# What can old-school photogs do better (or not)?



## Marsu42 (Dec 8, 2014)

Today I was out shooting horsies with a friend of mine, a cameraman with 20 years experience in the studio and film biz. Nowadays, he's doing mostly landscape stills. So I asked him to do some portaits of me with the animals for my website.

He used a 5d2, a light meter, a good 50mm mf/m lens and shot in full M mode apparently mostly f2.8 (there's no exif on that). And a mf film camera, claiming that a good scan of the negative beats any 135 digital out there in resolution. So far, so impressive. Except for the 5d2, I was shocked by its pattern noise after raising shadows +2ev. So if I ever said anything negative about my 6d except for its still crappy af system I take it back :-o

_*The bad:* after looking at his digital shots I have to say I'm kind of surprised: only 1/10th are barely in focus, maybe 1/20th are just ok-ish for websize, and even less rally nailed. And he screwed up the horizon level and framing even worse than I usually do, and I feel I'm pretty bad at it.

*The good:* He has a very good eye for composition and lighting, he didn't pray & spray but waited for the right light to show up and got nice rim lighting. For using full M, the exposure was also mostly ok +-1ev from nailing it.

*The Question:* Are we too focused on pixel peeping these days and forget about the good traditional values of the great photogs of the olden days? Or do some long-time legacy photogs simply need a kick in the proverbial to use af like the rest of us?_

I'm asking because this is not the first time I feel very ambivalent about working with or talking to old-school photogs. It's like there's a curious mixture of very solid knowledge, but coupled with a seemingly lack of understanding of modern camera's capabilities or usage. Or is it they simply have completely other priorities than us digital kids, and wildlife shooting isn't really what the legacy is back from the days?

Thanks for sharing any insights about the film photog generation in the digital age!


----------



## Eldar (Dec 8, 2014)

Instead of gving lots of views, which I have, here's a link to a phenomenal Icelandic photographer, which Edward Lang (eml58) sent to me the other day. Well worth seeing, for a number of reasons, including some of those you raise. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrEv8kD15co


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 8, 2014)

I posted something similar a few months back and with all the answers I got, it still brought me back to something I needed to look closer at. 

Me and my thinking. 

What exactly do I mean? Well, how willing am I to truly learn as opposed to stubbornly deciding what I will take in. 

Example: I started my photography 3 years back and read up on the rule of thirds. The article I read spoke a great deal of novices needing to compose according these rules, learn their effect and value and once part of your methodology, begin breaking them occasionally in order to differentiate your photography. 

What did I do? Decided to skip the the entire step about composing according to the rule of thirds. 

In doing that, I lost compositional value and effect in many photographs and I'm still trying to unlearn some silly habits I built into my workflow. 

Certainly with the short window one has for landscapes during the golden hour, compositional understanding and application is critical. Especially considering the time you have to get up, the travel to your scene. 

The Film Era Photographers, I believe, have greater respect for composition. They have better trained inclinations towards what makes a scene work. 

Like I dismissed understanding the rule of thirds, I believe dismissing the knowledge Film Era Photographers have, is to rob yourself of a chance to learn. 

So I have something I ask myself quite a bit: "Paul, just how many sharp, well exposed photos have you taken that have little to no impact?" 
What makes it dull? Crappy composition. 

Don't know if this is the kind of reply you wanted but I do believe that art is not in the technicalities but in composition.


----------



## e17paul (Dec 8, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Today I was out shooting horsies with a friend of mine, a cameraman with 20 years experience in the studio and film biz. Nowadays, he's doing mostly landscape stills. So I asked him to do some portaits of me with the animals for my website.
> 
> He used a 5d2, a light meter, a good 50mm mf/m lens and shot in full M mode apparently mostly f2.8 (there's no exif on that). And a mf film camera, claiming that a good scan of the negative beats any 135 digital out there in resolution. So far, so impressive. Except for the 5d2, I was shocked by its pattern noise after raising shadows +2ev. So if I ever said anything negative about my 6d except for its still crappy af system I take it back :-o
> 
> ...



Yes definitely. As a teenager my camera was the excellent Olympus XA/2, 35mm full frame with 35mm full frame. There was nothing to do but compose the shot and press the shutter. As a result I soon learned to do those things well, even though there was no instant feedback as there is with digital. Focus was either 'landscape', 'group' or 'head and shoulders'. The closest experience today is using my iPhone. 

That proved a great foundation for moving onto my OM-10 as an Architecture student. Focus only needed to be good enough for a 6" x 4" print. No pixel peeping possible, just lots of satisfaction. Maybe we spoil our enjoyment by studying photos with the electronic equivalent of a microscope.


----------



## pwp (Dec 8, 2014)

Any previous activity is going to inform what you do now in both subtle and obvious ways. My time at art school studying painting has without doubt given me a different approach to shooting. Thankfully I realized in my final year that I was not going to be the next Monet or Jackson Pollock, so I switched to a photography major in final year. Good move!

Shooting with film did inform the way I shoot now to some extent. The very real consideration that it was going to cost $1.00 every time I pressed the shutter made careful composition and timing the "moment" a necessary skill. Darkroom work making black & white prints while shooting daily news and sports provided a skill to view things tonally as well as in color. 

But all said and done, I wouldn't go back to the old ways for all the tea in China. I haven't even owned a film camera of any kind since 2001. 

Marsu42, I wouldn't take the output created by your friend as typical of photographers with 20+ years experience. To coin a phrase, he provides just a "snapshot" of skills from a different era. 

-pw


----------



## VitC (Dec 9, 2014)

"Example: I started my photography 3 years back and read up on the rule of thirds. The article I read spoke a great deal of novices needing to compose according these rules, learn their effect and value and once part of your methodology, begin breaking them occasionally in order to differentiate your photography. 

What did I do? Decided to skip the the entire step about composing according to the rule of thirds. 

In doing that, I lost compositional value and effect in many photographs and I'm still trying to unlearn some silly habits I built into my workflow. "

--We old guys have made more mistakes and possibly learned from some of them. The rule of thirds has never worked. In my view it was advocated by Kodak as a simplification of the Golden Section. You might notice even photography books that advocated the rule of thirds will show examples with images more towards the golden section. I used to point out to photography students that the cover page of these books always using the golden section as best lay-out. Center is usually a good alternative. Or break all the rules. There's nothing wrong with being innovative and experiment. A study of oriental art and the principles of primary, secondary, etc. objects might be useful.


----------



## AE1Pguy (Dec 9, 2014)

Let's go way, way back. In the WWII era, when asked about how to shoot for the papers, photographers said "f/8 and be there."

With your 4X5 press camera set to f/8, and a big ol' flash gun ready to fire a single bulb, and with your focus set to the hyperfocal distance for f/8, you were likely to get a printable exposure for almost anything you would want to document in a newspaper. Since you only had 2 shots in a film holder anyway, meaning realistically you would only get one chance at a given shot, the emphasis was on the "be there" part of the slogan, rather than the craft/tech part.

