sblitz Posted October 19, 2011 Share #61 Posted October 19, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) i think adam's point is 100% correct. there is a huge difference between having to earn a living at something and not. if you are in the have to camp, you do not have the luxury to indulge your whims and fancies -- unless you are enough of a name photographer than clients will bend to you. those people are indeed the very very few. i met a professional photographer recently at an opening of the leica gallery in nyc. i asked if he used film or digital and he laughed and said he went digital a long time ago -- "i have to stay in business" nothing to do with his preference for film, which he confessed to having, but bending to the reality of the market he works in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Hi sblitz, Take a look here How many pros still use film?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Gentleman Villain Posted October 19, 2011 Share #62 Posted October 19, 2011 A professional is a specialist with a clearly defined role. Film photographers are professionals because they fulfill a specialized role in a sequence that includes many other professionals (like art directors, graphic designers etc) But digital forces photographers to converge and multi-task with other disciplines and mediums. This means that photographers working in digital aren't really professionals at all because they are expected to take on more roles than just the photography. Many are doing retouching, video, video editing and some are even doing design work. A jack of all trades is a master of none. A "handyman" is not a professional. The point is that the only true photography professionals left are the ones shooting film. The others working in digital imaging are not specialists because they are expected to do more than just photography. The profession and specialty of a photographer is tied to film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen in Montreal Posted October 20, 2011 Share #63 Posted October 20, 2011 With all due respect sir, this so completely and totally incorrect! A professional is a specialist with a clearly defined role............ The point is that the only true photography professionals left are the ones shooting film. The others working in digital imaging are not specialists because they are expected to do more than just photography. The profession and specialty of a photographer is tied to film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 20, 2011 Share #64 Posted October 20, 2011 The point is that the only true photography professionals left are the ones shooting film. The others working in digital imaging are not specialists because they are expected to do more than just photography. The profession and specialty of a photographer is tied to film. So the photo-oriented film chemical jockeys are not professionals because they are expected to do more than just taking pictures? What you wrote just puzzles me and makes me less confident of your mental acuity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 20, 2011 Share #65 Posted October 20, 2011 To me, if you make money from your photography, even if only occasionally, you are professional. No you are not. Q: What is the difference between a part-time photographer and a pizza? A: A pizza can feed a family of four. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 20, 2011 Share #66 Posted October 20, 2011 A professional is a specialist with a clearly defined role. Film photographers are professionals because they fulfill a specialized role in a sequence that includes many other professionals (like art directors, graphic designers etc) But digital forces photographers to converge and multi-task with other disciplines and mediums. This means that photographers working in digital aren't really professionals at all because they are expected to take on more roles than just the photography. Many are doing retouching, video, video editing and some are even doing design work. A jack of all trades is a master of none. A "handyman" is not a professional. The point is that the only true photography professionals left are the ones shooting film. The others working in digital imaging are not specialists because they are expected to do more than just photography. The profession and specialty of a photographer is tied to film. Did all of those professionals instantly stop being professionals when they switched to digital? Back in the early 70's I studied photography. We had courses in retouching, chemistry, darkroom work, dye transfer, slide show production, motion picture photography and much more. I learned how to use the typesetting machines of the time and learned the concepts behind the commercial printing processes. (RIT had a big printing program.) And some also dabbled in video tape and computers. The idea was to make us into well rounded capable professional photographers even if we were just going to have a narrow role in the process. If you look at the work of George Hurrell, you will see that his skill in retouching played a big part in the look he achieved. Now if you jump forward to the digital age there are some who apply various general skills including photography, styling, raw conversions, retouching, archiving, design, video, web mastering, archiving... basically they take on a lot of roles. On the other hand there are some digital photographers who require the help of stylists, hair and makeup artists, digital technicians, retouchers and some even hire lighting specialists and other people who help contribute to the shot. Both approaches or something in between has always existed whether one used film or digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 20, 2011 Share #67 Posted October 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) A professional is a specialist with a clearly defined role. Film photographers are professionals because they fulfill a specialized role in a sequence that includes many other professionals (like art directors, graphic designers etc) But digital forces photographers to converge and multi-task with other disciplines and mediums. This means that photographers working in digital aren't really professionals at all because they are expected to take on more roles than just the photography. Many are doing retouching, video, video editing and some are even doing design work. A jack of all trades is a master of none. A "handyman" is not a professional. The point is that the only true photography professionals left are the ones shooting film. The others working in digital imaging are not specialists because they are expected to do more than just photography. The profession and specialty of a photographer is tied to film. By your