Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just two personal observations...

 

The issue that always worries me when people start take news pictures is personal safety. It is so easy for an enthusiastic person to get in over their head quickly. In a post on 2nd June, about photgraphing a protest Kristin wrote "I assessed the situation, spoke to one of the participants, felt the energy was ominous and left." Seems like Kristin is an aware person; I have no qualms with offering her some encouragement. Her attitude is totally different to the chap with his bridge camera who approached me at an extinction rebellion protest and asked "when is it going to kick off then?"

 

Chuck's comment on self editing is spot on. It's helped me.  The competition on a news desk is very high, why on earth defeat yourself by hiding your best pictures within some nearly best ones, when the picture desk has so may to choose from.

 

All the best and stay safe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Kristin,

 

Again I will say that you are not correct,  I was not "throwing credentials around" and if that is what you believed after reading what I wrote, then I did not state what I had to say clearly.  What I was attempting to say is there are too many who think that all photos are news.  These people do not spend enough time or have the training to know what is news, I was not writing about you or anyone specifically.  Brown and RISD are institutions that I admire and I have worked with many Brown and RISD grads over the years.

 

I will add that NEWS Photography is not like stock photography, There seems to be an idea among stock photographers of "you never know what will sell (sic)", I do not sell images, I allow the agents or libraries that distribute my images to license them. 

 

The world of news magazine photojournalism use to be photographers working under difficult conditions, working with chrome film (25 to 400 ASA) in cameras that you had to focus and determine the best exposure in fractions of a second.  Then the photographer had to figure out how to transport the unprocessed film and information about what was photographed to their agent or publication.

 

I do not claim to be an authority on photojournalism and what I express on the Alamy forum is my own opinion.  I also try not to insult people, but many on the Alamy forum seem to have very thin skins.

 

I do value Alamy and my experience with Alamy and those working with Alamy and specifically Alamy Live News (ALN) has for the most part been a very good one for me.  I do believe that ALN could be better, I.E. the images that ALN puts forward could be stronger, and the only way for those images to be stronger is for the contributors to be better "self editors" and practice better journalism?

 

Chuck

 

No I did not get that point at all from your previous post. That people don't understand the difference between stock and news and they need to edit their live news images more carefully and be more selective about what they submit. And that Live News could be stronger by being more selective. None of that came across. Thank you for clarifying.

 

It seems that not only did the process of submitting in pre-digital days require more legwork, I would assume there were a lot fewer images to submit. Because 35mm film was expensive and part of the training and practice and affordability of being a photographer was getting the photo right when you shot it, keeping your shooting ratio low, and thereby eliminating the acres of glut we have now in the digital age. I understand that much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Standfast said:

Chuck's comment on self editing is spot on. It's helped me.  The competition on a news desk is very high, why on earth defeat yourself by hiding your best pictures within some nearly best ones, when the picture desk has so may to choose from.

 

 

This is precisely why I asked for feed back on my Live News submissions. I felt I was a bit sloppy in submitting so many, but also didn't feel I could take the time I needed to choose fewer. Two of the photos picked up by the Sun, I considered the best of the group. But the third one, I didn't, and very likely would not have submitted it. I am definitely examining published news photos and studying them. I can see in Chuck's portfolio, he is being extremely selective about what he uploads, and I like his choices a lot.

 

I come from the art world, and value abstraction, beauty and subculture, which are not priorities in the news world. So bending my brain toward news photography takes some rewiring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MizBrown said:

I never had any photography training other than reading about photography, looking at photography, and taking photos.  My only journalistic experience was taking photos (head shots, sports shots, kids eating school lunches) for a weekly paper in Virginia.   I think I came between Chuck's world and Kristin's when getting a journalism job on a small daily or a weekly was still possible, though it's become less and less possible.   My Masters thesis was on the linguistic features of Edith Sitwell's theories of poetics compared to Jakobson, Fant, and Halle's "Distinctive Feature Analysis."   (I'm not going to Google to see if I spelled those names correctly).

 

Kristin a while back said that someone told her that doing stock would spoil her eye, so given what academics said about science fiction, I figured a relatively recent academic background.   I'm floundering around with photography because I like learning new things and I don't know if I could sell another novel.

