Bill C

UP 3985 - about 10 years ago, shortly before being pulled out of service.

I wonder if you might be thinking of Richard Feynman and his working out of a system later known as Feynman Diagrams. But it would be a big misunderstanding to think that math is not involved. You might enjoy reading one of his "popular" books ("Surely You're Joking..." or "What Do You Care What Other People Think..") These will give you some insight as to how he behaved, at least to some extent. See. Amazon.com With respect to learning about photography, I've observed that different people tend to learn things in different ways. A great many "shooters" seem to learn by observing someone else, then "copying" or mimicking how they work. So I would characterize this as doing things by "memory," if that is a proper way of stating it. Bit by bit they find variations that work well and these are also committed to the repertoire. Another group of photographers, much smaller, seems to want a deeper understanding of how things work behind the scenes. So instead of just learning the "rules" they want to understand how the rules came about, more or less. This takes quite a lot of work (and use of math) for no obvious benefit. But... after doing this an understanding, on some level, is reached. A sort of intuition now exists and the person can "see" possibilities beyond what the person trained via memorization can. Just my views, based on my experience.

Looking around a bit, there is still some of the digitaljournalist saved on archive.org. This link is a remembrance by a former Life Magazine picture editor... Gordon Parks: A Picture Editor's Personal Remembrance by Barbara Baker Burrows- The Digital Journalist

Great videos, Sam. There is a brief biography found at this link... Gordon Parks, Extraordinary Photojournalist It's too bad that digitaljournalist.org isn't up because it was a site about photojournalists by photojournalists (and their support staffs). So there would be certain insights that one would not get from more traditional "coverage."

I'm always a little surprised when photographers don't know who Gordon Parks is (was). He was something of a hero to me in my youth, as a Life Magazine photographer. Until Life went out of business, photojournalism had pretty much been my ultimate photography ambition. There were two other connections. First, I learned the basics of flash use, with a flash gun and solenoid to trip the shutter, from his 1947 (?) book on flash photography. (My father was an amateur photographer who had the book.) And second, my first camera, a used Voigtlander Brillant, a present when I was perhaps 10 or 11 years old, was the same as Parks started out with. Some people might know of Parks through some of his movies, such as Shaft, or the Learning Tree, or even Leadbelly. As a still photographer I was a little disappointed when he moved to motion pictures. In later years I learned about how hard his earlier years were. He remains, to the best of my knowledge, the only famous photographer who ever spent time as the proverbial piano player in a whorehouse. He did this, as I recall, for a place to stay after being turned out onto the street, as a teenager, during winter in the "Twin Cities", Minnesota. One thing I especially admired about Parks was that if he didn't think it was "proper" to photograph someone, say in a disadvantaged position, he simply wouldn't do it. Even though he is potentially losing a so-called scoop. Fwiw there used to be some voice clips of Parks talking about certain photos on the digitaljournalist.org site. The founder died recently, and the website now seems to be defunct. But I think copies may be found on archive.org for anyone who cares to dig a bit.

I agree, but rather than a meter reading I would be inclined to snap a digital shot and view it with the "blinkies" turned on. Then use the exposure where a slight amount of blinking are occurring in the skin highlights or white clothing. I'd personally verify that this is good enough in a dry run, of sorts, ahead of time.

Certainly Nick Ut's photo can stir up emotions and helps to show some horrors of war. One might think that a photojournalist has simply snapped some photos and went on his way. But there is more that could be said. Some more details in my post linked below... Nick Ut 2018?

I would say your instincts about this are good. We used video cameras as viewfinder on our studio cameras for a looong time. The photographer used a remote "control handle" to raise/lower, pan, tilt, and zoom, then finally shoot, while they watched a TV monitor. This allowed relatively unskilled (with photo gear) to be hired... mainly they had to learn to work with people, and to pose, etc. This system evolved over the years. When we eventually went full digital we started out with eyepiece cameras, again with the photog viewing on a TV monitor. But obviously the quality is not good enough to focus with, etc. On the 2nd iteration of digital cams we finally went with photogs directly viewing with their own eye. Unexpected problem - studios calling tech support; previous shooter has adjusted eyepiece diopter for their vision. Now the new shooter can't see a clear image, and doesn't know about diopter adjustments, etc. Never-ending issues of running a business with employees.

