| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
News photographers with +25 years experience.
Jean Finley, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Iowa City | IA | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 03.29.09 |
->> I'm working on a project and trying to get a handle on changes in photojournalist workflow.
If you're an old-timer or just a long-timer, answer this question for me if you have time:
You're covering what you consider a major sporting event in your area. First tell me what it was like in 1984 in terms of process, equipment, deliverables, scheduling, etc. Then give me what that same event is like now, in 2009.
New school vs. old school (for lack of a better comparison).
Then tell me which scenario produces the better work product and why.
Thanks in advance to those who have time to participate. If you only have 10 or 15 years (or even 5) to compare, but the chance is significant, jump into this discussion as well.
:) |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 6:14 PM on 03.29.09 |
->> Jean,
In the "old" days you had to plan according to game and deadline times. An afternoon game and you had the luxury of shooting the whole game. A late game and you may have to leave before the end of the game or even halftime.
If you didn't have a darkroom at the arena you had to drive back to the office and then soup the film, either by hand or in a Wing Lynch. Either way you were looking at 15-20 minutes before you were looking at dry film.
Then a print or two to be handed off to the layout editors.
If you were lucky enough to have a darkroom at the arena you dunked there using a 2-step process (developer+bleach/fix or blix with a wash and quick stabilizer dunk) as opposed to the 3-step (developer+fixer+wash+bleach+wash+stabilizer process in the office). You then had to make a print (the Leafax portable scanner didn't come into use until about '89) and transmit to the office. 10 minutes for a B&W on the drum scanner and if you had to do color it was 30 minutes, 10 for each separation.
Now, in '84 many papers were still shooting slide film for quality so that meant more steps.
Today you can shoot, edit and transmit an image in less time than it took to just transmit one B&W image back then. Heck, you can transmit directly from the camera and if you have a fast Internet connection back to the office you can have a picture in the editor's hands about 45 seconds after it was shot and the page designer can have it a few minutes after that as it still needs cropping and toning.
In the "old" days you were limited to 36-exposure rolls and if you had an 8-reel tank you never wanted to have more than that to process or you had to do two batches or simply not process the film you felt had the weaker images. Today you can hammer through the equivalent of 10 rolls of film per period in a game and it only slows you a minute or two in the copying process on the computer.
So back then you relied a lot more on timing and pacing yourself. You didn't hammer away on a "routine" play way down the field. Today you can, literally, make movies of a play and pick the best frame. Back then you may shoot 5-8 frames on one play, now you have the ability to shoot more than a roll of film on a play and there is nothing to stop you.
You also had to make a conscious decision when you got to 28 or 30 frames: "do I change rolls now or stick it out one more play?" Change and you have another roll to process, don't change and maybe the play of the game happens in front of you and you run out.
Which is better? Hmmmm. For convenience today is better. You can check exposure, light balance etc immediately. You can take a good frame and immediately go to it to edit on the computer.
But also there tends to be more on the photographer. In the "old" days when you were driving back to the office all you needed were a couple bodies, couple lenses, a few rolls of film and you were good. Now you need to add in a computer, maybe a cell modem, card readers, ethernet cables etc. You end up carrying a lot more and doing all the editing yourself. Back then many papers had the staff that an editor would actually edit your take and make the selects. Heck some papers had darkroom techs who processed the film for you. And pity the poor photographer who dumped 12 rolls on an editor on a tight deadline. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 7:48 PM on 03.29.09 |
->> Part of the old-school answer depends upon the organization and how big the event was.
For example, and working with a wire service covering a college football game in Tallahassee, Florida in the mid- to late-80's, we would have a team of shooters and a few runners working the game. Runners would collect film from the shooters at predetermined times in the game, and then one-by-one over the course of the game, certain shooters would also collect film and run it back to the office. By the time the game was over, a number of images had already been transmitted (using a drum transmitter). Initially, we shot these games in black and white; after the darkroom was "modernized" (a wing-lynch was installed), we shot color neg. and the picture editor would decide whether to transmit in color or black and white (which we still printed by hand) after seeing the negs. If memory serves, the picture editor was happy if a total of 10 images were transmitted, and those were generally done within an hour or so after the game. Even when shooting events where there was a makeshift darkroom set up in the stadium, the process was more or less the same.
