Film vs. Digital?

[Jerry Avenaim]

Happy New Year one and all!

I just wrote and article on the subject film vs. digital and included large format vs small.

I think you will all appreciate it, and I would really love your feedback on this article - Photography and the Art of Discipline (http://blog.avenaim.com/2010/01/04/photography-and-the-art-of-discipline/)!


http://www.avenaim.com/Profoto_Poster_LG.jpg
Halle Berry Copyright ©Jerry Avenaim Photography, Inc. 2009

Jerry Avenaim
Web Site (http://www.avenaim.com)
Blog Site (http://blog.avenaim.com)

[srbphoto]

Before I read the article, is Halle Berry really that "hot" in person?:)

[srbphoto]

Nice article. I definitely agree about cameras as tools. At just about every exhibit someone asks what I think of digital. They expect me to bash it but I always tell people it is just another tool just like film or enlargers. What ever helps you produce your vision.
"Spray and pray". I like that! When I was a lab assistant in school (mid 90's) I always tried to make that point to the beginning classes. Slow down and make every frame count. Don't just burn film (or sensors) hoping for a good shot. A "photographer" tries to make each frame have a purpose.
Was stuff left out of your article? Of course, but overall a good, simple read (emphasis on simple because it is a good thing!).

[Thom Bennett]

Jerry,

Nicely put. As photographers we sometimes get so caught up in gear that we do forget that photography is an art (or Art if you prefer) and that having a vision or something to say is the most important aspect of our discipline. I always compare it to writing; my grandmother used a typewriter but so did Faulkner.

Personally, I think all photo students should learn to operate a view camera before learning anything else. Everything you need to know about composition, lighting, perspective, discipline, process, angle of view, lenses as well as the history of the medium is right there in the view camera. The problem is not many in our fast-paced culture want anything to do with patience and discipline! We all want it now and we want it cheap.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Thom

[willwilson]

Jerry, thanks for posting a link to your blog and welcome to the forum. I've got you on my list of blogs to catch up on...long list. Enjoyed your article.

"spray and pray" should be added to the Cliches of the decade post. Although sometimes I wish I could do a little more spraying and a little less praying with my 8x10, and damn it would be nice to have an lcd review screen on that thing.

[D. Bryant]

Happy New Year one and all!

I just wrote and article on the subject film vs. digital and included large format vs small.



I think you have written a very nice article, but I don't think any new ground has been uncovered in the digital vs. film subject. Frankly, I wish we could see an end to the comparisons.

I use both in different ways and I am saddened at times with the loss of traditional materials of film and paper, but then again demand drives supply and that's the reality of the changes we've seen in the world of photography.

Don Bryant

[jim kitchen]

Dear Jerry,

Although I might respect your efforts to introduce yourself in this manner, within a large format forum, using a tired frictional issue among film users, you will not gather any true support from me, since I am overwhelmed by this continuous digital diatribe, regarding digital versus film crap. I do not mean to be rude or even subtle, but you should reread the title of this forum, and you should have taken the time to review the forum's archives, where we have been there, done that, and peed there.

I do liken your trolling exercise to another individual that seems to think that they can propagate increased traffic through your website with a subject title such as yours, by drawing upon the talented souls within this group.

Good luck, and by the way, your image looks like it was done with a digital camera… :)

jim k


http://largeformatgroupimages.jimkitchen.ca/images/BeatDeadHorse.gif

[Bruce Watson]

It's undoubtedly hard for you to believe, but you aren't the first person to start a film vs. digital thread here. Or digital vs. film. Or anything in between. Learn to use the search feature and you might figure out just how redundant this thread really is.

Still, welcome to the site. We look forward to your contributions.

[Gem Singer]

I have a feeling that Jerry posted this ad on every photography website out there.

His attempt to do some PR when business has slowed down to a standstill.

If a guy doesn't blow his own horn, who else is going to do it for him?

[Chris Strobel]

Dear Jerry,

your image looks like it was done with a digital camera… :)

jim k


http://largeformatgroupimages.jimkitchen.ca/images/BeatDeadHorse.gif

Probably Canon G10 judging by the DR :D

[Gordon Moat]

I don't see in your article where you really compare film and digital, nor where you compare large format to small. If these really are just tools, as you claim, then you have invalidated any comparison simply by making that statement.

I do agree with you that cameras are simply tools, and that using them to their capabilities should be the goal. Your article is a nice read, and brings up some good working points in photographic approach. Perhaps a different title is in order, unless you simply picked "film vs. digital" to draw readers to your article.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[willwilson]

Jim, I can't get enough of that dead horse animation. Great every time.

It's starting to feel like mentioning that filmvdigital is like beating a dead horse is like beating a dead horse. We need a graphic of a horse beating the guy beating the horse.

[Jerry Avenaim]

I appreciate all the responses, kind and unkind.

To Jim et al, It was my intention to illuminate the act of discipline through the use of large format, as I demonstrated by the images I put up in the article.

It seems to me that the actual message, the theme, of my blog post, was misunderstood, or missed completely. And that you also never seemed to consider that this was perhaps the beginning of a string of posts about discipline in photography and not in your words, more “digital versus film crap.” And not to point fingers, but after such a response, one might also wonder if some are so insecure with their own skill sets that posturing was the only response they could muster? I've been shooting large format since the 1970's and still do. And I think my record speaks for itself.

Since you stated that I used the topic or title to 'drive traffic' as you stated with such eloquence, then why is it I'm here? I still shoot large format... I still appreciate it as an art form, promote it, show it, and for those who choose not to shoot it, or can’t, the article had another purpose, suggesting that photographers be deliberate, to take pause, to trigger your shutter with consideration. I’m confident I’m not the only one who thinks that such a discussion is worth a few column inches.

I still shoot large format in my fashion, celebrity and personal work as seen in the video links below.

Dr. Phil Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V38swtwUW8 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V38swtwUW8> )

Lock Up / Doing Time in America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhRuaxUwmfw <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhRuaxUwmfw> ) (Medium format digital was used as a backup for NBC).

I am very grateful to have worked with, and learned from, many of the great masters that I have, and I took that elite training and harnessed it in my own way.

I appreciate everyone else for commenting truthfully, and with honest intent.

Thanks for the kind welcome! :p

Jerry Avenaim

[Tyler Boley]

like a few other threads here of late, this has turned from an announcement into an ongoing interchange/discussion probably better suited to another forum...
If it's going to continue can it be moved?
Tyler... cranky...

[jim kitchen]

Dear Jerry,

I repeat I do not know why you are here, and I agree with Tyler, so I can quickly put this post on ignore... :)


jim k



http://largeformatgroupimages.jimkitchen.ca/images/BeatDeadHorse.gif

[srbphoto]

Sorry for the drift.