Hi, yeah, I would say that 6 MP was enough for general purpose studio portraits. For years we sorta saw that as the holy grail of digital - the point at which we (the portrait chain) could actually make the jump from film to full digital. For us, a high-quality 8x10 inch color print was the minimum requirement, and a 6 MP camera could do this. You (JDM) are probably not familiar, but our headquarters was practically in your backyard (I know from posts where you're from). We were a bit north of you, city across the river. If you know any of the photo professors from your local university, they'd be familiar (back then we always had summer interns from their photography degree programs). Anyway, it was a substantially large operation, and we probably saw near every viable camera option. To help make this point I sat in on presentations from Phase One, Megavision, and even Foveon with a proposed studio camera. As a large user of Kodak, Konica, and Fuji paper they made sure we had the opportunity to look at any cameras in their bailiwick. I mostly did the initial screening. Essentially, none of these early cameras (nor the ones suggested by JDM) were suitable. For our purposes. The EOS DCS 1 had enough resolution, at 6 megapixels, but... wanna see your images? Download to a your computer vis SCSI, then use an image processing program to view. Whatayoudo if someone blinked? Usher the family back into the camera room? I guess you could. The digital backs had enough resolution, and could tether. But... no blur filter so moire out the wazoo. Unless you knew specifically how to avoid it for specific fabrics, etc. And if you can't keep your sensor protected from dust, well... everybody knows what happens. This sort of stuff is sorta OK if you do low volume hi-price work and can afford the retouch time. But for mass market portrait work, with appointments booked all day... no good. These are the things that initially kept early digital out of "busy" portrait studios, not the high cost of the camera.

The chain outfit where I worked actually had, in 1995, some "experimental" portrait studios using a digital studio camera developed for us by Sony. It was called the DKC-ST5, was based on a 3-chip broadcast camera, and sold for around $25,000 to $30,000. We eventually had about 3 dozen of these in operation (no, I was not involved with those studios.) These were actually full-digital studios, using Sony dye-sub printers. (There was not much point in having an expensive digital camera without the ability to make prints; if you had to mail CDs to a lab for printing then it might as well have been shot on film.) The real reason that cameras like this did not proliferate further in the portrait world is that digital camera prices began falling rapidly within a couple of years. I don't mean that these prices were unaffordable (to higher end studios) but rather that the learning curve was steep - by the time someone could learn to deal with the technology the camera prices had fallen to well under $10,000, or so. The early (expensive) DSLRs weren't used for portrait work, not because of the cost, but because the quality (resolution) was not good enough. But for newspaper work, yeah, great. Images were even small enough to transmit via a relatively slow modem.

Yes, that's sort of true, except that the chips weren't necessarily rejected. Rather they could be sold in different grades, at different prices. (All high-priced, I presume cuz of low volumes) I was involved in the building of a ground-up digital camera about that time, so have some behind-the-scenes knowledge. We had partnered with a fledgling hardware group with previous digital camera manufacturing experience. What they recommended was... buy the lowest grade sensors available - these were significantly cheaper. They had multiple column defects, including side by side. Our view was that these would not be suitable for a usable camera. Our hardware partner's response to this was, yes, but... the sensor manufacturer will not have enough bad sensors to fill our orders, and will thus have to complete the order with higher grade sensors. So the net cost per sensor, even after discarding sensors, would be less. Fwiw, the standard price of these sensors was about $6,000 US/each, in small quantities. At the time, digital backs using the same sensor were selling for around $25,000. Today these prices are seen as very expensive. But at the time, this was just the business cost of getting into the new technology. No one else was getting it cheaper. If one considered the cost of operating a full-time portrait studio, seven days a week, including rent and labor, etc., a $25,000 digital camera was not that significant - simply part of the cost of doing business with advanced technology.

Here's the state of the art for the US Army back in 1966. A 4-second process time in a monobath. The author remarks that the previous time was something like 10 to 12 seconds. Ok, I guess, if you've got the extra 6 to 8 seconds to throw away. On the other hand, this is what they were WILLING TO REVEAL. Who knows the real truth? Maybe they could secretly do it in 3 seconds?

Don't forget thst ASF had also invented a "dry process" system for rapid processing and scanning of C-41 film. (Although it may have only been for APS film?) As I recall there was something of a "paste" developing solution used, and the film was rolled in and out of the cassette several times during the process. The final result was a multi-stage scan, whereupon the original film was discarded.

