Photographors as sheep! - that is: Following the Crowd?

[young]

I have been debating this over the past couple weeks. First let me preempt this

question.

 

I have recently been given a position as a staff photographer at the local

paper. I was handed a camera bag and told to go. This is fine with me, except

that I have no Idea whats in the bag.

 

The bag contained a Nikon D80, 2 lenses and a speedlight. I had never used a D80

before, and after about 20 minutes, I had it figured out. I have used digital

cameras before, namely Canons... but most features are the same.

 

I shot 135 frames, and the camera ran out of battery. Dead. I was not sure how

many shots they wanted, and they didn't tell me there was only one battery. So

I shot till I could shoot no more, then I put the camera down and enjoyed the

rest of the show.

 

I went back and talked a little while to my photo editor. She informed me that

the staff would be there till at least 3am. It was Wednesday, deadline day. I

could see no work going on, just random people on face book.

 

I thought to myself: I could have shot 3 rolls of ISO400, developed them and

scanned them by 12 or 1am.

 

I HATE that D80.

 

 

 

Now, to the philosophy part:

 

My thought on the matter is that it sorta makes since to use digital in a fast

paced news scene where time matters most. Perhaps I am missing something, but

what did we do BEFORE digital. It seems I remember news papers having photos for

the last 150 years. I know its the new fad, and everyone's doing it, which

brings me to my next point:

 

Are Photographers turning into crowd following sheep? Do Photojournalists

actually care that much what they shoot on? Do Real Photography is my

livelihood artists care?

 

I know the markets tell us consumers what to buy. The "Pros" fall into that

category too. All people are consumers, unless you live in an agrarian society,

in which you would not have a camera in the first place.

 

Why follow the crowd? Why is instant better? Why are the only questions that I

ask, those that can not be answered?

 

I really hate this to turn into a rant, but I fail to see the difference. I am

not looking for a "one size fits all" answer here. I would like insightful

comments. I see all the posts over Digital - vs. - Film and it just about makes

me sick. I choose to shoot on film because I feel I get better results when I

look at the negatives. There is something inherently organic and almost alive

about taking my 120's out of the tank. Feeling the cold water of the rinse, the

smell of stop bath... What do I think you get with digital? well, nothing.

 

I would hate to be forced to be a digital only. It seems like everything I want

to do, someone chastises me for not doing it the "convent" way. Are we

"Americanizing" the film world too?

 

So its personal, and if you have read this far, I think this has turned more

into a "I like film more than Digital" rant than what I wanted it to be; an

objective view of the masses being lead down a path because they have blinders

on. Does anyone make decisions for themselves anymore?

 

 

JRY

[Matt Laur]

Anyone who would head out to do event coverage with only one partially charged battery... and then complain that shooting digitally isn't as productive as spending the evening pulling 120 out of a tank... is being a bit disengenuous. You doth protest too much, as Shakespeare put it.

 

I'll leave aside whether or not the person that handed you the camera bag should have been handing you a rig with a couple of extras (like a charger and a spare battery). It's your responsibility as the photographer to take 5 seconds and dig into the camera's menu system for a look at the lifetime health of the battery and the current state that it's in. You may have had the camera and its battery in fine shape, and simply had the strobe's batteries dead... and with the camera unwilling to take a shot until it sensed the strobe recycled and ready, you were out of luck unless you switched over to shooting available light. These are basic troubleshooting skills that any working photographer has to be able to do without a moment's more thought.

 

These are the most basic concepts imagineable for someone who is actually taking money to go out and shoot.

 

Your job as a photojournalist is to deliver timely, usable results to your employer. Not to be pleased by the organic smell and feel of chemicals, or to fret over whether or not the quality of the image (once reproduced through halftone on newsprint, or on the newspaper's web site) would have been better if you'd been carrying around rolls of film and needed darkroom services after the event, instead of immediately delivering usable images that the editors can put to work within moments. If you don't understand the importance of immediacy as a news photographer, then I think you may be in the wrong line of work.

[k5083]

Hey J.--face it, it's a rant. And it's hard to see this thread turning out to be anything other than the ones that make you sick.

