| 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
Today's workflow: Does it make a better product?
Jean Finley, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Iowa City | IA | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> Thanks to all who took the time to reply to my last question. It's obvious that workflow is drastically different now. Here's the follow-up:
Excluding the fact that you're a more experienced shooter than you were 'back in the day', does your current workflow produce better images? Phrased another way: is the work we see now better/worse/equal to the work we saw 25 years ago? Why?
note: feel free to interpret the word 'better' according to your own standards for photojournalism, and also feel free to talk about both your own work and the collective output of your profession.
Thanks. |
|
Karl Stolleis, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | | Posted: 2:19 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> Workflow does not create better images. Higher ISO capability, autofocus, and more stable, high speed motor drives, have all contributed to higher quality images.
Modern workflow has allowed a photographer to spend more time shooting the game, increasing the odds of making a good, story-telling image. It has also increased the ability of a photographer to send more of these quality images back to the office.
When I used to shoot color neg for Auburn basketball on deadline I had five minutes on the game clock and that was all I saw of the game. Odds are, some really cool images were missed while I was souping film. But... spending time on the court does not increase the quality of images, only the odds of being there when something happens. |
|
Thomas B. Shea, Photographer
|
Pearland/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 2:24 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> I will tell you this back then you would go shoot a spot news assignments not really know what you had until you souped the film. You would be driving back to the shop and the editor would call you. Did you get it? Is it sharp how big can it run? Now days look at the back of your camera and you have a pretty good idea if you have the shot.
I think the digital age lets you take more chances. You see what you shot so you can make your mind work, you see the light and what is happening with your exposure. I shoot a lot with slow shutter speeds so I have motion in my pictures, now with the digital age I can see if I am setting the shutter to fast or too slow.
When I first starting shooting for the University only 8 years ago we were shooting film ( chrome). The nice thing about that was once the film was shot and processed we stored it in sleeves and were done. Now days we have to color correct, touch up any dust spots, color correct and tone write captions. Their is way more time on the back end. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 3:57 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> The workflow today has eliminated the guy who used to do the separations. I think also as mentioned before the equipment captures more information than we ever did with film.
However, the one thing missed the most was the down time after a photo shoot where you went in the darkroom and no one bothered you. Now they can hang over your shoulder while you edit. |
|
Chris Pietsch, Photographer
|
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 6:57 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> As others have mentioned, most of my early color work was shot on E6. Under ideal conditions the reproduction could be stunning even on newsprint. I found the limitations frustrating, however. It was often necessary to resort to artificial lighting and you were always living on the edge of both shutter speed and aperture. Sometimes the vividness of the color seemed inappropriate to the subject matter. (Think postcard quality color of a car wreck or a spot news event.)
Sometime in the late 80s I remember beginning to shoot more negative film. For awhile we had to make color prints, but then desktop scanners came along. I found that very liberating at the time. Back to the good ol' days of Tri-X and available light. While the reproduction suffered a bit, I felt that the quality of my "photojournalism" improved dramatically.
It is funny to look through some of those old negatives now. Particularly the Extapress 1600 stuff. Oh boy was that stuff grainy. There was nothing that REALLY looked sharp! And forget about cropping into the negative much.
There is really no comparison in the quality of todays low light digital images as compared to similar images shot back in the day. It reminds me of the change from Tri-X to T-Max. You kind of had to redo your portfolio. Images that you had worked your ass off to make 6 months before, suddenly looked quaint.
But I have to say that while the quality of image capture has increased dramatically over the last few years, the work that goes into creating the content is still much the same. The job of photojournalism is still about access, insight, reflexes, and making use of the light. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 7:12 PM on 04.01.09 |
->> As someone who wasn't working in the "good old days" but mostly in the digital era, I have a few thoughts on the issue.
Like a few have mentioned, I agree a good photo is still good regardless. I still shoot some film and enjoy it, but creating a great photo doesn't have as much to do with my workflow as my mindset and what strikes me mentally while creating that image.
Modern workflow and equipment has just made it easier for us to make sure we got what we need on scene. Granted I make mistakes, but I usually browse or "chimp" my images prior to leaving to ensure that I'm happy with what I have.
A good quality photo, especially a good news photo, is going to be strong and compelling regardless of the era. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 9:58 PM on 04.02.09 |
->> Nic:
Today's D3 will get you photos you couldn't even dream of with available light and in color, so I think technology lets you do a lot more today and maybe have opportunities for photos that I know E6 wouldn't ever pull off. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 7:22 AM on 04.03.09 |
->> There are three things I think that impact today we didn't have before. The screen on the back of the camera, the histogram and PhotoShop.
I think today, the ability to get optimum exposures due to these major leaps in technology over film has impacted my workflow like nothing else.
The screen and the histogram being on the camera has helped us make changes in exposure to give us optimal results within seconds. Many things like fireworks, lasers and other things where the exposures can be varied, can now be fine tuned and more often captured.
PhotoShop made so many of the negatives I use to spend hours trying to print in the darkroom much more precise and exact that I could never achieve before.
Now that we have more bells and whistles to give us incredible control, it has also created more issues. If you are not knowledgeable about each of the dials, knobs, custom settings and so on now available it can take you a long time to find what is going wrong when you are taking a photo. Fat fingers can have you reset your camera to do things you didn't know it could do and you didn't want to do.
I like just not having to carry all those color correcting filters and loosing a stop or more every time I had to use them. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|