It's kind of understandable that, on your first/only wedding, you'd be under a lot of tension. I gotta confess, though, I don't get how you even got in that position. I'm sure you had your reasons; just saying this probably had a lot to do with the pressure you were under.

I was inclined to add a condition to this, that the thing the apply themselves to must be somewhat feasible. But I guess you sorta covered that by referring to people with "business sense." Such a person is not likely to enter into things that are fundamentally dumb, meaning with a high likelihood of failure. So I'd guess, for example, that even with good skills and plenty of drive, a person with "business sense" is not likely to try starting a wedding photography business in a place that is already oversaturated. At least not with the expectation of making a living from it right away.

Hang on there... "all skills the same"? And "the ONLY one that has actual specific techniques is PRODUCT PHOTOGRAPHY." ? Now, if you were to define "skills" strictly as: ability to set up a camera, ability to set up basic lighting (If even needed), and ability to get a "correct" exposure, then I'd probably agree with you. But otherwise, no. Having spent my entire adult work life in photography, I like to think I have some insight. Let's consider just portrait photography (whatever that actually is). In my younger days I spent some time doing what I would call high-volume mass market portraits in a traveling operation. This was a time when high-quality color portraits were fairly scarce (or expensive), so people were willing to wait in line for same. I shot probably 40,000 to 50,000 individuals during that time, pushing around a specialized long-roll portrait camera, 70mm film, with a 4-light studio flash system. From this background I can assure you that very different skills are needed to photograph, say, a 3 month old infant, vs a two year old, vs ten years, vs an adult, etc. And one will definitely not develop these skills, to a substantial extent, from an online course. In our operation, the training period was roughly 3 months, full-time, traveling with a very experienced person, one specialized in training. They would gradually work the newbie up to more and more difficult situations, frequently assisting and demonstrating, and sometimes painful critique during lulls. The so-called newbie, on their own after this training, was barely adequate, and would initially be assigned to only low-volume locations, gradually building up their skills. The most difficult thing in this sort of photography was to quickly make a connection with the subject, a raport, if you will, to get good expressions, not the artificial smiles most people learn to put on. Now granted, this sort of skill is seldom necessary today, as the photographer is frequently free to take as long as needed. Or, there's always tomorrow, maybe your kid will be better behaved tomorrow? Hard to make a living, though, working so slowly. You've gotta get more money from each customer. How about a wedding photographer? Can a portrait photographer step right in and shoot weddings? Again, this is a different skill set. The people skills are still useful, but now one is shooting under a wide variety of conditions. And there is a series of "must have" shots, some of which the photographer must set up. So a portrait photographer, one having some "available light" skills, could likely step into wedding photography after perhaps a handful of "guided" weddings with an experienced wedding shooter. If they are willing to deal with the stress of it being a one-time event. And they have some sort of aesthetic sense to find interesting locations, as well as setup, for the group shots, and that sort of thing. Do you still think the skills, or techniques, are all the same?

Cheaper, mainly.

Actually that's not been true, at least with Kodak, for a very long time, if it ever actually was. I also used to believe this until I was in a position to do sensitometric monitoring of Kodak professional portrait/wedding films. I'll explain one aspect, below. I'm from an outfit that used to go through several miles of these films every day. In my department we screened every new emulsion # that came in. Our warehouse would pull a couple of 100-foot rolls, and we'd run sensi wedges on them before allowing that emulsion to be used in our studios. We also repeated such screening when "unknown status" flm was returned from studios. Typically a studio might have a new manager, who finds 5, or 10, or 20 such rolls in a back room, or whatever. Or someone would take over a company car with 10 or 20 rolls in the trunk, in our traveling operation. The rule was, if you don't know, for certain, that the film is good, then send it back to the home office for screening. We'd pull a couple feet from each roll, and run some sensi wedges. Here's an interesting thing I observed, which was a side effect of our screening program. Since we saw samples of EVERY emulsion number when new, and many of the returned (unused) rolls were still in sealed boxes, meaning that we knew their emulsion numbers, we were able to observe the effect of aging on each of these emulsions. Up until then I "knew" the same things that have been bandied about by pro photographers since "forever," that these films would gradually change during their usable lifespan, etc. In reality, what we found was that they NEVER changed (sensitometrically). However an emulsion looked when it was new, it continued to look the same, even past the expiration date. So this whole thing about gradually shifting throughout the film's lifespan has been a fiction, at least for these pro Kodak films, the low speed portrait/wedding films. Fwiw our field storage was mostly under "office conditions" although we had probably several dozen shooters in a traveling operation, mostly in the western US (including the southwest). So this film likely spent considerable time in car trunks, although noone knew the conditions, for sure. There's more to this than I'm saying, but there's little doubt in my mind that this "holding" of film to pre-age it is a fiction. At least for Kodak color neg.