Even working for a paper directly, shooting an event meant a minimum of an hour of darkroom and captioning time, and that was after getting back to the office. You also had to concern yourself with the various editorial deadlines. Sometimes that meant leaving early so that you could drive back to the office in time to process/print and caption.
There's really no comparison to today. Gone are the days of needing a runner to drive the film to the office for processing and printing, much less the "joy" of souping and printing film. Deadlines, while still somewhat of a concern, are minimized by the ability to transmit up to the minute.
In terms of the basic equipment, no significant changes. One must still make sure that there are batteries, that the cameras are functioning properly, the lenses clean and ready to go, etc. Now, in addition to making sure that the equipment and rain gear are packed, I also pack a computer, power supply, wireless card, extra hard drive, network cable (for those times when you can actually plug into a high-speed internet connection), etc.
Now, instead of leaving the stadium as quickly as possible after the game, I head to the press box to download cards, edit, caption and transmit 20-30 images. Sometime after the game, usually by the next morning, I'll edit and caption an average of another 50-70 images.
As for which produces better results, I'd say that's something of a toss-up. One of the disadvantages of the old system was that a photo editor who wasn't watching the game might miss some key action (for a sporting event) or a key image to tell the story (for politics, news, etc.) while editing. Now, instead of spending the time souping and printing, we become our own photo editors, selecting the images to transmit. Maybe I'm just a control freak, but I'm happier deciding which images should be transmitted. Does this mean that what is produced today is better than what was produced 20 years ago? Not necessarily.
Personally, I'm happier being able to shutdown a computer after a game than I was after spending an hour in the darkroom. I also find it easier to keep track of images than it was back in the 80's. |
|
Francis Specker, Photographer
|
Riverside | CA | USA | Posted: 7:50 PM on 03.29.09 |
->> The old days were more labor intensive and digital has eliminated many jobs.
Typical baseball coverage of a game by a metro NYC newspaper in the 80's-90's:
1.Photographer shooting b/w film.
2.Photographer had caption envelope where he/she wrote captions for each play they shot. One roll per envelope with developing instructions.
3.Photographer after 2-3 innings gave rolls of film to a messenger who was waiting who drove film to office.
4.Darkroom staff received film and developed it.
5.Photo editor went back to photo room and made selects, adding caption info in a form with edited film.
6.Darkroom staff developed prints and taped caption info and sent them to photo editor.
7.Edited photos are sent to page editor for layout.
8.Photos are cropped with wax pen and instructions of size and usage instruction are written and sent to pre-press staff.
9.Prepress department shoots photos on huge camera and makes half-tones for lay-out.
10.Lay-out people paste up pages and page are sent for plates for printing.
Today:
No messengers. No pre-press. No darkroom staff. No team of assistant editors editing raw film. No lay-out and paste up staff.
Copy editors do lay-out. Photographers do pre-press, editing and (virtual) darkroom.
And even without all those people, newspapers still lose money. |
|
Francis Specker, Photographer
|
Riverside | CA | USA | Posted: 7:52 PM on 03.29.09 |
->> I forgot to add:
11. Library would archive negatives and photos.
That job has been eliminated too with digital archives. |
|
Juliann Tallino, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Port Townsend/Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 10:35 PM on 03.29.09 |
->> this sounds like fun, can I play? :) I was at a weekly before 1984 but in 1985 I was a stringer for a daily, the Daytona Beach News Journal, as the lowliest on the photo totem pole I was sent to the games out in the middle of nowhere. So I would race out to the 7 pm football game in my 65 VW squareback, shoot about 10 minutes, spend the next 10 minutes hunting down the kid with the roster, race back to the paper and soup my tri-x, find a good frame, go into the darkroom and start printing. Now the sports editor is banging on the darkroom door yelling for me to hurry (I am hurrying! go away! I still have 20 minutes!) Once the print is done, it's on to the typewriter (kids just google that one) hunt and peck out a cutline and caption on a strip of paper, tape it to the bottom of the print and drop it on the sports editors desk at 8:59pm. File the negs.
