john_bellenis

Hi - this is John Bellenis. Thanks for the kind words. I've been extremely busy and haven't had time for photo.net unfortunately - my work takes me throughout the USA, Caribbean, South America and into Europe so I'm disconnected a lot.

 

I do hospitality photography - hotels, resorts, cruise lines, spas and destinations which is great for me as I get to shoot a few genres of photography within the same niche - architectural, lifestyle, food and destination stuff.

 

Thanks for asking about me, I'll make an effort to be a bit more involved!

 

Best, John

<p>I agree that honesty and being totally upfront is always the best policy. However, being too apologetic about the situation may not be. You don't want to sound like you are admitting some 'fault" or that you might sound incompetent. <br /><br />I would explain that a party is a fluid situation and that you are overshooting to try to cover everything. Editing down the images is to be expected and is essential to ensure a quality product, to filter out boring images or images that simply "didn't work out". Hopefully these won't include important or pre-discussed set-up shots (those you should have down cold), but ad hoc ideas and playful moments can be a crap shoot in the best of circumstances. <br /><br />Ultimately you decide what to include, explain that the image she mentioned didn't work out, but it was worth a try, and bring her back to the 200 images that you love and make sure she knows you are proud of the results.</p>

<p>I think the question really needs to be better defined. Starting out on a personal creative journey using a camera to express yourself, or starting out on a lifelong career that will support a family, send your kids to college and provide a good standard of living and retirement? The answers could not be more diametrically opposed.</p>

<p>Assuming (maybe wrongly) that it's the latter, then the abilities required go far beyond technical and creative photographic skills. You need to have solid personal and business skills, marketing, administrative and financial acumen and also the ability to change with the times, the market and technology to stay relevant and in demand.</p>

<p>Additionally, you'll need to be a self starter, have boundless energy and enthusiasm and be willing to work all hours to balance the stresses of looking for work, doing the work, post production, archiving, billing and taxes and taking care of your clients, family, staff. equipment, administration and (very important) not forgetting to have fun in the process! Location is paramount - starting a career as a fashion photographer in New York may provide huge competition, but there is the opportunity at least to thrive. In small towns in the middle of nowhere there may well be no competition, but there's a reason for that. <br /> <br />If you are a professional, then like it or not, a part of your success is defined by income. This means that some of the more esoteric, artistic ideals can be a limiting indulgence and hard nosed pragmatism may be needed to keep the money flowing in. If you have a trust fund, an alternate career or are doing photography purely as an artistic pursuit, then have at it - the premise is totally different. A mentor can indeed be wonderful, choose wisely though, many older photographers can be overly cynical and negative, not good qualities to soak up when you're starting out.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have to say that when Sarah indicated she may leave the site, I was really disappointed because I like her passion about both the technical and creative sides of photography - I realized that I would miss her input - so yea, Sarah Fox, and definitely Bob Atkins for his years of experience and his hands on knowledge of so many different cameras, lenses and accessories. Fred G makes a lot of points I tend to agree with, as do you Landrum. I'm sure I'm missing out folks who have also made excellent contributions.</p>

<p>I don't get to this site as often as I would like, but there is something comforting about seeing the same people around here, always willing to share their opinions and knowledge.</p>

<p>Sarah, I'm an infrequent visitor here, mostly due to my work schedule and not having much time for forums. However, there is a certain pervasive snarkiness on the boards that has put me off over the last couple of years. I'm not sure what to attribute it to, but it's pretty rude and definitely unnecessary. <br /><br />I have to say though, that if I'm looking at a thread and see your name, I always read your posts as you are clearly knowledgeable, thoughtful and passionate about photography. It would be a shame to see you bail - it would leave the site that bit poorer and less interesting. I'll throw my hat into the ring of folks who ask to you to reconsider and hang around.</p>

<p>I always took this saying to mean that any camera was better than no camera. It's pretty hard to argue with that, and in that light it's a good thing that people now have their cell phone cameras with them most of the time.<br /><br />As to the "awful" image quality of cell phone cameras over DSLRs or 8x10 view cameras. well sure... but does every image have to be about ultimate image quality (however you choose to define that). I have an iPhone 5 and to be honest I'm amazed at the quality it gets from such a tiny little lens in a do-it-all device.<br>