 

Back when I lived in New York, I saw an exhibit of news photographs from the Speed Graphic days that Diane Arbus curated for the Museum of Modern Art.   I've always felt squeamish about Arbus's work, but loved the collection she curated. 

 

I like knowing you both. 

 

Love the conversation. It's so great to be able to come here and talk about this stuff while in the process of attempting to up my game as a photographer. I would LOVE to see that Diane Arbus curated show. I know very well that some photographers meld art and journalism, and I am always very impressed with those who do. However, I also notice that even the most famous newspapers publish what appears to me mediocre visual content, so there's plenty of room to not shoot National Geographic quality stuff. I am always aware of that line and continue to define it for myself on a very personal level, with an aim to get some photos out there in the world, which can be great fun. I think it's amusing to get my photos into a Murdoch tabloid, but when all is said and done, that's not my main goal. 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The Blinking Eye said:

 

This is precisely why I asked for feed back on my Live News submissions. I felt I was a bit sloppy in submitting so many, but also didn't feel I could take the time I needed to choose fewer. Two of the photos picked up by the Sun, I considered the best of the group. But the third one, I didn't, and very likely would not have submitted it. I am definitely examining published news photos and studying them. I can see in Chuck's portfolio, he is being extremely selective about what he uploads, and I like his choices a lot.

 

I come from the art world, and value abstraction, beauty and subculture, which are not priorities in the news world. So bending my brain toward news photography takes some rewiring.

 

 

but remember time is of the essence.  You will miss your better image sometimes, you will not get your best edit all the time.  It's also important to look through after, and see if you had missed something and if any of the files are worth uploading to Stock or Reportage after.  

 

 

Get an idea what stories you want to tell from your images. 

Edited by meanderingemu
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

but remember time is of the essence.  You will miss your better image sometimes, you will not get your best edit all the time.  It's also important to look through after, and see if you had missed something and if any of the files are worth uploading to Stock or Reportage after.  

 

Thanks. Oh yes, while shooting, I'm just snapping and to be honest, I don't actually feel like I know how to control my camera very well. So I'm mostly just setting it on auto and concentrating on the frame, hoping I get something. I notice it helps a LOT to review the photos quickly after taking them, to get better ideas on how to frame things, what works, what to look for, and what I need to do differently. But it feels rather haphazard. During the election night parade and piñata whopping, I had to move FAST. The piñata had started before I walked upon the scene, and if I didn't grab my camera and point, I would have missed the whole thing a minute later. I discovered I really like the blur and the fly-by-pants aesthetic that I don't have in my other photos that are well composed and well lit. That energy is exciting to me and I think the photos express the moment pretty well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MizBrown said:

I never had any photography training other than reading about photography, looking at photography, and taking photos.  My only journalistic experience was taking photos (head shots, sports shots, kids eating school lunches) for a weekly paper in Virginia.   I think I came between Chuck's world and Kristin's when getting a journalism job on a small daily or a weekly was still possible, though it's become less and less possible.   My Masters thesis was on the linguistic features of Edith Sitwell's theories of poetics compared to Jakobson, Fant, and Halle's "Distinctive Feature Analysis."   (I'm not going to Google to see if I spelled those names correctly).

 

Kristin a while back said that someone told her that doing stock would spoil her eye, so given what academics said about science fiction, I figured a relatively recent academic background.   I'm floundering around with photography because I like learning new things and I don't know if I could sell another novel.

 

Back when I lived in New York, I saw an exhibit of news photographs from the Speed Graphic days that Diane Arbus curated for the Museum of Modern Art.   I've always felt squeamish about Arbus's work, but loved the collection she curated. 

 

I like knowing you both. 

 

I graduated in 2003. So my academic background is not so recent. It's just that I've had a lot of it and thoroughly brainwashed. But I skate around that by making handmade postcards, being obsessed with K-pop, and getting my photos published in a tabloid and on some news scraper sites.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Blinking Eye said:

 

Thanks. Oh yes, while shooting, I'm just snapping and to be honest, I don't actually feel like I know how to control my camera very well. So I'm mostly just setting it on auto and concentrating on the frame, hoping I get something. I notice it helps a LOT to review the photos quickly after taking them, to get better ideas on how to frame things, what works, what to look for, and what I need to do differently. But it feels rather haphazard. During the election night parade and piñata whopping, I had to move FAST. The piñata had started before I walked upon the scene, and if I didn't grab my camera and point, I would have missed the whole thing a minute later. I discovered I really like the blur and the fly-by-pants aesthetic that I don't have in my other photos that are well composed and well lit. That energy is exciting to me and I think the photos express the moment pretty well.

