kevin_omura

<p>Never has..... the camera is a tool..... </p>

<p>I've had a news photo published that was taken with a Panoramic throw away camera because it was the only thing I had at the moment to document a news even. I think your understanding of the limitations of your gear will go a long way to a successful result. </p>

<p>With todays cameras the knowledge of the technology is slowing being eroded which is fine because that allows the photographer to concentrate on more on the aesthetics of the image, or not....</p>

<p>I used to work with Mike Chan 22+ years ago. My understanding is he closed his shop ( 8 Elm) last month.</p>

<p>There are some smaller stores in the Toronto area, Merkle Photo Video up on Victoria Park and the 401 for example is pretty good at discounting and price matching even US stores like B&H.</p>

<p>Henry's is probably the largest retailer in town though Vistek has a big store out by the DVP and Queen Vistek always seemed to stock more pro gear than anyone else and I think they still have rentals as well but it's been a long time. Downtown Camera across from St Michaels hospital is still around I think as is Aden Camera which I think is still up on Yonge.</p>

<p>Henry's and Vistek are both good for service. Merkle is good as well though off the beaten path. </p>

<p>Gary Perry I think is still running West Camera which was a pretty good shop as well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p ><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred G.</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 04, 2011; 04:15 p.m.</em></p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It seems dangerous to be a portrait artist... because everyone wants to be flattered, so they pose in such a way that there’s nothing left of truth." HCB</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Love the guy's work. Rarely has more silliness </em></p>

 

<p>Perhaps a consideration of the time period in which the statement was made. No doubt Walmart portrait studios didn't exist back then.....</p>

<p>Also this is most likely a translation from a statement made in French. My gut tells me that as with a lot of things misinterpreted online he was making a pretty general comment. Also he says portrait ARTIST and not photographer which makes me suspect he's talking about someone who is making a drawing of the subject and not a photographer although that doesn't really make sense either. Therefore going back a step who would be the cliental of said artist and what might their expectations be of the work that is produced......</p>

<p>In terms of the camera being a casual observer..... how do 'reality TV shows' fit into this model?</p>

<p>I think Christine makes some very valid points, to bad some of you characters blew her off so readily.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 02, 2011; 11:39 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Kevin, you're right about the connection, which dates back to when a lot of SP'ers were also PJs, and many of the pictures that became famous later as SP were also taken to sell to papers and magazines as features and sold/ published as such. The difference is that PJ pictures are pinned to a specific time/place, meant for publication, and often illustrate accompanying text, and SP generally (but not always) doesn't do that.</em></p>

<p>Why don't street photographs pin themselves to a specific time and place? Seems rather illogical considering there will be time and place clues in most photographs be it hair style, clothing, signs etc. My gut feeling is, does it matter at all or is this just some limitation someone puts on the subject because they don't fully understand it?</p>

<p>Sorry Jeff Spirer isn't a name I'm familiar with but I did a fast google and from his website he seems more into documentary than street as defined here. He seems to shoot as if perhaps influenced by Larry Clark.</p>

<p>In terms of gaining access, I think one of the real masters of this is Gene Richards who spent a lot of time working with different groups of people in order to produce exceptionally strong bodies of work. For example the Knife and Gun Club, and Below the Line or Mary Ellen Mark's Falkland Road or Gene Smith's Minimata but do they fall easily into what it seems others are defining here as 'street photography'?</p>

<p>Perhaps as I wondered in the very beginning was there a need to zero in on who are street photographers and would this lead us to a better understanding of the genre......</p>

<p>In terms of what works for you, I think developing a personal style is probably one of the hardest things a photographer can do since there is so much influence out there. I still flit about working with new ideas but always seem to gravitate back to particular subjects and methods. And yet I spend a lot of time looking at other photographers work and always have because we can always learn and grow....... I think that is what I find disappointing about some of this discussion, that the ability to grow, expand, learn is being stifled by the need to limit or compartmentalize......</p>

