Some thoughts and observations

[Murph]

Ken and I, as is usual when we chat on the phone or in person discuss the formative disciplines of photography. My training under Dr. Roach at SFASU, was pretty formal, with the philosophy of "Get it right, by doing it right". Every photographer is different, since Photography is IMHO more an Art than a Science. But some of the things I do, that I believe work for me, probably not for anyone else.

a) light- I trained under Dr. Roach in Journalism 319-Lighting to use hot lights, no strobes, no flashes, but hot lights. I got pretty good with hot lights. And we could only use 4x5, nothing smaller, and we also shot Polaroid in this class. So it trained me to use hot lights, since back in 1980 strobes were still developing. Also the only flash unit I had was a "potato masher" Sunpak flash unit that you set manually for distance, f/stop, and ASA. A real pain. So I tended to use natural light, faster film, and never really developed an interest in flash or strobe photography.

b) Size. Yep, size matters. In Journalism 201- Basic Photograph (all photo classes were in the Journalism department) we had to use Yashica 2 1/4 camera with NO light meters. Learn the "sunny 16" rule, and apply it. So you kept those little data sheets from the Tri-X and Plus-X film you used. I got pretty good with it, the manual judging of light. Later you could use 35mm, and light meters, but at first all photogs were equal with the Yashicas. Although you could use Large Format if you wished. 4x5 and larger were what you aspired to, because the negatives made better prints. I remember the Grad Assistant running around the bottom floor with two of my prints in his hands, yelling: "Grain! Grain!, Evil Grain!" on some that I had shot the evil 35mm format rather than using the proper large format.

c) Black and White Rules: Color, no one used color until later on in the 300 level classes. Before that it was B&W, develop and print your own. I learned to look at a scene and "see" it in Black and White. Using filters such as a yellow, green and red to give different effects. When you did use color, it was Kodachrome. Not Ektachrome, and God forbid not Kodacolor print film. *shudder* Kodachrome 64, that was the only acceptable film for color.

d) Composition- Dr. Roach was vicious about this. Your photos better be composed right. Do it in the camera, don't try to get it right under the enlarger. So I learned to compose in the camera. Rule of 3rds, get it right in the camera, learn where your leeway was in printing, learn the system. Always crop in camera, use your viewfinder.

e) Technical quality- one word here: Sharp. Your photos needed to be sharp, crisp, contrasty, and have good tonal range. You learned the Zone System without ever realizing you were using the Zone System. Muddy, mushy, unsharp photos received a heaping helping of scorn and poor grades.

f) Subject Matter- He liked people photos, but anything was ok, as long as your photos looked good, were well composed, and technically excellent.

g) Learn your equipment, learn its strengths, and weaknesses, learn what your lenses do. Pick a film, one, no more, and shoot, shoot, shoot, then develop it in the same developer to learn how it looks, how it develops. Tri-X and Microdol-X worked well for me. I loved the look. The camera, a Konica T-3 w/ 50mm f/1.4 lens for 90% of my shooting. I had a 28mm and a 135mm, but I LEARNED the 50mm.

h) Do not waste film. Ever. Don't even think about it. Each frame should be thought of as a keeper. Never "spray and pray". If you have 36 frames, each one should stand on its own, and be printable. "Spray and Pray" was for inferior photographers, or guys shooting sports which was the same thing.

i) Prints: Prints should never be smaller than 8x10, and should be larger except if shooting 35mm, where they cannot be printed above 8x10 and look decent. Never print a 35mm above 8x10. The optimal idea is to contact print your large format negatives such as 8x10 or 11x14. Prints should be processed archivally, printed on fiber paper, NEVER Resin Coated papers, which are for inferior photographers who work at photo mills, and Sports photographers. After drying (F surface, or a glossy which was not ferrotyped), it should be matted on archival matte board with at least a 2" or better border. Then framed using a simple black metal frame with non glare glass. ARCHIVAL! ARCHIVAL! ARCHIVAL! Anything else, you might as well work at K-mart as a photographer. Crop, Dodge and Burn, the hallmarks of a Master Printer.

As a result I learned Photography by what I was taught, but also being a bit lazy, I did not always apply the lessons. I sometimes sprayed and prayed, I sometimes used a different film, sometimes I did not crop in the viewfinder. I occasionally used Kodacolor *gasp* print film. I sometimes used...RC papers (three Hail Mary's, and six Our Fathers). I sometimes enlarged a 35mm negative to 11x14. I strayed away from the One True Way of Large Format, Zone System, and Archival Processing. I admit, I shot 35mm processed it in Rodinal, printed them on RC papers which I did not process archivally *sob*. Can I be forgiven? I have strayed into the world of....(softly) digital. I have forsaken film.