So, those guys really learned how to anticipate action. They gave us a lot of the most important, iconic photographs from history with that philosophy. The lenses, shutters, film and chemicals they had in those days were laughably bad by current standards. Didn't seem to hinder them too much.

I just went to a photo exhibit Saturday night that featured works by Ansel Adams, Ernest Brooks, and Dorothy Kerper Monnelly (Ernest Brooks was there, and he's quite a terrific guy, and a really outstanding photographer btw). Some of the Adams prints were made in the '30s, with uncoated lenses, from film stock with nothing like a well-defined sensitivity, etc. Some of Brooks' prints were made from digital Hasselblad shots, just in the last couple of years. I would defy anyone to show that the Adams shots were technically inferior in any way, much less artistically.


----------



## slclick (Dec 9, 2014)

Black and White digital. 

If you have shot a decent amount of film and processed it yourself you PROBABLY have a good understanding and eye for contrast.

Beyond that, I'm not making anymore generalities.


----------



## Omni Images (Dec 9, 2014)

I would say shooting in the film era taught you Patients and Discrimination.
Each shot cost you money, you soon realised to make each shot count.
I find this more so now days using my 120 pano film camera where you get 4 shots per roll and my 4x5 sheet film, 2 shots per back, than I did when I used 35mm with a 6fps motor drive shooting surfing or snowboarding back in the 80's ... though I was still light fingered on the trigger as I paid for all my film and processing.
You also learnt the hard way getting shots back perhaps weeks after the event only to find you did some dumb thing that meant the entire roll was stuffed ... hard lessons, now you can see right away if something is not right. 
You could compare it to perhaps taking a sniper shot with one chance to make the "kill shot" and each bullet costs a lot of money, or now days using a digital machine gun with free bullets.
It has perhaps taken the value out of each image in a way.
The act of setting up a film camera is rather therapeutic, everything slows down. There are so many more steps involved to finally pushing the trigger.
So patients to wait for the right moment and discrimination to not just take shots of anything as in both cases it costs you cash.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 9, 2014)

.
There may be more going on here than meets the eye, so to speak.

I'd suggest the OP may want to gently suggest his photographer have his eyes checked. That OOF percentage suggests two things to me. First, failing eyesight generally. Second, the known difficulties of manual focus on current digital bodies. Back in the "old-school" days we had much better tools for seeing proper manual focus.

The failing eyesight thing happened to Ansel Adams. In his last years he was printing sub-par work due to his failing eyesight. Naturally, when this was pointed out to him, he didn't see it and rebelled at the suggestion. It still looked good to him.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 9, 2014)

AE1Pguy said:


> Let's go way, way back. In the WWII era, when asked about how to shoot for the papers, photographers said "f/8 and be there."
> 
> With your 4X5 press camera set to f/8, and a big ol' flash gun ready to fire a single bulb, and with your focus set to the hyperfocal distance for f/8, you were likely to get a printable exposure for almost anything you would want to document in a newspaper. Since you only had 2 shots in a film holder anyway, meaning realistically you would only get one chance at a given shot, the emphasis was on the "be there" part of the slogan, rather than the craft/tech part.
> 
> ...



F8 on a 4x5 has a crop factor/depth of field of f2.3 on a ff camera and f1.4 on an APS crop camera, there is no hyperfocal focusing at those apertures.


----------



## Omni Images (Dec 9, 2014)

$15 every time I click the shutter on my View Camera. You better believe I double and triple check the focus. 

For me, the reason that I still use the old-school stuff is the fact that I enjoy the process. IMO Nothing beats looking at a really nice image projected on a big piece of ground glass. But, there are so many easier and cost effective ways to photograph today that I wouldn't bother just for the images. Big film can produce better IQ, but not to an extent that justifies the extra effort and expense.
[/quote]

I very much enjoy the process too, being slowed down so much takes it to another level of enjoyment of the "craft" for me.
I know of a number of photographers who still use film only, Paul only shoots film and his work is stunning, especially when seen at 70" on FujiFlex http://www.paulkowalskiphotography.com/photographs/latest-work/western-horizon-limited-edition-exhibition.php
And Chris http://www.chrismunngallery.com/limitededitions
http://www.markgray.com.au/gallery/award-winning-prints.php
Ken Duncan and Peter Lik
Something about the tones and colours in these from film also.
I wet scan my 120 pano in at 4800dpi on an Epson V750pro the files end up being about 2gig and can be enlarged to 70" no problem at all with amazing detail and colour tones.
So I think film still has a place .. not to mention the fact I love to work that way, everything is slow and deliberate.


----------



## rpt (Dec 9, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> There may be more going on here than meets the eye, so to speak.
> 
> I'd suggest the OP may want to gently suggest his photographer have his eyes checked. That OOF percentage suggests two things to me. First, failing eyesight generally. Second, the known difficulties of manual focus on current digital bodies. Back in the "old-school" days we had much better tools for seeing proper manual focus.
> ...


Or maybe the diopter setting on the viewfinder needs adjustment. I know mine needed it


----------



## Omni Images (Dec 9, 2014)

My son is 23 and has had a 5dII for maybe 3/4 years ? .. he has not touched it in I'd say almost 3 years.
He only uses my old A1 and nF1 .. with only a 50mm lens ... and he prefers neg, C41, not slide E6
He scans them in as is and that's it, no dust removal nothing ... he loves that look.
Last few holidays he's been on to the States and Mexico, then recently to Japan .... only took his .. my 35mm film camera.
Not sure if he's on the cutting edge of some film revival or not .... he just prefers the look of film.

I shoot both ... I'd take both film and digital out with me ... film only comes out when it's perfect/ view light etc...

Getting back to the topic, I think film just made to you think more about each shot and put a higher value on each image .. not just taking a shot for the sake of it and because you can and it doesn't cost you anything... I still try to "VALUE" each digital image I take and have a lot more keepers in a batch of images .. and I still ask the question is it worth taking a shot of that.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 9, 2014)

I'm not a professional photographer, but after 35 years (25 pre-digital) have figured out a few things and have sold some photos in summer art festivals. Though "old-school," I wouldn't trade the newer digital cameras for my film cameras in any way. The IQ is better and the ability to post process is worth tons. That being said, I think being old-school still alters my perceptions and expectations and probably makes me seem like an old fossil compared to the vast majority on this forum.

For example: People here seem way more interested in technology then photography. They discuss noise and DR as if those things were of the greatest importance. I have never once in my life cared about noise. If a photo is "grainy" as we used to call it - it's grainy. So what? 

Yes, every photographer who ever lived probably noticed that a camera can not expose correctly for both the lightest and darkest parts of a scene. OK, we learned to live with it and use the greater contrast, or at least accepted it. No doubt more DR is a positive - especially in certain conditions. But there are far more important aspects of a photo, such as...