For the best version (IMHO) of the "beating a dead horse" video. This is the same as above to music. Hit the link and crank it up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk

[Gem Singer]

Jerry,

All of us are large format enthusiasts. You are preaching to the choir.

Show us something new and unique. Enlighten us, but don't talk down to this group.

Contemplative photography, not merely burning film but making every shot count, is the hall mark of the large format photographer.

We have been discussing film vs. digital for years. We're well aware of the pros and cons of those two media.

Anyhow, welcome to the LF forum. Hope you can add some valuable enlightenment here in the future.

[VictoriaPerelet]

Very good thoughts. Title, I'll agree with others is a bit misleading. It is rather digital vs film workflow. Also thanks for not including any technical comparisons etc - this will spur rather religious debate, specifically on this site.


Your article is very good reference point for crowds of digital camera shooters that sums up current state. On other side there are people who only use film and religiously opposing digital in any form - those may benefit from a bit of digital flow also. "Discipline" is rather media in-depended approach.


Dear Jerry,

I do liken your trolling exercise to another individual that seems to think that they can propagate increased traffic through your website with a subject title such as yours, by drawing upon the talented souls within this group.



There's absolutely nothing wrong when people post link to their work. Much worse are internet anonymous and not googlable nicknames. No matter what advise they give, without seeing their work there's little value in their advise ...

[stephenhunter57]

Digital photography as created a whole new bunch of photographers, too many in my opinion who really wouldnt know where to start with a pinhole, fortunetly I was taught practice with 5x4 film cameras teaches you to make less and less mistakes so that when I go out to do a photograph more often than not I take one shot but spend a long long time setting up the shot, with digital its do tons of shots and choose the best one, I use 35mm digital for quick cheap photography PR/press stuff but 5x4 film for anything worthy of quality

[theBDT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhRuaxUwmfw

Thank you SO MUCH for that joke video! The over-wrought music, the contrived, Avedon-esque poses, it was PITCH PERFECT satire! I even enjoyed the "wink" at the end where you kind of break character and let us know it's all a big spoof on self-important prison documentaries...

[Marko]

Digital photography as created a whole new bunch of photographers, too many in my opinion who really wouldnt know where to start with a pinhole, fortunetly I was taught practice with 5x4 film cameras teaches you to make less and less mistakes so that when I go out to do a photograph more often than not I take one shot but spend a long long time setting up the shot, with digital its do tons of shots and choose the best one, I use 35mm digital for quick cheap photography PR/press stuff but 5x4 film for anything worthy of quality

Unfortunately, the practice you were taught apparently didn't include basic elements of grammar, otherwise you'd probably be making even fewer mistakes... ;)

[Tyler Boley]

where's my excedrin?

[kev curry]

Digital photography as created a whole new bunch of photographers, too many in my opinion who really wouldnt know where to start with a pinhole, fortunetly I was taught practice with 5x4 film cameras teaches you to make less and less mistakes so that when I go out to do a photograph more often than not I take one shot but spend a long long time setting up the shot, with digital its do tons of shots and choose the best one, I use 35mm digital for quick cheap photography PR/press stuff but 5x4 film for anything worthy of quality


Unfortunately, the practice you were taught apparently didn't include basic elements of grammar, otherwise you'd probably be making even fewer mistakes... ;)

Stephen, don't be surprised to have discovered another supercilious gentleman...there's always one lurking behind a keyboard somewhere;)

[Chris Strobel]

one might also wonder if some are so insecure with their own skill sets

Well I know I'm pretty insecure with my own skill sets which is why I poke around here hoping to glean tips to help be more secure and improve.Anyhoo I've never heard of you or even bother to look at those magazines on the grocery store racks, but its kinda cool to have a celebrity photographer pay a visit I guess.Now if only John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum, Ray McSaveny, and Kim Weston would join the party :D

P.S. Jerry, your cover shots look very nice on the site, but you might consider re-scanning those top two polaroids in the article as they are completely blown, at least on my calibrated Eizo.Also do you have any links to your own personal large format work?Its always interesting to see high profile commercial photographers personal work.Thanks!

C

[Gordon Moat]

Two counterpoint articles (essentially the same, but here are the links):

http://robertbenson.com/blog/2009/12/29/the-holdouts-shooters-who-still-use-film/

http://stocklandmartelblog.com/2010/01/06/pro-photographers-who-still-use-film/

Pro photographers still using film, and why they do that. Interesting viewpoints. Just for reference, Stockland Martel is one of the big reps in the industry.

[welly]

Would I be wrong to say that photographers who "spray and pray" with their digital systems are fine doing that? Obviously there is no craftsmanship with that method of photography, but I'm not sure it really matters in the end. Everyone gets what they want out of photography and some prefer the slow, assured method getting the shot they want first time, others are happy sifting through gigabytes of photographs they shot earlier on in the day to get that shot. Personally, I've given up digital because I'm interested in learning how to be a good photographer and get that one shot, and while I believe I could have achieved that with digital too, there's a "romantic" and historic aspect of using large format that appeals to me greatly. A good friend (and photographer) of mine thinks it's amusing that I've gone down this route and keeps making jokes about using flash powder and talks about my camera as if it's something from 1855. He's digital through and through and thinks nothing of spending a few hours in photoshop editing his photographs until they look nothing like what he shot. Horses for courses/each to their own, I suppose.

[Greg Miller]

I am surprised at the number of people who care about things like "spray and shoot" photographers. They are 99.9% hack photographers creating crap. There has always been hack photographers creating crap, and always will be hack photographers creating crap. If they get lucky every now and then and create something nice, then fine. And if they post them on some bulletin board and their friends say "great photo!" then fine too (if they get excited in their rare successes, most likely they will become more educated and mature and learn from those successes). It doesn't take away anything from any other photographer. It's relatively rare that they are ever confused with serious photographers creating compelling work. And from my perspective, the more people who notice photography the better for all of us.

[SamReeves]

I saw Halle's tits in Swordfish and I wasn't impressed.

As for the blog…meh, each to their own.

[Gem Singer]

Hey Sam,

I saw the rest of her body in the movie, "Monster's Ball". Looked great to me.

I certainly wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Happy New Year one and all!

I just wrote and article on the subject film vs. digital and included large format vs small.

I think you will all appreciate it, and I would really love your feedback on this article - Photography and the Art of Discipline (http://blog.avenaim.com/2010/01/04/photography-and-the-art-of-discipline/)!


Jerry Avenaim


Jerry, it comes across a bit "hey kids! get the f*** off my lawn"-ish.

Sure, this forum is populated with grumpy old men, but grumpy old men have been complaining for millennia that the new guys have no discipline. You don't know discipline until you have sculpted Nefertiti in hard black granite. This photo stuff is waaaaay too easy!

