[photo-3d] Re: in a hurry photography (caution: contains strong opinion)

[CanterMike@xxxxxxx]

In Digest 215, H C "Bob" Maxey writes, in part:

<< Who here remembers when there were no auto focus cameras? I do. >>

I do, too.  In fact, I remember when there were no professional cameras with 
auto exposure.  AE was limited to amatuer cameras, especially compact 
rangefinders, the predecessors to modern point & shoots.

<< At one time, photography was a real chore, compared to now. >>

No dispute there, either.  I, for one, am very happy to not have to coat my 
own plates, except at the buffet line....

<< Photography is far
 simpler now than in the good old days. People took great photographs,
 though. [snip] For me, there is a great difference between what was done 
years ago
 compared to today. I think photographers who can't determine exposure for
 example, to be nothing less than snapshot takers. You all have seen these
 "Great" photographers that shoot dozens of roll of film to get that
 "Perfect" image.>>

Only in the movies or on TV.  I have never seen any real professional work 
that way.  That said, in real life film is cheap, and that one image could 
make a career.  I do know one photog (very successful, you can pickup several 
of his books at the Smithsonian gift shops) who shoots everything in colour 
neg, colour slide, and black & white, just to cover all of the bases....  


<< Photographers who bracket entire rolls of film to make
 sure that their image is properly exposed. >>

Surely you exaggerate.  No one brackets...thats what clip tests are for!  
Seriously, there is no excuse for technical incompetence in a true 
professional.  However, many incompetents are making a good living in 
photography today, and not all with automatic cameras.  I know several 
successful photographers (right here in my home town) and even some college 
(photo) instructors (I can't call them professors) who don't know an f stop 
from a bus stop.  They get no respect from the "professionals", but they get 
paid (well) and their clients come back over and over.  Does the client care 
that they paid for 50 sheets of 5x4 film and processing to get one shot?  Do 
they holler when they are billed for ten or twenty Polaroids at $5.00 (or 
$10.) per?  Not if it is "the" shot...they don't care one bit.  Even when the 
art director is there the whole time, and sees the waste and foolishness that 
goes on, they don't care.  They think that that is the way it is supposed to 
be.  That is the way they've seen it on TV and in the movies and in other 
photog's studios...so that is what they expect, and even demand.


Here is where I think that you really go out on a limb:

<<  GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS never had
 to do this in the past, but it is commonplace these days.>>

I'm not so sure about that.  I think that it was just a lot less public back 
then, thats all.  Not every shot by every "great" was worth the cost of the 
film and the processing...we just didn't get to see those.  None of us have 
seen every neg that Adams or Weston or Man Ray ever exposed...just the ones 
they would let us see.  None of us have seen all of the "work prints" that 
went in to making those exhibition quality prints that now sell for big bucks 
and hang in museums.

Not all modern photographers follow the "shotgun" approach, although some 
disciplines (sports and fashion come to mind) almost demand it.  Even the 
best still life shooters, who spend may hours setting up a perfect tabletop 
shot before the camera is even loaded, can't always get it "right" in one 
shot.  Sometimes you really have to hunt it down, stalk closer and closer 
until it all comes together.

Automation is a tool, now as during the Industrial Revolution, and let us not 
condemn it out of hand.  Not all that is new is bad, just different, and if 
we cannot accept those differences, then we are Luddites a century too late.


I'll step down off of my soap box now.  Sorry for the tirade.

Mike Canter