Composition, subject matter, atmosphere, color, contrast. Those things shouldn't be "old-school," but sometimes I wonder. And the point is to try and capture those things with your camera - not by creating them afterwards in post processing. While I post process many of my pics, usually it takes less than a minute. A slight exposure adjustment - yes, usually to *slightly* lighten those darks - a bit of a crop perhaps, and most importantly, the ability to straighten out those pesky horizons! That alone makes my digital photos far superior to my old film pics!

So, I don't think it is a question of better (or not) but a question of priorities. The things that are most important (yes, noise and DR) to so many posters here, are of little or no priority to some of us. You can pixel peep and analyze sharpness if that's your priority, or you can go out with your kit lens and take sell-able photos that look just as good printed at 8" x 10". All the photos I've sold where taken with a 6 MP original rebel and either the kit lens or non-L lenses. Must be because they were decent photos, although from many of the posts here you would think that it would be impossible to create a good photo unless you have the latest Sony sensor and 36 MP (or for heavens sake - even more!) It's almost funny sometimes to us old-schoolers who bought a camera and hoped it would last 20 years (or more). Didn't care about new tech every year because basically there wasn't any.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 9, 2014)

Off the top of my head, I think a film photog "thinks" and "preplans" better. In the "old" days, we had to know what ASA film to load to achieve the desired shutter speed and aperture under given conditions. Because we had 36 shots at one time (135 of course), we couldn't just fire away without thinking. That would cost too much! Even the editor would get mad if we were too careless with company film. And without the instant gratification of an LCD panel, we had to judge light more carefully. When a roll of film comes back, we'd spend more time checking exposure and learning from mistakes so we make the same "costly" mistakes next time. Overall I think the thought process helps make the image better. Let's face it, we take things more seriously if it dents our wallet.

As for what traditional photogs don't do well, I think some of my seniors have a harder time making the most of the digital advantages, the greatest of which IMO is the ability to instantly change ISO. Gone are the film-pushing days. We can shoot one picture at ISO100 and the next one at ISO800 without wasting any film or wasting any time CHANGING film. This pertains only to a minority who have 40+ years in film and are just too embedded in their ways.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 9, 2014)

I agree wholeheartedly with you Dak, but I must admit that I do enjoy doing PP on the pc.
However I was able to do almost the same stuff under an enlarger, using masks, cut-outs and adding and subtracting items, but it was a lot harder.

My first Slr ( NOT a Dslr) was an Exacta Varex of about 1959 vintage, which my father handed down to me when I was about 11.
It was still considered a very good camera in 1966!
It didn't have a built in light meter, so I had to use a handheld one, and after a while, I didn't need the light meter and developed an eye for exposure. 
I still have this skill, and even with our wonderful electronic, computer controlled cameras, when you're working at a fast-paced event, the ability to jump from one lighting situation to another and be able to know what iso and exposure settings to use on the fly come in very handy.

I had a business where I employed a number of young who sat at a computer a lot of the day.
If they had a problem with their pc, they would call me ( the old fella) to come and have a look at it and call the IT guy to fix it.
I'd check it out, often open a dos window using short-cut keys and do whatever to get it going again.
These young kids, were usually shocked that I knew a lot more about computers than they did and on more than one occasion I was asked how an old guy like me knew so much about computers.
I just told them that it was my generation that invented them.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 9, 2014)

Thanks, this is very interesting! But I gotta run, so here some quick replies until later:



Omni Images said:


> My son is 23 and has had a 5dII for maybe 3/4 years ? .. he has not touched it in I'd say almost 3 years.



Please don't write such things, I'll have sleepless nights and/or will send him my postal address 



Omni Images said:


> $15 every time I click the shutter on my View Camera. You better believe I double and triple check the focus.



My friend said every shot on his film mf is about 8€ :-o



distant.star said:


> I'd suggest the OP may want to gently suggest his photographer have his eyes checked.



Actually I didn't think of it at all until you mentioned it - but you're correct, I saw eyeglasses on his desk back home. And thanks for pointing out mf on film-cameras vs, digital, he didn't have a mf screen installed in his 5d2 (even though not 100% necessary for f2. 8) and when trying it I wondered how I manages to see the focus with it. Now I know, he doesn't . I wouldn't dare to point out focus peaking in an evf though :->



dak723 said:


> For example: People here seem way more interested in technology then photography. They discuss noise and DR as if those things were of the greatest importance. I have never once in my life cared about noise. If a photo is "grainy" as we used to call it - it's grainy. So what?



I agree, and I'm surprised you're here at all with that kind of attitude :->. Around CR, it's often mentioned that dynamic range isn't everything, but the content of the shot yadayadayada. But this is only in Nikon vs. Canon threads with Nikon having the edge in technology. I dare to suggest, around here most people are at least a bit "nerd at heart" or you wouldn't end up on a rumor site and buy a "spray and pray" 10fps camera.

However, I'm totally baffled with admiration when meeting people who _actually_ value the shot and "old-school" (for the lack of a better word) traits over even having things in focus. When my friend talks about lighting, I don't _even know the words he's using_ as I'm just a self-taught newbie.

On the other hand, I have met older photogs who hide their inability to cope with the digital age under pointing out how it's "done right" like back in the days, bordering on arrogance. And they are up in denial about anything anyone from the digital age might have figured out, esp. if he's of younger age. But my friend isn't one of those, he's just middle aged (~50+ I guess) and just installed a light metering app on his iphone


----------



## Eldar (Dec 9, 2014)

I started my photography hobby in the mid-seventies, with all manual cameras and a 50mm prime. 90% was B&W, because self-loaded film was all we could afford. I got Kodachrome 64 as Christmas and birthday gifts. Every shot counted and we went through a kind of ritual before we finally pushed the button and the ambition every time was to have an award winning image (didn't get many of those though ...). 

We spent a lot of time on composition. Someone earlier in the thread said that the rule of thirds does not work. Of course it does. It was established prior to photography and it is a basis model. But there are loads of other ways to compose, depending on the subject and what you wish to express. Positive and negative space, symmetry, lines, light etc. etc. And it gets even more diverse, when you add focal length, DOF, shutter speed and the other aspects a camera and lens brings to the equation. But the only way to be good at it, and even better, develop a personal style, is to spend a lot of time learning and practicing. And I believe a lot of determination and intent behind one image is worth a lot more than a thousand point and shoot images.

Today we have all digital, auto everything cameras, with super-zooms, TTL-flash and image stabilization and when you have the camera, the shots are for free. I see lots of people just fire away and hope that they will find something worth having in these heaps of fire-before-you-think images. They seldom do. 

I still have with me the stinginess from my film days, so I probably have less shots on any of my cameras than most young photographers have (if I remove the birds and wildlife part of it). And lately I have primarily been using the manual focus Zeiss primes, which also demands a slower and more deliberate shooting style. And without question, the quality is improving. 

My post processing capabilities are improving. But my ambition, with every shot, is still to do everything right before I push the shutter button. Every time I have to adjust the horizon and/or crop because my composition was off, correct exposure, because my reading was wrong etc. irritates me. Because if it had been a Kodachrome 64 slide, it would have been a failure. 