I rarely carry MF or DSLRs around with me if I'm not working or specifically going to shoot something. If I know I'll want to record an event I'll take a good pocketable camera and then I'll always have my iPhone camera on me at other times. I don't try and take masterpieces with my iPhone, but it has recorded some wonderful moments with friends that otherwise I wouldn't have. The image quality is great for that as I really just want it for the memories and to share. </p>

<p>I'm not sure why there is a need to re-define or be snarky about such an old saying that has always seemed pretty self explanatory. Maybe it gives people an opportunity to climb on a hobby horse, and being snarky seems to be the default position of a lot of people for some reason.</p>

<p>The OPs question is as silly as asking why anyone would do anything they love to do. Why play basketball when you can play video games?</p>

<p>People have darkrooms because they love it, if they don't like it they don't have them. The magic of seeing an image slowly appear in the dev is something everyone should experience at least once, I think. My darkroom years are behind me, but I fully understand why people are entranced with it. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition, it's actually entirely possible to shoot film and digital and enjoy both. Shocking concept I know.</p>

<p>I actually disagree with most of this guy's rant. I know some facets of photography have been hit hard, but in truth those were areas that were equipment heavy and didn't need much in the way of creative input or talent. The "f8 and be there" crowd were always going to be swallowed up once digital arrived.</p>

<p>As someone who has earned every single penny of their income from photography since the mid 80s, I'd have to say that I'm still loving the business, it's profitable and my clients are growing or changing. Of course you can learn something in a few months, but the fact that you continue to learn (if you are dedicated to continual improvement) makes a mockery of the idea that you reach some sort of parity after a short amount of time.</p>

<p>I went to art school in England for four years and never felt like some second class citizen (although I also draw and paint) and never felt that my craft was less worthy or valid.</p>

<p>The rant actually made me feel sorry for the guy, but not for photography or where it's going.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I totally understand people shooting film if they prefer it - it's a different medium and there are bound to be people who like one or the other, or love and use both. I hope film stays around forever, so that those who want it can still have it. I don't see this as some big "versus" issue, although I accept that people love to pick a side and then throw dirt at the other - be it Ford / Chevy, Mac / PC, Canon / Nikon, whatever. I have no time for that as it generally just reflects insecurities.</p>

<p>However, I don't understand why the proliferation of high quality digital cameras has impacted the 'world of photography' (I'm not sure how that is defined) negatively. I'm really only interested in my own work and digital has been great for me personally. The number of images taken by non enthusiasts has, of course, gone through the roof - cell phone cameras, Facebook, Flickr, etc have changed the way people think of images. The ease and immediacy has let people share images with friends, family and the outside world in ways unimaginable only ten years ago.</p>

<p>Of course many are derivative, boring and trite, but great images are still great images - talent is still talent, passion is still passion, and what other people are doing just doesn't matter. If it makes them happy then I see it as a positive thing - anything that adds to people's quality of life and enjoyment (as long as it doesn't negatively impact someone else) seems great to me. The closed little elite club of "Photographers" may not be as exclusive, mysterious and revered as before, but if you concentrate on your own thing, I don't see why that matters. I'm very open to theories and discussions though - it's a changing world and I'd love to hear alternate perspectives.</p>

<p>Daniel, I understand that you and many others people prefer film, for various reasons - creatively, a love of the process, a preference for the results, a family activity, whatever. That's wonderful and I hope film stays around for people to use and love. However, others prefer digital, vive la difference!</p>

<p>I strongly doubt that Steve "doesn't get it" after using film for fifty years! He just prefers digital at this point. There's nothing wrong with that, his preference for digital is just as relevant and considered as your, or Josh Haner's, preference for film. There's no need to be degrading or rude at all. </p>