Digital days, go to the 7 pm game shoot half the game, at halftime go to the car, download the cards with IPTC info onto the laptop, pick a good frame or two, finish the captions and cutlines, send to paper. Shoot rest of game. |
|
Juliann Tallino, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Port Townsend/Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 11:06 PM on 03.29.09 |
| ->> didn't read it fully, you wanted major league sports, we didn't have any in Daytona unless you count Nascar. :) |
|
Jean Finley, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Iowa City | IA | USA | Posted: 11:09 PM on 03.29.09 |
->> Thanks all.
Juliann - Not necessarily a "major league sport", but rather what was "major" for you in your market. Everyone's contributions are welcomed. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 8:07 AM on 03.30.09 |
->> You picked an interesting period in time for sports and news photography. USA Today came on the scene in 1982 and by 1984 every large paper felt the pressure to deliver daily color coverage. Color was slowly working into weekend editions for more than just the food and garden sections, which were usually preprints. But ROP (run on press) Color was becoming the norm in 1984.
At the Houston Chronicle we had the issue of trying to ascertain in advance if an image was to be used as color or B&W. If it was B&W, we would concentrate on that and if there was time, then bang a few frames on a second body loaded with color. If we shot color it was chromes as we didn't go to color neg for several more years. If an editor requested color, you shot chromes and had to choose the correct film for the assignment, daylight or tungsten, slow (for quality) or fast (for indoors). Not unlike getting the white balance correct now for a digital file. Chromes were processed in house, we didn't process them at the stadium, which meant transportation was still an important concern.
If you shot color and a B&W image was needed for a jump page or because your story was bumped from page one (there was NO inside color), you then made an interneg from the chrome and made a crappy looking B&W print. It was for this reason that in that period prior to the switch to color neg that we had to shoot both B&W and chromes. With the switch to color neg a few years later, we could pull a PanaLure print, that is, a B&W print from a color neg. PanaLure looked only slightly better than a print from a B&W interneg made from an original chrome, neither had the quality of a typical B&W print made from an original B&W neg.
The introduction of the Leafax transmitter for scanning (digitizing) images on the road was a pivotal moment for covering news and sports on the road. You still had to process film, but you could get by with shooting only color neg and select either color or B&W for your file output to transmit. Gone then was also the need to make a print so the portable darkroom got much smaller with the elimination of the enlarger and print process. But that was closer to 1990, about 20 years ago. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 8:35 AM on 03.30.09 |
| ->> When did autofocus become standard on cameras? |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 9:15 AM on 03.30.09 |
->> David--
The EOS system came out with the 650 (I think) followed closely be the 630, 620 and 630RT, starting about 20 or 21 years ago. Nikon had something called the F3-AF which was a short lived, poorly received attempt at AF.
At the time I was shooting Nikon F3's and switched to Canon in 1990 for about two years. I tried using AF then and for me it wasn't working, and I couldn't manually focus on the EOS screens, even those in the EOS-1. After a couple of years I gave up and returned to Nikon manual focus. The Nikon N90S was the first AF body I really trusted and the F5 became the gold standard, but that wasn't until the mid 1990's.
I turned 43 in 1996 and that was when autofocus became a standard for me. I still used Leica rangefinders (manual focus only) until I switched to digital.
--Steve Ueckert |
|
Scott Strazzante, Photographer
|
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 9:36 AM on 03.30.09 |
->> I started shooting at a newspaper in 1986. I had to bulk load my own black-n-white rolls of film and do all the wet darkroom work.
I started out at a bureau so for a typical Friday night, I would shoot the 1st quarter of one high school game, rush over to shoot a quarter of another high school game, rush back to the paper, process my film, print 4 or 5 hastily made images, write the captions in ball point pen directly on the back of the prints and then hand them off to a dispatch guy who would drive them 45 minutes to the main office. Some nights if I was running late, I would have to drive them myself.
The next step was shooting both color slide film and black-n-white film at once. The trick was to make sure you shot your best image with the color camera. But, of course, it never worked out that way.
After that, we moved to color neg and started making our own color prints. It was much tougher making a color print on deadline but we made do.
Finally, with the advent of computers, we left the darkroom and started scanning our negs into a computer. It was much easier but now we had to transmit from on site with a slow dial up connection usually in the athletic director's office. A 125kb frame would take 8 to 10 minutes to send.
After that things got faster and easier.
