I want to be a pro photographer.......again.......

[exposed1]

<p>

<p>I want to be a pro photographer.......again.......</p>

<p>I have been thinking about this for some time now and finally decided to put it down on paper (sorry, computer). I will give some background first, so you get the feel from where I come.</p>

<p>I started photography in high school, around 1974. After school, I kept most of my 35mm gear, Nikon FM and a few lenses but did not do that much, just things for my personal use. In 1981, having worked many jobs that just did not feel “right”, I put all my effort into a photo business. I started with myself and my girlfriend, she worked with a local photographer. She quit him and decided to go along for the ride and see where it would take us. We both worked very hard and after a couple of hard years, we were doing 75-100 weddings a year and 300-400 seniors, 7 days a week, 5am till, somedays, midnight. It was great!!! NOT!!! After 4 years I felt burnt out and wanted to slow down. She did not. We split everything, she when her way and me mine.</p>

<p>Well, here it is, 2009 and I am still doing photography. Not as much, but enough to keep me happy. I made the switch to digital about 4 years ago after shooting Hasselblad for about 16 years.</p>

<p>Here is where I want to talk about my heading, “I want to be a pro photographer....again.....” I find that when I was shooting film, I knew that everytime I hit the shutter, a little voice would go off in my head saying “ that is costing you $1.50”. I found myself making sure every shot was right, lighting, eyes open, everyone looking at me. Everything was just as it should be. Back in the 90’s, I would shoot about 200 proofs at a wedding and give the couple 180-200 proofs. There was a very small amount of “throw outs”.</p>

<p>I find now, with digital, I will take 300-500 shots and give 250-350 shots. Loads of “throw outs”. I believe this comes from the thinking that anything can be fixed in PS so why worry about problems. I am not printing everything as I can edit them out. Other than knowing about lighting, Composition and knowing how to time photos, are we becoming just a little bit better than “uncle harry”? Firing off 5-6 shots of the same thing, knowing that one of them has to be good, but when shooting film with the $1.50 a shot running through my head, I would take more time, think more and get that great shot in 1 or 2, and both were great!</p>

<p>I am not condemning digital, just trying to understand it. Is it making us better photographers, or less thinking photographers. There is more to think about setting wise with digital, but less in the taking of photographs. I remember days when shooting landscapes that I would wait hours for the lighting to be right, the clouds to look right, and everything would come together in a photo that took no burning or dodging, just a great photo, right out of the camera. It was like the best sex of my life.</p>

<p>So what I am saying, with regards to my heading is, was I a better, more thinking photographer when I shot film, taking time to understand all the elements of taking the photo over just taking a series of photos with the hopes of getting the one I want?</p>

<p>That is it, just had to get that off my mind. I still have my Hassey gear and use it when I can. It feels so right in my hands. My Nikon D300 is great for work and those quick times when I need it now, but the Hassey is my love and will be forever. I would never sell it. It takes great photos today, just as it did new over 16 years ago.</p>

<p>This I am adding after reading this over and over. I just finished a 5 day hike into the Cascade Mountains and decided to carry my old Nikon FM2 loaded with the new Kodak Ektar 100 film. It was such a great time, thinking about every shot I took, manual focusing each shot, thinking about the light. It made me think so much that when I came back I went out and took my D300 set in manual mode, set my SB 600 to manual and started re-thinking everything. WOW, what a difference. It has given my digital photos that feel I was wanting. The feel I had when shooting film.</p>

<p>So, maybe I am a “pro photographer....again”, I just had to pick up the film camera and re-live the past to bring me into the future......</p>

<p>Randy</p>

 

</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2400856"><em>Randy Dawson</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Sep 24, 2009; 11:48 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em><br>

<em>I want to be a pro photographer.......again.......</em></p>

 

<p><em>I find now, with digital, I will take 300-500 shots and give 250-350 shots. Loads of “throw outs”. I believe this comes from the thinking that anything can be fixed in PS so why worry about problems. I am not printing everything as I can edit them out. Other than knowing about lighting, Composition and knowing how to time photos, are we becoming just a little bit better than “uncle harry”? Firing off 5-6 shots of the same thing, knowing that one of them has to be good, but when shooting film with the $1.50 a shot running through my head, I would take more time, think more and get that great shot in 1 or 2, and both were great!</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Randy, nowhere does it say that you are obligated to use p/s or any other editing program.<br>

You need a file viewer that can help with color correcting, etc., basic darkroom procedures, that's about it.<br>

I shoot unretouched about 98% of the time, and I love to make every shot count, just like with film.<br>

Apply your film skills to the digital world, and let your skills pay off in some fine "old school" photography.</p>