definition, Oscar-winner Clint Eastwood is obviously not a "professional" director - because he takes on both the specialized role of an actor, and the specialized role of a director (and sometimes the specialized roles of writer and producer) - often for the same movie. Is a recording artist who goes into the booth and does his/her own producing and mixing eliminated from the ranks of professional musicians? Some rock musicians even designed their own album covers (tsk, tsk, tsk!) In the newspaper world, long, l-o-o-ng before digital anything existed, it was common for photographers to: edit their own work, edit other's work in a time crunch, design photo spreads (they were often the most "visually literate" people on the staff) - even gather information and write (certainly caption information - and quite often a short text, if they had interesting pictures and no reporter was available to do a story.) Every photography curriculum I took (and taught - B.A. and M.S.) emphasized design in most of the classes above the beginner level. Both as a basis for understanding composition, and as a professional tool in producing a slick portfolio and other self-promotion materials. There is such a thing - perhaps you've heard of it - as a "Renaissance Man." The epitome of which was Leonardo da Vinci. By your definition, the creator of the Mona Lisa obviously was not a "professional" artist - since he "converge[d] and multi-task[ed] with other disciplines and mediums." Military architecture, cartography, internal anatomy, and such interesting concepts as submarines, helicopters and battle tanks. Without a computer, by the way (except the one between his ears) - so your contention that "digital forces" multi-tasking with other disciplines and mediums is given the lie. You sneer "jack of all trades, master of none." I applaud the "polymath" - which includes some of the greatest minds of all time. "A human being should be able to: change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Robert A. Heinlein Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share #68 Posted October 20, 2011 And don't forget to put the trash out... No you are not. Q: What is the difference between a part-time photographer and a pizza? A: A pizza can feed a family of four. Yeah, but only a very small family on a diet or an exceedingly large pizza! Collins has the following definitions for "professional": 1. of, relating to, suitable for, or engaged in as a profession. 2. engaging in an activity for gain or as a means of livelihood. 3. extremely competent in a job, etc. 4. undertaken or performed for gain or by people who are paid. - noun. 5. a person who belongs to or engages in one of the professions. 6. a person who engages for his livelihood in some activity also pursued by amateurs. 7. a person who engages in an activity with great competence. 8. an expert player of a game who gives instruction, esp. to members of a club by whom he is hired." Wikipedia, whose authority I find variable, says: "A professional is a person who is paid to undertake a specialised set of tasks and orchestrate them with uncommon skill." Nowhere does it say the only true professional photographer is one who labors unceasingly in order to put pizza on the table. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcsites Posted October 20, 2011 Share #69 Posted October 20, 2011 Many pros seem to use digital professionally but shoot film cameras for pleasure. Why? Do any pros still shoot film for work? What kind of shots? Portraits, B+W landscapes, street photography, gallery work? Just curious. I think there still many professionals who uses film. Maybe they are used to it than digital. In fact a friend of mine still using film in his work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphoenix Posted October 20, 2011 Share #70 Posted October 20, 2011 "A human being should be able to: change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Robert A. Heinlein Whilst I remind all that Heinlein was a writer of fiction (though a damned good one); I totally agree with the rest of Adan's post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 20, 2011 Share #71 Posted October 20, 2011 I met a professional photographer recently at an opening of the leica gallery in nyc. i asked if he used film or digital and he laughed and said he went digital a long time ago -- "i have to stay in business" nothing to do with his preference for film, which he confessed to having, but bending to the reality of the market he works in. Oddly enough I have been going through my (somewhat specialist - mostly underwater but not all by any means) files following the purchase of one of my most successful agencies by another (a massive job which I would rather not have undertaken but which has actually proved very worthwhile). This has included older film originated material and more recent digital files. I have realised that whilst many of the film shot images are still sellers, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that digital has increased my productivity and the material I can produce currently is, quite simply, more saleable than most of my film derived material. So if I was to decide to go back to shooting film, it would handicap my business considerably and I doubt that I would remain in business much longer. If professionals are defined as those who only shoot film, then all I can say is that I'll quite happily stick to being a non-professional who makes his income from shooting images digitally;). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share #72 Posted October 20, 2011 Oh dear, I wish I had simply written, "Who still uses film and why do you like it?". Rather than getting into yet another digital versus film debate or arguing about what "professional" means. Still, some interesting responses. But I absolutely agree with Andy, above. The "Renaissance Man" or polymath of many skills is a wonderful ideal. But Leonardo and the rest of the Renaissance originals probably wouldn't be allowed to develop or utilize their skills today -- too many rules and regulations, pigeonholing, and box ticking. And as wonderful as computers are, as Andy points out, many sublime artistic creations can nevertheless still be created without them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 20, 2011 Share #73 Posted October 20, 2011 To say that digital photographers are not professionals is in and of itself nonsense. But a "profession" is not carved in stone (unless you are a mason... ) Times change, as do the tools to do the job and the expectations of the customer. A "portrait", "painted" by an artist today, does not need to resemble - or be arrived at in the same way as - the work of Rembrandt. I have always thought of an amateur as one who does something for the love of it (as the root of the word suggests) and a professional as one who does it for money. Paying an amateur does not make him a professional, in the same way as working for free does not compromise a professional. I have always kept what I do for money separate from what I do for fun. I prefer it that way. