# RIP Popular Photography



## StarHalo (Mar 7, 2017)

Publisher CEO: "The rise of smartphone-camera technology and its increasing ability to capture quality photos and video and instantly share them socially has dealt the photo industry formidable challenges. For our brands, these industry challenges have left us with insurmountable losses in advertising and audience support. Despite the extraordinary efforts of our committed colleagues at Popular Photography and American Photo, as well as our best attempts corporately to find a sustainable path forward, we are simply unable to overcome these market forces."

The March/April 2017 issue pictured below will be the last issue.


----------



## gunga (Mar 8, 2017)

I used to read these. But like 20 years ago. I also liked Modern Photography. Sigh.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 8, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> Publisher CEO: "The rise of smartphone-camera technology and its increasing ability to capture quality photos and video and instantly share them socially has dealt the photo industry formidable challenges. For our brands, these industry challenges have left us with insurmountable losses in advertising and audience support. Despite the extraordinary efforts of our committed colleagues at Popular Photography and American Photo, as well as our best attempts corporately to find a sustainable path forward, we are simply unable to overcome these market forces."
> 
> The March/April 2017 issue pictured below will be the last issue.


I could not have said that better myself. I'm the last around here with a New York/LA grade studio. Really, I've gone back to being a photojournalist covering our nation's presidents. And I will author a book some day. Sad to see so many of my talented colleagues just disappear. We still hold som major corporate accounts with some of America's best companies who need things gone right, so I will make it through, as we have worked with all of all of them for over 20 years each. And have dates years out. 

However, I have been in this tough business for 27 years, which is equal to General Motors being in business for 750 years, (So say economics professors), I have been to so many countries around the world many times on someone else's money, met my wife, and have houses all over the place, took my daughter with us around the country and works, put her through college, so it was a great run. I will retire In a few years at an early age...so that's that. Thing is I never wanted to retire, ever.

As long as they don't computerize cats, to spy on us I will be fine

Other industries beaten up:

Publishing
Journalism
Photography
Professional photo labs 
Video Productionu
Motion Pictures
Recording industry
Music
Printing
Travel Agents
Retail sectors
Gaming industry with online betting
Taxi industry

Im sure there are more, many more.


----------



## joelbnyc (Mar 8, 2017)

yes, well, technological progress... pretty soon the robots/AI will be doing everything they aren't already...

On the flip side, social media has caused a boom in consumers wanting to post professional wedding and family images.

We set my (talented and motivated) wife up with about 15K worth of gear, she broke even the first year and is now profitable.

Apples and Oranges to journalism/advertising of course, but industry and consumers both still have a demand for talented professionals. And the technology is mindblowing.


----------



## alpg88 (Mar 8, 2017)

my friend is a "pro" photographer, he works in restaurants in Brooklyn, while he still has customers, their number drops all the time, back in the days people that had party at a restaurant, had photographer take their pics, than he would bring 8x10 printed pictures hour or so latter, now everyone has a smartphone, his services no longer needed as much, people take their own pics, and post it right away. however phones have not replaced wedding photographer, yet.


----------



## scs (Mar 8, 2017)

I can understand that arts that are actually more science than art are susceptible to replacement by technology, but photography? It takes more than a good camera or in this case a smart camera to take good photographs right?

Same goes for cinematography. Idiots on youtube are still holding their camera phone upright, and few people naturally know how to properly place the camera and frame the shots.

Perhaps the eyes of the consumer is to blame as well.

"I don't want soup. I can make my own soup."


----------



## SoCalTiger (Mar 8, 2017)

alpg88 said:


> my friend is a "pro" photographer, he works in restaurants in Brooklyn, while he still has customers, their number drops all the time, back in the days people that had party at a restaurant, had photographer take their pics, than he would bring 8x10 printed pictures hour or so latter, now everyone has a smartphone, his services no longer needed as much, people take their own pics, and post it right away. however phones have not replaced wedding photographer, yet.



I do professional photography part-time. I don't think that phones will ever replace a wedding photographer. Even if a phone was able to take FF DSLR quality pictures, the problem is training first and supplemental gear (lighting primarily) second. Amateurs generally lack the skill set to be able to capture the same quality pictures or really deal with the wedding environment. A large part of being a wedding photographer is, quite frankly, Chaos Management. However, the primary force that is destroying the profession is the massive influx of amateur budget photographers now that DSLRs are so affordable. It's harder and harder for even established photographers to justify a $200-300 price tag on a standard family session (price not even including prints) when there are cut-rate photographers all over the place offering "mini-sessions" for $25-50. Same for all the cheap amateur wedding photographers.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Mar 8, 2017)

Photography magazines as a whole are on their way out.

Many YouTube channels do gear evaluation and lighting seminars. 

The past 15 years, photo mags have been nothing but paid commercials. You won't find a bad review since the manufacturer is also paying for space. 

I subscribed to Shutterbug which was the largest trade mag and District News. Shutterbug was published 3 times a month. Toward the end for me, it became bird cage liner, as by the time I received my copy, the classified items were weeks old. 

Sorry to see Popular Photography go, but like most publications, they were slow to adapt.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 8, 2017)

scs said:


> I can understand that arts that are actually more science than art are susceptible to replacement by technology, but photography? It takes more than a good camera or in this case a smart camera to take good photographs right?



The photography world is going through a sea change right now; more people than ever are doing it, but they all want to get the picture with one tap and share it with the next, something the standard camera still cannot do. If you put all the cell phones and cameras produced in the year 2016 into one big pile, the cameras would make up 1.3% of the pile. The camera is now a fringe niche device..


----------



## RedLED (Mar 8, 2017)

joelbnyc said:


> yes, well, technological progress... pretty soon the robots/AI will be doing everything they aren't already...
> 
> On the flip side, social media has caused a boom in consumers wanting to post professional wedding and family images.
> 
> ...


$15,000?... My 600f4 cost that, try having a million dollar investment over 27 years In top level studio with the latest gear, and software. Plus the talent to assist. Not easy anymore.

I wanted to come back and say, I think it is great your wife did so well out of the gate, and if she keeps it up, you could do very well down the road. Nice to hear a success in the business these days, congratulations. 

Best,

NR


----------



## joelbnyc (Mar 8, 2017)

but the pro and prosumer gear is mindblowingly more powerful than point and shoot phone cameras. Full frame Nikon/Canon DSLR (and the mirrorless Sonys) bodies with the right lenses in the right hands produce staggeringly awesome images... even the consumer crop frame cameras are in a different league than a cellphone camera.

As for magazines, well, it's all online now, and I think the demise of a photography magazine says more about the state of magazines than it does about the state of photography. Dpreview, dxomark, and a few YouTube gear reviewers do enough to rate gear, and there are endless images to peruse and appreciate on Flickr or elsewhere.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 8, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> The photography world is going through a sea change right now; more people than ever are doing it, but they all want to get the picture with one tap and share it with the next, something the standard camera still cannot do. If you put all the cell phones and cameras produced in the year 2016 into one big pile, the cameras would make up 1.3% of the pile. The camera is now a fringe niche device..


No cell phone can do what our range of glass can do. I can spot a cell photo a mile away.

ADD:
You are right, it bugs me in 2017, I can't transmit photos as I shoot them to my agent, or a live slide show at a corporate event, and many other uses.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 8, 2017)

RedLED said:


> No cell phone can do what our range of glass can do. I can spot a call photo a mile away.



Right there with you, but the catch is can you spot it at ~500 pixels; analytics has revealed that for any given portfolio, less than 10% of viewers ever view more than the first page. Instagram and Snapchat are essentially all thumbnails, the whole point of photography now is to get attention using a small image.

And the mobile version of Lightroom is nicely featured, so now you can post-process your cell snaps and make it that much harder to tell..


----------



## RedLED (Mar 8, 2017)

And the flow that goes across the Internet every day, if there is a bad photo it is forgotten right away. Not like newspapers that stayed a few days, or magazines that would remain around a few months. 

I miss the the old days of photography where you had to know what you were doing, not like togay.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 9, 2017)

Star, 

Why not buy my studio, with a name like "Star Halo Photography," you would make big mega bucks. I wish I had thought of that name when I started. Il'll get you going and you can waltz around the globe like a celebrity. You would be mobbed by celebrities, presidents, and CEO's craving for your artistic touch and excellent eye to, produce the photograph of a lifetime for the elite of the globe. 

Imagine riding in motorcades, Air Force One, private 747's like the Sultan of Brunei's, photographing the Queen of England, the Pontiff, Jeff Bezos It is all yours for the asking price...which we need to discuss. Oh, and the hotels...a car and driver, suits cut in London, gold Rolexes, even a gold tooth if you like?

If if not I would like to, buy Star Halo from you. What does that mean anyway?

My General Councel will contact your people. You could travel like me with an entourage with your Trip director lawyer, MD, financial advisor, a team of phycarist's from Vienna, therapist, Indian Guru, body guards, a press corps., driver, secure communications specialist, personal photographer just for you, publicist, agent, manager, chef, video crew, valet, wife and kids, and hangers on, your road crew of grips and assistants, your pilot, and hand selected flight attendants, with uniforms you favor. (Mine wear 70's hot pants and higher than high platforms)! But that is just me. My wife isn't too thrilled about that! 

let me know. 

With all best wishes,

Most sincerely yours, with warm regards,

Red LED





OK mods this is in fun, just a joke.


----------



## Offgridled (Mar 9, 2017)

That was a fun ride tho Red


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 9, 2017)

RedLED said:


> If if not I would like to, buy Star Halo from you. What does that mean anyway?



It's what sounds good when you're 16 and you need a cool name for AOL chat rooms. But I need a Nikon D810 and you need a salable brand name, we can work something out..

I was prepared to parry with the figures of what average photographers make, but the guy who did our wedding did indeed wear a mother-of-pearl faced Rolex and drove a Porsche, so there's average and then there's above..


----------



## RedLED (Mar 9, 2017)

Of course I was joking around with most of that post, all is true except the entroage part. 

As far as, changing my name, however, I do think your screen name is very cool but, I think it best to use your oun name in the photo business, as it shows you stand behind your work, which many of the flakes don't. Most of them are long gone anyhow. You need to put your name on it.

From the things I put in that post, I have photographed your boss, years ago, and photographed and spoke with the Sultan, search my name and so if you play your cards right you can work magic in this industry. Never in my wildest dreams could I imaging everything doing what I have. 

The problem for people now, is I started decades ago, with so many things different mostly shooting on film stock, and now I would find it almost impossible to duplicate my efforts, with all the post 9-11 security in place, and all the people who get a camera and think they are professionals, plus I started in a small town with big people in it and they helped me out so I was just lucky, to tell the truth. Had I started in a big town I would have had a lot more to deal with on a daily basis. 

Now, I would recommend people not to invest in their photo business like I did, I own everything outright, because I never wanted to rent unreliable gear, so I put some of my profits back in the company, still do as we bill pretty high and owe it to out trusted clients to always show up with the latest gear, with plenty of spares and backups, so if something was to go wrong, they never know it. which paid off as we can shoot anything involving people and events of any type, along with architecture, and fashion. you have to specialize like any other professional does, you can't do everything, and should not even attempt it. 