<p><em><a href="https://webmail.torstar.com/exchange/komura/Inbox/photo.net.EML?Cmd=open">Alan Zinn</a> <a href="https://webmail.torstar.com/exchange/komura/Inbox/photo.net.EML?Cmd=open"><img title="Frequent poster" src="https://webmail.torstar.com/exchange/komura/Inbox/photo.net.EML?Cmd=open" alt="" /></a>, Aug 01, 2011; 04:45 p.m.</em><br>

<em>The separation of journalism and SP brings up another, no doubt, much discussed subject. I missed a lot of that back-and-forth. I need to ask anyone perhaps redundantly: what ethical advantage RE privacy, in particular, does editorial/reportage have over artistic shooting ethics?</em></p>

<p>I must admit that I've never heard of a separation between journalism and street photography granted my 'spider sense' is tingling now. I would think they are mutually connected to some degree sorry I don't follow the forums on here, granted from the way this discussion seems to be headed I'm not so sure I'd find it very enlightening. Perhaps it's more about the particular photographer? At work I can't say I've come across this differentiation either though frankly we don't typically have deep philosophical discussions about photography that often though I have in the past with a couple of other photographers. Is this something non working photographers ponder perhaps but perhaps not those actually out there doing the job?</p>

<p>The big cameras and lenses are a prop in some ways, they give some photographers that feeling of security because they think the equipment verifies their intent as a photographer. I suspect this forum like pretty much every other photography forum on the planet have the equipment junkies who feel that it's more about the equipment than about the eye.... I confess that in some situations I use these 'props' in order to gain access to situations that might otherwise keep me out, er well no but anyhow I do find that the public sees the gear and assumes I'm doing something 'important'. Most of the time people are just curious, or want their pictures taken so I indulge them.</p>

<p>Now in terms of what you are saying about ethical advantage, in my case it has nothing to do with ethics trust me if I needed to get the shot I would get the shot but when it comes to photographing for myself eg street reportage/street photography I just prefer to pack lightly. It doesn't draw a lot of gawkers, folks wanting to be in the paper, nutcases, even photographer want to be's to some extent as I've picked up 'tails' in the past.</p>

<p>Ok it took me some time to figure out what you meant about the ethical advantage of being an editorial/reportage photographer in terms of privacy. From a purely technical standpoint at least here in Canada I don't have to have permission to take a photograph of someone in order to run it in the paper if it is considered spot news as opposed to a commercial photographer who took a photo of a street scene and later sold it for use in an ad campaign. I did think of the notoriety surrounding Doisneau's photo 'The Kiss' where things seem to have gone sideways. </p>

<p>So is your question leading to the question, shoot first and ask questions later? I'm old school in that asking first will in almost all cases change the feel of the moment, I'm no longer just a casual observer who has stumbled upon a special moment in time but I've now contaminated the purity of that situation with my presence but then that is my shooting style and part of the photographic puzzle in my case which is to find that decisive moment. There are however many photojournalists who will step in and set up a shot and because of this they probably make a more 'salable' product much like a studio photographer does. For me that takes some of the spontaneousness away from the photograph and that isn't my style.</p>

 

<p>I think in some ways the media outlet you are working for may also have some guidance in terms of what it expects and what it does not. Granted not so sure these days given the mess News Corp is in but most large and probably most small newspapers likely have some sort of code of conduct or ethics that they expect their staff to follow.</p>

<p>At the newspaper I work at we have a code of conduct and what was expected in terms of ethics when it came to how photos were enhanced before getting into the system. What David Haas is referring to. We've caught some doozies in the past as well, one of my favorites was two pucks in a hockey photo. The photographer claimed it was some sort of glitch in the camera, no way, the puck was added to make the shot look better but in doing so destroyed all credibility that photographer had and brings into question all work by all photographers. Sadly a side effect of Photoshop....</p>

<p>Is that what you are searching for or is it more along the lines of the actual mindset of the photographer, eg paparazzi vs photojournalist vs documentary photographers.....</p>

<p>Each photographer is going to be different and that comes from their backgrounds and their built in moral compass I would suspect. Granted the camera can be a great insulator allowing you do disconnect sometimes from the horror you might be photographing still it is the brain and heart behind the camera that is going to be the deciding factor.... I think if you can give your students a push in the right direction they will take it from there. </p>