So, since I fit the old-school category, I probably should be a bit less obsessed with getting every thing right every time and be better at using the freedom the digital era offers. But I think it is more important for the New-school photographers to learn the basics and develop the discipline and patience needed.


----------



## e17paul (Dec 9, 2014)

pwp said:


> Any previous activity is going to inform what you do now in both subtle and obvious ways. My time at art school studying painting has without doubt given me a different approach to shooting. Thankfully I realized in my final year that I was not going to be the next Monet or Jackson Pollock, so I switched to a photography major in final year. Good move!
> 
> Shooting with film did inform the way I shoot now to some extent. The very real consideration that it was going to cost $1.00 every time I pressed the shutter made careful composition and timing the "moment" a necessary skill. Darkroom work making black & white prints while shooting daily news and sports provided a skill to view things tonally as well as in color.
> 
> ...



I am informed by the perspective drawing classes from School of Architecture. My first instinct is always to hold the camera level so that the verticals of the building. That sometimes results in dramatically poor composition. Sometimes I break that self imposed rule to improve the composition, but it is always a wrench. The alternatives are to crop the photo later, or to invest in a tilt shift lens.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Dec 9, 2014)

film brings back good memory's. yes so costly.

I see things like the iso is 6400 and it has noise. I have stated before that low light film was 400 tri x pan and the best push was 3 x 400 or 1200 that was b/w film. and you did really need to look at the cost of one shutter click. film really makes you think a lot before hitting the shutter.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2014)

Newsflash: My friend was obviously embarrassed by the laughable keeper amount, it seems to be that he's simply doing hyperfocal landscape most of the time or uses a real film camera with big vf and mf. I advised him to get a split screen, so the new dogs actually have some knowledge, too 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=24074.0



Eldar said:


> So, since I fit the old-school category, I probably should be a bit less obsessed with getting every thing right every time and be better at using the freedom the digital era offers. But I think it is more important for the New-school photographers to learn the basics and develop the discipline and patience needed.



I really admire people "getting it right" in camera, and I definitely try to prevent "pray'n spray" these days. It's just that with my wildlife photography, speed is of such importance that you have to settle for some kind of compromise, knowing what you can "fix" in post and what not. At least I'm aspiring to shoot more full M these days to prevent my camera's metering screwing up the shots in high-contrast scenes.


----------



## michalk (Dec 10, 2014)

I learned photography on an old film camera 20 years ago, but I don't really think old-school vs digital age is a good comparison. 

I know old school photographers who try to compensate their lack of post processing skills with arrogance like the OP mentioned. I know digital age photographers who don't put enough effort into taking the photo and then try to make up for it in post processing, where it is often not possible. But I also know old school photographers who learned how to post process in the digital age, and I know digital age photographers who understand that taking the photo is as important as post processing and publishing it.

The truth is that photography is much more accessible than it used to be, so there is a lot more unskilled people doing it. But there are both young and old photographers out there that can use the tools they have available to push the limits of their art.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2014)

michalk said:


> The truth is that photography is much more accessible than it used to be, so there is a lot more unskilled people doing it.



Right, that would be me :->



michalk said:


> But there are both young and old photographers out there that can use the tools they have available to push the limits of their art.



Problem is that if you're unskilled, I've found no way out if an "old-school" photog is just talking off the top off his hat or has some actual knowledge that translates into the digital age. I've been burned there with some guy "teaching" me what's "pro" or not, most (in)famously "pros never crop" resulting in me shooting not loose enough for a long time :-\


----------



## michalk (Dec 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Problem is that if you're unskilled, I've found no way out if an "old-school" photog is just talking off the top off his hat or has some actual knowledge that translates into the digital age. I've been burned there with some guy "teaching" me what's "pro" or not, most (in)famously "pros never crop" resulting in me shooting not loose enough for a long time :-\



I am by no means making a claim to being an old-pro (photography is my hobby, I sell some of my photos, but it is by no means a significant part of my income), but when I look for advice or inspiration, I first check the work that my potential peers publish and then decide whether it's worth listening to them.  I don't think there's an easy way around it, you do get burnt occasionally, but then you learn from your mistakes.

I also find that people making general claims like 'never crop' or 'always expose to the right' without weighing the pros and cons and explaining why they think you should do it are usually not worth listening to.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Dec 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Today I was out shooting horsies with a friend of mine, a cameraman with 20 years experience in the studio and film biz. Nowadays, he's doing mostly landscape stills. So I asked him to do some portaits of me with the animals for my website.
> 
> He used a 5d2, a light meter, a good 50mm mf/m lens and shot in full M mode apparently mostly f2.8 (there's no exif on that). And a mf film camera, claiming that a good scan of the negative beats any 135 digital out there in resolution. So far, so impressive. Except for the 5d2, I was shocked by its pattern noise after raising shadows +2ev. So if I ever said anything negative about my 6d except for its still crappy af system I take it back :-o
> 
> ...



Is it possible that he's changed his "style" of photography with the change in equipment or even just by changing interests etc? 

The reason I ask is because I used to shoot a lot of film (mostly slide film) with my AE-1... a LOT of it... the vast majority being street/people scenes with minimal use for portrait, wide landscape, macro etc (had little money for different lens setup - probably mostly due to spending so much on film and lab developing fees)

Because my career changed and because my interests changed, I now am trying to train myself on other types of photography... delving from UWA lens work for architecture or landscapes to macro/micro and some of those wildlife type shots with the long zoom/tele. 

I'm certainly no veteran of photography, but I can say through my own experience that trying to teach a mid-aged dog new tricks might not come without some changes to methodology that don't come naturally or as easily as you might assume. 

Also - there's one thing of significant note when using an online forum such as this one... someone may have been shooting a lot of photos for a LONG time, but if they're all crappy either technically or in your opinion based on composition/subject matter (this is very subjective), are they really a good resource? Look to portfolios of work to make evaluation... regardless if the person just started out this year and is a wiz-kid at photography or if they've been doing it for 50 years and touched every single camera ever made... at least that's my 2 cents.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2014)

mnclayshooter said:


> Is it possible that he's changed his "style" of photography with the change in equipment or even just by changing interests etc?



To be fair, I reckon he's more of a film cameraman than a photog, though he does like to do landscape photography. And because film (like in *real* film for tv & cinema, no matter if the medium is film or digital/video) didn't change that much as dslr shooting he propably didn't really need to change a lot. 

What he's good at is being a camera man: setting up lights and the whole set, ordering around people , working with the director, whatnot I don't even know about. When I visited him another cameraman phoned him for advice because a he wanted everything to work out perfectly when major movie star came on set the next day...



mnclayshooter said:


> someone may have been shooting a lot of photos for a LONG time, but if they're all crappy either technically or in your opinion based on composition/subject matter (this is very subjective), are they really a good resource?



Imho: Could be, that makes it difficult. To be a good food taster, you don't need to be a good cook. And being good at cookery doesn't make you a good teacher to tell other people how to do it and what to learn next.