The next big step was the newspaper website and the around the clock deadlines. Gone were the days were you would shoot 5 assignments and then go back to the paper to edit and scan. Today, I have to send my images directly after an assignment or cradle point them back as I shoot an assignment. Photos can't get back to the paper quick enough and sometimes there is pressure to send something before anything has even happened.
I wouldn't want to go back to 1986 but I am glad that my career has spanned from developing and printing black-n-white film to the send from camera model that soon will be the norm. |
|
Doug Thompson, Photographer
 |
Floyd | VA | | Posted: 9:37 AM on 03.30.09 |
->> The early 80s: Tri-X, manual focus and serious time constrictions.
I worked for an afternoon daily then so nighttime deadline pressures were moot. For high school sports you could shoot the entire game and then head for the barn to process the film. No Macbook Pros, no Photoshop, no wi-fi. Stained fingers from solutions.
For St. Louis Cardinal baseball and football games we could shoot an afternoon game or evening game and then have time to get back and process the film, make contact sheets and go over selections with the sports editor the next morning.
Of course, we didn't have the web or the need to provide pix for a 24/7 operation.
Slower motor drives and manual focus meant fewer frames shot. I lost count of shots missed while changing film.
We set our exposures with a Luna Pro and focused with our eyes, not a computer chip.
It was a different time. Not necessarily better, just different. Today's technology gives us better tools for the job. From my perspective as a 61-year-old shooter it provides a better scenario.
I do miss afternoon dailies and the less-restrictive deadlines that went with them. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:16 AM on 03.30.09 |
->> David,
On the autofocus front, the first EOS cameras introduced in the late 80s were consumer models.
Pro AF really didn't take off until the EOS1 film body came out and started being accepted by the pros. I would estimate that it was the early 90s before you really started seeing AF in regular usage. |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 10:23 AM on 03.30.09 |
->> Steve U...
You are correct.. The EOS 650 was the first "successful" autofocus SLR produced by Canon. It was available in early 1987.
I was shooting the Canon FD system at the time, using the F-1 and T90.
I viewed the EOS system as more of a novelty.
The EOS-1 didn't hit the shelves till sometime in 1989.
My first EOS was a 10s that I bought in early 1991. It had an unbelievable three autofocus points!
The autofocus was not dependable enough to use for sports action, so I continued using the manual focus FD system.
I'm not sure at what point Canon stopped producing the FD-series equipment. A lot of old-time Canon shooters felt betrayed when Canon went with the EOS system. |
|
John OHara, Photographer
 |
Petaluma | Ca | United States | Posted: 11:05 AM on 03.30.09 |
->> At the San Francisco Chronicle, "In those days" I was called OVERHEAD O'HARA, The game would start at 7:05 or 7:35 PM. I would have to leave by 8PM to have photos on the desk by 9 PM. So, I would shoot from upstairs in the press box.
I have two or three cameras with long lenses on different places on the field. One was on the batter.
Then, I would have a hard wire remote button for each camera. Then I'd turn around and watch the TV. I could see the pitch from the right center field camera. If it was high and inside, I saw it coming and would get a brush back pitch and other game action. I did this for a long time. Also, being upstairs you were warm, had coffee, popcorn, and hot dogs in the press room.
I almost always made a photo that worked. When the director of photography position was changed, I was not allowed to do that anymore. I would get a little grief from time to time. But even while shooting from the field, I would go to third base rather than first, so I would not look like everyone else. I tried triple exposures of batters and pitchers. It was a good time.
By contrast towards the end of my career, we were connected to a lap top with wifi and stayed for the whole game every game.
Today, I shoot some MAXPREPS baseball. John O'Hara |
|
Robin Loznak, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Roseburg | OR | USA | Posted: 12:05 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> When I started at the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon in 1991 we planned weeks in advance for a single color photo. I would shoot slides and have them developed at the local camera shop. I and our team of editors, including the publisher, would select an image preferably with bright reds. We would decide on a size for the final product and ship the slide via Greyhound bus to a city in Idaho for the color separations. They would bus the separations back to Astoria and viola! a color photo in the newspaper.
I unequivocally prefer the modern way of doing things. |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 12:27 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> To address the original question(s) posed...
I've not had to shoot under many tight deadlines. The college sports that I did wouldn't run until the Monday issue of the school paper. I was able to stay for the whole football games and post-game stuff. I'd usually come away with a fairly good idea of what my better shots were going to be.