For instance, I can't do what Don McGizmo does, and he may not be able to have a photo op pool spray of 30 seconds to shoot the president, before you are cut off even happen to get off one shot, or that one second you have disembarking Air Force One. Mostly I can direct my subjects, he can't and there are moving. Two of the most interesting areas you can specialize are underwater and surfing. Surfing is one event I have never tried but I love good surfing photos. That takes real skill, however everyone with a waterproof cell case is a surf photographer now. 

Photography for a career has always been tough and will be, I went for over twenty years without a day off. But, I loved every second of it because I owned the company, and was not like really working as everything we did was fun, and no two days are alike. 

I could in no way have got to the level I am without my wife, she is a mathematical genius, and holds masters degrees in the computer sciences, and is an award winning photographer, herself, and my second camera. Post production photoshop manager and takes care of all pre print and printing.

I met her in my early days, and she knew nothing, I trained her, like I trained myself. And the most amazing part was that all photographers who went from film to digital are pioneers in a new medium, and that happens very, very infrequently. It was an amazing time, and it is what made us most of our money. Mostly because a gigantic amount of photographers did not believe in digital, did not want to bother to learn it properly, and were flat out scared to death of it. Quit over it, and could not grasp the computers and software. Thought it was not as good, and so fourth. We not only saw digital coming but embraced it, thus were pioneers in something, an amazing feeling. I loved it from the first day. We did extremely well in the period of the switch, for corporations you could name any price, and they did not care, and the ones we have kept the same is true. We did mid six figures for years until it settled in and leveled off, but what a run.

You can do very, very well it is Just trickier now for local shooters, with what we call GWC's, translation: Guy/Girl, with camera, and they are clueless, and have run a lot of very good photographers out of business because they charge little or nothing and when the Great Recession hit, they wiped out a lot of Professionals. Who worked in local markets. They could not do to much to us at all as we work on the national and global level. 

The GWC just wants to play professional with all settings on auto, and I had one GWC tell me he stays away from the cameras manual. How can you not read your cameras manual, I don't know? Mostly they crave the glamour and want to get into things for free. Publicists have caught on to them to some degree, however they still hurt local and regional Pro's. Again giving the photos away unedited, because photoshop scares the hell out of them. But free is free if they can be fixed in post production (I dislike the term 'Workflow,' sounds like a radio station term).

Normally, don't post here in the photo area it should not be a place for working professionals. It started as a joke with Mr. Halo, and it Now is a semi manifesto for people looking to maybe work at taking photos for a living, and maybe it helped? I don't know?

I'll cut now Star but, I always thought your work looks cool. 

Carry on, and a always best wishes,

NR


----------



## ven (Mar 9, 2017)

RedLED :rock:'S

One day if your lucky , I may let you take my pic.......................as long as you can shop my gray hairs out!

Cool read/post


----------



## RedLED (Mar 9, 2017)

Sure, what ever color you crave. Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 9, 2017)

SoCalTiger said:


> I do professional photography part-time. I don't think that phones will ever replace a wedding photographer. Even if a phone was able to take FF DSLR quality pictures, the problem is training first and supplemental gear (lighting primarily) second. Amateurs generally lack the skill set to be able to capture the same quality pictures or really deal with the wedding environment. A large part of being a wedding photographer is, quite frankly, Chaos Management. However, the primary force that is destroying the profession is the massive influx of amateur budget photographers now that DSLRs are so affordable. It's harder and harder for even established photographers to justify a $200-300 price tag on a standard family session (price not even including prints) when there are cut-rate photographers all over the place offering "mini-sessions" for $25-50. Same for all the cheap amateur wedding photographers.


You will get nothing for $25-30. Local markets are overrun with these kind of no talent people, you are right. As for weddings, the photographer must act as the director for the photography, and in some cases, move the events along. I never do many weddings, however, I shoot them with my wife and we have fun, and as a journalist who covers world leaders, shot the Oscars, Emmys, we could give them the journalist look,and still do the classical formal poses. our price is $15,000 for a select crowd because they want a lot and a certain look. But I have a team of people I bring, and a lot of planing is involved. The sub $1,000 and hand over the disc crowd can't do what we can. But at least I admit to doing them, most journalists will always and always have denied ever doing them. But they have/do It's just another event. I do not market myself for them and don't really do them any more.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 9, 2017)

Nevertheless it is a great time for the amateur, and hobbyists in photography, like nothing ever before. I would just say have fun with it, and there is some very good if not great talent within the hobbyists ranks. I see some great work out there, and even with phones.


----------



## aginthelaw (Mar 9, 2017)

I remember the teacher who ran my photography club in high school had the opportunity to shoot the president when he came to town. Because he had a long telephoto lens and was also an avid hunter he got the idea to mount the camera & lens on a shotgun stock with a remote trigger in place of the er, uh, trigger. Guess what happened when he pulled that out & pointed at the president?

I've been searching for the pop photo issue in which my brother wrote a letter to the editor exclaiming my virtuoso with a camera (I was shooting weddings & models in a studio I shared with my partner when I was still in high school). I must have been pretty good then, but just look at the crap I've been cranking out in my sales threads. It's definitely a skill that declines without practice. Which is probably why I shouldn't shoot an apple off someone's head before getting in some range time


----------



## RedLED (Mar 9, 2017)

alpg88 said:


> my friend is a "pro" photographer, he works in restaurants in Brooklyn, while he still has customers, their number drops all the time, back in the days people that had party at a restaurant, had photographer take their pics, than he would bring 8x10 printed pictures hour or so latter, now everyone has a smartphone, his services no longer needed as much, people take their own pics, and post it right away. however phones have not replaced wedding photographer, yet.


Well they can, but in a different way. If the bride asks everyone to act as the photographers, then E-mail them to her by the time the night is over she could have hundreds or a thousand photos. And if some are bad, well so what.

But, if a photographer showed up to shoot the wedding with a phone...that would be a total joke

For my own wedding, we tried, at least for the time something different. We were married in St. Andrews, Scotland, and it was just the two of us at the registry office, with a judge. This was 21 years ago, so it was the film age. I took only one camera, a Nikon F4, 28-70 lens, and SB 24 flash. 

I did did shots of my wife in her dress, which was not a wedding dress but a white gown out on the golf course, the seawall to with the North Sea behind it, they were more fashion photos, now for the ones of both of us together, we just asked random people if they would take our photo, now I'm handing them this complex professional rig of a camera, and it was great. Some were tilted, too close, to far, every kind of mistake, and they turned out so funny as photographers we loved it.

One funny thing was as we were leaving the hotel to to the registry office for the ceremony, the doorman at the hotel, on his own asked, "would you like me to take a photo of the two of you," we said sure, and it was absolutely perfection, the guy had to have had some background in photography. Very funny. We still have that photo out, and laugh about it.


----------



## smokinbasser (Mar 9, 2017)

Considering that Popular Science and Popular Photography are owned and published by the same company if this bodes a death for the Popular Science mag as well


----------



## Kestrel (Mar 9, 2017)

smokinbasser said:


> Considering that Popular Science and Popular Photography are owned and published by the same company if this bodes a death for the Popular Science mag as well


My first spin of the distinction (...Science vs ...Photography) could have some current affairs / politics angle, but I'll just leave that one for the CPF Underground lol.


----------



## xdayv (Mar 9, 2017)

sad to see it go... have read a handful of them, still have some in my closet. but i think that's how the cycle goes, especially when the iphone/smartphone age took over. but i'll still continue to enjoy photography and the adventure is brings.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 9, 2017)

RedLED said:


> Of course I was joking around with most of that post



I was jesting as well, my name is obviously worth a Leica S (then I'd have to figure what other part of myself to sell to get a lens..)



RedLED said:


> I have photographed your boss, years ago, and photographed and spoke with the Sultan



You need a photo book; one of my fave photo books, _The President's Photographer_ is very much in that vein, the photographer providing a new angle on familiar faces from behind the scenes.



RedLED said:


> Now, I would recommend people not to invest in their photo business like I did



What did your business start out shooting?



RedLED said:


> I trained her, like I trained myself.



My dad worked at a camera store in downtown Kansas City, so we always had gear sitting around the house like the bold new Minolta Maxxum; I played around with film cameras as a kid and got my first digital camera as a teen, just as I got into using Adobe Photoshop; I'm coming up on 20 years experience with digital cameras and post-processing


----------



## RedLED (Mar 9, 2017)

The other day I found one of my old note books where you write down the shutter speed, ASA, f stop, time, dates and other things, today it is all on the screen on the camera.

There was some fun to taking down your field notes, and numbered each roll. 

Also, I miss my Hasselblad system, with those wonderful Carl Zeizz lenses, film backs which took practice to load fast, the dark slide, all of it you really had to know what you were doing but it was fun and gave great satisfaction when you saw the results. You always worried until you went to the lab and saw your work, I remember being so worried on so many weekends over jobs I shot, did I set this right, did I have the right setting? 

On all the Apollo missions they used Hasselbald on the lunar surface, and had Nikon F2's inside the command and service module.

Buzz Aldrin is a member of a club I belong to as well, and I once asked him: "Were you not worried about your exposures, composition, and focus?" He told me, 'All we were worried about was getting back home.' He said that they jettisoned all the Hasselbald cameras and lenses on the moon and just brought the film back with them. I think the 35m F2's came back.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 9, 2017)

Star Halo, 

My first job was the dedication of the Greald R. Ford School in Indian Wells, CA that is how I got started, I went there just for something to do, there was no other photographer, sent the work over to the president's office, and it went from there.

One thing, my Mom did know President Ford, and that helped. However I never thought others would start asking, and it would be a career. You never know what can happen? Really anything can happen is what I have found, but I went over twenty years with no down time, so I put a huge effort in it, I gave up things like golf, and hobbies. 

My mom said to at least keep your clubs, and I'm glad I did because I got to play with the president, and Leonard Firestone, the industrialist. It was just a few times because I am still just a photographer, and, they gave me wonderful advice. 

That is when I worked the local markert, I don't so much these days because the towns the great people who really made this town what is are all gone now, and their replacements are not even close with how they go about things, I have been national since like 1998. Covering many of the major events in the country, and doing work for large corporations. Glad I did, the Mayor of Palm Springs just was arrested for taking bribes. 

He was inept anyway, when President Obama came here he was the arrival greeter, and came and got me down off the press riser awaiting the arrival of Air Force One, and said you have been around this and know the protocol what do I say? I told him but, In the past the old guard would have known what to do.


----------



## xdayv (Mar 9, 2017)

You must have a storied career RedLED, well done!


----------



## RedLED (Mar 10, 2017)

Thank you very much.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 12, 2017)

A few years back my wife wanted in on wedding photography. Knowing she was woefully unprepared gear-wise, style-wise and know-how-wise I suggested she find a pro to assist. 
After doing 3 by herself she decided that wasn't her gig. 

She was great at thinking outside the box but did not understand the basics. So much of her better photos were dismissed by the client(s) who wanted same ole sameness. One evening I quipped "now do you understand the term starving artist?" 