 

You were showing a celebration, euphoria.  Don't forget you need to make life easy for the News Editor to tell the story they want to tell.  The whole world was watching you guys, you gave them that angle of crazy...  Blur might not work for a sombre protest, but for this it tells the story.

 

 

one of the thing I had to learn after my first few  is control my anxiety about missed opportunity.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

You were showing a celebration, euphoria.  Don't forget you need to make life easy for the News Editor to tell the story they want to tell.  The whole world was watching you guys, you gave them that angle of crazy...  Blur might not work for a sombre protest, but for this it tells the story.

 

 

one of the thing I had to learn after my first few  is control my anxiety about missed opportunity.  

 

I've had anxiety about missed opportunites, and then realized there will always be another momentous occasion, another protest, another rally with a star politician, coming down the pike. Especially now, with the world in turmoil. So I just let it go and follow the few stories I can and want to.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Blinking Eye said:

I come from the art world, and value abstraction, beauty and subculture, which are not priorities in the news world. So bending my brain toward news photography takes some rewiring.

 

Henri Cartier-Bresson.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

I think that's an exhibit of Arbus's own work.  Those shots were mostly square.  Arbus used a Rolleiflex for her work from what I've read.   I couldn't find anything on line about her curation of an exhibit of news photographers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add that I think it is a mistake to believe that "Time is of the essence" and above proves my point with talk of

Bresson and Arbus.  The reason that they have been mentioned is because of the quality, humanity and social illustration of

their work.  Yes time is of the essence if you are working for AP, DPA or a newspaper, but if you want to be known for your

images and for your images to be licensed over and over, then it is more important to carefully select, prep and caption your

images. I personally would rather loose a couple of newspaper or web licenses and to have images uploaded that will license

over and over for decades.

 

Yes there are times when it would be smart and appropriate to quickly select and caption a very small number of images of a 

breaking event of global interest, but those are rare.

 

I am afraid to say that it is to easy to fall into "Garbage in, Garbage out" and I do try to remind myself to try not to fall into that.

FYI I keep my main images under my name and I have pseudonym for similars, variations or images that I want on Alamy because

I feel that may be licensed.  

 

What I have written above is not intended by me to be criticism of anyone,  It is just my own opinion and how I try to work.

 

Kristin,

 

No the "good old film days" were a lot less work.  I had a E-6, K-14 lab (1 1/2 hour process and mount), my favorite bar, where I had

a light table that they kept for me and a FEDEX drop off station all on the same block South of Market in San Francisco in the 80's.  I

could drop my film at the lab, walk to the bar, have a perfect vodka martini.  The lab would bring over my processed film and with 

another martini I could select my chromes and package them up in caption envelopes and put a coaster over my martini and drop

the film in a FEDEX envelope at the station and back to my martini.  There were also many days when you just shot and shipped the

unprocessed film.  Scanners and digital cameras ruined everything with time spent at the computer instead on sitting in a nice bar

drinking perfect vodka martinis.  My liver is happy for digital though......

 

Chuck

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck,

 

When I was practicing law, I remember the first time a client asked me to fax over a motion to him and called me an hour later to see where it was. Because we could now fax something nearly instantaneously, he completely ignored the fact that I first had to do the research, frame an argument, dictate the motion, have my secretary type it up (really dating myself here -we're talking mid-1980's), proofread it, write a cover letter, have my secretary type that, and then get it out for him to look at. Just because the technology is fast, it doesn't mean we do the human stuff, like thinking, any faster than we did pre-tech.

 

In fact, within a decade, I had a computer in my office and had to type up my own first draft. Which made things slower, not faster.

 

Similarly, the fact that we can take an image quickly and see it on the back of our cameras does not mean it's ready instantaneously, we still need to cull, to caption accurately, to process from RAW to jpeg (though whenever I shoot an assignment that is time sensitive I'll shoot jpeg and RAW so I can use the jpegs without the need for additional processing, but have the RAW file just in case).