On the other hand, leading off with a paragraph lauding wonderfulness and your chutzpah is a brilliant way of giving a concrete example of the chutzpah! Perfect.

[drew.saunders]

I liked the suggestion to the undisciplined digital whippersnappers of the world to cover their LCD, stop chimping for just one day and shoot only a handful of images. Instead of telling them to try LF (after getting off of the lawn, of course), suggesting they attempt some of the discipline of LF with their existing equipment was a new one to me. I have to admit, I don't follow the pixels vs. chemicals arguments too much, so it may not be really all that new after all.

[Marko]

I am surprised at the number of people who care about things like "spray and shoot" photographers.

Well, it doesn't surprise me, this is a group of mostly mature and well educated people who obviously take great pride in being distinctly different than anybody else and who generally regard themselves as rugged individualists who carefully prepare and deliberate before taking each individual photo.

But I fail to understand why would such people concern themselves with the choices someone else makes to such extent that they go out of their way to heap scorn and even invent denigrating phrases for the behaviour they do not understand and apparently have no clue about?

[Stephen Willard]

I feel the overall message of the article hit the basic and most powerful difference between film and digital and that is "spray and shoot". When I am out in the field and run into a digital photographer and he boasts 500 frames in a day and boast two frames in a week, I think in my brain, "I win and he loses". I then proceed to steer the conversion to the power of his wonderous "avalanche of megapixels gear" and then end our brief encounter when I pop the real question, "So John Doe, how many big photographs have you sold?" I then watch my new acquaintance struggle for an answer as I depart.:) :p :o :rolleyes:

Please note, I want to make one thing clear here. I do not see LF photographers who start with film and scan to digital as digital photographers. They are bound by the law of expensive finite film, and thus, are forced to think long and hard before they pull the trigger. My skill as a photographer did not become accomplished until I switched to a LF camera and was forced to be deliberate and visionary in my approach to photography. At that point, I became an artist and photography became secondary. Note, I am not famous nor will I ever be, but I do sell a lot of big pieces which is the hard stuff to sell.

In general, what I have noticed with digital photography is that it offers a very short learning curve because of the instantaneous feed back you get from the LCD image displayed on the back of the camera. So digital photographers get good very quickly, but then plateau and stay there relying on a "spray and shoot" appraoch which is a dead end cartoon. They never really move to the next step where the realm of art lives, and they may get a good one once in a while, but it is by chance, and not by being visionary and artful. Of course, the later is far more productive then the former.

Please note, this is a generalization with many exceptions. There are some very good digital photographers as well who are definitely artists.

[Jim collum]

I feel the overall message of the article hit the basic and most powerful difference between film and digital and that is "spray and shoot". When I am out in the field and run into a digital photographer and he boasts 500 frames in a day and boast two frames in a week, I think in my brain, "I win and he loses". I then proceed to steer the conversion to the power of his wonderous "avalanche of megapixels gear" and then end our brief encounter when I pop the real question, "So John Doe, how many big photographs have you sold?" I then watch my new acquaintance struggle for an answer as I depart.:) :p :o :rolleyes:

Please note, I want to make one thing clear here. I do not see LF photographers who start with film and scan to digital as digital photographers. They are bound by the law of expensive finite film, and thus, are forced to think long and hard before they pull the trigger. My skill as a photographer did not become accomplished until I switched to a LF camera and was forced to be deliberate and visionary in my approach to photography. At that point, I became an artist and photography became secondary. Note, I am not famous nor will I ever be, but I do sell a lot of big pieces which is the hard stuff to sell.

In general, what I have noticed with digital photography is that it offers a very short learning curve because of the instantaneous feed back you get from the LCD image displayed on the back of the camera. So digital photographers get good very quickly, but then plateau and stay there relying on a "spray and shoot" appraoch which is a dead end cartoon. They never really move to the next step where the realm of art lives, and they may get a good one once in a while, but it is by chance, and not by being visionary and artful. Of course, the later is far more productive then the former.

Please note, this is a generalization with many exceptions. There are some very good digital photographers as well who are definitely artists.

but it's not the gear that is forcing the 'spray and shoot'.. it's the photographer. There's nothing stopping someone using a digital camera from being as contemplative as someone using an analog camera. (from someone who probably takes longer with his digital system shooting than with film)...

[Mike1234]

There is always resistence to change. Change can be good... might be bad. It's the perception of the new generation and openness of the old to accept change. Think about the last 100+ years... it's a mix of good and bad, isn't it?? So maybe it's not worse or better... just different. Keep up or die fighting evolution.

[Marko]

When I am out in the field and run into a digital photographer and he boasts 500 frames in a day and boast two frames in a week, I think in my brain, "I win and he loses". I then proceed to steer the conversion to the power of his wonderous "avalanche of megapixels gear" and then end our brief encounter when I pop the real question, "So John Doe, how many big photographs have you sold?" I then watch my new acquaintance struggle for an answer as I depart.:) :p :o :rolleyes:

You realize, of course, that kitsch outsales art worldwide by a margin that is not even funny? Or do you?

And besides, what does revenue have to do with art?

P.S.

Speaking of kitsch, what's with all the emoticons run amok there?

[Stephen Willard]

but it's not the gear that is forcing the 'spray and shoot'.. it's the photographer. There's nothing stopping someone using a digital camera from being as contemplative as someone using an analog camera. (from someone who probably takes longer with his digital system shooting than with film)...

Jim your are absolutely right, but I do think that the gear creates a ripe environment for the for "spray and shoot" behavior. Shooting 500 frames in a day with film just does not happen.

[rguinter]

Before I read the article, is Halle Berry really that "hot" in person?:)

Scott: To me Halle Berry is a big yawn. I'm trying to remember where she first appeared... my old brain failing I guess... was it a 007 film? Frankly since her first appearance I have wondered why anyone thought she was hot at all. But I come from the Farah Fawcett generation and I thought Farah was hot. My opinions only of course. Bob G.

[Stephen Willard]

There is no doubt many pros to digital that far out way film. I have a small point-n-shoot digital camera, and I love it. The only serious short coming to the medium as pointed out in the article is the "spray and shoot" behavior than can, and most likely, does emerge.

If you can discipline yourself to slow down and think about what you are doing, then the only limiting restraint becomes your imagination, and of course, the money to purchases the latest $8000 DSLR not to mention what they get for medium format digital cameras.

[bigdog]

Scott: To me Halle Berry is a big yawn. I'm trying to remember where she first appeared... my old brain failing I guess... was it a 007 film? Frankly since her first appearance I have wondered why anyone thought she was hot at all. But I come from the Farah Fawcett generation and I thought Farah was hot. My opinions only of course. Bob G.

