The Path Forward

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
7:20 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
I’ve mentioned before that the two photographers that helped me out when I started photography, David Vestal and Gene Smith, while stylistic opposites, were both master printers. It was the printing - light dark, harsh, soft, emphasizing this, downplaying this - that was an important element in expressing the photographer’s feelings about the subject and what was important in the image. Not doing that you should probably give the camera the credit line or at least share it with the camera. Photo by Bill Pierce and Leica #338914.

While the controls were limited in the wet darkroom, both photographers put further limitations on the process by sticking to one set of chemistry, one paper, e.t.c.. In other words, they knew their toolbox inside out. Just as there were a a lot of darkroom supplies, developers, printing papers, e.t.c. then, in the digital world there are a lot of image processing programs.

And, I have to say, I enjoy playing with all the new programs that come out. But I wonder if David and Gene weren’t right. Stick to one, learn it really well and use it to make sure that the final image, print or screen, reflects the subject as you see it. It will be difficult choosing between a number of digital darkroom buddies.

As always - your thoughts and perhaps thoughtful suggestions on the path forward.
 
I'm with David and Gene on this. I don't have enough time (or enthusiasm) for chasing the 'latest and greatest'. Its been bad enough when, for example, Apple dumps Aperture and I had to switch to Lightroom.

For me, subject matter rules all. I don't want to use up my time fiddling with process when I could be out in the world looking at the subject. So I stay with Lightroom, ignoring all others... at least until Adobe dumps Lightroom. :-(
 
This is why since years I'm with LR . But anyway I'm not a master digital printer !

But for me introducing lesss variables makes it easier to master the tool. The same about inkjets papers. Only a few and it works.
 
I'm in agreement on this approach for digital - I don't quite limit myself to one program, but far and away stick with Lightroom 6. I tried digging deep into On1, but wasn't getting the level of fine quality/noise reduction/detail I wanted, and while I'm sure I could have stuck with it until I got better at getting the look that I wanted, I decided I'm not prepared to do that unless or until I decide to move away from LR6. I want to stick with what I know, and get what I know I can get out of it.

I do use a couple other programs as plugins. I was pretty good at using Perfect Effects (now On1 Effects) and relied on that for quite a while, until I decided (subconsciously at first) that it wasn't providing the level of subtlety to the edits that I wanted. Now I am beginning to try and incorporate Nik into the Lightroom workflow.

Lots of beginners go hot and heavy into programs that have drastic effects and heavy-handed edits, and I recognized some of that in myself some years ago, now I try for gentler edits. Hopefully that's growth. I like the comparison to sticking with an analogue process, like one film, one paper, etc.
 
The 'David Vestal and Gene Smith methodologies' are what I used throughout my film photography life, and are what I do now with digital capture and image processing.

The notion of "playing with new stuff" is important to learning—what do the new apps/camera/papers/chemistry/etc, etc offer that I might take advantage of—but when it comes time to produce photographs for real, it is rare that I adopt any of the new things into my workflow unless I've played with them extensively and understand what I stand to gain from using them very clearly.

It comes down to a very simple idea that I learned long ago: "The tools you know best will always produce your best work." It takes a lot of time and a lot of practice to know tools well... :)

G
 
Godfrey said:
It comes down to a very simple idea that I learned long ago: "The tools you know best will always produce your best work." It takes a lot of time and a lot of practice to know tools well... :)

G
Click to expand...

With digital, we should all do a better job remembering this - I do it with my editing, but have had my issues abiding by this wisdom when it comes to cameras, i.e. hardware. It's better to stick with a particular sensor too, because the camera's output can affect how well I can handle it in editing, even if I keep my processes the same. That's part of the reason that after getting comfortable with my Ricoh GR III, I got a Pentax KP too, as they share a very similar sensor and 24MB 14-bit DNGs. The more the digital workflow can be standardized for me, the better.
 
I came to SOOC or as close as possible. Never liked over-processed, plasticy digital fakes.
I'm using same LR 4.4 and nothing else for years.

Same paper helps, but it is not something as it used to be. Getting used to one type, next time I need it, it is gone.
Same inks is big factor as well.
 
OK, now if I have perfected a digital file to exactly what I like how come I can't easily print a digital negative so I can make a contact print on real B&W paper?
 
I'll come right out and admit it: I spend too much time in front of the computer already and I really don't like spending more time messing around with photo editing software (Aperture was great, though).

