe. Photoshop is indeed a wonderful and powerful tool, but it isn't the be all and end all. There are other aspects of photography and wedding photography that count equally, if not more.

[35mmdelux]

reconsider. I was out at Joshua Tree last week photog landscapes and cacti. 115+ degrees and counting. Could barely hold the sizzling tripod.

[KenPapai]

I think the OP is rather naive. He sounds like a technophobe but not a full-on Luddite.

 

Digital or Film -- obviously you want to get it as "right as you can" when you shoot it. With digital that means RAW + the compositional sense + the exposure + quality lenses in front of the sensor.

 

I finished an outdoor portrait session 2 weeks ago -- took me one hour to shoot and I got 75 images. Of those 75 just 4 were total losers and the order that came in was excellent -- 31 originals at quantities between one and four of each image (5x7 to 11x13 inches) and this with minimal Photoshop (really just limited to cropping, sharpening, and some shadows work). (This is no different then the other much better photogs here on this forum than me as I am lucky to have even one paying photo job/month)

[Dave Gardner]

Nadine....Maybe i mistook what you said...but you did say and i quote

 

"You shouldn't feel guilty or feel your work is diminished because you don't want join the

ranks of the trendy"

 

Marc said "t'll be interesting in the years to come when some folks look back at PS work

they thought was so "creative". "What was I thinking"

 

This... Just to be clear why i disagreed with both of you...is the reason i disagreed. I also

don't jump to conclusions. If i mistook it....my apology.

 

However, i dislike when someone takes something that i said and quotes it out of context.

You said

 

" was amused to read your statement that anyone making negative comments about

Photoshop is ignorant and uneducated."

 

This makes it sound like i am saying that the 'people' are ignorant and uneducated....what

i said was....

 

"Also i agree that 'most' of those that are negative about PS is because they are not

'educated or trained or spent the time' in it and do not know 'it's potential'

 

This says that most (not all) people are "uneducated or trained" in the programs "potential"

 

This is a pet-pee of mine...if your going to quote me...at least say what i said and not out

of context...it doesn't score any points

 

As far as Marc being a PS guru...could not care....i do know that he is a very good

photographer and i like his work. I hope that your not one of those....for lack of a correct

term...people that find it hard when someone disagrees with them.

 

You seam to be very knowledgeable about photography....all though...and don't take this

the wrong way....i get suspicious of people that talk the talk but don't post.

 

And again....if i mistook how you used the word 'trendy'.....my apology.

 

Dave

[uk]

DGP,

 

Foot in mouth and twist ....

[35mmdelux]

You need to ally your suspicions. Some of us, including me, don't post much because of severe time-constraints and at other times don't seek outside approval. My concern is my client and as long as he/she pays the bill I'm good-to-go as far as I'm concerned.

 

ALso, consider judging the posts if they can stand on their own, as we say in business. Consider some, dump the others.

 

Best - Paul