 

In a mass consumer society, the individual consumer's ability to "decide for himself" are limited by the menu of products available, which is determined by the aggregated decision-making of himself and all the other consumers, which drives what producers offer. If you want something that's not on the menu, you may be out of luck. The exact equipment that I want does not exist, and I can't afford to have it custom-built. We all have to be sheep in this sense, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

 

On the other hand, nobody's forcing me to switch to digital. The market, especially the used market, contains plenty of (film) equipment that while not ideal, is quite adequate to my needs and some of it is very nice indeed. I'm sure the same is true for you. So you're ranting about one or both of two things: (1) the equipment they make you use at work, (2) the equipment others are using. #1 is a legitimate beef but we all get saddled with tools at our various jobs that are not what we would prefer; just remember, it's a living! For #2, as long as there's still good equipment out there for you, what do you care? Is it out of concern that your fellow consumers are being duped by unscrupulous marketers into buying products that will not satisfy them as much as alternatives you might propose? A noble sentiment, but remember people cannot be deceived as masses; they have to be fooled one sheep at a time. And they are not all that stupid. The masses rejected some of the dumber directions in film photography despite intense marketing (remember disc cameras? APS?) and will do so with dumb directions in digital as well.

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

Matt said most of what I had intended to say but I'll just add a few comments; (1) using that

150 year figure for now, do you imagine those newspapers were taking photographs the

same way throughout? No-of course not. (2) How did you get to your assignment? Car?

Taxi? Bus? You probably wouldn't have 150 years ago. (3)"then I put the camera down and

enjoyed the rest of the show." You didn't call your employer and ask what you should do?

(4) " I could have shot 3 rolls of ISO400, developed them and scanned them by 12 or 1am."

Not without charged batteries in your camera! Just some things to consider. cb

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

for what it's worth, I have also gone out on a shoot with a battery that died on me and hadn't

brought a spare along ( and I do have spares!). Duh! cb :-)

[markci]

People shoot digital because we are living in the information age. There was an invention a few years back known as "Internet." You may have heard of it; I believe it received considerable attention in the press.

 

Artistes of course will use whatever they want: silver halide crystals, pigment on canvas, carving in marble, mosaics of compressed cow dung, whatever. One thing has very little to do with the other.

[bobtodrick]

You are putting a lot of stock into 'the journey is more important than the result' thinking.

 

I can guarantee that if you make an image from any current DSLR, spend an appropriate time in post production (the same as you would in the darkroom)...and aim to replicate a 'film' look (meaning not going for the super-saturated or other PhotoShop effects)...only you will know what medium was used to make the image.

 

So to the consumer (as you call them)...it doesn't matter, they get what they want.

 

So then it becomes a personal choice...are you doing photography to please yourself only, in which case you can go out and shoot 8x10 glass plates and make platinum contact prints, all for your personal edification...or if your intention is to give something of value to the world, then you become proficient in whatever medium will get your ideas across.

 

It's totally up to you as to why you shoot...it doesn't have to be an 'either/or' debate, and to me your post just reads as sour grapes by someone who doesn't feel like putting the effort into learning something new.

[waltflanagan]

It sounds like you are in the wrong line of work.

[mike dixon]

<i> Does anyone make decisions for themselves anymore?</i><P>

Are you assuming that anyone using digital is doing so because they're blindly following a crowd?<P>

I still enjoy during b&w work in a wet darkroom, but I found color darkroom work tedious. Scanning film (for a hybrid workflow) was also incredibly tedious and uninteresting. Using a digital camera allows me the kind of control in color work that I used to only have with b&w.<P>

Your post is a just a very-thinly veiled rant. A few highly-loaded questions don't make it philosophical.

[cooltpmd]

What does the customer care ... what you shoot with? If you turn over your 150 high quality .jpg on the card/disk they give, do they really care whether you scanned your film, or shot with a Canon or a Nikon?

 

It suprises me, as a bystander, that the decision on how to get the best results (as long as in the correct format and timeline) is left to the client, not the photographer.

[robbie_robertson]

Well hell, I'm convinced! I start riding my horse to and from work from now on! :-)

[lex_jenkins]

Photojournalism is a job. The publisher and editor hired you to produce a product they can use as they see fit and which fits their needs. Your photographs are that product. They get to decide the process and ultimate usage.

 

Having worked as a reporter and photographer on weeklies and dailies during the golden age of b&w film, rushing rolls of Tri-X through the soup and tossing barely fixed, still damp prints to the editor, I'd say give me digital anytime.

 

Save the odes to the glories of film for your personal work.

 

BTW, you're damned lucky to have any regular position of any kind on the editorial staff of a newspaper these days.

[john_macpherson]

If I was a sheepdog I would bite you in a soft and painful spot...

[don_e]

"I shot 135 frames, and the camera ran out of battery."

 

My film cameras run out of battery, too -- that's why I got an Olympus Trip 35. Maybe you should get one of those as backup, but you'll still have to check you've got film loaded -- life is like that.

[Spearhead]

I think Walt hit the nail on the head. If you don't like the way news photography is done these days, find some other line of work.

[Hector Javkin]

"I really hate this to turn into a rant ..."

