February 4, 2013 at 7:55 pm #6263SarahMember
caboodle: film was often edited and developed in the darkroom by someone that worked for the photographer or the photographer himself.February 4, 2013 at 8:07 pm #6264fstopper89Member
Yeah that does confuse me as well about the guy who doesn’t know about using external flashes. I for one have only minimal experience using studio flash and lighting (from when I worked for a photographer who had a studio) but since I do not have a studio of my own yet, I do not use that equipment. I use hot-shoe mounted flashes when necessary but most of my work is natural light.
Technically, the black-and-white that you can take in the camera is sort of “processing” because it just does an automatic version of monotone. It’s typically very flat. I’ve tried it before on my DSLR but much prefer to shoot in RAW (in color) and then process as black and white later, while adjusting the contrast etc.
In many ways, at least in a business sense, it’s a requirement to do some editing. For one, you should always be shooting in RAW. Even if you do only minimal editing, you then export it as a jpg. Everything will look better when the image is shot right in camera, which will minimize editing. When an image is bad from the start, you can tell it’s been over-edited. The way technology is today, a photographer who doesn’t do any editing is going to have less appeal than one who does their editing well. That’s the artistic side to it. You just have to keep up with the current technology in order to draw clients and keep clients. Film was “edited” in the darkroom with dodging, burning, filters, and sometimes using different chemicals. That’s the technology that was available then, but we are not limited to that now. Obviously, those who knew their equipment and the other technology that went along with it, both then and now, were and are more successful.February 4, 2013 at 11:37 pm #6266IntuitionMember
Well, anything you do in editing can generally be done with the right knowledge and equipment. But on the other end, film photographers still did a ton of post processing ( editing) while in the lab. Truthfully, not many of them could get it “perfect” either, but they did get it MUCH closer to perfect then we do in digital.February 4, 2013 at 11:46 pm #6267cameraclickerMember
Sarah, there are lots of different lighting systems, they break down into three general categories, continuous, small strobes and studio strobes. Within each category there are dozens of makes/models. I think most photographers will have a basic idea about capabilities but not many specifics unless they are using the equipment regularly. I have several models of Canon flash, and I can program them all to get what I want. Don’t ask me to do anything with a Nikon flash, the only Nikon camera I have is an old film SLR and I have a third party flash for it, I have never owned a Nikon flash. I understand some of the similarities and differences because I have sat through Nikon presentations, but would not attempt to use one without reading the manual. Neither Nikon nor Canon flashes are anything like my Bowens studio strobes. Power is different, size, weight, controls, the radio that fires them, sync speeds… all totally different. Yes, you can get a softbox for a Bowens strobe, and you can get one for a Canon or Nikon flash, they mount differently, have different construction, different baffles inside, and for small flash, Westcott seem to make an endless assortment of shapes, sizes and constructions. I have seen two or three different models that are just for hot shoe mounted flash. Are they worthwhile? Have not a clue, never bothered with them. I tried a Gary Fong Light Sphere, it is a pain, so I don’t use it.
If you are used to studio lighting with everything up high on stands and only inches from your model’s face, I can see questions arising about what to do with a speedlight.
If he is really a fashion photographer, I think he must know something about softboxes since most of them use them, but the softbox that goes on a 500 W strobe is not the same one that you put a flash with a guide number of 60 into. I wouldn’t take either to a wedding unless I was setting up a photo booth.February 5, 2013 at 7:53 am #6269Mrs WooMember
@caboodle – since in camera raw all data is recorded even if you have it ‘set’ to monochrome, I didn’t argue that point, because it could be argued those are settings being applied to the captured data, rather than actually recording in monochrome as you are saying.
I am also a minimal/never edit person. I also agree that getting it right in camera is best. Who wants to waste a ton of time editing?
I learned photography on a Pentax K1000 and was taught darkroom work by a retired wedding photographer. I admit that I am saddened that (a) split screen focusing is after market and not available on all cameras – it is so frustrating to not be sure my focus is spot on, especially when doing macro work and (b) that I find myself taking additional images to be sure I got what I wanted. I realize that digital capture has made me lazy (seriously lazy) – when you don’t have 24 exposures before you swap rolls and don’t have to consider what a waste it is to have an exposure be off you seem to get lazy. More mindful photography is something I’m hoping for this year.
Strangely, I can’t be a ‘fauxtog’ since I don’t charge for my work. You’re welcome to label me one if you would like to, though. I got big shoulders.February 5, 2013 at 8:09 am #6270cameraclickerMember
Caboodle, I had to go hunting for your B&W phrase, the quote was: “No digital camera (that I know of) shoots black and white by default..
Ok, so apparently after further review — the Leica M shoots B&W .. I highly doubt however, he is affording one of those.”
Apparently we all see text differently. I took that to mean that while the Leica M Monochrome only shoots B & W, all the other digital cameras by default (that is, right out of the box, before configuration changes) shoot colour. I did not interpret it as “you can not get B&W out of a digital camera”.
I own a very old digital camera that does only colour. The only button on the camera is the shutter release.
Regarding ”no editing is worse than over editing.” : No editing may not be worse than over editing but it may not be any better either. Digital is not film. I used to shoot slide film, and I shot several different brands because each had its own look. By shooting slides, I could keep the lab from changing brightness, contrast, colour, etc. They just developed the film, cut it up and mounted it. No guessing about colour or how bright to make the print. Film has its own limitations, we worked around them. Digital has strengths and weaknesses too. There is a filter over most sensors that removes or reduces moire patterns. Some Leicas and Nikon’s D800e do not have the filter. If you don’t edit, you don’t remove the effect of that filter, so there is no “getting it right” in your digital camera and being done with it.February 7, 2013 at 11:21 am #6313dstone81Member
Ok this is just aweful. Gotta love their ad.February 8, 2013 at 12:40 am #6332fstopper89Member
@dstone – Dear god, were those old photos from 1982 that were digitally retouched? Not to mention the poses are totally unflattering… I’ve seen some great yet very tasteful boudoir. Those scream washed-out skank.February 8, 2013 at 5:24 pm #6333dstone81Member
That is what I was thinking. Love how they said that they would make you look your best…I am thinking if that is the best they could do…Yikes!February 11, 2013 at 5:32 pm #6391SarahMember
Admittedly advertising with images that are not their own ooops. At least they are honest.February 11, 2013 at 5:33 pm #6393PhotographyNerdMember
Their backdrop is a BLUE TARP. They couldn’t use a real rose?? They’re TERRIBLE. But yet, they have over a 1,000 “likes” on facebook…
I guess there are just a lot of trashy, uneducated individuals out there that are willing to pay for $200 for poorly taken portraits.
Someone needs to tell these people to society a favor, put down the camera and find a REAL JOB.February 11, 2013 at 5:35 pm #6395ResMemberFebruary 11, 2013 at 5:38 pm #6398DanielleXylenaMember
$150 for 5 images edited with Picasa, anyone?February 11, 2013 at 5:40 pm #6399lucilleMemberFebruary 11, 2013 at 5:47 pm #6400PhotographyNerdMember
These all BLOW MY MIND!!!! It should be ILLEGAL to CHARGE people for these terrible services. I just DONT GET IT!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.