I, too come from the Farrah generation. But sorry, IMHO, Halle is hot! :D

[rguinter]

I've read through the entire thread and Jerry certainly did start a firestorm here. I'm only a part-time photographer myself, participating in the art only as a hobby when I have spare time. Amd wishing I had far more spare time to devote to it. But I do recall reading a comment from some famous photographer somewhere in the distant past (who it was and where I read it escapes me). But when he was asked how he was able to make such beautiful photos and what f-stop camera setting he favored he replied, "f-8 and be there." To me I've found that it doesn't really matter that much whether one is shooting digitial, MF, LF, or even small format. The important part of the art-form for producing beautiful photos is in the being there... wherever there might be to complete one's mental picture of art. Sometimes I can get a great photo down the block but that is rare for my own sense of art. So the being there is the critical thing for me and the most difficult part of the process given that I work a day job and have many other responsibilities. bob G.

[stephenhunter57]

Unfortunately, the practice you were taught apparently didn't include basic elements of grammar, otherwise you'd probably be making even fewer mistakes... ;)


Oh my god what a plonker, who gives you understood it didnt you

[rguinter]

I, too come from the Farrah generation. But sorry, IMHO, Halle is hot! :D

OK she's yours. I won't fight over her on a thursday night.

[Jim collum]

Jim your are absolutely right, but I do think that the gear creates a ripe environment for the for "spray and shoot" behavior. Shooting 500 frames in a day with film just does not happen.

yea, it does create the environment... but i think the tendency for that behavior came way before the digital camera. There are a few who see the attraction of 'depth', which takes time and focus.. but for the most part, this generation has been raised with the MTV attention span. There may be a hundred-fold more people with their fingers on the buttons of cameras.. but the amount of real 'content' hasn't increased with that.

Those who want to be good.. will be good... as was said.. without the digital technology, which doesn't put a premium on each 'snap'.. those doing the 'happy-snapping' would find something else.

[srbphoto]

I also come from the Farrah generation, but I had Cheryl Tiegs' poster in my room! Halle IS purty!

Oh yeah...Digital blah blah blah, film blah blah blah, platypus. (I wanted to keep on thread)

[Eric Leppanen]

African wildlife photographer Nick Brandt (http://www.nickbrandt.com/) discussed in a couple APUG posts today why he continues to shoot film (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum54/70415-nick-brandt-does-not-clone-animals.html):

I will say that I plan to stay shooting film for the forseeable future, repeated airport x-ray exposure problems permitting.
1) I personally have found there to be a kind dull perfection to the digital 'capture' (ugh, awful word).
2) Even though not being able to see the film for weeks/months scares the hell out of me, I find it helps in the actual shooting - being in the moment. With digital, the very advantage is the exact danger - that you look at what you're shooting as you do it, and thus potentially change what you're doing for the worse, instead of being completely in the moment, spontaneous and instinctive.

...of course, a photographer using a digital camera could justifiably argue that being able to review what he's doing in the midst of shooting, he could change what he's doing for the better. And in many cases that is true. I just know that from my personal experience, when I've experimented shooting digital, my mid-shoot reviewing got in the way of being in the moment and getting a good photo. One time, I looked at what I was shooting digitally and thought blah, it's boring. But the very same subject shot almost at the same time on film turned out great, because the mysterious unpredictable interaction of light on negative created something much more interesting and surprising.

I thought this was an interesting perspective: rather than being a nice tool for confirming technical execution of a shot, that little 3 inch LCD DSLR display can foster erroneous judgments about the overall merits of one's work.

I suppose that could be an argument for getting an MF digital back, as their LCD's are frequently too hard to read to have such an impact...:)

[Marko]

African wildlife photographer Nick Brandt (http://www.nickbrandt.com/) discussed in a couple APUG posts today why he continues to shoot film

[...]

I thought this was an interesting perspective: rather than being a nice tool for confirming technical execution of a shot, that little 3 inch LCD DSLR display can foster erroneous judgments about the overall merits of one's work.

I suppose that could be an argument for getting an MF digital back, as their LCD's are frequently too hard to read to have such an impact...:)

I still fail to see how can a tool, an inanimate object, foster any kind of judgement. Aren't judgements, correct or erroneous, the result of human thought process?

The panel he chose to put forward that perspective is also telling in itself. What I find interesting is that only those photographers who (still) resist digital workflow for some reason or the other even if they are grudgingly using it here and there are likely to comment on (or complain about) it, mostly on dedicated forums or publications.

For example, I've never seen or heard the likes of Steve McCurry (http://www.stevemccurry.com/), Hans Strand (http://www.hansstrand.com/), Tim Flach (http://www.timflach.com/) or Elizabeth Carmel (http://www.elizabethcarmel.com/) bloviate about the technical aspects of their work, be it their cameras or their processing. Their sites even lack the usual art-babble in the form of "artist's statement", they all mostly talk about their subjects and/or various circumstances of their work.

The thing is, they don't need to, their results speak for themselves.

[Greg Miller]

African wildlife photographer Nick Brandt (http://www.nickbrandt.com/) discussed in a couple APUG posts today why he continues to shoot film (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum54/70415-nick-brandt-does-not-clone-animals.html):

I will say that I plan to stay shooting film for the forseeable future, repeated airport x-ray exposure problems permitting.
1) I personally have found there to be a kind dull perfection to the digital 'capture' (ugh, awful word).
2) Even though not being able to see the film for weeks/months scares the hell out of me, I find it helps in the actual shooting - being in the moment. With digital, the very advantage is the exact danger - that you look at what you're shooting as you do it, and thus potentially change what you're doing for the worse, instead of being completely in the moment, spontaneous and instinctive.

...of course, a photographer using a digital camera could justifiably argue that being able to review what he's doing in the midst of shooting, he could change what he's doing for the better. And in many cases that is true. I just know that from my personal experience, when I've experimented shooting digital, my mid-shoot reviewing got in the way of being in the moment and getting a good photo. One time, I looked at what I was shooting digitally and thought blah, it's boring. But the very same subject shot almost at the same time on film turned out great, because the mysterious unpredictable interaction of light on negative created something much more interesting and surprising.

I thought this was an interesting perspective: rather than being a nice tool for confirming technical execution of a shot, that little 3 inch LCD DSLR display can foster erroneous judgments about the overall merits of one's work.

I suppose that could be an argument for getting an MF digital back, as their LCD's are frequently too hard to read to have such an impact...:)


The LCD review is critical for people who are early on the learning curve. Most new photographers do not understand that film or digital sensors do not see the same way as the human eye. Being able to immediately see that the image on the LCD is more contrasty is an important lesson. Being able to immediately see that highlights are blow or shadows are blocked up is an important lesson. Being able to see this immediately can significantly shorten the learning curve.