<p>Best of luck to you.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>It's up to you. If you no longer think about every shot, if you no longer agonize over composition and exposure, if you no longer take your time - and that is the way you want to work - then it's not the fault of digital.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it making us better photographers, or less thinking photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A photographer controls the equipment, so "it" doesn't make anyone "better" or "less thinking." A camera user lets the equipment control. There's a big difference.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I used to fire off a lot of shots but I have gotten more to the point where I do try to get the 1 good one and not just take 5 shots of the same thing. You still have to sort through all of them.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Who put the equipment in charge?</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<blockquote>

<p>So, maybe I am a “pro photographer....again”,</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If you are being paid to shoot, you're a pro.<br>

If you're not getting paid, you're an amateur.<br>

Getting paid to shoot however, has nothing to do with the quality of your work.<br>

Shooting as a amateur has nothing to do with the quality of your work.</p>

<p>Hmmm?..Go figure.</p>

[robert lee]

<p>So, does using and Underwood make a better author than one using Word?</p>

[brian berry]

<p>Count me in Randy. When I shoot transparencies (Provia, in my case), I go out and see like Provia. To me it's like having to think within the limits of a particular musical instrument. I don't improvise the same phrases on sax that I do on clarinet, either. And I write better to a deadline than I do without one. Pixels or silver, I know the camera doesn't care, and neither do most viewers. But it sure makes a difference in what and how I see. I guess that's the best I can explain it.</p>

[vcallaway]

<p>I know EXACTLY how you feel. It might be partly because we are about the same age.<br>

I almost went down the same path. The biggest mistake I made was listening to digital shooters before making the transition. My first experience was being a backup shooter for a friend at a wedding. He handed me a digital Nikon with the comment of "be sure it is in raw mode so we can fix things later". That was a totally new concept to me.<br>

When I did weddings it was usually two rolls of 70mm on a Hasselblad. Maybe a couple of short rolls as well. 99% of the shots made it to the albums. He shot nearly 1000 frames at a small wedding. I decided right then to not be that guy. As far as I'm concerned photoshop is the guy down the street that makes my prints.<br>

I've tried to keep the attitude that every shutter click costs me money. I even still use my flash meter because I can visuallize the results better with it than I can the tiny LCD. I'm sure that might change after time. I only made the switch less than a year ago.<br>

To me spending time editing photos that could have been shot correcty is expensive. If I wanted to spend the day in front of a computer I would stay at work :)</p>

 

[exposed1]

<p>Wow! Some great comments on this. I was thinking it would not bring anything, but WOW! I sure do like what everyone has had to say, it brings new light to what I was thinking.<br>

I am in the boat with Brian and Vince. I want every photo I take, or at least 99% of them, to be keepers. This is how I learned, and how I want it to be. I find sitting in front of my imac working on photos, knowing I could do it all in the camera, just not right, for me.<br>

But when you learn that way from the day you start shooting, I find it hard to let go. I have never done that much darkroom work, only when I was in high school doing B/W. Love it, but I leave the color work to the people who know.<br>

Again, I must say re-using the old FM2 made me want to try to make my D300 work the same way, and it has.</p>

<p>Thank you god for all us old time photo nuts......</p>

<p>Randy</p>

[jnina]

<p><em><strong>Firing off 5-6 shots of the same thing, knowing that one of them has to be good, but when shooting film with the $1.50 a shot running through my head, I would take more time, think more and get that great shot in 1 or 2, and both were great!</strong></em><br>

Keep thinking that you are spending money, everytime you snap a shot you are spending money since equipment does ware out. Everytime (hopefully only once a year) send your equipment to be repair your are spending money. Everytime you purchase new equipment are spending money. Everytime you shoot 5 times more than when you shoot in film you are wasting more energy.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p><em>"I find now, with digital, I will take 300-500 shots and give 250-350 shots. Loads of “throw outs”. I believe this comes from the thinking that anything can be fixed in PS so why worry about problems."</em></p>

<p>In my situation the extra photos are the result of being able to preview the shot. I notice eyes that are shut, or weird expressions, or they moved, so I retake the photo. In some shots I experiment, then I look at my results, and consider if I could re-shoot and improve the shot (back in the old days they had this stuff called Polaroid). I take more chances and do more experimentation than I tried with film; many of those photos don't work out, but the ones that do are photos I never would have taken with film.</p>

<p>A lot of folks want to blame the tools for their own bad habits. The gear is inanimate, and only waiting there for the operator to succeed or fail. The photographer is almost always the weakest link in the chain of quality.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I want every photo I take, or at least 99% of them, to be keepers. This is how I learned</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know who you learned from, or how you learned, but this is nuts. Great photographers - Avedon, Arbus, Winogrand - have published their contact sheets. 1 out of 30 or 1 out of 100, that would be the right percentage for keepers. Araki shot 6000 frames of film for 100 shots for the 100 Butterflies fashion campaign. I don't know anyone, and I know, have taught, and been taught with lots of photographers, anyone who even gets 10% except for studio setups that are very carefully undertaken. If you're getting 99% keepers, you should be working for NG or Vogue or Reuters, because you are about 98% of anyone doing serious work.</p>

