photography

Alex Haspel · May 13, 2007

i haven't been photographing for quite long, since i've been working like a dog the last months. which is a bit sad, because i come from a photography background, having studied photography from age 17 to about 22 or so.. and as some of you might have experienced also, doing a work that includes taking (running)pictures doesn't really encourage you to take even more pictures in your (rare) time off. but as mdc, a band i'm also bonded to family wise, played here in vienna i decided to buy some 1600asa b/w material and grab my old slr again for the first time in many moons.

the material was pushed one stop, and then scanned (from the still rather thin negative) by myself...

the location was extremely dark, having about 3 small par cans pointing in various directions but hardly hitting the stage, so it was hard getting an exposure time adequate for a hardcorepunkband. but as the concert progressed there appeared to be another guy with a compact camera with an integrated flash, so i closed my aperature for a few stops and set my exposure time to that mode where it exposes as long as you keep the button pushed (whatever this might be called in english). whenever i saw him aiming i aimed at aproximately what he was aiming at and started exposing my negative, hoping he would shoot within the next few seconds and trying to approximately hold my frame blindly(slr).

Alex Haspel · May 13, 2007

to make this a bit more discussable, how's your view on photography?

David Bradley · May 13, 2007

Photography is great but working film/video adds an entirely different dimension. Your entirely dependant on other people being competent. Photography is a great solo gig so its great for a hobby. Personally I find its brilliant practice for lighting and composition that I can't afford to film.

It does seem that everyone with a D40 or some other bog standard DSLR is calling him/herself a professional photographer and trying to charge people for their photographs. Not to say there aren't amazing photographers out there but its all too easy now considering you can take a RAW file to photoshop and make it look like an Ansel Adams within minutes.

PS liked your shots, I've shot a gig or two and I always find myself using very fast stock - the highlights don't hold so well but it looks great in high contrast situations.

Jan Weis · May 13, 2007

I am an amateur photographer at heart, its how I got interested in cinematography.

The best thing about photography is that it helps you improve your compositions,however

like someone said earlier, cinematography has more dimensions, this complicates shoots

as you already know.

I'm a big fan of digital photography for compositions, because its easier to handle and

quick(the biggest benifit).

my 2 cents

Tim Terner · May 13, 2007

Love the pics Alex, really raw and really gutsy, exactly what I'd expect if I'd have commissioned something for a mag.

The ability to think about using a long exposure and using someone elses flash is what seperates the achievers's from the non achievers's. Well done

Daniel Smith · May 13, 2007

It does seem that everyone with a D40 or some other bog standard DSLR is calling him/herself a professional photographer and trying to charge people for their photographs.

Unfortunately that is the case. Although I now purposely include a short paragraph explaining the specs of my photos. If there was any grading or not.

It can really bug me at times when people point me towards these pictures and tell me that I'll good as good as them soon. When their photos consist of no shutter, aperture, ISO, white balance control whatsoever, just the automatic mode, a dutch angle and Photoshop.

Edited May 13, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

Ken Cangi · May 14, 2007

Not to say there aren't amazing photographers out there but its all too easy now considering you can take a RAW file to photoshop and make it look like an Ansel Adams within minutes.

This I would like to see. I have spent thousands of hours in commercial and private darkrooms over the past thirty years, making archival b&w and color prints, as well as Duratrans, etc. and I have held several of Ansel Adams' originals in my hands. I have also worked commercially with every formaty of still camera from 35mm to 8x10, and I would bet you my SUV that any hack with Photoshop and a raw file wouldn't come within light years of a achieving a print of that caliber. I have two close friends - well known professionals in the industry - who have been using the latest Epson inks to get in the ball park of that quality, and they have managed to create some beautiful prints. Even they, after close examination, feel that the ink prints still don't get there.

I think statements like this, in a forum like this, add as much value as do the film vs. digital diatribes. It has been said many times, and I will repeat it here, because I do speak from a strong experience and knowledge base. There is no substitute for experience, and you don't create images and prints of the caliber of the works of Ansel Adams without a boat-load of it.

Most of these self-proclamed still pros can't even explain the difference between the Zone System and a hot dog - let alone how to use that system to expose and develop film to its maximum range of tonality. Half of them, if you showed them a spot meter, would thing it were a hip pocket camera. Ask them how selenium toner affects the final print and to what degree it alters the tonal range. These are intregal components of the equation.

The other, and more important, difference between pros and w.e. warriors is that pros can handle the challenges of involved shoots, clients, budgets, etc. on demand. There is very little luck involved.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Ken Cangi

David Bradley · May 15, 2007

QUOTE(David Bradley @ May 13 2007, 08:13 AM) *
Not to say there aren't amazing photographers out there but its all too easy now considering you can take a RAW file to photoshop and make it look like an Ansel Adams within minutes.

Ken it was simply a poorely worded analogy to suggest that in order to create proffessional looking photographs in the digital era is alot easier than it was 30 years ago. I used Ansel Adams as an example as he is widly heralded as one of the greatest photographers in history.

As to the point raised about "self proclaimed stills pros", I agree whole heartedly but if they're making a living fair play to them.

Ken Cangi · May 15, 2007

Ken it was simply a poorely worded analogy to suggest that in order to create proffessional looking photographs in the digital era is alot easier than it was 30 years ago. I used Ansel Adams as an example as he is widly heralded as one of the greatest photographers in history.

As to the point raised about "self proclaimed stills pros", I agree whole heartedly but if they're making a living fair play to them.

I understand your point, although I have to disagree. I have stopped shooting still work professionally, but I always look at current work. I would say that there is a higher quantity of mediocre work out there than in years past, due to the fact that art directors and certain magazines are willing to hire lesser experienced shooters to save money. On the other hand, the best work is still produced by people with a high level of experience and knowledge of their craft, equipment, etc.

Edited May 15, 2007 by Ken Cangi

Alex Haspel · June 28, 2007

Love the pics Alex, really raw and really gutsy, exactly what I'd expect if I'd have commissioned something for a mag.

The ability to think about using a long exposure and using someone elses flash is what seperates the achievers's from the non achievers's. Well done

thanks a lot!

here are some more using that "technique":

i find this last one especialy funky, since the right half of the hihat cymbal is motion blurred due to the fact that it is the shadow of the flash, while the left half is super sharp.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Alex Haspel