<p>An American Group, the Nation Press Photographers Association has a code of ethics posted to their website. A large number of Canadian and American and possibly other photojournalists from around the world are members and this might be a starting point?</p>

<p>http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics.html</p>

<p ><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad -</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 31, 2011; 11:39 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Of course he didn't. But this thread is about a question posed by the OP. What is, and is not, street photography? A reference was offered as a baseline, a place to *start* from.</em></p>

 

<p>Yes I did read the OP, of course the discussion seemed to devolve to something more on personal matter since it seems some comments are based more on past interactions than present discussion.</p>

<p>My point is, why is it even important to come up with a set in stone definition, why do you need to quantify your work for that seems to be the big stumbling block or perhaps stone you are hanging around your neck or others? Based on the photos I just saw I would say you have all the tools you need to be a good street photographer the kids with the baby is a neat frame leaving in the parking sign shows me that you know what you want and how to frame so why then is is important to quantify these qualities?</p>

<p>John, I think you make some excellent points. Compassion certainly, wonderment perhaps as well? It is interesting how street people factor into the 'street photography equation when the roots of 'street photography' don't seem to support this unless one adds in the FSA photographers who were doing a form of 'street documentation'.....</p>

<p>I tossed in the question of public/police being a 'street' photojournalist and how I read in the forums how there seems to be this insidious wave of privacy being tossed in the face of photographers. I wonder if it's to do with people thinking they have the right to do this or that, for example those who feel the need to be trouble makers within online forums because they know they can cowardly hide behind the veil of the internet? Perhaps not, or perhaps an over generalization that so often happens online...</p>

<p>If someone didn't want their photo taken I would respect that granted if it was to do with a story I was working on such as a suspect in a criminal act or news event that would change things. Normally though I find the public quite accepting granted it depends a lot on how the public perceives me as well, if I'm working a news event I probably look more the part. Eg big cameras and lenses, though when I shoot for me I like to work unnoticed because the moment someone sees a camera they are no longer going to act natural and will start to 'act' for the camera. So that means working with a point and shoot or my new small friend a MFT camera because I don't want folks 'acting' for me.</p>

<p>I think I come from a different side of the street perhaps? For me street photographers were the likes of Bresson but more so Robert Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Robert Frank. Then perhaps the transition to documentary or photojournalists such as Mary Ellen Mark, Eugene Richards, W Eugene Smith, Don McCullen and Salgado. At which point the 'art' factor comes into play within the scope of documentary or street....</p>

<p>I'm glad that Wouter reaffirmed his original post for I too feel the same way. Is it the academics who feel this need to put things into nice tidy little pigeon holes? I don't know, I remember in university there was this need to explain the 'why' but somethings may transcend the why....</p>

 

<p ><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5767925">Alan Zinn</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 01, 2011; 10:50 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>It is wise but hard not to assume that someone will come to our same opinions depending upon which books they have or have not read. The same applies to viewer sophistication regarding pictures. Part of the pleasure of looking at pictures is learning how to look. I learned that from the beginning and now it is reflexive. It is a life-long process.</em><br /><em>I mentioned the value of contextualizing pictures as a body of work, or minimally as a pair of mutually supporting images, for classification and understanding them. I suspect all that is reasonable to do is assume the classification list is open ended. Those photographers who fall into one niche can't claim more authority than those who fall into another. </em><br /><em>SP has its protectors who are feeling the pressure from everybody with a cell phone getting into the act. I am always astonished at the numbers of people at any given time and place on "my" streets firing away. I see them shooting the same little sketchy, whimsical things that catch my eye. But no,no - not to the depth I explore them! I want to see it as an affirmation of photography rather than a diffusion and dilution of a more purposeful and sophisticated passion.</em></p>

 

<p>Nicely put Alan, photography isn't just about taking a picture, it's about your interpretation of what you are viewing and what you have added to that scene through your past experiences and sometimes I think that could be what separates those that 'get it' and those that don't.</p>

<p>So really photography is probably a lot less about what you are seeing as much as it is how you are seeing it......</p>