The biggest deadline "crush" I had was working for a weekly newspaper back in the mid 80s. The editor/sports editor/publisher decided it would be nice to include some photos from the Tuesday night high school sports events... Tuesday night is when we'd put the paper together.
I would go to an event--either a baseball game or a basketball game and spend about 30-45 minutes shooting photos.. I'd drive back to the office to develop and print a couple of photos. Tri-X was the film of choice.. I'd shoot it at ASA 400 with flash at basketball games.. I'd push it to 1600 for baseball games.
I did all the darkroom work.. After making a print or two, I'd make half-tones of the selected prints. I made the decision as to what photos to use. I also shot the pre-press page negatives after we were finished laying out the pages.
I remember one Tuesday night in the spring.. I'd just gotten back from shooting a baseball game. I would take about an hour from the time I walked in, to the time I'd have a couple of half-tones ready for paste-up. After getting everything done, we had a train/truck accident right outside our door. Our building was next to the railroad tracks.. It was around 10:30.. I ran out to shoot the accident. I got several good images. The editor and I looked over the photos trying to figure out which ones to use. The editor decided to re-do pages one and two to add the train accident photos and story. That was one busy night!
I think today's technology gives you more flexibility time-wise. It seems like you can do more things--at least try to--at the last minute. But crowding the deadline can lead to more headaches.
As some of the other posters have pointed out, a lot of the in-between steps between shooting a photo and getting it on the layout page have been eliminated.
It's now possible for me to shoot some photos at a venue then transmit the "best" images to the office. They can do the cropping/resizing and then produce a half-tone.. No need for me to be physically in the building doing all that like in the film days. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:38 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> 25 years ago all the fingertips on my right hand were brown. My left hand constantly smelled of vinegar. I never used tongs. I had a car cig lighter rigged in the darkroom so I could light a smoke without pausing what I was doing, and took up pipe smoking to keep ashes out of the chem trays.
Like everyone else today everything is instant. The only real planning is locating remotes, and dealing with officials etc. Getting an image on-line or to an editor takes all the skill of the average 10 year old.
Oh I don't smoke anymore either.
So to recap 25 years ago I was thinner, hipper, and knew how to work a deadline. 25 years later I'm fatter, smell better, and have more time on my hands. |
|
Scott Varley, Photographer
|
Torrance | CA | USA | Posted: 12:53 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> Here's how I did it back in the late 80's for the 30k circ daily I was working for back then.
If I remember right, I had 9:45 b/w deadline for night sports. So, when shooting a San Diego Padres night baseball game which started at 7:05, I would shoot as much as I could until 8:20 then run to my car and make the 45 minute drive from San Diego back up to Oceanside which would put me back at the office at a little after 9:00. Quickly hand soup the film (3-6 rolls depending on the action), dry it, edit and notch the film, go over the selections with sports editor or designer, then print and submit by 9:45. Fun times.
Now, I shoot the whole game and transmit wirelessly from my seat in the stadium photo well as the action dictates.
Pluses now: later color deadlines, ability to shoot the whole game, AF, good zoom lenses, able to relax and drink a beer after the game in the press box, better results for the readers and no developer stains on your clothes.
Pluses back in the 80's: Manual focus (only good photographers got the shot), black and white printing, an old school deadline rush. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 1:51 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> Not exactly what you wanted Jean, but the one memory I remember from shooting NFL that sorta of applies. At the end of the game there would be hundreds, if not thousands of film canisters on the ground in the old days..
Today. NADA. ZIPPO.At least we're green....
Michael |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 2:07 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> ahhhhh, I love the smell of fixer in the morning.
Seriously, for some of the venues around my area, the standard was Tri-X processed in Accufine. I always favored Kodak's Rapid Fixer and used white distilled vinegar as a stop bath. For prints, I used Ilford papers with Rapid Fix and the same white distilled vinegar as a stop bath.
Afternoon papers in my area never really had the deadline issues A.M.'s did at that time, even if they were shooting a major sporting event. That changed when so many afternoons switched to the morning production.
When we started shooting E-6, I would process it, then drive to Indianapolis and wait for about an hour, perhaps two and wait for the slide to be drum scanned, then bring the separations back to the office.