<p>Personally I also prefer digital at this point, in every way. It's just my personal choice, it doesn't reflect on anyone else's choices, is not threatening and is fully considered. I get it, I owned a film lab in London for over ten years, I shot film (8x10 through 35mm) professionally for over 20 years. Creatively the digital process and results suits me much better, for my professional work and more importantly for my personal work. I would never presume to tell someone who prefers film that they "don't get it" - I respect their choices and preferences and would hope the same was true the other way. This is the small stuff!</p>

<p>I think the main problem with this thread was basically the title - "Film? cause it's easier"</p>

<p>Clearly it's not easier as the OP essentially admits, and all the statements about 'candy' etc. further added to the impression that this was just a troll. It turns out he was somewhat more considered than that and maybe first impressions were (justifiably) false.</p>

<p>I totally understand the magic of watching an image appear in the developing tray and if it's a hobby that can be shared with your kids, that's wonderful. I started processing and printing my own film when I was 8 and loved every aspect of the process, it really is a fun and absorbing medium.</p>

<p>However, if we are talking about images then it's just a different capture medium. Passion, timing, color, lighting, composition, impact, etc. are not dependent or influenced by the capture medium and it's a mistake to confuse the two. Photography is a big tent with many different passions in it, including camera collecting, academic study of past masters, a love of technology and acquisition of the latest products, wet processing and printing, the love of images and self improvement, telling a story and conveying a message, exhibiting, etc. All are equally valid and give immense pleasure to millions, it's not necessary to put something down because your interests lie elsewhere.</p>

<p>Personally, photography has been my sole living for my entire life - initially film and since 2005, exclusively digital - it has been, and remains, one of my abiding passions. My desire to produce the best images I can has not been affected by the switch in media at all. Placing undue importance on the capture medium - if images are the goal - is a big mistake. No-one cares what kind of word processor a novel was written with - or indeed if it was written longhand with a pencil. Content is king.</p>

<p>Let me get this straight. Shooting an average of 55 frames per day, every day, for a year plus developing and printing time and then scanning every image is "easy"? With film and chemical costs around $10K, and the payoff is five images?<br>

This thread doesn't even rise to the level of trolling - it's just silly.</p>

<p>There is an aspect about this that is rarely discussed, but I think is the key to why people so often hate pictures of themselves that others, including the photographer, may rightly think are wonderful...</p>

<p>People generally see themselves reversed, in the mirror. This is the way they study themselves multiple times a day - rarely do they see themselves as they are seen by others. When presented with a picture of themselves, they look "off" and different to the way perceive themselves because the image is no longer reversed.</p>

<p>I have, on multiple occasions - over a couple of decades - shown people a few pictures of themselves with one being reversed (initially turning over the neg to make the print, now just "flip horizontally" in Photoshop). 100% of the time they gravitate to the flipped images as this most closely reflects (pun intended) the way they usually see themselves.</p>

<p>I'm not suggesting that people should be given false images, but it does help us understand why people so often dislike pictures of themselves. It's a similar situation to us disliking hearing our own voices - we hear ourselves differently than others do, as the sound is not merely transmitted through air to our ears, but also through our own heads! When we hear what we really sound like it seems alien and unfamiliar.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey Sarah, As I said having emergency supplies is essential - I live in the North East and we get regular Nor' Easters. occasional Hurricanes, blizzards and power outages. It's only common sense and responsible to be prepared for the inevitable, so I have a generator and all the basic emergency supplies for about a week or so. We've never had to use them all, but dip into them a couple of times a year - and have to use the generator maybe once a year. I totally get your point if you live in a tornado area, flood zone etc.</p>

<p>I'm talking about the huge difference between what will happen and what 'might' happen. There will be no zombie apocalypse. there will be no permanent breakdown of society (it hasn't happened in millennia and it's less likely to happen now)! EMP attacks and nuclear fallout? I'll take my chances! The point is that I have seen countless natural disasters all over thew world, lived in Iran during the revolution, have been stuck in Egypt and Sudan in violent unrest and in none of these circumstances did anyone feel the need to dive into an underground home for a few months!</p>