<p>In closing I'd just like to link these quotes from a photographer who has influenced my work. ;^)</p>

<p>http://www.photoquotes.com/ShowQuotes.aspx?id=225&name=Doisneau,Robert</p>

<p>Nope never, have found one in the trash though.</p>

<p>I suppose another aspect of the question is 'How has 'street' photography changed in the past decade'.</p>

<p>My intent with that comment is based on the change we seem to have undertaken in North America where someone's privacy seems to have been redefined in some manner. Not sure if that was well worded but my feeling is that as 'street' photographers am I correct in my assumption from the debate that the issue of privacy has become a major stumbling block?</p>

<p>For example the works of Doisneau, Ronis, Bresson et al. How might they have been affected by the way people view photographers today or do you think they would still be able to work unfettered by the public and the police?</p>

<p>And I suppose on a more personal standpoint, do we really care or even need to have some sort of verbal explanation of the genre in the first place. Did Garry Winogrand fret about what is and what is not considered 'street photography' each morning when he set out with his camera? Most likely not, do we need to always put a nice tidy little definition in place when looking at someone's work? Why do photographs need to be defined and perhaps hamstrung by words anyway? ;^)</p>

<p>Canon skipping an M4/3 system and bringing out a MF Digital FD lens body. Followed shortly by flying pigs.</p>

<p>Hmm I think a factor that some of you are missing is that there will be subtle clues people give you if they are lying for example. Are they making eye contact, or my personal favorite "to be honest with you", when I hear someone say that they are typically lying. Recall that one from a psych course I took.</p>

<p>But in any event do you really want our law enforcement to just sit around donut shops all day? Many bad guys are caught because a cop has a funny feeling about the person. Could be something they say, or are wearing or just the way they glance at you. </p>

<p>Not too far off from what many of us do as photographers where we are reading a situation and making our photographs based on this. For example a good street photographer is always aware of their environment and even portrait photographers who are trying to capture that certain something in the person they are photographing.</p>

<p>Probably depends a lot on the police officer. For the most part up here my dealings have been friendly though our paper is not exactly liked by the police due to the stories we run. </p>

<p>Friends in New York can get NYP (aka New York Press/photographer) media plates but many stopped using them because it screams look in my trunk and steal all the nice photo gear I have. Probably a good thing even the cops don't really know what your plates are about in LA. A few years ago we were having our company cars stolen and the trunks emptied and we don't have special plates up here.</p>

<p>In terms of the OP, feels to me like a cop doing his job. You might have done something that made him curious and he just figured he'd check you out. He most likely ran your plates as he pulled up to make sure your car wasn't stolen or involved in anything. If so then he already knew who you were and that question about being from the area might have been a test just to make sure you were who you said you were at first. You be surprised how many routine stops turn into something.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Canon seems to have an issue with this type of thing. Google E18 error. It's a 'calibration' issue between the gearbox and the lens' position. ;^)</p>

<p>Typically it means the camera needs to go in for service, you could try and gently press on the lens when turning the camera on or off and see if that is enough to engage the gears and get the thing to retract. In Canada Canon charges a flat rate repair so you might be able to see if it's worth it first by calling.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Aside from the technical issues already mentioned do you think you'll really get a lot of people who want to give a stranger their names and emails?</p>

<p>Sounds like a way to scam girls for their contact information, kind of creepy if you ask me. If you genuinely want to do portraits and you just have to do this on the beach what you might want to do is set up a spot on your photobucket account for this 'project' and make up some business cards with YOUR name and a link to that spot and then just have the people go their to 'collect' their photos.</p>

<p><em>actually, it's not that easy to treat the digital camera as a film camera. compose carefully, click. resist the temptation to look at the result on the lcd screen. wait for a week before taking a look at it. click only one shot of each situation, and don't click more than 36 shots every day or two. seriously!</em></p>

<p>Hmm about the only thing I would agree with is the compose carefully and click part of your statement. The real advantage for me is that I can look at the results immediately so if my setup wasn't quite right I can fix it on location. In the film world photograhers who needed immediate affirmation of their setups would use Polaroid. In my case I would take my roll of film and toss it in our Kodak minilab so it wouldn't be quite instant but fast enough. Therefore I don't think the rest of your analogy is really valid.</p>