That's the reason I'm usually not mixing tech/gear discussions with shots (though I deviate lately), as in "You're claiming the Yongnuo rt transmitter is crappy? I double-dare you to post your portrait gallery, or any advice about gear cannot be valid".


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 10, 2014)

*Different way of thinking.* due to No Chimping with film and limited number of shots on a roll of film.

When shooting Chromes (slide film) there is No margin for error in exposure. So you had to nail exposure -- every time. And because you couldn't Chimp you would not know if the exposure was right until the slides came back from the lab. Therefore you had to learn how to get your exposure right, if you wanted to get paid 

Because I learned on Chromes I get good exposures on digital. Because I learned on film, I don't spray 'n' pray. And I don't waste time chimping, because I know from past experience that I got it right. Are all my shots keepers, of course not -- but even the losers are properly exposed 

No wisdom to pass along except to learn to get it right in-the-camera.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 10, 2014)

I suppose that I am old-school, because I started out, age 13, with an all-manual camera, my beloved Mamiya-Sekor DTL 1000 (M42 mount), "rolled my own" with one of those 100 ft reel dispensing gadgets and reusable cassettes, developed and printed black and white. I shot color film rarely, due to expense. I suppose that I was "ok" for a kid. Then I went off to college and didn't shoot non-technical subjects for about 40 years, though I did shoot technical subjects, mostly macro and photomicrographs, at work. I didn't want to shoot personal stuff on film without being able to use a darkroom. It took me a while to get used to my first digital SLR, and specifically to autofocus. 

I use manual mode often, because that's what I am used to ("thinking in manual"), and it is just as easy to push the dial to change the actual aperture or shutter speed than to fiddle with setting auto exposure compensation. I like manual focus, but even the replacement extra-fine screen on the 6D doesn't replicate the focusing ease of the old ground glass screens of film SLRs for spot-on focus at f/1.4. Of course, maybe it is my older eyes at fault.

Likely I chimp less often than many people. I do take multiples of shots ("spray and pray") when dealing with outdoors macros with air currents moving the subject about.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 10, 2014)

I guess I must qualify as old school, having shot my first photos as a kid with dad's Brownie in the 1940's. I've operated many film cameras over the years, had my own darkroom, and developed slides, B&W film and even color. The first digital I did was actually a box that grabbed video frames, stacked them, and managed to put out a 640 X 480 image. The slight movement between frames allowed for interpolation to a higher resolution. I think it was capable of 1024 X 768 if you were willing to wait for the image to be processed. This was just before Apple released their first Digital Camera. 

While many my age were fighting the new fangled computers, I was building my own. I still build up one occasionally, but its cheaper to buy a new Dell and then tweak it.

One area where I have not kept up is in the use of smart phones. My fingers just cannot operate the tiny keys. I have had various kindles, and finally bought a Ipad Air 2 on Black Friday. I was surprised to find that the voice recognition was about as good as my typing, so I'm going to be using that feature.

I may yet get a smart phone, the voice recognition on my existing phone is worthless.

I do find that I tend to value my time enough so that I do not keep up with things like magic lantern, software just takes me too many hours. So does editing thousands of photos, but I still do that.

I do note that lots of my over 70 friends that I went to school with are active on facebook, and some are pretty good photographers. One is in the Peace Corps, and publishes a news letter along with photos from her Rebel. I think that the stereotype of the "Old School" photographer is over rated.


----------



## michalk (Dec 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Imho: Could be, that makes it difficult. To be a good food taster, you don't need to be a good cook. And being good at cookery doesn't make you a good teacher to tell other people how to do it and what to learn next.



I tend to disagree. Using your comparison, you don't need to be a good cook to be a good food taster, but you do need to eat a lot of good food. And just because you can tell good food from bad does not mean that you know how to cook. Even if you know some theory, you lack experience.

I agree that even if you are a good cook, you are not necessarily a good teacher though.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2014)

michalk said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Imho: Could be, that makes it difficult. To be a good food taster, you don't need to be a good cook. And being good at cookery doesn't make you a good teacher to tell other people how to do it and what to learn next.
> ...



I don't see the connection here. In this example, you can stuff yourself silly with haute cuisine and fresh seafood flown in with your own private jet, collected from your own island the pacific - but after decades, you probably cannot tell it from frozen stuff and still like fish & chips better. So any amount of experience isn't sufficient, but it sure might help.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Dec 10, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> now days using a digital machine gun with free bullets. It has perhaps taken the value out of each image in a way.



Had this issue when I taught digital photography a few years back. I had a different view of photography than the other instructor.

I started photography in the early '80's during the 35mm/120/4x5 Sheet film era. I had one amazing instructor in college who emphasized getting everything in order to "get the one shot right in the camera". He was obviously a large format photographer. The idea was create something awesome on film and tweak it in the darkroom. My mindset for my students was the same.

The other teacher's message boiled down to "go out and shot a gazillion photos, don't worry about getting quality--quantity is better, then come back in and fix them in Photoshop.  Rubbish I tell ya . . .


----------



## michalk (Dec 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I don't see the connection here. In this example, you can stuff yourself silly with haute cuisine and fresh seafood flown in with your own private jet, collected from your own island the pacific - but after decades, you probably cannot tell it from frozen stuff and still like fish & chips better. So any amount of experience isn't sufficient, but it sure might help.



Sure, experience is not everything.  The point is that if you want to teach something, you need to be good at it yourself. You will not be a good cookery teacher if you don't know how to cook, even if you are a good food taster.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 10, 2014)

I think the cost of film taught you to be more careful about taking shots. That meant focusing more on composition, timing, and accurate exposure. In particular, I find that my timing was really developed back in those days and when shooting with others, I'll take 1 or 2 shots (with my 1D X mind you) while others will hammer the motor drive (well burst mode). Case in point - the shot below. Not a great one, but a very difficult one with a handheld 600mm focal length on a moving boat through lots of foliage with a baby that slipped off its mother's back about 5 seconds after we spotted it. I was the only one out of a group of around 15 people to get the shot, even though I only pressed the shutter once . Spray and pray vs. waiting for the shot to appear and timing the shutter...

On the other hand, trying to figure out what you did wrong hours, days, weeks, or more after taking the photos made learning so much more difficult.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2014)

I was already wondering when you'd show up in this thread 



mackguyver said:


> I think the cost of film taught you to be more careful about taking shots.



Actually, the cost of film taught me to stop shooting because I couldn't afford it anymore :-o ... I only started again after digital cameras were good enough so there was no need for yearly body upgrades anymore.



mackguyver said:


> Case in point - the shot below. Not a great one, but a very difficult one with a handheld 600mm focal length on a moving boat through lots of foliage with a baby that slipped off its mother's back about 5 seconds after we spotted it.