<p>As a Brit I find the whole "prepper" thing fascinating. Obviously with power outages, storms, etc. it's sensible to have a few days of emergency supplies handy. However, people spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on underground bunkers, guns, ammo, food supplies, air filtration,, etc. etc.<br /><br />I couldn't figure it out for a while - after all, we've already seen every disaster know to man happen all over the globe on a regular basis and there has never been a need for people to go underground for months on end! Then it struck me what was really going on.... it's an adult tree fort! The ingredients are identical - a hidden living space (homey, yet a bit like camping) with supplies, concealed fortified entrance, weapons to defend against "intruders" - even modern video systems to replicate the mirror in the cardboard tube! Clearly these folks will never get to use their bunkers before they die, of much more mundane causes, but I finally understand the motivation and appeal. It's fun I guess if you are wealthy, a bit paranoid and have no other hobbies. I think if we called them adult tree forts though, the appeal would wear off a bit.</p>

<p>Nice idea, but I agree with Lex about the execution and for the most part I don't see enough of the present day images to make it worthwhile. The old images seem interesting enough on their own without a tiny bit of color or a bit of the building to indicate the present day view.</p>

<p>I travel continually as a location photographer (50+ flights a year, many internationally). I always bring my cameras and lenses as carry on in a Tamrac rolling bag and my laptop in a separate (personal item) satchel type bag. Sometimes I have to gate check my cameras on the smaller commuter planes, but as I pick the bag again at the arrival gate, I am not too worried. I am always careful to be in good time at the gate to make sure the overhead bins aren't full before I board - although I have occasionally had to search far away from my seat to find one!</p>

<p>I check two large Pelican cases of lighting equipment and a large, long case with my tripod, stands, light banks, etc. I also check mine and my stylist's personal clothes bags - yes, excess baggage fees get very expensive! In over twenty years of continual travel, I have never lost a bag for more than 24 hours and the airline has always delivered it directly to my shoot.</p>

<p>The biggest problem I have is modeling bulbs - I now remove them from my lights before flying as the vibrations and mishandling have frequently left a broken bulb or two. Since I started packing them in foam I've had no problem. Also, it's important to check the screws on all my lights as they can loosen with the vibration of multiple flights. I pack my tripods and stands with a large length of black velvet (itself a vital piece of kit) wrapped around them to absorb some of the baggage handler's abuses. I have excellent insurance and so far have never needed it. I think that with proper preparation, the flight worries can be pretty much eliminated - apart from the cost which, for professional purposes at least, can be passed onto the client.</p>

<p>I find this picture totally absorbing. Yes, it could be termed a "snapshot", but there is so much going on - styles of dress, cars, cameras, interactions - it's a great freeze frame of a slice of American life in the 60s.</p>

<p>I think so many photographers try to capture "artistic" images (so often hackneyed and derivative) of car fins, details, shallow depth of field images of receding lines, etc. that they forget what may be truly fascinating for future generations. We are a social animal and these glimpses into the past, that really show people in natural situations, are irresistible to most of us.</p>

<p>Steve, that was a very long post that simply reiterated everything you have already said, without taking a single thing from any of the very pertinent and intelligent posts that have been made.</p>

<p>Professionally I am an advertising photographer - not an artist - however in my personal life I am very much an artist, working in many different media and with four years of art school in London in my past. I am still at a loss to understand why her rejection of your unsolicited submission, and her (poorly worded) question about other work you may have that better suited her needs, is "nuts" or makes her an "idiot"? I agree that the artist is always the decision maker regarding the look of their artwork, but you have to be gracious enough to recognize that the gallery owner is the decision maker of what is right for their gallery. If the two are at odds with each other, politely move on.</p>

<p>Finally, the list of comments you have made - so perfectly chronicled by John H - do not seem to indicate that you are thick skinned, amused and devoid of ego - quite the opposite in fact. I think that is the main reason that this thread went "awry".</p>