Also, the translation from 3D to 2D is not as apparent when looking through a viewfinder as it is when looking at a ground glass. Looking at an LCD screen provides the 2D representation which also shortens the learning curve. All of this assumes that the photographer actually care about growing out of the snapshot photographer phase.

[Greg Miller]

There is no doubt many pros to digital that far out way film. I have a small point-n-shoot digital camera, and I love it. The only serious short coming to the medium as pointed out in the article is the "spray and shoot" behavior than can, and most likely, does emerge.

If you can discipline yourself to slow down and think about what you are doing, then the only limiting restraint becomes your imagination, and of course, the money to purchases the latest $8000 DSLR not to mention what they get for medium format digital cameras.


That assumes the the spray and shooters actually care about getting anything more than a snapshot, which I suspect in most cases is not their primary motivation. Or if it is, then they are not far enough down the learning curve to understand anyway. They are just very enthusiastic about what they are doing.

Regardless, it doesn't impact you or me or the work that we create in any way. Just choose to ignore it, along with all the other silly habits that photographers , regardless of format, have.

[Brian Ellis]

I feel the overall message of the article hit the basic and most powerful difference between film and digital and that is "spray and shoot". When I am out in the field and run into a digital photographer and he boasts 500 frames in a day and boast two frames in a week, I think in my brain, "I win and he loses". I then proceed to steer the conversion to the power of his wonderous "avalanche of megapixels gear" and then end our brief encounter when I pop the real question, "So John Doe, how many big photographs have you sold?" I then watch my new acquaintance struggle for an answer as I depart.:) :p :o :rolleyes:

Please note, I want to make one thing clear here. I do not see LF photographers who start with film and scan to digital as digital photographers. They are bound by the law of expensive finite film, and thus, are forced to think long and hard before they pull the trigger. My skill as a photographer did not become accomplished until I switched to a LF camera and was forced to be deliberate and visionary in my approach to photography. At that point, I became an artist and photography became secondary. Note, I am not famous nor will I ever be, but I do sell a lot of big pieces which is the hard stuff to sell.

In general, what I have noticed with digital photography is that it offers a very short learning curve because of the instantaneous feed back you get from the LCD image displayed on the back of the camera. So digital photographers get good very quickly, but then plateau and stay there relying on a "spray and shoot" appraoch which is a dead end cartoon. They never really move to the next step where the realm of art lives, and they may get a good one once in a while, but it is by chance, and not by being visionary and artful. Of course, the later is far more productive then the former.

Please note, this is a generalization with many exceptions. There are some very good digital photographers as well who are definitely artists.

FYI - "Spray and pray" was a popular form of film photography with 35mm cameras long before digital cameras came on the scene. And 500 exposures (14 rolls of 36 exposure film) in a day wasn't all that unusual for a commercial photographer on assignment, for a photo-journalist, for a travel photographer, wildlife photographers, amateurs on vacation in exotic locales, etc.

But I'm curious - who are these "digital photographers" you're talking about - the ones that get good very quickly, plateau, spray and pray, only make good photographs by chance, etc.? Are you talking about personal knowledge of 100 "digital photographers," 1,000, how many did you have to meet and interrogate before you could form your generalizations about "digital photographers?" Do you have any similar generalizations for a category called "film photographers?" Or is it only "digital photographers" who are so much alike that you can generalize about how they learn, how they progress, what quality of photographs they make, etc.?

Stephen, the fact is that "digital photographers" are as many and varied as "film photographers" in their approach to photography, their learning curve, their ability to make good photographs, etc. etc. Your generalizations are meaningless to the extent that they purport to describe a class of photographers called "digital photographers."

As an aside, I'm often surprised at the number of people who post here who like you seem to meet digital photographers in the field, strike up conversations with them, and hear them make some outrageous claims that the person posting here puts down with a clever retort while the poor digital photographer slinks away, suitably humiliated by the LF photographer's obvious superiority. In all my years of photography I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've run into another photographer in the field who I didn't know and with whom I've struck up a conversation of sufficient length to hear them boast about their equipment or how many photographs they made in a day.

[Donald Miller]

Aaah those were the days my friend buying Kodachrome by the brick and burning it up in a camera with a motor drive.

[rguinter]

As this thread progresses I sense that, what we fail to recognize here as a group, is that we (i.e., professional and hobbyist photographers) are in the utmost minority. The vast majority of camera users are simply looking for good snapshots of family, friends, and locations where they have visited.

These are the people that are driving the digital revolution and I doubt that they care very much about the subject of this thread. So what if they shoot 500 frames in a day? It doesn't cost them any more and they get more chances at getting good memories of the kids and their vacations. Bob G.

[David Hedley]

I feel the overall message of the article hit the basic and most powerful difference between film and digital and that is "spray and shoot". When I am out in the field and run into a digital photographer and he boasts 500 frames in a day and boast two frames in a week, I think in my brain, "I win and he loses". I then proceed to steer the conversion to the power of his wonderous "avalanche of megapixels gear" and then end our brief encounter when I pop the real question, "So John Doe, how many big photographs have you sold?" I then watch my new acquaintance struggle for an answer as I depart.:) :p :o :rolleyes:

Please note, I want to make one thing clear here. I do not see LF photographers who start with film and scan to digital as digital photographers. They are bound by the law of expensive finite film, and thus, are forced to think long and hard before they pull the trigger. My skill as a photographer did not become accomplished until I switched to a LF camera and was forced to be deliberate and visionary in my approach to photography. At that point, I became an artist and photography became secondary. Note, I am not famous nor will I ever be, but I do sell a lot of big pieces which is the hard stuff to sell.

In general, what I have noticed with digital photography is that it offers a very short learning curve because of the instantaneous feed back you get from the LCD image displayed on the back of the camera. So digital photographers get good very quickly, but then plateau and stay there relying on a "spray and shoot" appraoch which is a dead end cartoon. They never really move to the next step where the realm of art lives, and they may get a good one once in a while, but it is by chance, and not by being visionary and artful. Of course, the later is far more productive then the former.

Please note, this is a generalization with many exceptions. There are some very good digital photographers as well who are definitely artists.

There's a lot in that, Stephen, and parts that I agree with. However, the fact that you spend a lot of time to make an image is irrelevant to my perception of that image. (And having visited your website, I think some of your photographs are very good). I'm also not sure that the film / digital thing is particularly meaningful. Your 500 frames per day digital shooter would probably also have burned a lot of film, and this is a theme that seems to have run through photography for some time. One day, Edward Weston can only use a Graflex; ... the Mexican clouds are so swift and ephemeral, one can hardly allow the thought, "Is this worth doing?" or, "Is this placed well?" - for an instant of delay and what was, is not! The Graflex seems the only possible way of working., but only five days later, he realises ... the Graflex is a spontaneous camera but lacks the precision of a view box planted firmly on a sturdy tripod. (The Graflex or 8x10 question runs like a thread through his diaries).