 

When I began taking photographs, it was on FILM. I was working as a freelancer for a couple of local magazines in Northern Westchester and a a couple of newspaper groups in southern Westchester County, NY.  It was 2005. The magazines used a lab up in Katonah and the newspapers one down in Port Chester. I remember thinking maybe it would be easier if I had a digital camera so I wouldn't have to run film up to Katonah and down to Port Chester the same day - I could just email the photos. Big mistake.

 

I got a cheap digital camera, the photos were awful and I quickly realized the hour plus of driving was nothing by comparison to the time I'd need to learn how to make the most of those digital images. I waited until technology improved, which happened quickly, and saved up for my first Nikon D70, took classes and remember fondly how much easier it was in the old days to hand an editor a roll of film and simply have to supply the captions when they faxed me the story with the layout. I'd been working as a freelance writer for a few years at that point, and before law school had spent a year as a reporter and photographer for a suburban paper, so getting the info from participants at news events, or for lifestyle pieces, to provide accurate captions was a piece of cake. Much more time consuming to shoot 100 images in rapid succession, pare them down to 5-12 fully processed and captioned for an editor to choose from. If you are shooting a roll of 20 or 36 there's a lot lest wasted time and energy.  I mastered exposure in my first high school photo class because I had to - film was expensive for a kid. Back then I was using my dad's old Yashica rangefinder and the light meter thingy inside it was broken so I studied the exposure recommendation charts on my rolls of Pan-x and Tri-X and it became second nature. 

So, I shot some film in the almost old days...But I didn't get a martini. Usually had to pick up my daughter from school somewhere along my route. 🍸

(I saw the wine in the other thread  so I wanted to size my drink appropriately 😎)

Edited by Marianne
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/11/2020 at 19:55, MizBrown said:

Arbus used a Rolleiflex for her work from what I've read.

Yes she did, but she's actually often pictured with a huge heavy Mamiya C33 with flash, about the only high profile photographer that I've ever heard of that used one. Many of her famous pictures were taken with that, presumably because she liked to be able to change the lenses.

 

"When we think of an Arbus photograph, it will probably have been taken with a Rolleiflex, or else with a Mamiya C33, to which she upgraded in the mid-sixties, and which also adopts the square format. This meant a lot of baggage. Arbus was as slight as a pixie, but one acquaintance recalled her lugging around “two Mamiya cameras, two flashes, sometimes a Rollei, a tripod, all sorts of lenses, light meters, film.”

 

Excerpt from "Portrait of a photographer" by Arthur Lubow, reviewed here:

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/06/diane-arbus-portrait-of-a-photographer

Edited by Harry Harrison
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marianne said:

Harry, I remember my mom taking me to MoMA to see an exhibit of her work when I was a kid. It was a revelation. 

I'll bet it was, what a great memory. There are a lot of pictures of her in Central Park, by Tod Papageorge I think, with this huge heavy Mamiya and flash round her neck.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

walk to the bar, have a perfect vodka martini.  The lab would bring over my processed film and with 

another martini I could select my chromes

I love this guy and this is one reason why.🍸

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Marianne said:

Chuck,

 

When I was practicing law, I remember the first time a client asked me to fax over a motion to him and called me an hour later to see where it was. Because we could now fax something nearly instantaneously, he completely ignored the fact that I first had to do the research, frame an argument, dictate the motion, have my secretary type it up (really dating myself here -we're talking mid-1980's), proofread it, write a cover letter, have my secretary type that, and then get it out for him to look at. Just because the technology is fast, it doesn't mean we do the human stuff, like thinking, any faster than we did pre-tech.

 

In fact, within a decade, I had a computer in my office and had to type up my own first draft. Which made things slower, not faster.

 

Similarly, the fact that we can take an image quickly and see it on the back of our cameras does not mean it's ready instantaneously, we still need to cull, to caption accurately, to process from RAW to jpeg (though whenever I shoot an assignment that is time sensitive I'll shoot jpeg and RAW so I can use the jpegs without the need for additional processing, but have the RAW file just in case).

 

When I began taking photographs, it was on FILM. I was working as a freelancer for a couple of local magazines in Northern Westchester and a a couple of newspaper groups in southern Westchester County, NY.  It was 2005. The magazines used a lab up in Katonah and the newspapers one down in Port Chester. I remember thinking maybe it would be easier if I had a digital camera so I wouldn't have to run film up to Katonah and down to Port Chester the same day - I could just email the photos. Big mistake.