<p>For us digital means saving time and lots of it. In the past with film we would need a portable darkroom and before the Leafax an enlarger and colour print processing setup. Most older stadiums would have had small rooms that press photographers could set up their portable darkrooms in. The Leafax 35 thankfully removed one part of the equation and that was no more printing and drum scanning pix. </p>

<p>With digital it completely removed the need to process film on location. With high speed networks we could now transmit a colour photo in seconds instead of 30 minutes via an analog phone line.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think that old thing about trying before buying comes into play there. When I was in photo retail I always asked customers how the camera felt. Were the controls logical and easy to use, were they too confusing or just right. Was it easy to hold? Why ask this, well I found some customers would buy something because it was the latest or greatest (back then there was no internet just magazines) so they read a review and saw the specs and they just had to have it. Then bought it and discovered it wasn't for them.</p>

<p>I'd be really hard pressed to think of a piece of gear I would like to own. If I needed something to do a job I either bought or rented it. About the only thing might be one of those white Blads stuck up on the moon but I suspect it has more to do with location than the gear itself......</p>

<p><em>1. Do you think digital photography is making us lazy, what i mean by this is , lazy in terms of pre visualising and taking the time to compose and think about our settings, it is so easy to rattle of a buch of images now without wasting the precious film. and deal with it later in PS.</em><br /><em>2. Do you think that digital imagery is saturating us to much in terms of visual overload, and now we expect so much more from our images, processing gimicks etc, Where as a well composed slide or B&W shot use to leave us feeling wow, now shots that resemble them we sort of think, yeah thats average.</em></p>

<p>Depends on the photographer in some cases yes I've seen photographers that shoot with motor drives and pick the frame(s) that work which I call the law of averages of photography. The difference between old time photographers who grew up with sheet film or 120 film is they tend to pick the decisive moment vs blasting a scene. Granted the flip side is with fast action sports if it weren't for motor drives some memorable photos may not have been possible.</p>

<p>Visual overload? Nope, we are always going to be looking at something and you always have the choice of looking or not. Liking or disliking a photo occurs on so many different levels. Anyone who has worked in photo retail and stood behind the photofinishing counter can tell you that there is a wide range of what people consider 'good' or 'great' so that old adage of beauty being in the eye of the beholder could very well be true.</p>

<p>Another thought, has digital cheapened the craft of photography? In some cases it sure seems that way, what I mean by that is freelance photojournalists are probably a dying breed (no not literally though in some parts of the world yes literally) but what I have seen is that large media outlets seem to have found a very clever way of obtaining content without having to pay what they used to to freelancers. What I am getting at are these things such as E-reporters who just send in their pix to blogs or media outlet websites. To me that is a rather clever way of getting content for free or nearly free. Granted sometimes you get what you pay for in terms of quality still I can't help but wonder what kind of impact this is having on the industry.</p>

<p>The reality is though that as the technology advances and improves many technical skills are not as critical, for example most of todays cameras have pretty decent automation in terms of exposure or focus so that allows photographers to concentrate on composition or creativity vs technical aspects. Granted having a solid understanding of the basics also certainly helps.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I go for walks<em> with</em> my camera(s) all the time. But are you talking about the tail wagging the dog?</p>

<p>As far as names go, I guess being a fish keeper I'm a bit cautious in that respect. Typically if we name fish they tend to become floaters in a day or two.</p>

<p>There will always be some sort of symbiosis between the photographer and his cameras (aka tools) in that those who enjoy working with that particular piece of gear will most likely produce better results vs those who buy gear on spec or name alone and then fight with the gear because it doesn't feel right or isn't easy to work with. That gear tends to wind up in closets or cupboards unused.</p>

<p>Interesting quote Fred, especially based on the type of work he did.</p>

<p>Most photographers seem to operate with a pane of glass between themselves and their subjects. They just can't get inside and know the subject. - <a href="http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=53&name=Smith,W.">W. Eugene Smith</a></p>