I spent hours and hours tailoring white balances, shadows and evening out influences of various colored lighting in the ones the clients liked. 
Basically the ones she did were some of the worst possible scenarios which is why real pros had offered really high estimates. Indoor lighting near windows with afternoon sun and parking lot lights as the evenings progressed. A digital sensors worst fears in each of the 3 weddings. 

I set her up with some decent gear for the time and she ended up doing outdoor portraits of peoples dogs and cats. We found a little niche in our area that brought in enough revenue to buy a good printer, monitor calibration stuff and a few better lenses. 

One day her son asked if she'd take photos of the high school football team. Oh that pissed off a bunch of people. The wannbe types with their Canons and 70-200 lenses thought she was competition. To rub salt in the deal I walked around the field with a Nikon clad with a prime using a monopod. It was hilarious to see each week how those knuckleheads would react. 

I knew all along that doing the pro photographer thing was on the way to suffering the same fate as the VHS machines once I saw families at the beach with $3000 cameras stuck lens down on the edge of their towel. So these days I use my SLR's to photo-journalize things at my job as a roadway inspector and the wife uses her style to spice up eBay photos. 
We have both taken some killer wildlife photos along the way and have lots of good memories on a hard drive. We even got a few published in local magazines and newspapers. But when I see a fellow next to 3rd base at Candle Stick park with a $50k lens to take photos of the pitcher or another guy carrying his telescope sized lens clad camera over his shoulder... I do not regret never entering the dog-eat-dog process of trying to make a living taking photos. 

I do enjoy the times my boss tells me to drive to some area of the state and take pictures of a bridge about to be widened or an intersection about to be re-hab'd into a roundabout. As a consultant part of my job is to drum up business with local governments and the photographs are proof we've studied their upcoming projects. 
I take my SLR for personal use and a faithful point n shoot for their photos since they will be printed from a laptop dard drive onto office copy paper. It's kinda like being a pro with a guarenteed paycheck every other Thursday and no real pressure to get it perfect.... afterall it's just a rickety old bridge slated for demolition. 

It's a shame to see yet another staple in American photography be removed from the pages of upcoming history. But when I go to my local Books A Million and see all the bubble gum flavored crap disguised as photography magazines I'm surprised it is just now happening.


----------



## brickcheck (Mar 12, 2017)

It's a shame to heard about this, but certainly not surprising. I think there was a report recently saying how on Flickr the iPhone had become the most popular camera in the world. I must admit that when I travel I will often just bring my iPhone along, just because I don't want to drag along my heavy dSLR. Obviously the picture quality is not the same, but it really is so much more convenient


----------



## RedLED (Mar 14, 2017)

Fixer, 

Poor quality photos are tolerated these days, what people have a hard time dealing with, at least in the world I work in is, the small amounts of time you have to get the photo, get it right, and get it out. I can't go back and do anything over. 

People who shoot landscapes, products have all the time in the world, compared to my having seconds to get it. Yet, I see of many of my colleagues miss some easy shots. For the work I do you have to be on guard or you will miss it and that's that, what ever is you miss has passed into history in just seconds, never to be seen again. 

Over my career, I have photographed every professional sport you can imagine Super Bowls, World Series but, figure skating and boxing are the most difficult. I still cover the big fights in Vegas from time to time, sports keep you sharp, any journalistic photography does that, and if I was to do a wedding, for example, you already know what will happen, they are all alike, and for the formal photos you are the director. 

I don't do them often but, at least I admit that I do...ask any journalist and they will snear at you, however, I can guarantee you they have shot them, as well, and are lying about it. They think are above that. I have covered weddings to war zones. Brides can be awful, often, you can deal with people in not so friendly places much easier. My wife always comes with me as my second camera, I like the idea of a woman's perspective at a wedding. Plus she is one of the best boxing photographers I have ever seen. 

I never cared for boxing that much one way or the other, then I got an assignment to cover Oscar De La Hoya,s first professional fight, post Olympic Gold Medal. It was in LA at the... the...I forget the location, and I am not at my office where my field notes are but, after being ringside, I was hooked on boxing. Photography as a journalist opens windows, and draws back the veil of new delights since it exposes you to things and people you would never come across, or events you would never have thought to even bother to attend. I wish I could recommend it as a career but, I can't. I did very well, and made more money than I ever thought I could, (Thank you O.J. and President Clinton), however today, everyone is a photographer. 

The consolation is that, myself, my wife, and my company, and assistants at the time, my lab and its print people are all pioneers, genuine, real pioneers, in a new media that changed the world forever. All of who were film shooters and struggled through the transition, are in the eyes of history, pioneers. We were the ones on the frontlines of making it happen, helping the engineers, and we called in many mistakes to Nikon that their instruction manuals had wrong, other published books too, mostly because of my wife and her huge talent with computers, (I called in the most of the Nikon errors). So many of my colleagues of the day ran from photography when digital replaced film, we embraced it, and it happend so much faster than any of us thought it would. Digital turned out to be a gold mine for those who stuck it out at a high level, yet, there were still plenty of flakes who stayed and had no knowledge of what they were even doing. What great years! At the time it could be frustrating, long hours, dial up modems and several minutes to transmit just one photo! I now look back on all of it as a fantastic experience that few people over the course of history are able to experience. Like the first people to use a printing press. 

Really, even if you had a point and shoot and switched to a digital camera, you are a pioneer, too, just not at the level of figuring it all out, and making it work with clients, editors, deadlines and no one with experience you could call, who had done it before. We were the ones with the experience, and we had to figure it all out, make it work, and remain in business, and by then my company was already working at high levels, major companies and the political elite and power of the world. In many industries none of them, even that they knew this was really foreign to all of us did not accept any excuses, and the wanted the work right then. However everyone, (clients), since the Civil War up to today Needs it NOW! 

For a time, I used to shoot with a film rig and a digital one, Same lenses on both. Thank god that was short lived, as you missed shots, one was either on film or digital. It's just you had to get the shot, one way or the other. 

That's enough, I am now ceased with the sudden fear I have drifted wildly off topic...But, that's the way is was back in the Stone Age. What a time to be a working photographer. May be interesting to some.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 14, 2017)

Gotta challenge yourself


----------



## RedLED (Mar 14, 2017)

Star,

I have always wanted to get a photo of a hummingbird, and freeze the wings. So far, I have missed out on that even with millions and millions of images. 

Thing is is you were on top of it and captured something not easy to do. So, good job!


----------



## BloodLust (Mar 14, 2017)

I've done some paid work but still consider myself very much an amateur. Still so many things to learn.
My forte is food and a little bit of portraiture. I would not even attempt weddings. I've seen some bad wedding photography even during the event itself. I was wondering what the photographer was doing at times but it wasn't my place to meddle as it was his profession and I was a guest at the wedding and it was his own art, style and technique. Unfortunately, a lot of the wedding photos did come out bad.

Though I know some guys who stil use Nikon D40s for awesome shoots.



SoCalTiger said:


> I do professional photography part-time. I don't think that phones will ever replace a wedding photographer. Even if a phone was able to take FF DSLR quality pictures, the problem is training first and supplemental gear (lighting primarily) second. Amateurs generally lack the skill set to be able to capture the same quality pictures or really deal with the wedding environment. A large part of being a wedding photographer is, quite frankly, Chaos Management. However, the primary force that is destroying the profession is the massive influx of amateur budget photographers now that DSLRs are so affordable. It's harder and harder for even established photographers to justify a $200-300 price tag on a standard family session (price not even including prints) when there are cut-rate photographers all over the place offering "mini-sessions" for $25-50. Same for all the cheap amateur wedding photographers.



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-sue-wedding-photographer-hell-7736910.amp?espv=1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-failed-couple-frame-took-blurry-shots.html


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 14, 2017)

RedLED said:


> I have always wanted to get a photo of a hummingbird, and freeze the wings.



Let the flash do the work; Sony RX100 pocket camera and a $70 speedlight (mounted elsewhere as the camera has no hotshoe) :


----------



## RedLED (Mar 14, 2017)

I guess my prime issue is I have not seen a humming bird in this desert in years, and with the amount of feral cats that have been trapped, fixed and ear notched and released back in to our street, it is amazing I had eight of them lounging up here yesterday on all our front patio furniture, so no bird will come around here.

When reseeding the grass every year, but they act like a kitty seal team against the birds, with air support from all the crows living high above in our palm trees. It does give us the best 10,000 sq ft of grass around. No birds landing to eat my seed! Also, all, the bees, and bats are gone. We used to have hundreds of bats every night flying in all directions and swooping the pool. They are long gone, and I have not heard a coyote in at least a decade, maybe longer. Like 18 years would be more accurate. 

This place has become LA! Without the crime! However, you live somewhere in the inland empire, and you have humming birds. 
.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 17, 2017)

Thanks for the history lesson(s) RED. 
My dad was a big fan of Pentax back in the 70's. Ansell Adams he was not... or so it seemed. He chose the slide medium saying Kodachrome was over rated. We always thought it was because he was too cheap to print stuff. He always showed off vacation pictures on his projector when we were teens. Bring over a date to meet the folks and "oh no, the Canada in 72 pix again". He used manual cameras so when you said "cheese" your jaw was tired by the time he dialed in and took the shot. 

When I reached my 20's and started a family I asked my pop for some tips. Not one to mince words he hands me all kinds of pocket manuals and basic how to books that were a Fort Knox of basic knowledge.

Well ole pop was miles ahead of the curve. When he passed we kids found a major cache of his personal photos.. no kids, no vacation type stuff but photos of things the old man enjoyed... all in black and white. What I meant by ahead of the curve is that those photos would've been bland in scrap book form. But he had those Pentax rigs so dialed in that when shown on his 4'x4' screen there were some absolute gems. Macro butterflies, moon pix you could see in exquisit detail like the hubble telescope did it, silouettes, old barns... I was in my late 40's before I knew my pop was a photographing master. 

One day I gave him a $45 Canon P&S. He had never seen a digital P&S so I showed him the on/off button and shutter button and told him it's 90% automatic. He took one photo with flash, looked at it on the tiny screen and says "go look in my dresser and bring me one of those white film containers with sharks teeth in it". So I did. He whips out his grandfathers tiny folding knife sharpened so many times like 1/3 of the blade was gone. He cuts the bottom off the film container, slices the side with his razer sharp blade... slides the film container over the flash and takes another photo. WOW!! Suddenly a dim dining room pic all washed out by the ugly flash had nice wood tones with perfect lighting.

He chuckled and says "this digital camera thing may catch on afterall". Then he hands it back and says "thanks but no thanks". 
The man wrote the programs to turn 1950's machinery at his factory to CNC type accuracy in the 1980's yet did not own a personal computer. So he did not want a digital camera. 