I think the real distinction is between spontaneity and planning, and consequently chance and art. Weston more often than not found a view camera to be the optimum tool, but it's not inconceivable that, if the Graflex had been technically more capable, he might have chosen a hand-held camera. If he had, I don't think it would alter my appreciation of his photographs - would it yours? By contrast, I see many reasonably good photographs on flickr, but precious few masterpieces; I don't think that would change if everyone used view cameras. I personally find a 4x5 and a DSLR to be an effective combination of tools.

[Ed Kelsey]

Another newcomer gets his teeth kicked in. Thats why I won't be posting much, seems to be a very unfriendly crowd here.

[clay harmon]

Velvia alone provides the ultimate representation of purity, truth and photographic beauty. Digital, on the other hand, is the round-heeled handmaiden of all the hopelessly mendacious, obtuse and morally reprehensible hack photographers around the world.

Did I get the argument right? Just wondering.

[rguinter]

Another newcomer gets his teeth kicked in. Thats why I won't be posting much, seems to be a very unfriendly crowd here.

Ed: No not really unfriendly. Just a hot topic. Stick around. Bob G.

[drew.saunders]

Another newcomer gets his teeth kicked in. Thats why I won't be posting much, seems to be a very unfriendly crowd here.

It's sort of like you chose as your introduction to the forum the equivalent of finding a sports bar equidistant between New York and Boston, then chose to discuss Yankees vs. Red Sox.* Lively? Yes. Civil? Maybe not so much, but certainly not a boring discussion.

Honestly, poke about, read some threads, and I at least would like to know more about LF in the fashion world, so stick around.

Drew


*I grew up in central Connecticut, and don't care for baseball, so I'm overly familiar with my analogy.

[JRFrench]

Another newcomer gets his teeth kicked in. Thats why I won't be posting much, seems to be a very unfriendly crowd here.

This is the most civilized and friendly forum I have ever belonged to. This guy was hardly a newcomer to the scene, and didn't get off to an easy start on the forum by not offering any contribution other than to press his own agenda etc.

Anyway, welcome to The Internet, where people speak their minds (one of the things I love about it).

[Gordon Moat]

Another newcomer gets his teeth kicked in. Thats why I won't be posting much, seems to be a very unfriendly crowd here.

Welcome to the LF Forum. Hope you decide to stick around, or at least read a bit. I suggest trying some of the other discussions, which can often be more interesting and informative, and much less confrontational.

[Brian Ellis]

Another newcomer gets his teeth kicked in. Thats why I won't be posting much, seems to be a very unfriendly crowd here.

You might as well judge this forum on the basis of a "film vs digital" thread as judge another forum on the basis of "Republican vs Democrat." Rather than judging the forum on the basis of this one thread, you might take a look at all the others on the front page. For the most part you'll find helpful, courteous, messages.

[dperez]

I love the LF forum!

[Jerry Avenaim]

After having a look at the firestorm here, a friend asked if he could write a follow up on my blog. I've never had a guest blogger, but there's a first time for everything.

Written by acclaimed fashion photographer Jeff Berlin;

The Importance of Repeatable Photography (http://blog.avenaim.com/2010/01/12/repeatable-photography/)

Have at it folks...

Jerry Avenaim (http://www.avenaim.com)

[Michael Cienfuegos]

I love all this excitement. Starting a discussion of film v. digital is akin to tossing a gallon of gasoline on a small campfire. I have my very nice Nikon digital camera, it is not top of the line, only a D80, but it gets the job done for me. I would much rather be using my Leica or my Speed. Much more fun.

Ed, hope these guys haven't scared you away. Most of them are friendly, and the grumpy ones are friendly curmudgeons. (I'm just a curmudgeon) :p

[Greg Miller]

After having a look at the firestorm here, a friend asked if he could write a follow up on my blog. I've never had a guest blogger, but there's a first time for everything.

Written by acclaimed fashion photographer Jeff Berlin;

The Importance of Repeatable Photography (http://blog.avenaim.com/2010/01/12/repeatable-photography/)

Have at it folks...

Jerry Avenaim (http://www.avenaim.com)

I'm just curious about why you chose to focus so much attention on "spray and pray"? Do you really see respected pros doing this? It seems that this would be a self selecting process. If pros are not producing the quality of work that their clients expect and demand, then they won't get hired again. If it is just amateurs that you are talking about, what difference does it make? They have no relevance in your industry. I just don't get, of all the things to write about in your industry, why this?

Unless it is just a PR game like has been suggested. It seems like such a silly topic to me that I won't bother visiting your blog again. It really wasn't a good use of time.

[Jerry Avenaim]

I'm just curious about why you chose to focus so much attention on "spray and pray"? Do you really see respected pros doing this?

I didn't focus on the "spray and pray" Greg, you did. You chose to filter the words on the page. Just as in photography, you seem to be using selective focus.

The article is about the discipline of the craft, and the preface to every word written by Jeff Berlin or myself is that we began shooting large format in the beginning of our careers and continue to do so when we can even if it is only in our personal works.

In addition, I spent 5 years as a first assistant to Patrick Demarchelier, then Albert Watson. After leaving New York I had the opportunity to work with Herb Ritts. And when shooting 35mm, they all went "spray and pray" with intent. They new they had it on the first or second frame. But they kept going (burning film) for the clients edification.

Shooting large format with fashion and celebrity does require an enormous amount of discipline, most certainly when you have a subject for only 15 to 30 minutes. I'm not talking about a building, landscape or still life here. You either get or you don't. Sorry the entry didn't resonate with you :p

Talking about Large Format with Dr. Phil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V38swtwUW8)

Jerry Avenaim
Web Site (http://www.avenaim.com)
Photography Blog (http://blog.avenaim.com)

[Greg Miller]

I didn't focus on the "spray and pray" Greg, you did. You chose to filter the words on the page. Just as in photography, you seem to be using selective focus.

The article is about the discipline of the craft, and the preface to every word written by Jeff Berlin or myself is that we began shooting large format in the beginning of our careers and continue to do so when we can even if it is only in our personal works.

In addition, I spent 5 years as a first assistant to Patrick Demarchelier, then Albert Watson. After leaving New York I had the opportunity to work with Herb Ritts. And when shooting 35mm, they all went "spray and pray" with intent. They new they had it on the first or second frame. But they kept going (burning film) for the clients edification.