<p>It's one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it's another thing to make a portrait of who they are. - <a href="http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=367&name=Caponigro,Paul">Paul Caponigro</a> -Jensen, Brooks. "Talk at the Wilson Center for the Arts, Sep 2007". LensWork Podcast LW0420.</p>

<p><em>For the moment, let's put aside issues of whether it is desirable or not to reduce the weathered and sun-burnt look, and assume that we are operating under "orders" to do so. In response, I produced two more versions. The one attached to this post (aka, TJM Tweak #3) is simply re-blending in some of the original (albeit lightened a bit) with my "Tweak #2", while the version attached to the next post (aka, Tweak #4) was done by a completely different method. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on these.</em><br>

<em>Along the same lines, I would love to see how you, Kevin, would respond if you were given the above request to minimize the weathered and sun-burnt look, but didn't want to go overboard. Would you indeed say that the one tweak that you already posted is the most retouching you would do?</em></p>

<p>That's always a problem if you are working for someone else.... is the customer <em>always</em> right or sometimes faking it because they don't want to let on that they don't know? Just a funny feeling based on experience but the bottom line is I guess it depends on a lot of other factors. Am I specifically hired because of my expertise and therefore is my final call going to be the one that matters. Not sure if that made sense but I'm applying it to the situation at work in terms of the darkroom techs (job that no longer exists) or the electronic imaging techs (also a job that no longer exists after last year) who's mandate was to ensure colour quality and consistency throughout the newspaper so they made the final call.</p>

<p>In other words everyone relied on their ability to get it right and therefore they had the final call they also had monitors calibrated to be WYSIWYG so what showed on the screen was pretty darn close to how the final result was going to look in the paper. If the art department had a specific requirement then it was dealt with. But perhaps editorial is a bit different than commercial in that we had certain requirements/standards we had to meet such as not cloning out things in a photo. Granted we all know how well that is adhered to... but I think with most large newspapers there are standards in place in terms of what can and can't be done to a photo. Granted what the photographer did to that photo before we got it is another story for another time.</p>

<p>Let me back up for sec, if you are doing colour critical work wouldn't you want to be calibrated to your output and not just to some standard for your monitor? For example if you are doing work for a client on a flyer and show them the final product on your screen would you not want it to look as close to the final printed version as possible? Or are you using some sort of RIP SW that adjusts the input to match up the output? Hope that made some sense. Or do you just make a sample print and show them that? I guess my question is how accurate is what you see vs what you get? If not do you in your head make the corrections needed since the screen is not matching the output?</p>

<p>What would I have done if asked to tone it down? Good question, well I wouldn't have done a lot but that's my personal preference I might have toned it down to a degree but not to the point it was really obvious, pretty much where I was at. Again though I'd have to look at the photo in terms of it's context, in this case an environmental portrait so doing a photoshop job to make her look like a model is IMHO inappropriate. I see where you're going and that's a tough question when you are in a situation where you have to go against what you think is right and go with what the client wants.... but if that's the environment you have to work within then I guess that's the difference between paycheck and street.</p>

<p>Granted being experienced and knowing how to sweet talk a client and showing them differences etc would give me the wiggle room to probably show the client that perhaps there are other ways of going or just plain making them think that it was their idea in the first place (hmm guess the minor in psychology does help). In other words I'm the perceived expert and not just a photoshop monkey.</p>

<p>In terms of going cool, hey that's ok it's your <em>style </em>I might not agree (ya think) with it but if that's what it is then that's what it is. At work certain photographers preferred their photos to look certain ways, contrasty, hand of god burns around the edges, punchy colour and that was their style, I might not have agreed with this either but that was their style. </p>

<p>I'm the opposite, I like warm tones so my favorite times to shoot are early morning and late afternoon to evening. But a personal style is what makes your work stand out from the competition such as Jerry Uelsmann, Sebastiao Salgado, Ernst Haas or Jean Pierre Sudre.</p>

<p>Just as an aside, I was looking up Ernst's name to make sure I got the spelling correct and came across some of these quotes. Good read, I was lucky enough to catch up to him in Rockport Maine at the Congress of Photography a few months before he passed away. 8^(</p>

<p>http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=71&name=Haas,Ernst<br /></p>