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 20, 2011 Share #74 Posted October 20, 2011 Oh dear, I wish I had simply written, "Who still uses film and why do you like it?". Rather than getting into yet another digital versus film debate or arguing about what "professional" means. David The problem is that the pressures of trying to make a living out of photography (as opposed to being a professional;)) mean that digital has numerous commercial advantages over film, which for the vast majority of us in this doing so, totally outweigh film's specific qualities. Whilst a very few may be in the exalted position of being able to appreciate and use film's unique characteristics, most are not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 20, 2011 Share #75 Posted October 20, 2011 If you look at the work of George Hurrell, you will see that his skill in retouching played a big part in the look he achieved. [... snip most excellent post ...] We have similar backgrounds, but I wasn't lucky enough to get RIT. Good on ya. About Hurrell and his peers - it would behoove anyone to see how many of those pictures were made. Very hot lights, close to the subject, posing couches and props to keep the subject comfortable or still (hard to have both, so shooting down on the subject as she laid on a couch was ideal.). 8x10" cameras with long lenses racked out feet. I have a film retouching machine and rebuilt it last year. If I had to do that stuff for a living I'd be stone broke. It takes talent and experience. I met an old man who was a natural show me how it was used and I still could not quite get the hang of it - but he had 50 years experience. THESE are the good old days in many ways. The digital revolution really has not yet begun. There's going to be some shocking innovations complete in our lifetime (and I'm in my Sixties). I still love big film, but carry an M9, sometimes a Lumix G1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 21, 2011 Share #76 Posted October 21, 2011 THESE are the good old days in many ways. The digital revolution really has not yet begun. There's going to be some shocking innovations complete in our lifetime (and I'm in my Sixties). I agree that there is a lot more to come. Many are still trying to pigeon hole the potential of digital photography into film based values. As a person who remembers using a 16mm Bolex and the earliest very bulky "portable" b/w video reel to reel systems, I am totally blown away that I can pull out my tiny HTC Amaze cell phone and shoot beautiful 1080p video with good sound and instantly send that movie anywhere in the world. And that when I shoot still pictures with it, a "location" folder is created that shows me on a Google map where each photo was taken. Of course I can transmit them effortlessly too. The camera and video are so well integrated into the features of a smart phone that it is no wonder there is convergence between cameras and phones that are pushing the phone cameras to get better. I can't see why I wouldn't want this kind of smart phone technology in my professional cameras. Separately. I stopped attending the weekly retouching classes when I realized I had no interest or talent in doing etching, pencil, or airbrush work and would have to work at it pretty much full time to get competent. But I don't mind retouching on a computer and feel I am reasonably competent for my clients' needs at least.... judge for yourself... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted October 21, 2011 Share #77 Posted October 21, 2011 Alan is right, which is why I have stopped trying to get the latest digital anything. Something will always be coming along better tomorrow. This is also why I am using film more than every, and enjoying photography more as a result. Wayne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 21, 2011 Share #78 Posted October 21, 2011 Hi Wayne , i agree with you .... "How many pros still use film"..... Brian Finke : .... "I also prefer the grain and depth of film and the chromogenic print, especially when viewed in a large scale, gallery environment" Paolo Marchesi :"I like the “organic” feel of film and the process."...."With digital is easy to just fire away without really taking the time to take “the shot”." Amanda Friedman: "Film has better exposure latitude. Film does significantly better in low light, I get better blacks." Simon Watson:"Because it is beautiful," Finn O'Hara: "I love the pace of shooting film, and the reality of the exposure is much more tangible when shooting film." José Mandojana: "I also shoot film because the color neg is perfect in my eyes" Michael Sugrue:"A lot of the mental aspects of shooting large-format film are lost with the instantaneity of digital capture" Jeff Lipsky: "I love shooting my film cameras. There is something special when shooting a portrait"..."I feel digital takes the pace and feel away.".... "Film is more forgiving and has more range"... ." Believe it or not, it’s still more economical for most editorial jobs". David Lauridsen:"Film is beautiful. It has a depth to it and a painterly quality in the way it captures light and texture that digital just isn’t capable of capturing… yet" ...."With film, I can expose for good shadow detail and just burn in the sky. With digital, the sky is just gone completely or if I expose for it then I end up with an image that is just much darker than I like." Bryce Duffy:"I still really love the aesthetic of film....And I still really feel that there are certain lighting situations where film just “feels” more organic and digital can not replicate that as far as I’ve seen." ...look at this link Pro photographers who still use film Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted October 21, 2011 Share #79 Posted October 21, 2011 Doesn't take much to get the old timers riled up...does it? Adan makes lists of wild assumptions, then argues with his own assumptions... Pico makes drive-by-insults (the forum is littered with his jabs)... Alan turns every discussion into a conversation about himself... and Bill appears to gain satisfaction from stating the obvious. anybody else notice that too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 21, 2011 Share #80 Posted October 21, 2011 "bleeding obvious", please, old chap. I wouldn't want to think I had wasted my time by not being emphatic. Regards, Bil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.