 

Please don't worry. Many of us no longer have to worry about the possibility of getting fat or old, losing our hair or our marbles, or becoming cranky. A thread in a photography forum whose title contains both an exclamation mark and a question mark, mis-spells photographers even as it accuses them of being sheep, and explains (for photographers too stupid to know) what the sheep accusation means, cannot <i>turn into</i> a rant. There is no risk of it <i>turning into</i> a rant.<p>

Other than that, I think your rant has been answered.

[gary_watson]

Workflow is workflow, digital or analog. Both require(d) properly-resourced infrastructure to work efficiently.Screw that up and neither works.What defines "time-sensitive" better than daily paper coverage? I'm romantic too about film but not avoidant of the remarkable advantages of digital when working a deadline.

[graham_line]

Having the job next week might not be a problem. Figure out how the camera works, figure out how to charge the battery, get some help with editing down those 135 photos and learn the workflow. All the paper wants is the picture -- they've selected you to supply them. Figure stuff out for yourself. Unless you are very, very lucky, no one will tell you anything -- you have to ask and then listen carefully.

 

"We" used to shoot 5x4 at basketball games and a big game rated two or even maybe three film holders -- that's 6 shots. Usually the third holder came back unused. Development was done in tanks and the negs were wet-printed. A vertical was 2-col and a horizontal was 3-col.

 

"We" used to set up temporary darkrooms in motels and trust airline crews to hand-carry the photos. Now we file instantly, in color, from the field.

 

Nobody in newspapers much wants to go back to film.

 

You can do your personal work whatever way suits you. :-)

[fredrik_steffen]

<i>So I shot till I could shoot no more, then I put the camera down and enjoyed the rest of the show.</i>

<br><br>

What's that? It's like if I would go to school and stare at girls all day instead of studying.

<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

Oh wait, never mind.

[michael_dimarzio]

It is good to question values, this way you can grow and decide for yourself, and become the person that you want to be.

 

Good luck, but have fun whatever you are doing.

[aginbyte]

The original post is not a rant ... a rant has a point. (Posted by a happy member of the

Society of Agrarian Photographers, just another SAP to post to this idiocy).

[michaelchristensen]

I've got to laugh at this one. Photographers as Sheep! -- seems like a valid point of view, not too popular with the people above.

 

But your points are valid. Listen it makes no difference what you shoot, digital or film; they gave you a D80 and one battery (seems fairly stupid to send you out on assignment with only one battery) but that is the tool they've chosen and digital is their workflow. Forget the stupid camera, concentrate on the shot.

 

You know the difference, perhaps you prefer film. Fine. But they want digital .. so shoot digital and be happy when you work for them; shoot film for your own interests. They probably have a geek-team standing by to process your shots when you return from assignments .. that's how they are set up. Shoot, give them the card and be happy.

 

Remember this is photojournalism; grab-art .. digital seems to be the way to go. It is all about a shot in an instant that is harder to do with film. Quality issues aside you have to adapt to it. Tell them to give you two decent damn batteries next time; and a flash, flash bracket and extension cord; and more cards -- they want volume, give them volume.

 

Honestly, the D80 is a capable camera. You probably don't like it because its new to you. Get to know it and use it, that may change; then again, you may find like a lot of serious photographers that digital is not your personal choice. If you are going to work for a newspaper, I suggest, even though you don't want to be a "sheep" .. to put on your wool coat and at least try to pretend to like it.

[tonmestrom]

Since I started using digital I use the battery in my pacemaker as backup. Never ran out since.

 

Since using digital:

-my lungs improved

-my eyes squint more

-my wife sees more of me

-my haemorrhoid condition got worse

-my harddisk got bigger

-my camera's don't last that long

 

So you may have a point. Ain't progress a bitch

[fredrik_steffen]

<i>They probably have a <b>geek-team</b> standing by to process your shots when you return from assignments</i>

<br><br>

Using Photoshop makes me a geek? Thanks, I'd never had figured that one out by myself.

[sagephotoworld.com]

Before digital, photography was fun but the darkroom was a chore. Now the "darkroom" is still a chore but it's less painful.

 

As far as batteries go, they can crap out at the most inconvenient times. Before I went digital I knew this and never bothered with electronic cameras. I used a brace of Nikon FMs which would function even if the battery was completely dead. In my bag I had a selenium cell light meter. My flash was a Metz 45 with a spare battery pack but I also carried a small bulb flash unit with a dozen or so bulbs. That took up hardly any space at all.

 

Now that I am digital, I carry three battery sets - one in the camera and two spare. If all 3 fail then I have my backup camera with its 3 battery sets (the cameras take different batteries). I even have an AA drawer for the one camera - just in case.