Great shot and amazin iq, given the circumstances. It's so darn difficult to get everything right with wildlife, and Murphy's Law tells us that "_the value and uniqueness of the shot is proportional to the likelihood of some grass or similar rubbish being in the frame_"


----------



## Khufu (Dec 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Case in point - the shot below. Not a great one, but a very difficult one with a handheld 600mm focal length on a moving boat through lots of foliage with a baby that slipped off its mother's back about 5 seconds after we spotted it. I was the only one out of a group of around 15 people to get the shot, even though I only pressed the shutter once



wonderful, mackguyver 

This is certainly the kind of work I love and try for myself, often more like "Wildlife Portraiture" than context oriented - allows for better results at parks and zoos!

I think generally shooting primes had nudged me towards this approach, too (24mm, 50mm, 100mm and 400mm being my usual arsenal)

I love the results from this lens, mackguyver...
*shakes dust from wallet*
dare I ask which 600mm we're playing with here?!


----------



## rpt (Dec 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I was already wondering when you'd show up in this thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Macguyver, nice capture! Like I said in another thread, wildlife photographers are like snipers - the technique is the same. And one needs just one shot.

Marsu42, I like "Marsu's Law" ;D


----------



## Tinky (Dec 11, 2014)

Any old school photographer worth their salt will have embraced the new technologies that are useful to them and retained the traditional skills that are useful to them.

I have been shooting stills on a strictly hobby basis for more than 20 years, after my degree I trained as a cameraman at technical college 15 years ago and have worked as a cameraman ever since. I find it funny how many DoPs there are these days. 

I use a mixture of skills, some honed by necessity, some old habit, some only possible thanks to digital:

1. I never shoot anything without a plan. My eng kit is too heavy to just turn up and hope it's right. Locations, weather, tide tables, position if the sun during my intended shooting time (or moving my shoot time to suit the position of the sun) and film was just too expensive. I used those skills then. I use them now. TPE, Streetview, flickr etc all make virtual reccies a lot easier. That is not to say there are occassions when I need to improvise. But I'll have planned my kit as well. Fail to prepare, prepare to fail. 

2. Use manual. Manual everything. For video especially. The wrong shutter speed can ruin perception of motion. AWB cannot be graded. AF is not good enough for video. Especially on large sensor cameras. So a calibrated viewfinder is essential (using colour bars, to your eye) Settings display is essential. No hunting. No auto-ramping. No f-drop. Knowing without looking what way to turn your focus ring and by how much.

For sports stills I will switch between aiservo for close up tracking, and one shot af lock, say at motorsports, when I want to frame a scene and batter the motor drive as the subject passes through. With live view zoom I may even switch to mf so as to be pre-focused on a jump, or apex of a bend etc. Yes one shot of 20 will be in focus, but thats better than no shots as the tracking warms up, or if the subject is concealed before your ideal shot. I don't see folks do this so much these days... tends to be track and spray.

3. Filtration. Apart from the ubiquitous extreme nd filters I rarely see people use nd grads or even polarisers in the field. Photoshop cannot fix everything. And whilst many obsess over DR etc.. a soft grad nd can really help to nail it.

4. I have an attitude of wanting to get it right in the can. Yes I have the digital tools, yes I can use them, but I would rather plan, prepare, filter and get it as right as possible in the camera.

5. A support. Always. A monopod or superclamp and ball head at the minimum. My video grip extends to rigs, shoulder mounts, gimbals. My camera is always supported in some way (except say my rebel or m with a short lens in good light) 

6. Using flash or lighting. Again for video especially. Catchlights engage. 

7. Silly formulas that work. sunny16. 1 over fl.

8. A set of kodak encyclopedias. Browsing through to kill time, picking up all sorts. exotic techniques like darkfield. how to mix flash with ambient. why you can use iso50 and f16 indoors. How non-stop down metering works. thise yellow books were a goldmine.

9. For black and white, unless you have a dedicated sensor design... it needs to be film.

I remember moving from an EOS 1000fn to a 5 (a2e) and discovering things like mirror lock up, depth of field preview, but I guess the biggest thing that starting on film taught me, and that a technical education taught me (that a ba never) is that it isn't about the gear. It's about the light. It's all about the light.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 12, 2014)

Thanks for the compliments all. I'm still around, just busy with my day job and still dealing with some rather annoying health problems that I can't seem to resolve.

The _600mm_ lens was a 300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III 

And yes, wildlife photography is mighty frustrating at times, but I love the challenge of it and the feeling when it all comes together in a great shot. That said, I have LOTS of shots of AMAZING moments that were ruined by a stopped down aperture, slow shutter speed, bad framing, foliage blocking the shot, missed focus, and a litany of other mistakes or obstructions. They're moments I'll never forget ;D, and never remember :'(

Back to the OP, timing is critical, whether you're a sniper (LOL, rpt) or photo shooter. Marsu, film costs about ruined me, too, but thinking further, I think early digital may have actually honed my timing. At the time, the shutter delay could be measured in parts of a second (or more!) and the time between shots if you took TIFF photos was often many seconds. Determining when to press the shutter and which 4-6 shots a minute you would be able to capture certainly made up for the lack of film! We 2010-something DSLR shooters sure are a spoiled bunch in retrospect!


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 12, 2014)

Tinky said:


> 9. For black and white, unless you have a dedicated sensor design... it needs to be film.



Why ? When bayer sensors are black and white anyway, only using colour interpolation from the prime colour filters. 

You haven't been taken in by the Leica marketing machine have you ?


----------



## Tinky (Dec 13, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > 9. For black and white, unless you have a dedicated sensor design... it needs to be film.
> ...



Bayer sensors are masked monochrome. Not totally open monochrome. Whether the pixel is under a green blue or red filter is going to affect how it responds. In a open sensor every pixel is equal. 

This only matters, if like me, you like to place coloured filters over the lens.

I know in this digital age such an archaic practice is somewhat frowned upon, but I really struggle to 'see' in contrast... a yellow or orange filter helps me visualise monos so much better.

And of course if you put a green filter over a bayer you chuck away the green... if you put a red filter over you chuck away the red... not in an organic way like on film, but only over certain pixels in a bayer array pattern.

The solution would be quite easy... come up with a way of shooting with a coloured gel in the ovf path but not the exposure path, so a bit of gel over the focus screen or eyecup...

Set your cam to RAW + JPEG, use the picture preset to mono so that you preview and review your location jpegs in mono, but you also have the full colour RAW to work with back at the PC, giving you full colour info, split channels, great ad sampling depth etc and you get to use the full capability of your cameras AF etc, rather than just live view focus..

Of course you would need to adjust your meter to compensate depending on where the filter was in the ovf path, so eyecup would be fine, over mirror or focus screen would need a Ev bump...

Using coloured filters with bayer, just a horrible idea.

And I've not succumbed to leicas marketing. My favourite Leica was a minolta. And so was my second favourite. Both closely followng to my favourite rangefinder... a contax g2...

DXO film looks is great at adding organic looking grain, I just need a way of adding gel to the ovf path to help me see in mono....


