HOME | DD

DrugArt In reply to DrugArt [2010-02-26 22:57:44 +0000 UTC]

sorry for the double post

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

hougaard In reply to AndyMumford [2010-02-24 13:00:42 +0000 UTC]

Thanks Andy I posted on your fb wall, but I guess your not so frequent there.

I am sooooo amped. I bought a minolta 645afd with a film back, 55mm (34mm in 35mm format) af lens and cable release for it. I got 2 rolls of 120 bw film with it and I'm going to buy two rolls of velvia 50. So the film learning curve starts Oh and I payed a measly 300euros for it all

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

AndyMumford In reply to hougaard [2010-02-24 22:34:02 +0000 UTC]

Here's the link to his blog [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hougaard In reply to AndyMumford [2010-02-25 00:15:44 +0000 UTC]

Interesting, though I do have to tell you that sadly, a print is worth more if it was shot on film. Especially in today's world where it is a dying era. I want to switch to a more artistic film-ish style that might stand a better chance at selling as highly priced prints. I may not want to shoot cliche landscapes, but that's where the money lies.

You shoot all of your photos in single exposures. I shoot most in multiple and I can tell you that when I have to blend, merge and auto-align it is a pain in the ass. It gives you a lack of (printing) confidence about the nature, origin and production of your image. You fear for some mistake in the blending/merging, you feel that you're image is manipulated and creation of the digital age, unrespected by the masters of light. I promise you that similarly David will miss the days when panorama images were a single unstitched image, flawless and perfect from the camera.

It's been bugging me for over a year now, but 35mm IQ just didn't seem worth it. I got an oppurtunity to buy a high end mf system for a the price of a crappy 35mm lens. If I never try I'll never know

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AndyMumford In reply to hougaard [2010-02-26 12:30:27 +0000 UTC]

That's an interesting thing to say actually, and I'd never really thought of it like that. I admire your dedication and hope it goes well for you. I don't really worry about print sales and stuff because obviously it's not something I aim to do professionally, but from your point of view, I can see where you're coming from.
The great thing about digital is that it's made good photography open to so many people, I know I'd never have got into this in the film era, and I'm sure it's the same for you. Digital opened this up to us all, but that's also the negative, because I guess before you had a limited amount of photographers shooting great images, but now every 16 year old with a Canon xxxD or Nikon Dxxxx and a 10mm lens is out shooting decent landscape shots. I never bother submitting my work to magazines or anything (I did once when I got a request, but since then I've said turned down 2 requests) because they refuse to pay. I don't know about SA, but there was a time in Portugal when you'd get decent money for a cover on a magazine, now they don't pay a cent....they tell you that they're doing you a favour by publishing you. Of course they can do this because every month they get hundreds of very competent images from people who are happy just to see their work on a magazine cover. I can see the point of that, it does get your work out, and if you're trying to get on as a professional photographer, I guess you don't have a choice except to bite the bullet and swallow it. Now, they are even not paying for articles, so basically they're content costs them nothing, and the contributers aren't earning enough to make a living
.
I wonder then, in an environment like this, how it's possible to make a living (and by living, I mean $30-40 000 a year which is the minimum in Portugal if you want to pay bills, buy equipment and be able to make trips) out of landscape photography. I suspect that this is why almost every professional now fills his schedule with teaching workshops, as it's one of the few genuinely lucrative avenues left open.
So I guess in this environment film DOES make sense, because it gives you an edge, a way of separating your work from the mass out there. I guess it gives it a feeling of professionalism and quality that a digital file lacks. I've heard a similar thing about studio work and megapixels. For magazine work, you just don't need more than 12mp, and 99% of people who have a dSLR will never need more than 8mp, but nowadays in a studio, a creative director or artistic director won't even look at a file that's less than 30mp. It's not because they NEED that resolution for magazines, more that they know that the top guys will be using Hassy's or Leafs, so why consider less? It's this that keeps pushing the MP race I guess.
Like I said, I can see the same thing being true with landscape, fine art and film so I can see your point.

There is this stigma about digital, which probably won't go away. Almost everyone locally who has seen my work, their first and second questions are "Is this digital?" and "Is it photoshopped?" and when you explain, you can see in their eyes that they don't believe you. It used to make me angry. I've organized trips to other countries, planned it in every detail, dragged myself out of bed at ridiculously early hours, driven through the night, hiked up slopes before sunrise, and then done it again the next day to try to get the best conditions....seen magic happen before my eyes, and then have people dismiss that effort by saying "Oh, it's digital, so anyone can do this" as if they could just vaguely wave my camera in the direction of the sunset, click a button and hey presto, magical images. Or if not, put an average image into PS, press another magic button, and the photograph becomes fantastic.
I don't get bothered by it anymore...you can't change people.

Anyway, as I said, good luck with it. My situation is funny this year cos last year I did some friend's weddings and quite enjoyed it. Anyway, a friend of mine is a violinist who has a company that organizes string quartets for weddings, and I helped her out an exhibition earlier this year. She left some of my cards lying around, cards that had nothing to do with weddings, they have an Amazon photo on them and link to my website. At the same exhibition there were lots of very slick wedding photographers, you know that kind that do all those "your wedding is really just a fashion shoot" types. I didn't think I'd get a single call, and I ended up getting 4 bookings, which comes to almost $6000...more than enough to pay for my trip to Scotland, as well as the 80-200 f2.8 I'm about to buy just for weddings.
I've said at all the client meetings "I won't do poses, I just shoot documentary style" and surprisingly, there's a market for that. We'll see, because when I move to the country to start the environmental tourism project, this is a good way of bringing extra money in.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hougaard In reply to AndyMumford [2010-02-26 13:15:40 +0000 UTC]

The wedding thing sounds awesome, especially the fact that you can pay for your equipment

We're on the same page about the difference between film and digital. It's the same as people criticizing Marc Adamus for having some magic tricks he refuses to share. In the end, both him, the two of us, the guy with the 6x7 and the guy with the 6x17 all need to have the technical knowledge of light, a talent for composition, years of experience and we all have to get up early, do the long drives etc. The input is the same ( film perhaps a bit more ), only the results vary. Not necessarily in a good or a bad way. Sadly, as you explained, the people value film more. So I'm giving it a go to see how difficult it really is.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AndyMumford In reply to hougaard [2010-02-24 22:32:55 +0000 UTC]

Good luck with it mate. I played around with 35mm film, but didn't have the patience with it.
What's the interest in film? Will MF film really give you more detail than your 5D2? I was just reading David Noton saying he's finally sold his Fuji GX617 (the only MF camera I've ever been seriously tempted by) because he was getting better IQ from stitched images from his 1Ds3, and the cost of MF film, development and scanning made it really expensive.

Good luck with it though mate, hope it works out for you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hougaard In reply to AndyMumford [2010-02-24 23:59:27 +0000 UTC]

it's not about quality. It's about proving something to myself. The only major gap in confidence in my photography is that I feel there's something missing because I can't shoot film. I also got a mamiya 35mm f/3.5 from the guy for about 14% of the new price. I can sell everything tomorrow at a 500% profit, but I want to prove to myself that I can capture film images as good as my digital images. I also hope that it will teach me to focus more on getting everything right in one exposure.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0