[mike dixon]

<p><em>If you're getting 99% keepers, you should be working for NG or Vogue or Reuters, because you are about 98% of anyone doing serious work.</em></p>

<p>Or your standards for a "keeper" are very, very low. That's been the case (so far) with every person I've encountered who gets a very high percentage of keepers.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Your website says "PRO" all over it.</p>

[vcallaway]

<p>Weddings are not the same thing. You can't afford to make mistakes. One of the first things you learn is to shoot with both eyes open. You have to see what the camera sees when you press the shutter. You are documenting a timeline. Not the same as a fashion shoot.<br>

In a fashion or even a something like a senior shoot you pick the best handful of shots. You cannot compare the two. Something like a 5% keeper ratio would be more like it.<br>

I had a friend complain that my white lighnings he borrowed did not recycle fast enough. He shot over 400 frames on one person with one clothes change in a studio session. That was in 1 1/2 hrs including changing time. He had 4 keepers from that session. I suppose that is ok for most people these days.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Since I have precious little experience with film (am a bit younger, and late to discover photography), I find these discussion both interesting and a bit weird.<br>

Sure I get how shooting film made you stop a little and think, because of the cost per frame. But to say that made you a better photographer, to me, seems a bit quick to judge. The point raised by Matt Needham, that digital allows for more experiments, is also a valid one. Not having to think about the cost per shot also liberates you from choosing the safe path. And in my view, in experimenting, trying and accepting piles of rubbish pictures, the learning really starts. Sure a book can explain the effects of a wide-open aperture (for example), but only once you've seen it and done it, it sticks in the head as a lesson learnt.</p>

<p>A few years back, when I started photography, I used to shoot several shots of nearly everything, "so there would be a good one". I'm shooting less and less, because I learnt to visualise a picture better upfront, to be more patient for the really nice composition to happen, to know when you got what you wanted. And sometimes, I still fire series when I'm not all that sure or when light is on the edge of being enough... At least with digital, I can safely do that last thing too.</p>

<p>So, while I can understand how shooting film taught you something very valuable, as an all-digital-hobbyist, I'm learning the same things as you did in film, so the recording medium does not seem to be the deciding factor here.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>"Firing off 5-6 shots of the same thing..." I find very often that my 3rd, 4th, or 5th shot in a sequence is my 'keeper' shot. I always take extras.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Great photographers - Avedon, Arbus, Winogrand - have published their contact sheets. 1 out of 30 or 1 out of 100, that would be the right percentage for keepers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not for weddings though!</p>

[exposed1]

<p>This has gone a bit more than I thought. My OP was just meant to show how when shooting film, I developed the "mind set" to watch for things in just about every shot I took, eyes closed, shadows on white backgrounds, movement. I feel this comes from taking more time to setup each shot, watching the subject, getting the right photo in the first or second shot, not just taking 3-5 shots and getting the 1or 2 that you need. Like I have said, taking 1-2 shots and both being great.<br>

What I did find was that with digital I fell into that "take more, then edit out what is not good". I had to refresh myself with the idea of taking time to make each shot count. Shooting film with an all manual camera helped me re-learn this. I have applied what I learned from the film camera and put that towards the digital. It worked for me. I shoot my digital on all manual and the flash also.<br>

Mind you, this is aimed towards weddings, seniors and family shoots. I found that was where I was taking the "more is better" thought. <br>

I read Ansel Adams more than any other photographers books. Not just for the photos, but for his thinking. I remember him saying "get it on the negative" and I like that thought, the less you have to do in the darkroom/PS the more the photo is "really" yours.<br>

I want to think everyone for there comments. Some I agree with, some I do not. I like to think there is a place for both film and digital. I use each to make the other better, to make me think better. Do not let one or the other be your only format. Work with both and you may see how it can and will make you a better photographer.<br>

And to William L. "Bill" Palminteri, thank you for the email. I came at a perfect time, just as I was thinking "this post was a bad idea". Thank you!</p>

<p>Randy</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Many professional photographers I read about do everything to get it right in camera, and I am surprised how interviews I read where landscapers especially do things like using coloured graduated filters for the shot - the sort of things that amateurs say they can simply add in Photoshop. Their explanation? Getting it right in camera means less time at the computer. So instead of a money thinkg it becomes a time thing (which for a professional is the same thing I suppose!).</p>

[paulrumohr]

<p>:-)<br>

Turn off your DSLR Review LCD, don't review your files as you shoot, use an incident lightmeter or spot meter, and only take as many memory cards to give you as many shots as you would have had back in your film days.<br>

PRESTO BAMMO!<br>

You are in the same boat as 10 years ago, a professional photographer once more!</p>