----------



## NancyP (Dec 13, 2014)

Tinky, the Sigma Foveon sensor pixels have no filters over them, the colors are derived from the depth of photon penetration into the silicon. So, you get full-visible-spectrum total luminance for every pixel. You can get very nice B&W files by using the Sigma Photo Pro RAW developer monochrome mode. I will have to fiddle with my collection of old B&W contrast filters and see how that works with the Foveon sensor. My Sigma cameras are the DP Merrill series.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 13, 2014)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> film brings back good memory's. yes so costly.



Asking film teams for the left overs was a way of getting a wide range of high quality stock for (almost) free!
(They'd discard that half spent roll rather then risk running out of material because of the unknown remaining length. Which still would translate in hundreds or thousands of frames.)


----------



## slclick (Dec 13, 2014)

I just registered for (another) a semester of film at the local community college. I can't wait to shoot more Tri-X, TMax and Provia. Let's just hope my kids haven't gotten into my 5 boxes of various Ilford Multigrade lV!

It'll be interesting how the 24-70 2.8 ll performs on the EOS 5.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 13, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Tinky, the Sigma Foveon sensor pixels have no filters over them, the colors are derived from the depth of photon penetration into the silicon. So, you get full-visible-spectrum total luminance for every pixel. You can get very nice B&W files by using the Sigma Photo Pro RAW developer monochrome mode. I will have to fiddle with my collection of old B&W contrast filters and see how that works with the Foveon sensor. My Sigma cameras are the DP Merrill series.



Thank you Nancy, always been intrigued by the foveons, I fancied dipping my toe in the DP series, but it's down a fairly long wishlist. Would be interesting to see how the foveon handles optical bw filters..

My only real need for them in a digital environment is for visualisation. No problem using the bayer unfiltered and converting, just the bayer and colour filter will not work well. I need to see it in mono before I will press the shutter...

My favourite BW film was Agfa Scala. I also love the chromagenics, xp2 400cn etc. And Ilford SFX, just about get away with it in my EOS 3.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2014)

Composition. 

If we really think about it, no one has ever had a full lifetime career from shooting digital. It just hasn't been around long enough but there are plenty of people who lived and died never ever knowing what a .jpg was or a .cr2 file could be, and produced impeccable work for a lifetime. 

Film even when I was a teen, cost some monies and I was much less of a snap shooter then.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 13, 2014)

AE1Pguy said:


> So, those guys really learned how to anticipate action. They gave us a lot of the most important, iconic photographs from history with that philosophy. The lenses, shutters, film and chemicals they had in those days were laughably bad by current standards. Didn't seem to hinder them too much.



But they're not _good photographs_. They're usually - at best - indifferent (and frequently far worse than that) images of _good subject matter_.

In just about every single case (and I've made this point before) these so-called "iconic" images _would be better_ - in terms of impact, appeal, effect, importance, you name it - if they'd been taken with modern equipment, used by a photographer who knows how best to exploit what new equipment is capable of.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 13, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Composition.



Nope - definitely _not_ an "old school" attribute/skill.

Although I'm in my fifties, I only started serious photography in 2006, yet - and it's not a big deal (good composition is _not_ difficult) - my compositional sensibilities are as well-rounded as anybody's.

A skill not absolutely hindered by my digital-only photographic experience.


----------



## sanj (Dec 13, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > 9. For black and white, unless you have a dedicated sensor design... it needs to be film.
> ...



Of course one does not need film or Leica. This is the good old 5d2


----------



## sanj (Dec 13, 2014)

Tinky said:


> Any old school photographer worth their salt will have embraced the new technologies that are useful to them and retained the traditional skills that are useful to them.
> 
> I have been shooting stills on a strictly hobby basis for more than 20 years, after my degree I trained as a cameraman at technical college 15 years ago and have worked as a cameraman ever since. I find it funny how many DoPs there are these days.
> 
> ...



Sir I am perhaps older than you. But disagree with lots of what you say:
1. I shoot lots of spontaneous shots. Its lot of fun. Planning is good but after a while being in the moment and flow is far more important.
2. Manual? No way. I take all the help from technology that I can: auto focus, aperture priority. These two beauties help me go faster and get lot more keepers.
3. I would use a filter when can but I do not underestimate photoshop at all.
4. Yes. 
5. I would use support only ONLY when doing dedicated landscapes. Otherwise IS works fine for me. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. ?
8. Yes yes.
9. No no. 

BIG YES TO: It's about the light (and the story) [Not about manual or support or over prep].


----------



## Berowne (Dec 13, 2014)

Oldschool as I remember it was like this: 
* Metering once a Day (full light, shadows, the own hand = 17-18% Grey ;D) 
* Focusing by Guess, one controll. 
* Composition and the right Moment. 

If you do slides, meter once more. (no light, no slide). Result: Tri-X nearly 90% technically ok. Slides are more difficult. Most important: Fun. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## Rocky (Dec 13, 2014)

I am a very serious amateur in the old film days and shoots B/W, color negative and slides, all in 35mm format. The difference between now and Then is MONEY.
1. A very good camera in these days ( 60's) may cost a month's wage. Now camera's are relative cheap.
2. Every short costs money. Therefore every shot needed to be well composed with accurate exposure, especially for sides.
3. NO AF, therefore we learn to focus fast or relies on DOF.
4. Exposure bracketing and focus bracketing are only used in rare situations.
5. If I can make a 20 X16 print or project the slide to a 60" screen with "good" sharpness, I am extremely happy

Now with digital camera, I tend to be more trigger happy.
1. CF cards are cheap and reusable. "Shoot first and ask questions later" Get the picture is more important than anything else.
2. DSLR and AF lenses are not made MF. Selectable area for focusing is a great tool 
2. Exposure bracketing, AF bracketing etc. becomes a second nature.
3. There is Photoshop to come to the rescue. cropping, minor lighting and color adjustment etc.
4. We all tend to be pixel peeper, one way or the other and start to debate the sharpness of the lenses. We are effectively looking at a slide projected to a smooth 60" screen from 15 inches away. That is WAY overkilled.

I have to admit that I am less careful than the old film days.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 13, 2014)

sanj said:


> Of course one does not need film or Leica. This is the good old 5d2



For my way of working, it needs to be film. My problem is not with digital or bayer, it is with the coloured filters that I require for visualisation. They just don't work on bayer arrays. This is my problem and I would never be so vulgar as to suggest that digital cannot produce a good mono. Just at the taking stage I personally need an aid to see in contrast. 

I've had colour images I've converted to mono, but subscribe very strongly to the idea that the very best monos have been visualised as such. Again, this is a personal thing for me, it's a very broad church, there's space for us all.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 13, 2014)

sanj said:


> Sir I am perhaps older than you. But disagree with lots of what you say:



We agree on quite a bit too. But I've found the way that works for me, you've found the ways that work for you.
All happy


----------



## slclick (Dec 13, 2014)

Tinky said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Of course one does not need film or Leica. This is the good old 5d2
> ...