<p>I know, I did that site back in the 90's and haven't touched it since then. I actually need to replace the antique server it's running on and redo the look. Back when I wrote the pages we were just getting high speed internet with many people on dialup so the microscopic photos. </p>

<p>Yes the white text on black is brutal to read! I think I went with the black background more for the pix. But the entire site broke a year or so ago when browsers stopped supporting the file format I was using. But yes needs to be totally overhauled and updated!</p>

<p>Guess the logical thing to do would be to contact Canon and see if for some reason they still have one of these elements in stock and then find out how much it is. Granted if the seller was smart enough they would have just put a new one on that lens and increased it's resale value. </p>

<p>Interesting, I'm not going to read any comments because I don't want them to colour my inital thoughts on Tom's new enhancement.</p>

<p>I would say cold and flat in terms of lacking contrast in the face. Sort of what I might expect from too much pancake on a film set. Exposure is good but it's just lacking something. I think she is a hint on the cyan/blue side. But something's off, maybe it's the sharpening too? I do notice that in my version could have used a touch when I look at your version.</p>

<p>The more I look the more I feel you seem to want to wander towards to cold side in terms of your photos could it be the way your monitor is calibrated? Sorry couldn't resist....</p>

<p>Ok I'm now going to read the comments...</p>

<p>Tom, and this is interesting as it swings back to the OP and their 'fear' of taking shots of people they know. In your case you are imposing your experience with your friend and that's fine but I guess my comment would be should you apply that model to this or all situations?</p>

<p>I might need to preface my experience a bit first in terms of working with people and with other photographers and their work because what you did is perfectly natural and something I've dealt with for the past 21 years at the newspaper I work at. Everyone has a style and likes and dislikes, thing is most are not the same so it's tough to apply one way or technique to everyone. For example back when we had a darkroom I would print certain photographers work a certain way because that was their style. When I photograph people I apply my own style to the work, in my case I have problems with over processing and that probably goes back to my darkroom days when it was very important for me to make a perfect exposure so I would limit the amount of post processing work I would have to do in the darkroom. Hey wait a sec it might be laziness. No I think it's mainly that I'm not much for fiddling with photos. I think I'd have been happy shooting with a Banquet camera and contact printing the 7" x 17" negatives.</p>

<p>In your case if that is your style, then that's your style.</p>

<p>Skip to today where we can literally pull apart an image in Photoshop (sorry going off topic but I think it's an important point) and the intricate amount of post work you can do to a photo to the point it is unrecognizable from the original. I find that new photographers have a tendency to zero in the minute details and miss the big picture while old darkroom folks tend to go for the overview and then zero in. I think zeroing in on the minute and missing the big picture causes problems down the road since you really want to get the entire photo into the ballpark and then pick at it otherwise the photo takes on a look that screams photoshopped and perhaps that is the thing I can't quite put my finger on with your newest version. It is worlds better than the old but the skin tones are still not working for me.</p>

<p>In terms of my version, Fred you are right it's too yellow. It's a lot more obvious now compared to Tom's version but I think we still need to meet somewhere in the middle. </p>

<p>Mark, sorry we're dissecting your photo. The more I look at it the more I really like it as you have nicely captured her essence it's the eyes and smile and even the hand gesture and it works marvelously because I get a really good impression of how wonderful her personality is and that is and always has been the trick to photographing people!</p>

<p>Ok now the devilish side kicks in, my work appears in about a quarter million to over half a million copies of the paper every day. Just felt like adding that for some weird reason. 8^P</p>

<p>But the thing is I find I'm learning something new every day, especially these days with the electronics and vs the old school ways of doing things which is where I started it would take me half an hour to transmit a colour project over analog phone lines where as now I can upload a bigger file in a second or two. Being a street photographer I'm more inclined to try and keep things as 'real' or natural as I can though I can fully see why commercial photographers have to do what they do. Just a matter of what works for you I guess.</p>

<p>Btw going off topic even further, Kai W did an nteresting series of videos called the Cheap Camera Challenge with 5 pro HK photographers, isn't always about the gear. Here's the link,

</p>