Minolta introduced the first AF SLR around 1986 or 1987, I believe. It was slow and clunky. Then Canon released the 650 and 620 models which were major improvements over what Minolta was offering. Then Canon came out with the EOS-1 and the 630 models, all improvements.
In 1991, I started using the EOS-1 exclusively after being a Nikon shooter for years, my favorite being a black F2A body. |
|
Chris Pietsch, Photographer
|
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 4:14 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> Add to the list of past fun, processing film in a hotel room. That blix was nasty stuff. Every time I left for home, I fully expected a call from the local police asking who I had murdered in the bathroom during my visit.
Don't forget the joys of sending a photo using the old yellow drum AP transmitter. If you had a transmission error, it took like 28 or 30 minutes to send a color project again ;-0. One time on a spot news event, I finally threw in the towel after the 3rd try when the error mercifully showed up on the edge of the output.
Add to the list of skills that no longer matter; rewinding film with the leader out, printing wet negatives, double rolling film on reels, dodging and burning with your hands, and making prints without a timer.
I remember an AP bureau photog who was handling the coordination of film processing for a group of members on deadline one night announcing that "anybody who rolled their leaders in," would wait till all other film was done before theirs would be handled. One of my cameras at the time was the ol' Canon T-90 that automatically rewound the film when it hit the end of the roll. As some will remember it didn't have a rewind knob either.
As for coverage in those days, let me repeat what others have mentioned, it was rare to shoot an entire evening sporting event. Because it took so long to process, edit and print, at least you could do the edit with knowledge of the outcome of the game, (if it was on the radio) but of course you were trying to pick the right image from first half frames. If it was a REALLY big deal, you had runners, or more than one photographer, who left early with all the film. The guy left behind knew he/she was shooting to fill a hole.
As an intern in Spokane in the early 80s, I would usually have to leave the Spokane Indians baseball game after the second inning to make deadline. You always shot a feature before the game and the pitcher throwing the first few balls in the likely event that NOTHING happened during the few minutes you got to actually shoot action.
I don't think there is any question that coverage today is more thorough. As others have mentioned, deadline and logistics stresses have been replaced with other concerns, so I don't think the job has necessarily gotten easier. I can't say I really miss the good ol' days though. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 4:31 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> Chris,
A rolled-in leader was an easy fix. Take another roll of film, lick the emulsion side of the leader (I'm sure that has taken a few weeks off the end of my life) work it into the rolled-back canister until it stopped. Then quickly pop it out and the other leader would be removed.
Of course, leaving the leader out would run you into the problem of when you got confused and ended up with two rolls in your hand -- one had been shot and the other was fresh and you had no idea which was which. the only solution was to waste a roll and process both.
Many was the time in covering college basketball games for the wire that the game would start at 7:35 and I would leave at 7:50 heading for the office. There would still be 12-14 minutes left in the first half when I left the arena. People would ask me who won the game and I would reply: "I don't know, the score was 10-7 when I left." |
|
Clay Carson, Photographer
|
Little Rock | Ar | USA | Posted: 5:02 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> This thread is bringing back a lot of memories. One big change today is cell phones. I hated those beepers and always looking for a pay phone.
Did anyone here use the AP Companders with the Leafax? It would cut the time for a color project to about 2 minutes but was wicked voodoo science to set up
Clay |
|
Chris Pietsch, Photographer
|
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 5:05 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> George,
I wish somebody had taught me that trick back in the day, I might be a little less gray now. That AP guy had me so stressed out, I probably wouldn't have had any saliva anyway.
As for the leader issue, after that early episode, I always bent the leader back on itself and crimped the end with my teeth as a tell. My wife is convinced I'm the way I am because of all the chemical exposure over the years.
I was in Las Vegas for a bowl game in the 90s and using a one hour lab in a nearby grocery store to do my film. When I walk in with my 20+ rolls of film and dumped them on the table, this sweet old guy standing in line offered me a tip, "Hey, if you roll those leaders into the cassette you'll know you shot them already."
The store had a promotion, one 20exp roll for every roll processed, so I gave the guy the pile of film as a thank you for the helpful advice. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 9:56 PM on 03.30.09 |
| ->> Auto stop backs for the F2 & F3 were as essential as the nicad batteries, you had to have them. The F5 could be programmed to leave the leader out. |
|
Francis Specker, Photographer
|
Riverside | CA | USA | Posted: 11:08 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> The leader in or out for me was a moot point. The secret was to learn how to open up a Kodak film cannister roll with your hands. Just stick your finger in the felt slot and pry them open.