One of the wisest things I've read on CRF in a while.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Composition.
> ...


Nope. Composition is one of the oldest school attributes of all time, not even including photography but back to painting. So no, if you'd like to argue that, painters would ultimately be better in composition. Not saying that digital has made composition worse but it's been watered down by the amount of frames lending to more loose snapshots.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 14, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



There seems to be different ideas about the term "old-school". As I'm the op, here's my definite definition:

For me, "old-school" is not deprecative, but simply means that the skill could have been developed before the digital age. Such a skill is not _necessarily_ outdated (like composition), though it _might be_ for modern gear (like wet chemical developing). These skills are rivaled by what only we digital kids can do (like working with auto-iso).


----------



## slclick (Dec 14, 2014)

For me old school represents where I was in 1979. A sophomore in a magnet school for reproductive arts. I specialized in screen process printing when my peers who have gone onto world class photographic work, namely Mark Johnson of cycling and surfing fame are in the darkroom shooting MF. I had my stint but it wasn't my focus. No pun intended.

But it did create a respect and foundation for the future for me. Darkrooms, Mamiya, the smell of Rodinol in the morning. 


I'm now being all Ouroboros and returning to school for b/w advanced darkroom photography. Pyramids of Tri-X and stacks of Ilford Multigrade IV are ready to be run through in the next few months. I'll scan and post as results allow.



So, back on topic....

Contrast, Composition and most of all patience.


Long live film


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 14, 2014)

slclick said:


> Long live film



I'm of two minds concerning this. I experienced the film days when I was in school, they had a b/w lab there. It was the time when I bought my slr gear (a Canon 620 with a "golden ring" usm lens: listen, no af noise!) which felt like space age gear in comparison to a viewfinder camera. You can _actually look through the lens_ 

Psychology has it that people look upon the past with pink eyeglasses because they forget the problems. However, with film development I don't: It was expensive, you had to use the chemicals or you had to dump them and the quality of our school gear was mediocre at best. 

It was fun working with color filters, pushing the exposure and fanning the light and shaking the development tank. But I'm still happy that time is past, the wildlife photography I'm doing today was unthinkable back then. Esp. since I just experienced what an "old-school" approach does to the keeper rate :->


----------



## Tinky (Dec 14, 2014)

I agree up to a point, but expectations have changed all round. When I got my 1000fn I could never personally afford to go to africa. Mainly because I was about 16 and worked in a shop part time.. 

But it would have been a stretch for my parents. They could have went, but it would have meant economies.

Now it's like, do you fancy a weekend in Africa... it's no longer a big thing (I live in northern europe) for lots of reasons, like the fact that Africa is more devloped, more aware of mass tourism opportunity, and of course I no longer work in a shop part time.

When I got my EOS 5 (A2e) it was two months wages at the time for me (young, low position etc) but given the performance I can get from a camera costing a days wages now... and I'm not wealthy. A used 60D (like what I just bought) equivalent to days wages before tax etc..

So my images get better. For all sorts of reasons, none in isolation.

Film is as great as it's ever been, take that as you will. Having owned a Minolta 5400 dpi film scanner... hmmm.
You aren't meant to pixel peep film scans...

Film has a nostalgia. A smell when you open the canister. An extra dimension when you hold the developed film to the light.

I sincerely think digital makes folk better photographers more quickly, but I think a film background instills a discipline in most mortals.

The gear gets better and better, yet the images outwith of science and technical set ups do not. You still need magic moments. And to be there. With a camera. This is a gear forum. I've cursed myself for missing a shot, I've never cried after selling a camera on.

That is one difference. When you bought an FM2 you felt it was going to be forever. When you buy a DSLR, you know it's an evolving relationship.

This is great for the likes of me, I realised a long time ago that my talent and aspirations don't overreach the technology, I'm perennially grateful for once cherished DSLR cameras disposed of for peanuts. 

Some end up in my hands, I stock car race them, wrap them in cling film and put them in fridges. Sometimes one video clip pays for them, sometimes one video clip kills them. 

Whatever. Keep moving on. I've lots of interesting ideas to put disposable DSLRs to.

I should point out that sometime I buy a camera that is so mint condition I find it a better home. One cherished 10D became my girlfriends learner camera because it was just toooooo nice (and so lovely and solid feeling... bring that back) I'll get her a 5D next. When the approrpriately treasured one comes along.


----------



## sanj (Dec 14, 2014)

Tinky said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Sir I am perhaps older than you. But disagree with lots of what you say:
> ...



Absolutely Tinky. Nice to meet you. You have a lovely attitude and passion….


----------



## slclick (Dec 14, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Long live film
> ...



Craft and passion beats out expense and convenience anyday imo


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 14, 2014)

slclick said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Sounds good, but meaningless in reality... My Crown Graphic will never work for Bird In FLight photography...


----------



## mnclayshooter (Dec 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I think early digital may have actually honed my timing. At the time, the shutter delay could be measured in parts of a second (or more!) and the time between shots if you took TIFF photos was often many seconds. Determining when to press the shutter and which 4-6 shots a minute you would be able to capture certainly made up for the lack of film! We 2010-something DSLR shooters sure are a spoiled bunch in retrospect!



Precisely my experience and the decision not to shoot with a DSLR until very recently. I had used compacts for quite a while as I still "needed" a camera and didn't/couldn't find film nearly as easily, especially the longer I waited to switch to Digital. Those compacts weren't terribly speedy, but the cost of film could be factored out of the equation which was very appealing. Bought my last compact - the G1X... discovered it lacked in several ways, other than just pure image quality, which, is very good, in my opinion... so went back to trying DSLR's after borrowing a couple (7DmkI, T3i, and a 5DIII)... couldn't afford the 5DIII at the time... 7Dmk1 was old and moldy as far as designs go... got the 6D. Been very happy with it... even with it's purported shortcomings.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 15, 2014)

> I think early digital may have actually honed my timing. At the time, the shutter delay could be measured in parts of a second (or more!) and the time between shots if you took TIFF photos was often many seconds. Determining when to press the shutter and which 4-6 shots a minute you would be able to capture certainly made up for the lack of film! We 2010-something DSLR shooters sure are a spoiled bunch in retrospect!



I hated that shutter delay. The late snap always told me "you probably missed the shot." It was not intuitive at all to have to jump the gun like that. I agree that it helps the shooter focus more, but I can't say the required timing skip was a bonus. Made me concentrate like hell, that's for sure.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 15, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> I hated that shutter delay. The late snap always told me "you probably missed the shot."



+1 - that's why I was so happy with my eos RT back in the days: no mirror flip = near instant shutter release!



dash2k8 said:


> It was not intuitive at all to have to jump the gun like that. I agree that it helps the shooter focus more, but I can't say the required timing skip was a bonus. Made me concentrate like hell, that's for sure.



If that's the case, I'd advise to use Magic Lantern: You could program your camera to insert a 1sec (or anything) delay between shutter press and release, resulting in old-school photogs taking much better shots even in the digital age :->


----------