But, there must be hope, I still crop in camera, I print using pigment inks on my 4880 on archival 100% cotton rag paper, matte them on Light Impressions archival Matte board, and frame them in black metal frames. There is hope yet......

[gardener]

Nice essay Murph...

[ChristopherCoy]

I read this entire thing, and then re-read it looking for the lesson. I'm still looking....

[Murph]

If you don't get it, you never will.

Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy

I read this entire thing, and then re-read it looking for the lesson. I'm still looking....

[ChristopherCoy]

Originally Posted by Murph

If you don't get it, you never will.

I get the jest of your very long statement - you took the time to learn the basics, whereas today's beginners just pick up a camera and start running. What I dont understand is what you're trying to accomplish with the post, especially because a lot of what you've stated is antiquated and doesn't apply to the photography world as it stands today. Notice I said 'A Lot Of', not 'all of.' For instance, 'prints should never be larger than 8x10'... why? I have a crop sensor and have printed many a 16x20 with stunning results.

I'm not saying your wrong - you're in fact very very right...

[LanceHaynie]

I think comparing today's digital to 35mm is unfair, even with a crop sensor. It is not the same medium by any means. An old school 2mp crop sensor and a more modern 24mp crop sensor are by far going to produce varying results for print's. I would take a higher quality (not just mp) crop vs full frame any day.

It was interesting you posted this cause I was just talking with a guy at work that is still very old school. He still shoot's 4x5 large format for everything. You start talking about modern digital terminology and he will look at you like you are crazy.

I think the most important in today's world are D through H. If you do it right in camera, you spend less time in post. The more you crop the less resolution you will get in the final image. I still to this day use the zone system. I actually have some help when I don't want to rely on Sunny/16 though. I have a PocketPC with 2 very important applications. An exposure app that is basically a zone index. As well as a depth of field app that help's me get the dof I want without just guessing. It also will give me the hyperfocal distance for landscapes.

[Murph]

The prof's rationale was that with 35mm an 8x10 is an 8x enlargement, and at the upper limits before grain, structure and sharpness degrade the image whereas a 4x5 negative goes 2x for 8x10, and an 8x10 is 1:1. The ideal was like today's digital image: sharp, grain free, and structurally perfect if possible. You controlled as much as possible: light, development time, enlarging paper, cropping in camera.

Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy

I get the jest of your very long statement - you took the time to learn the basics, whereas today's beginners just pick up a camera and start running. What I dont understand is what you're trying to accomplish with the post, especially because a lot of what you've stated is antiquated and doesn't apply to the photography world as it stands today. Notice I said 'A Lot Of', not 'all of.' For instance, 'prints should never be larger than 8x10'... why? I have a crop sensor and have printed many a 16x20 with stunning results.

I'm not saying your wrong - you're in fact very very right...

[venchka]

Wayne's Appendix 1 to Murph's Manifesto:

1. Kids today don't spend any time with a book in one hand and a camera in the other actually learning anything. They run to the internet with a bushel of dumb questions and expect those who know to spoon feed them all the answers.
2. Nobody bothers to learn any history. Heck, 10 year old hardware never existed. The flip side of the coin: Trade gear before you know how to use it. Buy more stuff before you know how to use what you have. Partially guilty on the last count your honor.
3. Software is the answer. More software is better. Topaz Adjust and HDR are the answer. Bull.
4. Everything old is new again. Some guy sticks a hundred year old lens on a digital camera. Nothing new. That same guy puts the results on You Tube and it's like a totally new revelation. The kids don't know that people have been using 100 year old, and older, lenses for A HUNDRED YEARS and longer.
5. Photographers covered the Civil War with wet plate technology. The same technology and the same lenses are in use today. I wonder why?
6. Zoom lenses are not the only answer. Zoom lenses with maximum apertures of 2.8 to 5.6 are not fast lenses.
7. Sports photography existed before auto-focus and auto-exposure. At 6 frames per second or less and 36 frames per roll.
I'm rambling. Time to crawl back in my cave. Make some more photos with the BladBerry.

[danchez]

Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy

For instance, 'prints should never be larger than 8x10'... why? I have a crop sensor and have printed many a 16x20 with stunning results.

I'm not saying your wrong - you're in fact very very right...

Chris, he said prints should never be smaller than 8x10

and I don't understand how you say that most of what he says is antiquated.... Light, how to see black and white, composition, technical quality, learn your equipment, each frame should be thought of as a keeper. How is any of this antiquated and not apply to photography today???