The guy who wouldn't develop film that was wound back into the cassette probably didn't know that trick.
One thing I did was to mark the leaders by folding them and if they were pushed I'd fold them twice. So after a day of shooting I could figure out which rolls were pushed and which were normal.
If you bulk rolled your film, then popping open the cannister was easy. And even if you accidentally opened one end of the cannister, only a few frames were fogged.
The biggest problem was to see if the actually film was advancing. I don't know a photographer who thought they were shooting only to find out there was either no film in the camera or the film didn't advance at all. |
|
G.M. Andrews, Photographer
|
Mobile | AL | USA | Posted: 2:48 AM on 03.31.09 |
->> Chris -
Your fears about a blix stain in the bathroom brought back a memory from the film days.
I was checking out of a hotel room in Louisiana that another staffer had spent several days in before I relieved him on assignment.
When checking out, the desk clerk mentioned that there were some strange stains in the bathtub that the cleaning crew had noticed, and that they were having trouble removing.
I handed over a business card from the newspaper and told the clerk that we had been processing film in the bathtub, and if there were any more problems cleaning the tub, to call the paper.
We never heard from the hotel.
Does anyone remember sitting and waiting for the UPI drum scanner to finish?
Longest nine minutes ever... |
|
G.M. Andrews, Photographer
|
Mobile | AL | USA | Posted: 2:52 AM on 03.31.09 |
->> Ooops, forgot to add:
When I checked out of the hotel, the desk clerk looked at me strangely and asked, "what were you guys doing in the bathtub?" |
|
Jean Finley, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Iowa City | IA | USA | Posted: 1:04 PM on 04.01.09 |
| ->> Thank you all VERY MUCH! Very revealing information. |
|
Thomas B. Shea, Photographer
|
Pearland/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 2:16 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> Great stuff and stories brings back some great memories.,
When I worked for Reading Eagles at a summer internship we shot E-6. After the chromes dry we printed a black and white negative to give the layout designer an ideal to work with for the layout.
I remember leaving for night games or night assignments the sports editor would say I need a 4 x 6 vertical or a 2x 8 horizontal. It sucked we had to shoot for the hole. If you had a great horizontal shot and the hole was vertical your pick was not going to be used. They laid out the text first then dropped the picture in. Now days hopefully all designers drop the picture then do the layout around the picture.
I also remember we shot all with prime lenses not very many sharp zoom lenses, so you carried a lot of glass and yes it was manually focused. And remember the 500 mm fix f/8? You had to have a lot of light to use that glass but I loved the mirror look of the depth of field that lens gave.
To you students out their do you take large format camera classes? Are you shooting with 4 x5 film or do they supply you with 4 x5 digital backs? I hated loading 4 x5 film setting up the camera , shooting with a heavy black tarp in 100 degree weather so you could focus the 4 x5 glass with a loop, then hand dipping the 4 x5 sheet to develop the film in total darkness then realizing your film is blank because you didn't load the film holder properly. |
|
Ingelbert Lievaart II, Photographer
|
Hamilton | ON | Canada | Posted: 2:51 AM on 04.03.09 |
->> As a freelancer in those days I had to stay 1 step ahead of the competition. The processing was usually done in gas station bathrooms after temporarily posting an out of order sign so people wouldn't knock.
The printing was done with an enlarger I converted to 12 volts and had it set up in the back hatch of my VW Rabbit. With the hatch open and a large black cloth draped over me I could get the enlarger head high enough for some decent enlargements and cropping. Usually I'd get done by the time the Newspaper's security guard would be poking around wondering what this weird guy's legs were doing under a big black cloth behind a VW. If I timed it right I'd give him an 8x10, still wet and tell him to give it to the photo editor. After this happened a few times the security guard would hand me a container of water as I pulled in the parking lot because I'd give him a few of my test prints.
One editor came out of the building and handed me a large screen so I could have photos camera ready in a few common sizes so I had a better chance of making deadline.
The blacked out rear seat area also made a safe place to nap until the scanners would wake me up with the FDP's plectrum and it was off to the next fire! |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|