 

I got a cheap digital camera, the photos were awful and I quickly realized the hour plus of driving was nothing by comparison to the time I'd need to learn how to make the most of those digital images. I waited until technology improved, which happened quickly, and saved up for my first Nikon D70, took classes and remember fondly how much easier it was in the old days to hand an editor a roll of film and simply have to supply the captions when they faxed me the story with the layout. I'd been working as a freelance writer for a few years at that point, and before law school had spent a year as a reporter and photographer for a suburban paper, so getting the info from participants at news events, or for lifestyle pieces, to provide accurate captions was a piece of cake. Much more time consuming to shoot 100 images in rapid succession, pare them down to 5-12 fully processed and captioned for an editor to choose from. If you are shooting a roll of 20 or 36 there's a lot lest wasted time and energy.  I mastered exposure in my first high school photo class because I had to - film was expensive for a kid. Back then I was using my dad's old Yashica rangefinder and the light meter thingy inside it was broken so I studied the exposure recommendation charts on my rolls of Pan-x and Tri-X and it became second nature. 

So, I shot some film in the almost old days...But I didn't get a martini. Usually had to pick up my daughter from school somewhere along my route. 🍸

(I saw the wine in the other thread  so I wanted to size my drink appropriately 😎)

Marianne,

 

It looks like you understood what I wrote.  I was hesitant to write about the bar, but in the 80's I really had the Lab, Bar and FEDEX lined up and it was great.

For clarification, I was never a wire photographer, tried but it was not my forte.  I tend to look for illustrations of current and ongoing issues, that is why 

Alamy is a good fit for me, although I do contribute to the other two major agencies (libraries).  I also believe that there is too much pressure to get the

images out and not enough pressure to get the images right and to understand their context.  Again just my opinion.

 

Liked your reply.

 

PS when I started with a very small daily in Washington state in the mid 70's, I had a PENTAX Spotmatic , no meter, and a HONEYWELL "potato masher" flash.

 

Best,

 

Chuck

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

I would like to add that I think it is a mistake to believe that "Time is of the essence" and above proves my point with talk of

Bresson and Arbus.  The reason that they have been mentioned is because of the quality, humanity and social illustration of

their work.  Yes time is of the essence if you are working for AP, DPA or a newspaper, but if you want to be known for your

images and for your images to be licensed over and over, then it is more important to carefully select, prep and caption your

images. I personally would rather loose a couple of newspaper or web licenses and to have images uploaded that will license

over and over for decades.

 

Yes there are times when it would be smart and appropriate to quickly select and caption a very small number of images of a 

breaking event of global interest, but those are rare.

 

I am afraid to say that it is to easy to fall into "Garbage in, Garbage out" and I do try to remind myself to try not to fall into that.

FYI I keep my main images under my name and I have pseudonym for similars, variations or images that I want on Alamy because

I feel that may be licensed.  

 

What I have written above is not intended by me to be criticism of anyone,  It is just my own opinion and how I try to work.

 

Kristin,

 

No the "good old film days" were a lot less work.  I had a E-6, K-14 lab (1 1/2 hour process and mount), my favorite bar, where I had

a light table that they kept for me and a FEDEX drop off station all on the same block South of Market in San Francisco in the 80's.  I

could drop my film at the lab, walk to the bar, have a perfect vodka martini.  The lab would bring over my processed film and with 

another martini I could select my chromes and package them up in caption envelopes and put a coaster over my martini and drop

the film in a FEDEX envelope at the station and back to my martini.  There were also many days when you just shot and shipped the

unprocessed film.  Scanners and digital cameras ruined everything with time spent at the computer instead on sitting in a nice bar

drinking perfect vodka martinis.  My liver is happy for digital though......

 

Chuck

 

I am sensing some contrariness in that you have told me three times that I am incorrect. But it was you who said,

 

"The world of news magazine photojournalism use to be photographers working under difficult conditions, working with chrome film (25 to 400 ASA) in cameras that you had to focus and determine the best exposure in fractions of a second.  Then the photographer had to figure out how to transport the unprocessed film and information about what was photographed to their agent or publication."

 

but now you are saying it was a breeze...