He did really dig the idea of the full frame type sensor on my D700. I showed him how the smaller sensored D7000 I had made for better crops but the bokeh of the full frame was so much easier to predict. He said "phooey on those plastic zoom lenses, go find old glass primes at yard sales". Glad I did. 
One day he hands me his spotting scope and says "hook it to your camera, you'll love it. It was a Kowa TSN-822 spotter with a 10x-50x eyepiece and a tripod with a way to mount your camera too!!!! He'd used it at the shooting range to dial in his powder recipe for his reloads. The wife and I hooked our digi cams to it a few times and took amazing photos of baby hawks fresh from the egg, eagles fornicating, and a host of other subject matter only being in the right place at the right time can produce. 

As a road inspector there are times we make paths through areas the deer and antelope played before the white man arrived. Birds don't pay you no mind if you sit still often enough and long enough. So birds ended up being my favorite subjects on days I got paid to watch grass grow. Sometimes I'd be 3-5' from birds doing bird stuff armed with a nice camera and a lens.

On one project I shot picks of a gold finch pluck grass stalks one at a time from a field, fly to a tree and build a nest all from like 25' away. Another was a juvenile eagle learning to swoop down and catch fish. Every day the thing would swoop down and belly flop to the water. I took pix 3-4 fps. Then one day... success! And I got pix! I was stoked for the bird , but then later more stoked with the photos. Bird nears water, bird grabs fish, bird flies away fish in claws. But my favorites were baby cows licking adults or doing other hijinx with other youngsters. That was a fun day. 

But later on my favorite subject for work was to go find photos that tell a story. A sweaty fellow wiping his brow, a 75' tall steel cage being lowered into a shaft and guided by a 6' worker, a bridge being demolished catching chips flying off a wrecking ball.... the trick is to get the motion without blur. 

Like you said, you have 1 try and little to no time to prepare. In my case those pocket guides and a couple of decades of practice later I can do ok. 

But I'm picky who I'll shoot for. If the observer says "what is this?" as if to scoff I tell 'em "I don't do Olin Mills mass produced snapshots Bucko!" "When you want good photos ask me nicely and I'll consider it". 
The folks I work for now know my style and send me out to do my thing with a couple of small demands. Win-win.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 19, 2017)

Fixer,

That is a great post. Photography is not as hard to do as most people think it is. I have had doctors, lawyers, accountants people who need to have a vast knowledge of their profession, years of formal education, and yet can't take a decent photo or understand how a camera works, which is really very simple. And over the years, I have had so many people like this ask me the same questions again and again, which I always answer, and, again remember there are no secret tricks in photography, skills learned, yes, practice, yes, however, no secrets. 

I am self taught, most of the best working professionals I have met are, I have hired assistants with four year degrees in Photography, with top of the line digital cameras, that get all the photos out of focus, or some other simple mistake, and we can check the settings to see what they had the camera set at, and most have been on auto focus. So, an educated photographer asking to work for us will not even be considered anymore. 

I wish I had the space here to tell you over 25 years of clients stories of complete disasters with photographers they had used in the past. These stories and so funny, yet to the people who hired them it was a nightmare. A vast majority of our business has come come from the incompetent ones before us. And we have held many clients for well over 25 years, in some cases I am the longest person to have been connected to the company or organization but, we are still a vendor. In the corporate world, if they like you they will keep you. 

I can be at a media event with many photographers, and I can tell just by how someone holds their camera if they know what they are doing or not. (Like a golf pro could tell by how someone holds their club). On a trip with president Clinton in 1993, I had show the Associated Press photographer how to attach a monopod to a long lens. No joke, I thought, is this real? For those who may not know, you simply thread it into the lens platform. I found that really unbelievable, first of all, the agency and then of all things, a presidential event, which is really as high as you can go. 

My my school of thought on photography is this:

Photography is a combination of art and science. To earn a living it is: art+science+business. You must know how to conduct business. Also, how to conduct yourself, and with heavy VIP's to know your place. 

People like your dad make up the best of photographers. I would hire him, or you, let's see...you are by DC?

Best wishes,

RL


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 20, 2017)

Red, you speak of the art, and that is where you have it or you don't. Snap shot or 'photograph'... there's a giant chasm between them that most people holding a camera fail to know even exists, much less sees it. 

For me there is one secret to photography that daunts me these days, yet at once was an easy thing to grasp.

In my minds eye I see what the camera sees.... edge to edge top to bottom. There was some work involved to get the details correct. Proper settings in other words.
At one point I was "one with my camera"... pro atheletes refer to it as "being in the zone".. 

There are times I see something, grab the camera and bam! Instant winner, first shot. Lately it became forced. 
At one point I lost that ability... at least the ability to do that every time. So time would be spent trying to crop, edit or alter the photo into a good one. Many times with success, but many times not so. The better my cameras got the harder it seemed to get photos I even like. So I reached a wall of creativity and decided to take some time away from it. This thread has me thinking of trying some studio type stuff with flashlights for my store. 

Now getting back to why PP went under... I don't think it can be blamed on the internet per sae. I think it's like JC Penney or Sears. Once great institutions that now see huge competition from several directions. 

To me it seems they forgot the basics of what made them so viable so long ago while they try to compete with youthful competition on the youthful competitions terms. That's like a 79 year old fella trying to play tennis against 3 chaps who are in their late teens. 

They shoulda sat back and pondered howthehell they reached 79 years old to start with and used those virtues to continue playing the games of 79 year olds... golf, chess, shuffleboard! 

Sears just sold the Craftsman Tools name for cash to buy fashion accessories... bad idea!!


----------



## RedLED (Mar 20, 2017)

I think it comes down to the age we live in and they should have seen it coming.

Millennial's dont read, buy or subscribe to magazines, they have phones for that, and with that go advertising dollars. You need to introduce younger generations into things. Who would have thought kids today don't want cars or even drive? They have Uber for that.

Golf...the hardest hit as the baby boomers, don't want to play dad's sport and socialize with club members, they have social media for that and golf has a second and worse blow coming as another entire generation will shun the sport. Millennial's won't pick up the sport as they don't have the attention span for a 5 hour game not played on a screen. 

Here in the Palm Springs area where we maintain a home, there over 120 golf courses, and the future for these courses and the communities built around them will be a huge disaster, actually, it already is but the worst is still to come for the sport. As well as, people like us who don't play, yet own a home in a country club. 

A magazine can can just close, what do you with hundreds of thousands of acres of land suited for, and not useable for anything else, with massive costs to maintain and the real killer...the water. And no one who wants to play, except Obama, he will play, but we can't make it on him alone.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 20, 2017)

RedLED said:


> Millennial's dont read, buy or subscribe to magazines, they have phones for that



Check out PetaPixel, Fstoppers, The Northrups; I'll miss the magazine but I won't miss any news or information..


----------



## RedLED (Mar 20, 2017)

The Internet has wiped out many publications, and newspapers are just hanging on.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 20, 2017)

Red, as the Price is Right fan dies off things are leaving with them. 
Yet like with a film camera or a vinyl album, there are still some fans. The snowflakes with their $125k college debt at 24 aint though. They cannot afford the stuff even if they wanted to. $12/hr jobs and $1500/mth apartments (shared with 3 others) won't allow it. 

I know youngsters who have NEVER watched tv in their home in the apartment laden suburbs... or listened to the radio. But you ask them the top 5 costs they'll cut when times get tight... food is in there, but celphone plans are not. 
Of course those folks aren't going to subscribe to Popular Photography.... in paper? 
Gasp!! The trees, the ink... the carbon foot print for Pete's sake. 

But I know a very successful business man who downsized in 08, down to a core group and paid them out of his pocket. He has managed to cling on by his finger nails by adapting and is now hiring again. 

I do feel honored you say you'd hire my pop (or me)


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 21, 2017)

A few minutes at any one of those links above will give you more than an issue of PP, especially considering all the advertising required to keep the magazine afloat..


----------



## trstick1 (Mar 21, 2017)

I am a long time reader of Popular Photography. I used to read Modern Photography too. There are many photography blogs online. Popular Photography will be missed. Any smartphone with advanced optics will never replace any digital camera.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 21, 2017)

Fixer,

I'm with you, man... I glad I was young when I was, these kids have no real fun today I went to high school in the 70s and things were just better then. They don't have a concept of genuine fun with your friends. 

Some me people freak out if their phone is in the next room, sometimes I leave the house for errands and things, and forget it at home, and it does not bother me a bit. Infact, sometimes I leave it behind just so I don't have to carry it. I can take an additional light or knife that way. Even with out the extra EDC gear, which I can live without as well, I can make it to Wal-Mart and back just fine, you know like in the old days way back in the 90's! 

The 1990' were actually pretty good!

There is some very cool and handy these things phones can do like recording the police, wish I had that when I was a teen getting harassed by the California Highway Patrol for riding a Honda Mini Trail, that went 30 miles an hour, while my classmates had hefty bags of dope, and yet they come after me for riding in the middle of nowhere north of Los Angeles, (in those days). I was clean cut, no laws broken but I was their target because they did, and still do hate teens and bikes, and combine the two...forgetaboutit! 

Now, back to the phones... As they do some great things, I don't understand the obsession with not having it with you. Motorcycles were cool, way cooler than any phone, and still are but, to me as a kid, if it rained, or I needed a part, I could find something else to do like read Popular Photography, Popular Mechanics plus I read the news papers every day since I could read, call friends or go over to their house or even watch TV. As much as I would loved to have had the video recording at my disposal, we lived in a better time, a better day. With things they will never experience.

It's not like that any more. I Still have motorcycles, and I used to fly, however I have kind have semi retired from that, however as much as amazingly spectacular and fun as aviation is, along with the rewards of having the knowledge to land at LAX as a kid, (What young person today will ever do that), it is steeped in rules and regulations, you are often controlled by the San Diego TRACON, except VFR runs but, motorcycles are free, pure freedom. Danger comes with this, but still once you find areas not scrutinized by anyone with a citation book, it is actually more fun than flying, to feel the air, even the risk is exciting. My God, even getting a ticket on a bike is at least something, the kids today miss even that.

Now they will miss out on some wonderful dedicated publications. There is something about just flipping through a magazine. Anyone start from the back the first time when picking up a new edition? I always have.

The thing was as I progressed to full size Motocross bikes around 16, and became a local professional in So.Cal, I could never get through to the CHP that I worked to pay for the bike and all it's support operations, never touched alcohol or drugs, as I explained you would kill yourself with the combination, a mixture they knew all to well, and they should be going after the fools and goofs at school who eat entire boxes of Lucky Charms without the milk. Plus all the pothead teachers of the day, with glazed eyes and repeated the same thing over and over as they did not remember we just covered that. 

What at helped me with my sport was reading magazines like Motocross Action, Dirt Bike, Modern Cycle, Popular Cycling and the weekly trade Cycle News. I read every word over, and over, again and even knew the dates they would be on the newsstand. These publications helped educate me on what I was doing. I know Dirt Bike and MXA are still in print, the others long gone, Cycle News is on line now. Yes, they can get all the information they need however, if you don't do anything, what's the use. All they are is obsessed with is sending photos of themselves, doing nothing, to each other. I at least learned how engines functioned, learned how to use tools the right way (Fixer, I still have Craftsman tools from Junior high, over 40 years ago, still use them, too). 

At least the CHP tickets made life interesting, espicially when my parents found out. Funny thing was they were mad at the Cops, not me as I had their permission to ride there. 