Shooting large format with fashion and celebrity does require an enormous amount of discipline, most certainly when you have a subject for only 15 to 30 minutes. I'm not talking about a building, landscape or still life here. You either get or you don't. Sorry the entry didn't resonate with you :p

Talking about Large Format with Dr. Phil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V38swtwUW8)

Jerry Avenaim
Web Site (http://www.avenaim.com)
Photography Blog (http://blog.avenaim.com)

Well, you did use the phrase 3 times and Jeff used it twice and implied it again with phrases like "hoping one shot out of 10 is the one you want as opposed to knowing the one shot you took is exactly what you wanted.”

From all the words that I read, that is what you are contrasting your disciplined style against. So it was a sincere question that I asked. I don't see spray and pray very often, and it usually is used by people who aren't really very serious about their photography (and I think most of those people would not generate better photos at their stage even by slowing down and being more deliberate - they have other things they need to learn to make that effective). So I found it to be a curious comparison. It is a phrase that I find people using a lot to bash digital, but I don't find much reality in that. At least that has not been my experience being around many other photographers.

But as someone with experience shooting LF, I do appreciate the the efforts it takes to apply a disciplined approach to the type of photography that you do, and I applaud you for that.

[Greg Miller]

To keep this on a more positive note, I would find it fascinating if you would go into more detail about your disciplined approach (so far you have told us in your blog that you shoot LF, but have not really explained how you go about becoming a more disciplined photographer). Please tell us about your thought process, how you control the shoot, how you manage the other people on the set, how you communicate with the models, and what you are thinking before and while you release the shutter. What makes your process more disciplined than other LF photographers who might consider themselves disciplined too (although I'm not of the opinion that a photographer must shoot LF to be disciplined or deliberate)? How do you deal with models who may not be so good at slowing down and taking direction.

[sanking]

To keep this on a more positive note, I would find it fascinating if you would go into more detail about your disciplined approach (so far you have told us in your blog that you shoot LF, but have not really explained how you go about becoming a more disciplined photographer).

Discipline to me means using the shooting method that best guarantees the results I am looking for. This implies an entirely different method of working with LF as compared to smaller film formats (35mm or medium format) or digital. With LF one spends a fairly long period of time setting up, composing and determining exposure, activities which by their very nature limit the number of negatives that can be made in most situations. With the smaller film formats and digital one has the opportunity to efficiently experiment with different compositions, exposures, etc. I personally tend me make a lot more negatives with medium format of a given scene than with LF, and even more when using digital, but I don't think of this as "spray and pray" but experience directed experimentation in an effort to derive subtle differences of the same scene.

Sandy King

[Alan Davenport]

I don't see any purpose to arguments about film versus digital, especially on this forum, for the simple reason that (AFAIK) there are still NO large format digital sensors. Large format refers to the size of the film, not the type of camera it's used in. I was taught that large format begins at 4x5; anything smaller is a medium (or small) format.

Now it's certainly possible that I've missed the news, and that there are some actual 4x5 digital cameras out there. If so, someone enlighten me. Otherwise, the correct response is to simply ignore digital photography, because it is excluded from LF by definition.

As for Jerry's original article, I saw the article's intended focus as discipline vs. the lack thereof, not really a film vs. digital thing. That did resonate with me, and the suggestions were a reasoned way to make new-age digital photographers think about, and perhaps better understand a slower, more reasoned approach. Nothing wrong with that.

[Wayne Crider]

Hmmm, must be too cold to go out and shoot? :)

Welcome Jerry. Just a friendly word to the wise; It's better to join a forum like this and make a few comments on equipment, beer, or developers etc, before you start with (what many deem as) preaching. It just makes it a little more palatable once we know your the same as the rest of us. Still, don't be put off as we all love a good hearty thrashing discussion in the cold days of winter at someones expense. Btw, I read the article and it was fine. More of the same tho I've read from others before you. I did tho enjoy reading the follow up article by your friend about the times and how you did business. I'd expand on that theme. Ya know, where you were, the hotshots you met in the business, how hot the Italian girls were, what equipment you used. That kind of stuff. Everyone loves a story. Oh, and thanks for the entertainment of the thread. COULD NOT STOP READING IT. Too funny.

[rguinter]

Gee I can't tell if I'm a "spray and pray" amateur photographer or not. Tonight I went to a riverside spot, where I have been before, about an hour before sunset. I knew from compass bearings I'd taken last year that the sun was going to be where I wanted it for a good sunset-behind-the-bridge shot. I took my time setting up and composing the shot. I examined the composition with 2 different lenses a half-hour or more before it was time and picked the focal length I liked the best. I fussed quite a bit over the focus because my aging eyes are not as good at this as I would like. I then set up 8 film holders with different films on a piece of driftwood next to me that I was to use in sequence as the sun went down. Then I waited until the sky was the right eV value to start the shooting.

But after that it sure seemed like "spray and pray" as I frantically took shots, made notes, and changed films as the sunset raged and disappeared.

Just some thoughts about how it all goes down rather frequently. Bob G.

[Mark Richardson]

Spray and pray is essential in water based surf photograghy, especially from a boat, at least a third of the shots will be taken in the trough of the wave and the surfer is suddenly obscured. The other third will find the subject out of the frame. Very difficult[if not impossible] to judge when the boat will pitch especially in decent swell with eyes on the subject. I am happy with one in three shots being useable at the end of a session and believe perhaps spray and pray has a place in some forms of serious photograghy...maybe?

[rguinter]

mark:

I'll bet the professional wildlife photographers have to play the same game. One of the reasons I prefer scenic landscapes. I have the patience to wait for the sun and weather to cooperate... but animals and people (for me) just never seem to be in the right place. Bob G.

[Jim collum]

i'd consider the Betterlight scanning back as digital large format.


I don't see any purpose to arguments about film versus digital, especially on this forum, for the simple reason that (AFAIK) there are still NO large format digital sensors. Large format refers to the size of the film, not the type of camera it's used in. I was taught that large format begins at 4x5; anything smaller is a medium (or small) format.

Now it's certainly possible that I've missed the news, and that there are some actual 4x5 digital cameras out there. If so, someone enlighten me. Otherwise, the correct response is to simply ignore digital photography, because it is excluded from LF by definition.

As for Jerry's original article, I saw the article's intended focus as discipline vs. the lack thereof, not really a film vs. digital thing. That did resonate with me, and the suggestions were a reasoned way to make new-age digital photographers think about, and perhaps better understand a slower, more reasoned approach. Nothing wrong with that.

[Brian Ellis]

Gee I can't tell if I'm a "spray and pray" amateur photographer or not. Tonight I went to a riverside spot, where I have been before, about an hour before sunset. I knew from compass bearings I'd taken last year that the sun was going to be where I wanted it for a good sunset-behind-the-bridge shot. I took my time setting up and composing the shot. I examined the composition with 2 different lenses a half-hour or more before it was time and picked the focal length I liked the best. I fussed quite a bit over the focus because my aging eyes are not as good at this as I would like. I then set up 8 film holders with different films on a piece of driftwood next to me that I was to use in sequence as the sun went down. Then I waited until the sky was the right eV value to start the shooting.