 

That's cool. Your stories are fun. I am writing an essay right now about warehouse subculture in South of Market San Francisco in the 80s, so it's interesting to read this snapshot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Marianne said:

Chuck,

 

When I was practicing law, I remember the first time a client asked me to fax over a motion to him and called me an hour later to see where it was. Because we could now fax something nearly instantaneously, he completely ignored the fact that I first had to do the research, frame an argument, dictate the motion, have my secretary type it up (really dating myself here -we're talking mid-1980's), proofread it, write a cover letter, have my secretary type that, and then get it out for him to look at. Just because the technology is fast, it doesn't mean we do the human stuff, like thinking, any faster than we did pre-tech.

 

In fact, within a decade, I had a computer in my office and had to type up my own first draft. Which made things slower, not faster.

 

Similarly, the fact that we can take an image quickly and see it on the back of our cameras does not mean it's ready instantaneously, we still need to cull, to caption accurately, to process from RAW to jpeg (though whenever I shoot an assignment that is time sensitive I'll shoot jpeg and RAW so I can use the jpegs without the need for additional processing, but have the RAW file just in case).

 

When I began taking photographs, it was on FILM. I was working as a freelancer for a couple of local magazines in Northern Westchester and a a couple of newspaper groups in southern Westchester County, NY.  It was 2005. The magazines used a lab up in Katonah and the newspapers one down in Port Chester. I remember thinking maybe it would be easier if I had a digital camera so I wouldn't have to run film up to Katonah and down to Port Chester the same day - I could just email the photos. Big mistake.

 

I got a cheap digital camera, the photos were awful and I quickly realized the hour plus of driving was nothing by comparison to the time I'd need to learn how to make the most of those digital images. I waited until technology improved, which happened quickly, and saved up for my first Nikon D70, took classes and remember fondly how much easier it was in the old days to hand an editor a roll of film and simply have to supply the captions when they faxed me the story with the layout. I'd been working as a freelance writer for a few years at that point, and before law school had spent a year as a reporter and photographer for a suburban paper, so getting the info from participants at news events, or for lifestyle pieces, to provide accurate captions was a piece of cake. Much more time consuming to shoot 100 images in rapid succession, pare them down to 5-12 fully processed and captioned for an editor to choose from. If you are shooting a roll of 20 or 36 there's a lot lest wasted time and energy.  I mastered exposure in my first high school photo class because I had to - film was expensive for a kid. Back then I was using my dad's old Yashica rangefinder and the light meter thingy inside it was broken so I studied the exposure recommendation charts on my rolls of Pan-x and Tri-X and it became second nature. 

So, I shot some film in the almost old days...But I didn't get a martini. Usually had to pick up my daughter from school somewhere along my route. 🍸

(I saw the wine in the other thread  so I wanted to size my drink appropriately 😎)

 

I used to shoot motion picture film and take it to the lab and I was in love with everything about it, including a large image created by a beam of light passing through a tiny celluloid frame. It all changed mid-way through film school, and the process moved radically away from crafting shots and story, from coaching actors on character motivation, from designing lighting styles and art direction, from exploring meaning and emotion...to learning software. Learning lots and lots of software. ProTools, Avid, Audacity, HTML, Sonic Solutions, FInal Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, Photoshop, etc etc etc. All my time turned to that and that was not what I signed up for. The whole thing became about computers and technology. There was almost no room left for creativity or craft. It was devastating to my path as an artist.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do appreciate the conversation, because quality vs quantity is always on my mind. I loved the discipline of shooting film. It cost $100 to shoot a 10 minute roll of 16mm film, so you did EVERYTHING you could to get the shot right the first time. The stakes were high. With low stakes digital, people tend to put the effort into editing, sitting at a computer, which takes far more time, rather than in taking flawless shots. At least that's my experience.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Blinking Eye said:

I do appreciate the conversation, because quality vs quantity is always on my mind. I loved the discipline of shooting film. It cost $100 to shoot a 10 minute roll of 16mm film, so you did EVERYTHING you could to get the shot right the first time. The stakes were high. With low stakes digital, people tend to put the effort into editing, sitting at a computer, which takes far more time, rather than in taking flawless shots. At least that's my experience.

Well this time I do agree with you.  

 

I wish involved with the South of Market crowd late (in the 80's), but there were some real characters down there before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.