And, Infact they, the CHP, had a magazine called Highway Patrol filled with photos of awful car wrecks, with dead people in it. The barber shop always had it and I never missed that one either. Anyone remember the magazine Highway Patrol? 

Those magazines helped me land a job in the MC industry for awhile simply because of the knowledge that came along with each edition. And then years later after being trained by two of the best editors ever, I was able to cover the biggest and best events in Ameraica, and the world, then being published in all the major publications worldwide, even many books and my stills on TV.

So, for myself, I will miss each magazine that goes to bed for the last time (That's a Journalism term by the way), sad to see them go.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 21, 2017)

trstick1 said:


> I am a long time reader of Popular Photography. I used to read Modern Photography too. There are many photography blogs online. Popular Photography will be missed. Any smartphone with advanced optics will never replace any digital camera.


Not today, but hang on. Big things are coming.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 22, 2017)

437 complete issues of _Soviet Photo_ scanned right here.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 22, 2017)

Where did you get all of that, comrade?

Actually, very cool, however your FBI file just got a little thicker. Mine too. 

It it does not have quite the charm of our old magazines. That is the people's photography, not "popular." Typical CCCP doom and gloom. 

The commies had an almost exact copy of the Hasselblad system, only no where as good as the real one since nothing ever worked in the Soviet Union. 

Last yeay Tass bought a POTUS Obama photo of mine from an Asian countries business conference ASEAN. Google: Ned Redway ASEAN 2016 Tass

Tass is the Rusian News agency a hold over from the USSR. They have a photo of mine of the Cambodian PM, there was an Obama, however I can't locate it anymore.

Or, Google: Ned Redway ASEAN 2016 then click visit page and my credits are there.

Or, Google my my name and photos, and you can see me with Chuck Yeager. Most of those photos are mine but not all Google is messed up, you have to click view all and click go to page on the photo, my OJ photo is up there, too. Go to the first one. 

Click view all , then you have to click visit page to see the captions and credits.

Another one of my favorites is: 707sim.com then find 'Air Force One Pavillion Grand opening,' I inserted my self in that one, too. I was there at 0430 to shoot that, I was the first one to shoot the exhibit, and left with POTUS in The mortacade. They ran a complete dummy motorcade that day, and it was a day I slipped my disc out and the staff wanted to send the President's Dr., over to which I firmly said no, thanks but, NO! Otherwise I would have been news, I just dealt with it with my medication. You can't see the hundreds or maybe a over thousand photos from that day, however people who review my work said it was some of my best, even under feeling like a knife was in my back. 

Back at AF1, at LAX Remote site, POTUS made a point to ask me if I was OK, and I just said I'm fine Mr. President. Thank you! That was nice of him to wave me over to check on me. That was a long time ago. 

I'm OT, but I love the Soviet magazines, again, how did you get these, did you work in the basement at the Americam Embassy in Moscow and take them home in a diplomatic pouch?


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 22, 2017)

RedLED said:


> how did you get these, did you work in the basement at the Americam Embassy in Moscow and take them home in a diplomatic pouch?



Heck no, I was in junior high when the wall fell. The link came from one of the above photography news sites.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 23, 2017)

Just teasing you. Or did I blow your cover? Still I looked at some, real Soviet style on display.


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 24, 2017)

RedLED said:


> Not today, but hang on. Big things are coming.



Smart phone cameras are pretty impressive today .... compared to where they were in the past, but form factor and physics will always be at play. You need light to get signal to noise ratio. With image stabilization, whether mechanical or digital and motion compensation (digital), you can gather more light using time instead of glass, but that has its practical limits. Personally I am waiting for more use of stereoscopic imaging both for 3D, but also variable depth of field.

I was recently on a business trip without a "real" camera, just with my cell phone (one of the best rated cameras for cell phones). My colleague had brought his ~10 year old Kodak 10x zoom point and shoot with him. I found myself consistently asking to borrow it to get a shot.

Some great points on art + science (and business). Most(large majority of) photographers who put food on the table doing photography do it through weddings and portraits. It's a tough business as everyone with a DSLR now thinks they are a photographer. I don't think the "art" is universal though. One of my best friends still charges $5,000+ for weddings and regularly travels the world to shoot them. Her ability to capture the emotion of her subjects is amazing. She also does some amazing street/urban photography and has sold quite a few piece. She would admit without hesitation that beyond the technical ability, she can't take a landscape/nature photo to save her life. It's not her passion either.

SLR sales are well off their peak. Low end models get updated fairly regularly, but high end modules are now on fairly long update cycles. Technically things have not improved much to justify updates. The best Nikons of today are only marginally better than the ones from 2012 whether you are talking full-frame or APS-C. Some improvements have been made in in camera noise reduction (digital), but memory is cheap so just shoot in raw and use the best noise algorithms off camera that are not encumbered by time or power (when needed).

Interest in photos is at an all time high. I would even say the interest in the art (to a degree) is at an all time high. Unlike the past where you had one chance to get it right .... and may not know till a plane ride and a month later whether you got it right or not, you just take another picture. Sure that's not always possible, but most of the time it is ... and when its not, another opportunity will present itself again.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 24, 2017)

ssanasisredna said:


> Smart phone cameras are pretty impressive today .... compared to where they were in the past, but form factor and physics will always be at play.
> 
> SLR sales are well off their peak.



Just my observation, but the cell phone usually does the kind of pictures done by cell phones better than the camera in auto mode; the phone's minuscule aperture and raised-shadows processing makes for remarkably optimized selfies and indoor shots. And since you're sharing an image that won't be viewed on anything larger than a cell phone, the amount of detail is about right for the format.

And SLR sales have shown very slow and modest gains since the digital camera took over, and haven't really been affected by the cell phone, whereas the compact camera has been completely destroyed by the phone; compact sales figures today are about on par with the sales of film cameras in their final year. The notable trend within the SLR category this year is that mirrorless is rising and DSLR is declining.

A very succinct video about the current state of the camera market and how the cell phone ran over the consumer camera, i.e. why Popular Photography died:


----------



## RedLED (Mar 25, 2017)

Star,

I agree with you on this100%.

And no professional, I have ever known at the highest levels ever uses RAW, RGB is perfectly fine, let the camera do the work for you. At the Oscars or Emmys, I shoot 8,000 images, with dead lines, RGB is the way to go, and my post production artist will tell me to do a few only if we are going big in size, light room and its BS aside. I don't like light room, mt artist may, I use something else simpler that I won't a discuss here. 

On the D1 series yes, after that forget it. No editor wants to deal with that. If anyone even remembers the D1, the total game changer camera in digital photography for professionals. But, it came with huge color issues. However, that is now coming up on almost two decades we have Several D4s and 5s, we have 5-6 each of these models, as I have one other shooter and we always go out with no less than three cameras but my favorite was the D2X and D3, which we had to get rid of due to use, if you can get one of them, you will have a great camera as not many important developments have come fourth, and I hate any DSLR with video, as I refuse to shoot it, even if the the President of the United States asked me to, I would not. I'm am a still photographer, even though I can shoot motion picture cameras and have DP credits.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 25, 2017)

I almost bought the D2x when the 3 arrived but chose the 700 instead as the 1:1 thing wasn't high on my list of things required. As time has passed it no longer seems like something I'm interested in as I was able to probe deep, deep, deep into the menu of my D7000 and tweak it to tailor the sensor to interpolate what I see pretty well color-wise. And being a hobbyist that was good enough. 

Now regarding PP, if 12 year olds are dictating the industry, it's a sad commentary for things to come. Sure at 12 I was able to say to my dad "maybe this would be easier" as to a 12 year old convenience is king. But as a grown up I have learned that if you rely on things automatic you really limit yourself to what is possible. 
I commented to a snowflake at work one day "dude if you had your way somebody in the government would pick out your attire". He remarked "yeah and it would probably be pretty comfy too". Later in the day I pointed to a postal worker and said "pretty comfy, huh?"... He understood my point but failed to understand that the freedom to learn what makes things tick is why America is so great and that when some bloated software giant decides how quickly automatic doors open you are limited in exposure to what could be limitless opportunities. 

My brother, a first on the block with all things gadgets uses bluetooth memory cards in his P&S, and not satisfied with his craft sought out a digi-cam. Once he did that for a while he now uses my old D80 and looks at life through a new set of eyes. He remarked "this is like getting prescription glasses for my photography." 

Frankly I'm glad the market is killing off those mini SLR's and all those little rigs. It is phasing out all those would-be Ansel Adams wanna be types and sending them over to Instagram. That leaves me a lot of elbow room to take proper photographs and keep them on my dinasaur laptop. 

I don't set in some utopian bubble pretending the world isn't changing around me. I see it in movies, hear it at work and everywhere else I go. Quite often my kids show off this and that to which I marvel. But I sit back in the comfy bubble as an observer knowing the classics never go out of style.... fashion dictates they come back every so often. And when some new fangled version comes along I just chuckle knowing the history of it. Also knowing at some point the 12 year old will be an adult and ask "how'd you do that?"... 

People like to say "the dinasaur is extinct"... I respond "tell that to the alligator".

At my work I'm tasked with teaching the next generation how to do my job. Part of that was to learn all things Office 010. So they really helped this field guy in that regard. And they still chuckle at my exuberance when I learned our copiers punch holes and staple things as they spit out the chute. Yet at the close of this week my final booklet was printed as a draft and passed around for a few to proof read. The youngsters gathered round to see what the dinasaur had come up with and were at points seeking my advice on how I did certain creative aspects that were way beyond just clicking and pasting onto a screen but were a combination of things available that when mingled together created unique effects. 

Learning the basics of the combustable engine, the film camera, the computer operating system and a host of other modern day creature features led to a distinct process that all these auto-gizmos of today fail to provide a generation of up n comers who will fall into an obscurity of same-ole-sameness if the dinasaur doesn't pass on those old skills. The crowd that seeks more is shrinking for sure. But as long as folks like that guy in the video keep touting more automation because it's popular, the more the crowd will shrink into a day when they.... are the dinasaur not the crocodile.


----------



## joelbnyc (Mar 25, 2017)

RedLED said:


> $15,000?... My 600f4 cost that, try having a million dollar investment over 27 years In top level studio with the latest gear, and software. Plus the talent to assist. Not easy anymore.
> 
> I wanted to come back and say, I think it is great your wife did so well out of the gate, and if she keeps it up, you could do very well down the road. Nice to hear a success in the business these days, congratulations.
> 
> ...


Yes, I know that there are medium and large format digital cameras and lenses that cost tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars... we have family friends who are in the NYC and global fashion world.

In any case, I use to be a hobbyist with 35mm black and white film and darkroom in school in the 90s, and I am blown away by what a D750 can do. I really didn't think my wife would book, I got her the equipment (and a few books like Jose Villa's Fine Art Wedding Photography, technical reading, online classes, etc) so she could pursue her "passion," but she turns out to be talented, handy with the software, obsessive, and already booking 5K weddings her second season. She is of course well aware of the huge gap between her current skill set and a true master- she's done some lab assisting and second shooting for established pros that showed her how much she has to learn. What did Malcolm Gladwell say, that it takes 10,000 hours to master something? Arbitrary figure maybe, but grain of truth there.