<p>Addendum: I am also confused as to why you think this experience reflects on "traditional photography", "film versus digital" or any other issue whatsoever beyond one gallery owner's opinion of the set of images that you submitted. There is nothing further than that specific rejection that can be extrapolated about anything else.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 16-35mm f2.8 Mk II is the best choice of the wide zooms (regarding resolution, distortion and obviously the widest maximum aperture), but it's pretty pricey. The 17-40mm is the clear value leader - it needs stopping down a bit as it's noticably soft in the corners at wider apertures, but once it's down to f8 or so it's a good performer and with a little extra sharpening it's close to the new 16-35mm. The original 16-35mm f2.8 (Mk I) really only offers the extra stop over the 17-40mm, but the image quality is no better.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I may be missing something, but why does this rejection (something we all deal with from time to time) have anything to do with the "difficulties people have these days showing "traditional" film photography". This episode relates purely to the images you supplied and nothing further than that can be extrapolated.</p>

<p>You mentioned that you sent her scans, so did she know, or care, whether the images were film or digital - why would she? Art is about content above all else. I'm not even sure what the word "traditional" means in this context.</p>

<p>I would just accept that this selection of your work wasn't a good fit for this particular gallery and politely move on (it may be too late for that). Her rejection of your unsolicited submission in no way makes her an "idiot", or means that she has "no idea what's going on" it's just a simple difference of opinion and taste. There is no need for you to be getting a "good laugh" out if it (although it sounds a lot more like anger than amusement to me), it's just not that big a deal or particularly funny.</p>

<p>Clearly there is no right or wrong answer here - like any other artistic preference it's purely subjective. Ultimately it's content that matters and the capture medium is always going to be secondary (although supporting) to that. The frequent belligerent and defensive posts that attempt to denigrate other's opinions - on both sides - seem silly and unnecessary. Use what you like, hopefully film will be around for a long time and we will all have plenty of options.</p>

<p>Personally I love digital. I essentially shoot the same way that I did with film except the capture medium and post work is different. For both my commercial work and my personal artwork it suits my vision and I enjoy the digital process much more that the endless time that I used to spend in the darkroom - vive la difference, other feel differently and that's great. I worked exclusively with film (Sinar 8x10 and 4x5, Hasselblads, Mamiya RZ67s and some 35mm) professionally and personally from 1983 to 2005. I loved using film - it was the only option, but I truly loved it - however, for me (stressing for ME) my career and artwork with digital since 2005 has been much more rewarding, creative and satisfying. As to the magic, emotion and being blown away - I find that has much more to do with the photographer and the content than the capture medium. I have been equally emotionally affected by stunning images in both film and digital (and also oils, watercolors, etc. etc.).</p>

<p>LOL! Apparently we didn't clear that up! I would have thought that any training worth it's salt would have included some form of assessment of the candidates ability to learn and their temperament or aptitude level. Clearly the lack of that would make the training inadequate - maybe not? Who could know?</p>

<p>But you're right - we have no idea about anything for sure so we shouldn't assume anything. Maybe she had excellent training, was the number one student and simply chose to ignore every part of it on this very troubling day. Maybe she was in fact an alien and really wanted to steal our camera technology. Who could ever know? The use of the word 'clearly' was clearly a gross infraction of all that is sacred and I'm eternally grateful that this very important aspect of the story has been fully addressed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Clearly there is a lack of training involved here"<br /> What evidence is there that makes this 'clear"?. It is standard procedure for security staff to be trained due to liability and insurance issues. Basic training typically includes avoiding angry confrontation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly she was unable to act upon her training - if indeed such training was given. Clearly the training was insufficient to prepare her to deal with real life situations. Clearly the aforesaid training was not adequate, or sufficiently tested, to teach her to behave in any semblance of an appropriate manner. Clearly her lack of any common sense or discretion, her overreaction and confused concepts of her duties and the law reflect on the quality of training she received.</p>

<p>I'm really glad we cleared that up.</p>

<p>I'm at a loss to understand what she was so offended by. The people were - admittedly - on mall property, but they were in the parking lot and were shooting an incident away from the mall and far off property. </p>

<p>Clearly there is a lack of training involved here, leading to a total misunderstanding of her role, her duties and the correct and appropriate response. There's also, however, a complete lack of common sense and discretion which is why it seems right that she should be seeking more suitable employment at this time.</p>