But after that it sure seemed like "spray and pray" as I frantically took shots, made notes, and changed films as the sunset raged and disappeared.

Just some thoughts about how it all goes down rather frequently. Bob G.

That sounds more like "fuss and cuss" (as you drop a film holder, forget which holder has which film, move the camera while inserting the holder, can't find the pencil to make a note, make 8 shots and then notice that your compass readings were wrong, etc.) than spray and pray. : - )

[rguinter]

That sounds more like "fuss and cuss" (as you drop a film holder, forget which holder has which film, move the camera while inserting the holder, can't find the pencil to make a note, make 8 shots and then notice that your compass readings were wrong, etc.) than spray and pray. : - )

Goodness Brian. Yes I'm prone to making some of those mistakes frequently. But not usually all at the same time. This time the tide was out so I was able to make all 16 shots without getting sloshed......... Bob

[Jerry Avenaim]

Final entry on the subject: Photography with Intent (http://blog.avenaim.com/2010/01/19/photography-with-intent/)

Greg, thank you for the "on a positive note" entry. I will start getting more into that area as I have before.

Alan, yes you did miss something I think, as there are LF digital scan backs out there. That notwithstanding, I appreciate your honesty, and yes the ultimate message was about taking pause. It was also about how we reached a place of taking pause, and shooting with intent by the use of LF throughout our careers.

The title of this thread could and should have been different, my bad. But for me it was all about the message. Ultimately a message well received...

I'll be more aware of my thread titles from now on :)

Many thanks.

[rguinter]

i'd consider the Betterlight scanning back as digital large format.

Ditto on the Betterlight scanning backs. You and me both.

But twenty large buys a lot of film and no batteries required. Bob G.

[Jerry Avenaim]

Jim Collum posted some amazing images in another thread.

Since it was part of this topic, have a look here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=57910&page=2).

Thank you for those images Jim!

[rguinter]

Wow. Awesome super-stunning images and I don't often use those words. But my guess is with subject matter like that, just about any format photo equipment would bring back beautiful memories. As some famous 1950s photographer once said, (who I can't remember who) when asked his technique for making such beautiful photos... "f8 and be there!" That is always the key... and the difficulty for me in "being there" at the right time and place. Bob G.

[CarstenW]

Well, this thread is old at this point, but I thought I would add to it anyway.

1) First of all, let me get one thing out of the way: Jerry, you make great photos.

2) On the topic of spray and pray, I thought that this was what happened when you stagger into the bathroom at home after a long night out drinking, under some pressure to unload a bit, and discover to your dismay that the lightbulb is dead. Thinking about how your wife will react the next morning, should you miss, you...

Anyway, Jerry, I find it surprising that while you appear to find spray and pray so distasteful in photography, you embrace it in communication. You have posted the same topic to thephotoforum.com (5), DPReview.com (20), fredmiranda.com (8), modelmayhem.com (85), here on largeformatphotography.com (10), facebook, twitter, and probably many other sites I am missing here.

The numbers in the brackets are the total number of posts you have made on each of those sites. The largest of these, 85, is probably barely enough to get you out of the newbie category, for those forums which have such categories. In other words, you are not part of any of these communities to any significant extent, yet entered them all and pushed your piece. In many followup posts you added further links to yourself, your site, your youtube appearances, and so on.

Personally, I don't find this impressive. It has the distinct feel of someone crassly marketing themselves without any care for the people they are talking at.

3) The article's contents are nothing new. Large format photography has always been about discipline, pace and thought. Smaller format photography has always been about convenience, portability, faster reaction times, and so on. Photographers who have embraced multiple formats have always been able to take the best aspects from each and become more well-rounded photographers.

Your criticisms about spray-n-pray shooting probably held true for people using film in the early days of photography, and I am sure that if the web archives reached back that far, we could google and find people using wet-plate techniques criticising the newcomers for their poor discipline, inferior technique, high shooting volume, and so on. Then someone wise would come along, proclaim that he used both, and that this helped him to bring the advantages of one to the other.

4) This thread has become side-tracked a bit, I feel, into bashing the spray-n-pray photographers, but while there is a downside to s-n-p, there is also an upside. I don't practice it myself, but there is a kind of high-speed fashion photography where this approach is exactly right. Not every kind, but at least one kind. The photographers engages the subject, gets him/her to smile and move just right, squeezes off 5 shots, and engages them again. The first shot might be a dud because the subject blinked, but by the 3rd shot the pose is perfect. Just because someone uses motorized cameras does not mean that they disconnect from their subject. It is not slow, methodical, lumbering, but fast-paced, action-packed, energetic, and it is just as valid a form of photography as using a hand-hold meter and a camera which takes 10-20 minutes to set up for one shot. S-n-p is not my kind of photography, but I understand that it gets results. In the hands of a good photographer.

In fact, I would not call it spray-n-pray, but action photography. It could be animals or people, or anything else which moves fast. If the action is furious, then squeezing off 5-10 shots can net you a better image. No one holds down the button and "films" the scene anyway, it is all about getting that one perfect moment which is impossible to perfectly anticipate in time.

---

Anyway, that was my opinion, and just that, only an opinion. Now I'll slip back to my observer's seat.

[rguinter]

I made a comment earlier in this thread about being a spray and pray photographer myself.

With 35mm, MF, and LF photography I sometimes tend to do this. One of my favorite times of day is sunset and I often plan out diligently when and where to be and what films I will use as the sunset progresses. Then when the time comes it is indeed spray and pray. When I was doing this with 35mm many years back, I used a motor winder and bracketed profusely, sometimes running through 2 or more rolls as the sunset or sunrise progressed. As I go back to these rolls today I am glad that I did because each frame is subtly different, even given that the tripod position never changed. And some of the frames in the sequence simply stand out as far more beautiful than the others.

Here is an example of one I did in MF last week. It was the last shot on a ho-hum roll that had me thinking the whole roll was a waste of time. That was of course until I got this last frame on the scanner. Then I saw that it was well worth the effort and when I return to do the scene again in LF I will make sure to use that specific exposure when the sky reaches the same eV value and make the LF improvement on my 6x8-cm frame.

So yes I am a spray and pray photographer and I am not ashamed.... Bob G.

[rguinter]

P.S. Here is another frame from my 35mm days that just crossed my scanner. Frame 3 out of roll 2 with half a roll more that followed as the sun rose above the world trade towers. And today I realize it is a scene that no-one will ever be able to duplicate because the towers are gone. And I have over 50-frames documenting the incredible sunrise on that day.

Not a bad showing for the spray and pray technique. Enjoy. Bob G.