The preponderance of amateurs with crop frame DSLRs perpetuating a race to the bottom for what most photographers can earn is a definite thing, but the wealth divide is such that there will be a set of people wanting the 15K weddings and high quality professional work, at least in certain locales, regardless of continual improvement in consumer and "prosumer" equipment. If the wedding costs 1 million, the groom earned a 7 or 8 figure bonus last year, what's 15 or 30K for the photographer?

Thanks for the reply. Sounds like you have had an impressive and fulfilling career!


----------



## RedLED (Mar 25, 2017)

Weddings are chicken feed compared to corporate work, our serious money comes from that, well into six figures, a trip, with a lot of expense on our end because they need so much but with big profits, and these dam terrorists have ruined many out of the country trips, as high level executives are targets. In the 90's the big companies did not blink at our huge bids, they just kept up us. Many still do. Once a CEO, told me to just double what ever we bill. And I did. In the 90's silicone valley. 

Also, forget Malcom Gladwell, he would be lucky to shoot a photo of his foot. 

Nevertheless, keep up the good wedding work. We have had some $30,000 dollar ones over the years, I just have contracts from naming the families. No one gets them as often as you think, and today many wealthy in this era are total cheapskate's, and would never give that kind of money. Trust me I live in a few towns which full of them. And no longer work for any of them no matter what they pay and it is not what the older generations paid. The new money, they are awful people. 

Books are a better source than the Internet as they have been researched, by editors, and the authors vetted.

You are are spot on about the race to the bottom, I'm glad I started when I did as I am looking to semi retire and do just the things I want. 

Busiuess skils are equal to technical and art. Remove one and you can't work in this business, you must be excellent at all. Work hard, real hard, and you can make unreal amounts in this field, however it is closing fast. 

I worked over twenty years without a day off, and loved it. That kind of demand is over. 

As as far as 10,000 hours, I had an assistant years ago from Sweden. He was the most talented photographer I have ever seen in my life (Self taught, like most of us), here on a college exchange, I even sent him on an assignment to photograph Ray Charles, which he did wonderful work on. 

When he returned home, before he was allowed to work in the profession, he was required to attend an art academy, and a bunch of useless college classes. When finished, he lost his edge, his natural talent and spirit broken, lost by a bunch of bearded professors, he told me he could not even take a photo of a bridge. He quit. So don't be fooled by the people that show up at something like the insane TED conference, that worthless thing. That kind of thinking ruins people. 

In art, the longer you spend in academia the more you lose your talent. My best college professor, once told me get a BA and get out, he was right. Frankly good common sense is just as good for this work. 

Again best of luck,

RL


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 25, 2017)

RedLED said:


> And no professional, I have ever known at the highest levels ever uses RAW, RGB is perfectly fine



I shoot RAW and post-process manually in Lightroom exclusively  But then I'm not filling memory cards on a deadline. Been carefully filling out my histograms since the pictures were on floppy disks in Windows 98, and the dynamic range of these modern cameras is definitely twenty years ahead (though I have seen the D3 get pictures I can't explain and would gladly carry one..)

Before and after with the big dynamic range of the little deck of cards-sized camera:


----------



## RedLED (Mar 25, 2017)

No, that's fine we do use raw on certain things, it does have a use. Not for deadlines though. There is software for going big, like for a bill board. I don't do any post production, so I'm not the one to ask. I do camera work, lenses, lighting and directing. I just want to be where the action as I hate, like many professionals, photoshop, and all the other software. However, I need some one good at it, and some people only want to do that. 

Same as in the film days, some people hated taking photos, but loved the dark room. Even in the digital age we need people to fix our photos sometimes, not every shot you take is an award winner but thank god for post production professionals.


----------



## xdayv (Mar 25, 2017)

Looking back the D3 raw files were a breeze to process in the Lightroom engine... now we got these big fat D800 files to deal with. 

Wonder if we have access to PDF archives of this magazine though?


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 26, 2017)

On the subject of the D3 and why I respect it, not my picture - About a year ago a guy over on the photography forum was shooting a wedding with a D3S and just randomly snapped this pic while walking about, he wanted to know if he should include it in the photos sent to the client. So I'm getting ready to edit it, up the shadows, maybe remove the gal in the back, and I'm really impressed by the processing he's already done to it, not a bit of noise anywhere and very smooth pixels. I ask him what he used to process it, and he says "that's how it came out of the camera." What?! This is ISO 640, just a quick off the cuff snap of a scene, and it looks like this at the pixel level? I told him "I'd use a 12MP camera for weddings too if they all came out like that.."

Seriously, full size/1:1 this and see if you can find a flaw, there's no noise where there should be noise, no pixels where there should be pixels, it's just madness:


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 26, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> And SLR sales have shown very slow and modest gains since the digital camera took over, and haven't really been affected by the cell phone, whereas the compact camera has been completely destroyed by the phone; compact sales figures today are about on par with the sales of film cameras in their final year. The notable trend within the SLR category this year is that mirrorless is rising and DSLR is declining.



I am not sure where you are getting your stats but they are not accurate.

Interchangeable lens cameras peaks in sales in 2012 and have been dropping every year since and are about 1/2 their peak. Point and shoots are a $volume basis are are complete death spiral and are at barely 1/10 their peak.

The comment about mirrorless cameras increasing is also wrong. Mirrorless sales have been virtually flat the last 4 years, while DSLR has declined.

Infographics-2016-03-1.jpg


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 26, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> Just my observation, but the cell phone usually does the kind of pictures done by cell phones better than the camera in auto mode; the phone's minuscule aperture and raised-shadows processing makes for remarkably optimized selfies and indoor shots. And since you're sharing an image that won't be viewed on anything larger than a cell phone, the amount of detail is about right for the format.



Comparatively the aperture is quite large compared to the sensor size. The firmware is very good though.


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 26, 2017)

RedLED said:


> Star,
> 
> I agree with you on this100%.
> 
> And no professional, I have ever known at the highest levels ever uses RAW, RGB is perfectly fine, let the camera do the work for you. At the Oscars or Emmys, I shoot 8,000 images, with dead lines, RGB is the way to go, and my post production artist will tell me to do a few only if we are going big in size, light room and its BS aside. I don't like light room, mt artist may, I use something else simpler that I won't a discuss here.



RGB? ... do you mean JPEG?


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 26, 2017)

ssanasisredna said:


> I am not sure where you are getting your stats but they are not accurate.



You're not looking back far enough, check video above/second page @ 10:30


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 26, 2017)

xdayv said:


> Looking back the D3 raw files were a breeze to process in the Lightroom engine... now we got these big fat D800 files to deal with.
> 
> Wonder if we have access to PDF archives of this magazine though?



But fortunately we have lots of computing power too.


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 26, 2017)

You know you should never ask to point out the flaws ... there are always flaws 

- There is what looks like a stuck pixel in the guys suit just to the right of his shirt (middlish). 
- There is a fair amount of compression artifacts in the flowers
- There is chromatic aberration on the bottom left of the silk of the bouquet (there is a spot where it is blown out and you can see color fringing)

You can pick up a used D600/610 for under <$1000 that from a purely technical image standpoint is going to blow away a D3 ..... but I suspect you could have given the same photographer a D3400 and a kit lens and they still would have delivered an impressive image ... except the kit lens may not have had a wide enough aperture to give the shallow depth of field. 



StarHalo said:


> On the subject of the D3 and why I respect it, not my picture - About a year ago a guy over on the photography forum was shooting a wedding with a D3S and just randomly snapped this pic while walking about, he wanted to know if he should include it in the photos sent to the client. So I'm getting ready to edit it, up the shadows, maybe remove the gal in the back, and I'm really impressed by the processing he's already done to it, not a bit of noise anywhere and very smooth pixels. I ask him what he used to process it, and he says "that's how it came out of the camera." What?! This is ISO 640, just a quick off the cuff snap of a scene, and it looks like this at the pixel level? I told him "I'd use a 12MP camera for weddings too if they all came out like that.."
> 
> Seriously, full size/1:1 this and see if you can find a flaw, there's no noise where there should be noise, no pixels where there should be pixels, it's just madness:


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 26, 2017)

-----


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 26, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> You're not looking back far enough, check video above/second page @ 10:30



You stated, "And SLR sales have shown very slow and modest gains since the digital camera took over, and haven't really been affected by the cell phone"

That stopped being true after 2012. DSLR sales are 1/2 the peak. That is a pretty huge hit when you consider that the total consumer market is much much bigger than it was in 2012 with the rise of China and other areas economically. Cell phone cameras became quite good in the 2010-2012 period.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 26, 2017)

ssanasisredna said:


> You know you should never ask to point out the flaws



You normally post on camera forums?


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 26, 2017)

ssanasisredna said:


> RGB? ... do you mean JPEG?



You go into the menu of a Nikon, go to color space and pick sRGB or Adobe RGB. I'm supposing red uses Adobe RGB?

See, that is why Popular Photography was important.... they discussed the details in plain language for everybody to understand... even that guys 12 year old kid who is dictating the market according to her dad. 

I keep mine on sRGB as I don't use Adobe products for my edits.

This thread makes me want to resubscribe to Shutterbug magazine. It already got me to dust off my D7000 and take a bunch of macros of flashlights using my $99 50mm wedding portrait lens. 

I'm sure red has the 1.4 version of Nikons 50mm prime lens but for $99-150 their 1.8 version is pretty sweet. To me half the fun with that one is it steps you back in time to say... the brownie camera days with an advantage of the instant new millenium dark room.

Learned about it reading.... wait for it...

Popular Photography...


----------



## joelbnyc (Mar 26, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> . I'm sure red has the 1.4 version of Nikons 50mm prime lens but for $99-150 their 1.8 version is pretty sweet.



I presume you are talking about the older 1.8D line without motor? FX 1.8G lines are pretty awesome value too.

For my wife's d750 we got I think the AF-S FX 1.8G 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm, all $200-$500 each, and great marks at dxomark, amazing image quality. And you can get a full frame Nikon for not much more than the D7000 series...

The wide angles in this 1.8G series look great too, $600-800 range.

She has I think 1 or 2 older motorless primes as well, and one of the big ~$2k F2.8 70-200 VR zooms. Then the monitors, computers, software, websites, marketing, flashes and other accessories...

Course now she wants another FX camera so she doesn't have to switch lenses as much and for backup... not a capital unintensive biz...

But, even with full frame gear, it's a lot less costly than a college degree, if one has the talent, drive, and biz sense to make it all useful.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 26, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> It already got me to dust off my D7000 and take a bunch of macros of flashlights using my $99 50mm wedding portrait lens.



Love that Pentax $99 50mm..


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 26, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> Love that Pentax $99 50mm..



