[photo-3d] Re: In a hurry photography

[John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[Bob Maxey]

>For me, there is a great difference between what was done years ago
>compared to today. 

I agree, but I think there's also a great difference between praising the
accomplishments of the past that were achieved despite great hardship, and
belittling the accomplishments of the present, that take advantage of modern
technology. The "Great Photographers" of the past used the old techniques,
but they had no choice. Today's "Great Photographers" have a choice of whether
to use the old techniques or the new techniques - most use the newer
techniques. I suspect that most who use the older techniques (coating their
own glass plates, etc.) do so because they feel it adds a certain charm to
their work, not because they don't perceive it to be a hassle.

>I think photographers who can't determine exposure for
>example, to be nothing less than snapshot takers. 

The human eye is not good at judging absolute levels of illumination -
other than rules of thumb like "Sunny 16", and possibly experience gained
for specific subjects and conditions in correlating lighting and color
balance, most people would do better to take as input the advice of some
sort of light meter, whether it's built into the camera or a handheld device.
(How long have photographic light meters been available? My father has one
from the 1950s.)

In any event, I consider composition to be far more important for photography
than the issue of whether machine assistance was used in determining the
exposure. Just as in driving a car, I'm far more concerned about good
peformance and navigation of the vehicle for the application I have in mind
(e.g. commuting in a variety of driving conditions) than in whether some
purist might consider me a "wimp" for my choice of transmission type.
("You whippersnappers think you're so hot with your stick shifts and
synchromesh gears - in my day the planetary gear was plenty good enough
for us. :-)

>You all have seen these
>"Great" photographers that shoot dozens of roll of film to get that
>"Perfect" image. 

Different types of photographers take different numbers of photos,
depending on a number of factors. The "Great Photographers" are frequently
professionals, who depend for their income on getting as good an image as
they can, and since film is one of the cheapest items in professional
photography, it doesn't make sense to scrimp on the film. Professional
photographers such as studio photographers, fashion photographers, etc.
will often try many different angles, lighting setups, etc., and also
try to allow for defects in film and processing, people blinking, etc.

>Photographers who bracket entire rolls of film to make
>sure that their image is properly exposed. GREAT PHOTOGRAPHERS never had
>to do this in the past, but it is commonplace these days.

It wasn't that they didn't "have to" bracket, but that it was much harder
to do so (e.g. changing a plate for every shot), so they did it less.
Also it was perhaps more common to do specialized hand processing of the
prints (burning and dodging, changing the chemistry and other factors)
to compensate for exposure problems.

"Proper exposure" isn't an absolute - different exposures create different
perceptions in the viewer, and having a wide range to choose from gives
more options in selecting for the desired effect.

Wired Magazine recently sent two photographers to take a photo of our
first-generation Braille display prototype (page 79 in the September 2000
issue). The photographers spent *six hours* taking still life images of
a small piece of equipment, with many different settings, lighting conditions,
and so on, using many rolls of film, with the end result being that one
photograph in the magazine. Yes, they could have showed up, taken one photo
and left, but it probably wouldn't have been as good as the photo that was
ultimately chosen. Also the photographers had flown in from New York, had
nothing else to do for the day, and were hoping that their work would be
recognized and get them future work. I don't blame them for taking a lot of
photos, and don't consider them "snapshot photographers" because they used
light meters and possibly autoexposure.

>If you want to use an AF Camera to take stereo images, I certainly won't
>deride you for it. However, photography - Great Photography is never a
>simple thing. It takes knowledge and experience to do correctly. 

I strongly agree. I would add that concentrating effort on the things that
will make the greatest difference improves the odds of getting "great
photographs".

John R