[Flea77]

Originally Posted by danchez

I don't understand how you say that most of what he says is antiquated.... Light, how to see black and white, composition, technical quality, learn your equipment, each frame should be thought of as a keeper. How is any of this antiquated and not apply to photography today???

That's what I was wondering. I still use 99% of my film knowledge in digital and when I start to get complacent and in a rut, I still go back to film (MF and LF specifically). Heck, when I go out to shoot for myself, just for fun, I usually shoot film.

Allan

[LanceHaynie]

Originally Posted by venchka

Wayne's Appendix 1 to Murph's Manifesto:

1. Kids today don't spend any time with a book in one hand and a camera in the other actually learning anything. They run to the internet with a bushel of dumb questions and expect those who know to spoon feed them all the answers.
2. Nobody bothers to learn any history. Heck, 10 year old hardware never existed. The flip side of the coin: Trade gear before you know how to use it. Buy more stuff before you know how to use what you have. Partially guilty on the last count your honor.
3. Software is the answer. More software is better. Topaz Adjust and HDR are the answer. Bull.
4. Everything old is new again. Some guy sticks a hundred year old lens on a digital camera. Nothing new. That same guy puts the results on You Tube and it's like a totally new revelation. The kids don't know that people have been using 100 year old, and older, lenses for A HUNDRED YEARS and longer.
5. Photographers covered the Civil War with wet plate technology. The same technology and the same lenses are in use today. I wonder why?
6. Zoom lenses are not the only answer. Zoom lenses with maximum apertures of 2.8 to 5.6 are not fast lenses.
7. Sports photography existed before auto-focus and auto-exposure. At 6 frames per second or less and 36 frames per roll.
I'm rambling. Time to crawl back in my cave. Make some more photos with the BladBerry.

Agreed! Even though, I may be considered a "kid" to some lol. Sometimes I feel like I am the reverse. I spend more time reading about photography than actually going out and photographing. My family find's it odd that I spend so much on my photo gear yet never take a ton of photos. If I don't find it interesting, I don't photograph it.

I have a friend may fit into this category. She graduated with a photography degree and is now going on to get her masters. She is a "spray and pray" type. Most of her photographs are under/over exposed or in poor composition. However, it's "art" so it is correct.

[Murph]

Ken made a superb point last night, in that the reason we have to "sharpen" digital is that it is essentially "grainless" and therefore can appear mushy, so we add sharpness to make it look alive. One of the harder things I have done, was to set the camera to low rate (3 fps) shooting my daughters soccer games, because in my mind it was "just wrong", it was "spray and pray" When I shot yearbook back in the middle 1970's it was with a Konica T-3 and 135mm lens and one frame at a time. Now I got pretty good at fast frame advance with the lever, but no motor drive for the Konica's.

I guess the moral of the story here, is that it is difficult to step outside of your training when it has worked, and worked well for you. Everyone has a different path to the objective, this was mine. In many ways I still treat my DSLRs like view cameras. "Shoot less, shoot better". Also I tend to believe that "classically trained" photographers tend to be a little better at the craft and art of photography, not necessarily true, but its how I feel on the matter.

[venchka]

We need capture & output sharpening with most brands of digital cameras because of the dang blamed AA (a.k.a. Blur) filters. A few cameras use weak or no AA filter and their image quality is way better straight from the camera. Kodak's 14C/N, Nikon D70 and Leica digital cameras (DNR/M8/M9) are the models that I am familiar with. If I ever find an affordable Kodak 14C I will JUMP on it.

[jeffkohn]

A few cameras use weak or no AA filter and their image quality is way better straight from the camera.

Umm, define better. I personally don't think artifacts like moire, edge aliasing, and especially color aliasing make for a better picture. And it's not just fabrics that cause problems; that may be were 'rainbow' moire is most likely to show up, but color aliasing will show up even in natural subjects such as landscapes with fine details. I'd rather use a camera with a well-designed AA filter and the appropriate amount of capture sharpening, personally.

[venchka]

I will let the Leica cameras speak for themselves. Doug Herr, for one, has repeatedly tested his DMR against the Nikon D700 with Leica lenses. The DMR wins.
This was posted just yesterday at the RFF by Dante Stella:

-------------------

Kodak DCS Pro14n. Lighter and sharper than a D700 (and I know this because I own both – and yes, omitting the AA filter makes a big difference), with unparalleled bright-light and studio performance.
...
This is not a camera for fast action, low light, or short attention spans, but if you like the look of Leica M8 and M9 files, and you already own quality Nikkor lenses, this is a cheap way to get it.