Nice! I love using prime lenses. My dad was a Pentax user. He finally broke down and bought an autofucus film camera in about 2002 or so. 
When I feel nostalgic I'll use that one instead of my Rebel G. It plays nice with drug store Fuji film. 
Come to think of it, does Fuji even make film anymore? My film stash has probably turned 10 years old by now...




joelbnyc said:


> I presume you are talking about the older 1.8D line without motor? FX 1.8G lines are pretty awesome value too.
> 
> For my wife's d750 we got I think the AF-S FX 1.8G 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm, all $200-$500 each, and great marks at dxomark, amazing image quality. And you can get a full frame Nikon for not much more than the D7000 series...



Older? 2012-13-ish. I don't follow you on the "motorless" thing. It autofocuses and speaks to the camera. Super duper fast very accurate focus too. 

My 35-70 pre-G auto focuses but doesn't speak to the camera so it always thinks it's on 2.8. When Nikon discontinued it they were on the bay for as much as $900. (For what was a $400 when in production). I bought one from some magazine photographer in Seattle for $50 because the lens was so scratched up. It took photos that looked like they had a difuser for old people portraits. Great for pastel flavored macros and such. But one day I found a broken one for free and paid a guy $99 to rebuild my working one. The broken one had new fangled nano coated AR glass so I got the old metal frame lens with modern glass for less than $200. That's my wide angle lens for the full frame camera. 

I found a sensor I liked and really have no issue with _only_ 10 and 16 MP cameras. They do decent noise reduction at less than stratospheric iso's and using my custom settings only generate 16-25 mb photos. If I want to go huge I just save as a bmp in my editor for making poster sized prints or when I need to crop some ridiculously small portion of a photo for work purposes.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 26, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> Come to think of it, does Fuji even make film anymore? My film stash has probably turned 10 years old by now...



Our big sellers are Fuji, Kodak, Ilford..

Should also mention: Fuji makes/sells the most film and the most film cameras by a massive margin thanks to the current best-selling camera, the Instax.



bykfixer said:


> Older? 2012-13-ish. I don't follow you on the "motorless" thing.



Older lenses that don't have an autofocus motor in them; that's one of the nice things about Pentax, both the autofocus and stabilization are in-body, so you have both regardless of what [non-manual] lens you use.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 26, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> Love that Pentax $99 50mm..



I like the idea of in camera auto focus, but especially stabilization.

I was (holding finger tips touching) this close to going with Pentax digital after purchasing a Nikon D80. But by the time I was ready to upgrade had spent a bunch of money on full frame compatible Nikon lenses and opted for the D700. 

The Panasonic had me intrigued as well.

I also let my Pop Photo subscription expire and opted for Shutterbug for a few years.


----------



## joelbnyc (Mar 26, 2017)

Yeah, one of the benefits of the D7000 and full frame Nikons is they have auto focus motors in the camera, so they can use older (cheaper but still great) Nikon lenses that do not have motors inside the actual lens, AF as opposed to AF-S lenses. The, I think, 3xxx and 5xxx crop frame lines require AF-S lenses to autofocus.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 27, 2017)

Yes, of course RBG Jpeg. RPG is a JPEG, And I have never seen a professional with any of those brands. Not yet, anyway. 

Fixer, you got it, except I have all 1.4, thousands of dollars more of lenses in all focal legenths.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 27, 2017)

Not to start any trouble, but no, and I mean no, professional even ownes or carries nor has a 50 mm lens in his possession.

Fixer, yes. Longer, you bet but, never a 50mm, the worst lens in the lot. No professional even has one, except as a loupe used upside down. You have to trust me on a 50mm, the most useless.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 27, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> Love that Pentax $99 50mm..





RedLED said:


> Not to start any trouble, but no, and I mean no, professional even ownes or carries nor has a 50 mm lens in his possession.
> 
> Fixer, yes. Longer, you bet but, never a 50mm, the worst lens in the lot. No professional even has one, except as a loupe used upside down. You have to trust me on a 50mm, the most useless.



No trouble her mon-frier. Yeah I can see a person whose photography involves lenses that need their own monopod or tripod not having a "wedding lens" in their kit. I would also suppose they don't carry a 105 or 185 macro either. 

But for a hobbyist who crosses over tons of genres as it were, or the nature pro who covers many bases those are certainly good ones to have. Still life photography involves a totally different set of tools. And the "wedding lens" got its name long before zoom lenses became the norm. Probably not a big seller these days but at one point if you did weddings you had a 14, a 28 and a 50mm lens on your Minolta, Canon, Pentax or Yashica. (Who remembers those rigs?)

Heck, even a Hassleblad comes with a wedding lens from the factory. That or a 35 iirc.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 27, 2017)

RedLED said:


> Not to start any trouble, but no, and I mean no, professional even ownes or carries nor has a 50 mm lens in his possession.



You should try one, it's ~$100 for a lens that's as sharp as the best in any given ecosystem; Canon's 50mm has a sharpness score approaching that of the Zeiss Otus/Milvus lenses. Excellent for dramatic shots of small items (like flashlights,) it's what I used for the antique mall shoot.


----------



## RedLED (Mar 27, 2017)

I'll make up a list of what is in my bag, I don't have time to do it now though.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 27, 2017)

^^ This guy...
Nor his assistant probably have a 50mm lens.... at least in that setup, but I'm speculating the assistant is learning the ropes of the pro circuit and provides pretty good help to the photographer while she hones her skills. So perhaps she has a 50mm in her personal quiver. 

He was near first base taking photos in the first baseman's direction shortly before I took this snapshot.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 27, 2017)

I might not have a 50mm lens with my theoretical lottery windfall Leica S setup either, but bear in mind that flashlight pic above, the antique mall series, that's a $500 new-in-box body with a $100 new-in-box lens; the bang-for-the-buck force is strong with this one..


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 27, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> You should try one, it's ~$100 for a lens that's as sharp as the best in any given ecosystem; Canon's 50mm has a sharpness score approaching that of the Zeiss Otus/Milvus lenses. Excellent for dramatic shots of small items (like flashlights,) it's what I used for the antique mall shoot.



It has high resolution .... Over a certain aperture range ... In the center. The vignetting is okay. Chromatic aberattions okay.

That's the difference compared to really good lenses. The good ones are sharp under a wider aperture range especially wide open, sharp corner to corner, and minimize other issues.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 27, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> I might not have a 50mm lens with my theoretical lottery windfall Leica S setup either, but bear in mind that flashlight pic above, the antique mall series, that's a $500 new-in-box body with a $100 new-in-box lens; the bang-for-the-buck force is strong with this one..



Agreed. Not bad for $600. 
Now my lottery windfall would involve a Zeiss 50mm prime. I almost bought one when they were like $500. When the next B&H catalog arrived they were $750. Doh!!

But if a winning ticket falls in my lap I'd still use my D7000, but I'd opt for a titanium tripod instead of alluminum.

Edit: It just dawned on me that I opted for alluminum back when for better shock absorption as the mirror slap of my camera caused slight blur when I used my wifes titanium tripod. My Kirk ball head is so dang rigid even the slightest vibrations were not attenuated and that showed up in my long exposure night shots. Decent 8x10's resulted but crops were out. Even using a remote. I did discover the shear brute weight of my D700 and good lenses did a proper absortion. Or at least much better. Plus the weight of alluminum seemed to play nice with mid speed sundown shots in windy conditions...


----------



## NoNotAgain (Mar 27, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> Now my lottery windfall would involve a Zeiss 50mm prime. I almost bought one when they were like $500. When the next B&H catalog arrived they were $750. Doh!!



The Voightlander 58mm f/1.4 is sharper than the ZEISS 50mm. Plus the Voightlander is chipped so just like the Nikon P series lenses talks with the body. 



bykfixer said:


> But if a winning ticket falls in my lap I'd still use my D7000, but I'd opt for a titanium tripod instead of alluminum.



Titanium wouldn't make a good tripod material due to the spring property. If money is no object, a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod is the way to go. For a carbon tripod suitable for long heavy glass, you're looking at $1k minus the head. 

I've got a few of the Gitzo mono pods, one medium duty Gitzo tripod and numerous Bogen/Manfrotto aluminum super duty tripods. Arca Swiss B1 and Z1 ball heads.


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 27, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> Agreed. Not bad for $600.
> Now my lottery windfall would involve a Zeiss 50mm prime. I almost bought one when they were like $500. When the next B&H catalog arrived they were $750. Doh!!
> 
> But if a winning ticket falls in my lap I'd still use my D7000, but I'd opt for a titanium tripod instead of alluminum.
> ...



In a pinch, hang your camera bag (filled with whatever clean you have on you) from the center of the tripod. It works well for stabilization. These days you may be using a stabilized lens, but you need to be careful as depending on the lens, shutter speed, and focal length, you could be better off without the stabilization.


----------



## joelbnyc (Mar 28, 2017)

a 50 on an APS-C sensor is equivalent to like ~75mm, tho, right? And the 35mm on a crop is more like a 50mm on a Full Frame. So, what might seem a boring lens on a full-frame is maybe less boring on a crop... people always get confused by the multiplier.

I take it the $500 body is obviously not a full frame? Or maybe a D610 that got dropped in a swamp?


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 28, 2017)

joelbnyc said:


> a 50 on an APS-C sensor is equivalent to like ~75mm, tho, right? And the 35mm on a crop is more like a 50mm on a Full Frame. So, what might seem a boring lens on a full-frame is maybe less boring on a crop... people always get confused by the multiplier.
> 
> I take it the $500 body is obviously not a full frame? Or maybe a D610 that got dropped in a swamp?



75mm and fast, a $100 portrait lens..

The body is a bright and clean APS-C Pentax (shown with the matching kit lens, not the 50mm prime)


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 28, 2017)

NoNotAgain said:


> The Voightlander 58mm f/1.4 is sharper than the ZEISS 50mm. Plus the Voightlander is chipped so just like the Nikon P series lenses talks with the body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I meant carbon fiber. Had just returned from wedding band shopping and had titanium/tungston on the brain. 

I like the ziess better. I prefer manual focus for macros anyway. Autofocus is like google. It tries to guess what I'm thinking and gets it wrong 98% of the time.


----------



## irongate (Mar 28, 2017)

Take a look at these pictures-yes they are clean

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...6/Some-best-photographs-2017-Sony-Awards.html


----------



## NoNotAgain (Mar 28, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> I meant carbon fiber. Had just returned from wedding band shopping and had titanium/tungston on the brain.
> 
> I like the ziess better. I prefer manual focus for macros anyway. Autofocus is like google. It tries to guess what I'm thinking and gets it wrong 98% of the time.



Bykfixer, the Voightlander lens' are manual focus lenses. The lens has a chip inside so that you can get full info transfer between the lens and camera. Ya still gotta focus. 

Macro/micro lenses are best used in manual focus. The 55, 105 and 200mm macro lenses are some of the sharpest lenses Nikon ever produced. I recently started using my Nikon 70-180 micro zoom again. If traveling light, I'll carry my 20-35, the 28-70 and 70-180 lenses. 

Zeiss lenses have for years had what was referred to as Zeiss pop. The 58 Vioghtlander has better pop than the 50mm Zeiss. 

The lens is retro old school in design, all metal and glass. They look like the 1970's Nikon AI lenses.


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 28, 2017)

I like zeiss better... let's say we just leave it there, 
But thanks for the tip(s).