As a result, I'm experimenting with a new-to-me workflow: tell the camera how I want to process the image I'm shooting (there are options for setting this up on my camera without using the beginner scene mode), let the camera save as a JPEG (no RAW), and walk away. I either get the image I want or I don't, just like the slide film I used to shoot. I tested this by using the DPP4 settings to process the RAW files I was shooting just as the camera would if I set it in camera. Turns out that those settings pretty much did everything I would do in post anyway, so why am I spending the time on the computer to do something the camera itself can do faster and as well as I can?

I don't know how well this will work out, that's why it's an experiment. It may very well be that I'll go back to shooting RAW and just do minimal processing on all but the real keepers. We'll see how it goes.
 
I was lucky. What helped me the most, with my path going forward, was finding a person who saw the world like me and was willing to be my coach and mentor. He helped me to get my vision into each photograph I make.

My advice is to find that special some one who would be willing to help you with your photography journey. Then stick with that person.

Most every photographer has thoughts about image making, many with differing ideas than yours. Trying to follow each of them, usually all it leads you to is confusion.

Photography should first come from your heart.
 
Totally agree. Years ago I spent time trying out raw converters and thinking about how I want to develop my photos, and what I want to achieve. I chose Capture One: it was expensive and had a steep learning curve, but very flexible and gave results that other programs can't touch (as expected from software designed for digital backs costing tens of thousands!). I've used Photoshop for over 20 years, before I was photographer. Capture One does most of what I did in Photoshop, including working in layers, so I only need Photoshop for something unusual these days.

Bottom line is, I found a process that suited me, learnt it intimately, and stuck with it.

Same with other photographic equipment. I only own one main camera, and shoot with it almost exclusively. In the past decade, I've had just two cameras, one used for 7 years and the "new" one for 3 years and ongoing - no intention of upgrading as it does all I need.

Ditto for lenses, tripods, etc. I buy carefully so they suit how I photograph, so end up using the same equipment for years, knowing it inside out.

But I don't fossilise! I don't let my gear and way of working dictate how I work. I'm led by the photograph. If I need different equipment to take a photograph, I'll buy it. If my way if working changes, I'll change my gear. For example, I realised a few years ago that mirrorless electronic-viewfinder cameras made my SLR seem like an obsolete brick, and felt so much more natural to use. Hence I gave up optical viewfinders and clunky (literally) SLRs and now use the Sony A7R II, and will continue to until there's a good reason not to (not even on the horizon at the moment as the camera's so good!).
 
I use Lightroom because its good enough for me IQ wise and I love the cataloguing features. I'm comfortable with it and I'd rather spend more time thinking about conceptual concerns than technical concerns.
 
jsrockit said:
I'd rather spend more time thinking about conceptual concerns than technical concerns.
Click to expand...

Surely successful photography depends equally on both?

You need technology that best supports concepts, and concepts that work with the technology. Otherwise the photos won't be as good as they could be.
 
RichC said:
Surely successful photography depends equally on both?

You need technology that best supports concepts, and concepts that work with the technology. Otherwise the photos won't be as good as they could be.
Click to expand...

Of course, but you get to a point where you’ve learned what you need technically speaking (and of course you keep learning) and you can think of other concerns more clearly. That’s my point. I’m talking about me specifically... each person decides when enough is enough. The last think I want to do is switch to other programs, that do the same thing, chasing 1% more quality.
 
I'm sticking with the application I know best: I've been using ACDSee for some 20 years and will soon upgrade to the 2021 version. This program is intuitive, it has an excellent and easy-to-use photo data-base and it's relatively cheap. Cheers, OtL
 
While I've used several programs over the years, Lightroom 6 remains my standard. I'll probably have to update to the rental program LR soon because Apple seems to update operating systems constantly and it leaves older program as orphans. But the same thing happened with chemistry, paper and film in the past. By the time I started digital photography, Tri-X was different, Portriga Rapid, Brovira, Medalist and Kodabromide were history and the chemistry was changing as well.
 
jsrockit said:
Of course, but you get to a point where you’ve learned what you need technically speaking (and of course you keep learning) and you can think of other concerns more clearly. That’s my point. I’m talking about me specifically... each person decides when enough is enough. The last think I want to do is switch to other programs, that do the same thing, chasing 1% more quality.
Click to expand...
Entirely reasonable!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top