Yeah, long time back we wanted to do something like that for our studio cameras - instead of waiting an hour or two to get film processed it seemed maybe useful for our repair shop to have quick acces to an enlarged Polaroid. I roughed out a design, but given all the intricacies involved, we figured to just have one made by people with experience. Which we did... I think maybe it was NPS. Now I know enough for a basic layout, but by no means could I design a high-quality relay lens, so this is for the specialist outfit. Anyway, as I recall, they just used an El-nikor inside. Ultimately the device turned out to not be that useful and spent most of its time on the shelf. Regarding the fiber optic plate... this is something I actually considered with respect to our in-house digital camera interface to an existing film camera. Conceptually this would allow transfer of a hard-to-reach image plane to the bare face of a digital sensor. But there would always be the issue of imperfect alignment, etc. So in principle a relay lens arrangement is much better, quality wise. Provided that you have the physical space available. Fwiw I was already familiar with the fiber optic relay means from some earlier equipment we had used. In the early days of digital printing an outfit called Sienna Imaging, as I recall, developed what they called a FOCRT, a linear CRT with a fiber optic faceplate. So essentially photo paper could be "contact-printed" by being advanced against the face of tri-color linear CRTs. As I recall the CRTs were maybe 11" wide, and could expose a nominal 8x10" print in a half minute or so. One of the first feasible digital printing systems for RA4 paper. We ran em in a couple of portrait studios as a trial. I think the most usable iteration was marketed by Gretag as the NetPrinter. (Maybe some info still exists on the internet? This stuff has a way of disappearing from internet history. ) Fwiw you used to be able to buy tapered fiber optic "magnifiers" maybe from Edmund scientific. So the same idea of image transfer through the fibers, but with a larger diameter at one end. No, I don't know of any practical use for those.

Yes, in my view an aerial image is always "real." But... it's possible to put in a field lens such that the image is within the field lens, making it "virtual." But most people would probably still say they are photographing an aerial image. If we don't allow this sort of loose usage of language it's difficult to function in the real world. Imagine trying to tell a word purist that you just developed a roll of film. ("What?!! Just developed it? You didn't fix it? Etc.). Everyone knows what you really mean, more or less.

Hi, I more or less agree with most of what you've said, except... the simple application of trying to photograph an aerial image from behind a camera lens is not gonna be able to be any larger than the clear aperture of the camera lens. Yeah, that part is easy. But if you wanna photograph the full-size image, such as the lens might project onto a piece of 35mm film, then it's not so easy. Fwiw I designed the optical layout of such a system in the earlier days of "still video" systems, before digital came on the scene. The problem was to match the image size from a 35mm long-roll portrait camera, using a remote-controlled zoom lens, with a small-sensor video camera. Long story short, we piggybacked another zoom lens on top, mechanically linked to match the zoom, then picked some off-the-shelf optics to get the correct image size on the video. They worked great, couple thousand of em. The operator ("photographer") framed the subject via TV monitor. When they took the photo, the video camera was able to take a simultaneous "flash grab," identical to the film image. A company we had worked with quite a lot, PhotoControl of Minneapolis, had another solution to the size-matching problem. They designed a so-called "ported lens," using a beam-splitter block within the lens. The optics straight through the lens gave one focal length, for whatever film size size was being used. But the image being ported out the side used a different set of back-half optics, designed to match whatever sensor size was being used. Much better image quality, I'm sure, but our system was plenty good for "proofing," which was a pretty big deal at the time. Up until then a portrait customer might come back a week or two later to find that their kid had blinked on every shot.

If you are seeing only a small circular image in the center then most likely your problem is field lens related. (As I mentioned, this is not something that photographers would generally understand.) If you wanna answer a couple of questions, I'll make some suggestions. 1) what is your general setup, meaning main lens, desired image size, and the setup you are using to photograph the aerial image? And 2) do you have some junk optics laying around to play with? (What sort of stuff? A set of "close-up filters," ie, screw on diopter lenses for a 35mm camera would be useful.)