----------



## vestureofblood (Mar 28, 2017)

I had a subscription to one of those magazines when I first got into the hobby. Really great work in there. Cant say that I miss using film, but it's very sad that really good photographers are struggling. I will certainly miss the photo mags...


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 28, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> I meant carbon fiber. Had just returned from wedding band shopping and had titanium/tungston on the brain.
> 
> I like the ziess better. I prefer manual focus for macros anyway. Autofocus is like google. It tries to guess what I'm thinking and gets it wrong 98% of the time.



Like you I use manual for macros, but rarely use manual for anything else. It's usually easier to just move the autofocus point and let the camera do its work. I hated taking pictures of people before autofocus. They move too much!! The touch screen on the D5500 is great for quickly picking the focus point.


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 28, 2017)

NoNotAgain said:


> The Voightlander 58mm f/1.4 is sharper than the ZEISS 50mm. Plus the Voightlander is chipped so just like the Nikon P series lenses talks with the body.



It's probably sacrilegious to even say it, but wide open, the Sigma 50mm/1.4 is sharper than the Zeiss 50mm once you get outside the center. Very good sharpness across the whole field wide open.


----------



## ssanasisredna (Mar 28, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> 75mm and fast, a $100 portrait lens..



Well it sounds fast, but remember that F1.8 on an APC does not behave the same as F1.8 on full frame. That is something that many a professional photographer does not know.

Not only is the depth of field of a 75mm/F1.8 FF not the same as a 50mm/F1.8 APS-C, but the light gathering on the full frame is much larger. For a given number of pixels, the F1.8 on the full-frame is going to have quite a bit more signal to noise ratio at the same shutter speed versus an F1.8 on an APS-C.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 28, 2017)

ssanasisredna said:


> Well it sounds fast, but remember



Multiply aperture by crop factor.



NoNotAgain said:


> Arca Swiss B1 and Z1 ball heads.



Love those ball heads!


----------



## bykfixer (Mar 28, 2017)

ssanasisredna said:


> Like you I use manual for macros, but rarely use manual for anything else. It's usually easier to just move the autofocus point and let the camera do its work. I hated taking pictures of people before autofocus. They move too much!! The touch screen on the D5500 is great for quickly picking the focus point.



There are times in crowded situations where I use manual focus at a distance as well. The shot that comes to mind was a gold finch I had watched building a nest and when it finally decided it was finished I wanted a photo of it peeking out from its camoflauge of a cluttered walnut tree branch. Another was a momma downy woodpecker feeding its youngan on a branch of an oak tree surrounded with lots of little branches and twigs. My auto focus kept guessing the wrong places to focus on and I was using a very shallow depth of field setting. Little ole birdy aint gonna sit around all day waiting for the Nikon to guess correctly so I just flip my little switch off when it's close and tweak it from there. 

If I did architecture, re-enactments and outdoor landscapes of epic proportions I'd probably get squeemish about a little blur at the edges. Instead I use my gear for what it does. Knowing the little flaws are present I take that into account and rarely shoot above an f/8 anyway. And if I do the edges are either framed as such or typically treated to a vignette post camera.

Cannot speak for current Shutterbug Magazine but at one point they had excersizes to try. Take your camera to your back yard, mark out a 10'x10' area and spend an hour snapping pictures of that area. Minimum 25 photos. Or the one where you take your top 10 most recent botched shots and tailor them post camera to keepers. Using grayscale, blurring and what-not some really awful blowouts, chopped off heads and such can be made into pretty cool photos. 

I saw a bunch of micro niche latest fads type mags compete with the big companies for what crumbs of ad $ remained and thought "man these guys are gonna be gone in two years. Too bad they'll take folks like Popular Photography down with them along the way".

RIP this thread. :tired:


----------



## trstick1 (Apr 30, 2017)

Phone users dont want to learn to be better photographers. They want their cell phone to take great pictures which will not happen. The cell phone superior optics and exposure will never replace a dslr or mirrorless digital camera. Cell phone users want the easy way.


----------



## StarHalo (May 1, 2017)

This is photography now, kids..


----------



## bykfixer (May 1, 2017)

Uh... aren't they looking the wrong way? 

Just sayin...


----------



## KITROBASKIN (May 1, 2017)

I think they are being selfie(ish).


----------



## Kestrel (May 2, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> This is photography now, kids.. [...]


My goodness, that is so sad ... :shakehead


----------



## StarHalo (May 2, 2017)

But if the picture were from ~15 years ago, you'd have a few people with cameras, a few disposable cameras in there, and that'd be it; _every single person_ in the photo is taking pictures - photography is more popular than ever, just not with a camera.


----------



## NoNotAgain (May 2, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> photography is more popular than ever, just not with a camera.


 They're all using a camera, but not traditional cameras. They live and breath 2x2" Instagram and Twitter pics. Pics that will mean nothing to them in a few days or weeks. How many people transferred files from old computers to the new computer that you had to have because you ran out of space? 

Today's throwaway generation hasn't figured out that memories fade. Photography allows for that recollection to remain as long as the media survives. 

We've gone from Daguerreotype, to black and white film, to color negative and slide film, to home 8 and 16 mm movies, to Beta and VHS, and to now, digital. 

Photography still exists, the medium evolves.


----------



## RedLED (May 4, 2017)

Again,

An early prediction of mine in my notes from 1999, was that many historical photos will be lost for the very reasons you mention, and that includes news outlets. They will just disappear, while you had to throw away Negs. And that required some thinking. I have an archive in the multi-millions of both film negatives from the various formats of film As well as digital. I have in my archives, stored in a special facility that holds every photo and image I have taken from the 5th grade until a few minutes ago. 

And the phone shooters and GWC's, remember, GWC, that is out slang for guy/girl with camera, (and of course zero knowledge)!

Your thinking is spot on. I hate selfies, they are banned along with cell phones at all the major red carpet events I cover, as well as most worldwide, and if you tried to take one with Obama, you would be escorted off the site, even now out of office. Trump, not so much he is a little cooler on them with people. A little. And that policy may have have just changed as it ties up the rope line. 

Maybe the magazine folded due to the fact that this generation is obsessed with taking photos of themselves, over and over and over, and their thinking was they will never reach any of them with any kind of real photography. While it was a good magazine, it was geared toward the hobby-enthusiast, and not professionals. 

Plus, they never said one bad word on any camera review no matter how awful it was in fear of the loss of advertising dollars from the camera companies at a time when there were several camera publications worldwide. It was if every camera they tested was the one to have. All the photo magazines were that way. Unlike say motorcycle magazines which do real tests and reviews then report both the good, and bad about the product.


----------



## RedLED (May 4, 2017)

trstick1 said:


> Phone users dont want to learn to be better photographers. They want their cell phone to take great pictures which will not happen. The cell phone superior optics and exposure will never replace a dslr or mirrorless digital camera. Cell phone users want the easy way.


Give them time, I saw the first camera phone at the Emmys in 2005, or 06 from Nokia. That is not long ago at all. DSLR sales will never be what they were, as only true working professionals who turn good profits and very serious amateurs with money will buy them. The little point and shoot cameras will be the first to go, and you can see that taking place already. When do you see anyone with a smart phone and a digital point and shoot? You don't! 

After that, at little slower pace will go digital zooms (like a small DSLR, with non removeable lens). They will stay around for amatures who want to exercise some control over the camera. They have some life left, we'll have to wait and see on digital zooms. They are safe for now, but mini DSLR cameras have a future because they have removeable lenseses, and that is everything in photography, being able to change lenses. I still feel professionals will want the full size DSLRs

But, you never know does anyone rember the APS the Advanved Photo System that was released to the public on the eve of digital cameras? You can't even do anything with APS negatives because the machines that remove the film and put it back in the canister don't exist today. The entire photo industry failed in the release of the APS system it was a huge embarrassment to them, and for good reason - they knew digital was arriving soon, yet the went ahead with it just the same. 

One of the largest failures of an entire well established worldwide industry in history, as the major companies met to set the APS standards all together. Labs invested $200,000 for the machines to work the APS system, then overnight, digital came along with personal printers, and that was the death of the mini labs as we knew them. They all sunk like the Titanic.

Print media now quite a bit does not send a writer/photographer team as was the decades long standard tradition, today often, the writer just takes the photos with their phone. And even worse staff photographers are often required to shoot both video and stills together covering an event. They all hate it, and both mediums suffer as a result. You can't properly cover an event that way. You would have trouble even staging parts of it, which is then no longer honest journalistic coverage. I have agents so I am never put in that position, I only shoot stills, and always will. 

Smart phone cameras are here to stay for better or worse. And they will only get better.

And why can't I have a DSLR that transmits my images? Imagine every click and they are sent to my agents in New York, LA, Paris, and Germany. Or a client could get them on their computer instantly. You could shoot any job and just send them to your server at the same time for your archives and when you leave the event, just go home.


----------



## NoNotAgain (May 5, 2017)

RedLED said:


> And why can't I have a DSLR that transmits my images? Imagine every click and they are sent to my agents in New York, LA, Paris, and Germany. Or a client could get them on their computer instantly. You could shoot any job and just send them to your server at the same time for your archives and when you leave the event, just go home.



Well, Nikon has their half arse program on the D500 called Snap Bridge that does just that. 

If I shoot tethered to my D3x or D4s, I can automatically send to Photobucket, iCloud or Dropbox. 

I don't think I'd ever want anyone access to unedited work until I view what I've got and if I'm willing to share, market, or price. 

The local newspaper uses freelance photographers exclusively. They are expected to shoot stills and video, but atleast not 4K. Like you, I've got zero interest in video. You want video, hire a videographer.


----------



## markr6 (May 5, 2017)

I'll admit, I hardly touch my DSLR and camera gear anymore. I do a lot with my iPhone 6S (and 5 when I had it). Of course, it's small, light, and always with me. So on backpacking trips I come home with hundreds of photos every time. Of course the quality isn't the same, but it's to a point where 9/10 shots are "good enough". I have 5 nice prints on my office wall and people always come in and rave about them. I tell them to pick the 1 that wasn't shot on my iPhone and no one can tell.

I like to open the .jpg from my iPhone in camera raw. It allows for some good control without overdoing it (I'm tired of the acid-tripping drunk HDR and filters look) or losing much quality.

A camera is just like a knife: the best one is the one that you have with you when you need it. At $550 and the fact that thing contains "my life", that darn phone isn't leaving my sight!!

But after all that, it's a great feeling to break out the Canon and good L glass to take some killer shots.


----------



## RedLED (May 6, 2017)

Not again,

It sounds as you are just posting to photos sites, and not to an agency or wire service. And there is a major diffference in both of those things. It is DEADLINE. 

We know now about Nikon's less than desirable system. My IT person thought it is laughable junk. 

How would I shoot three cameras on the fly at a major event, often on the move with other photographers, publicists, security, and the rest with a wired up system? Impossible! The bad word in all of this is tethered, or weak transmission signals of wireless to a computer. No photojournalist would even consider this, even in a press room. That is for studio use, and we have a system for that in my NY/LA grade of studio. As far as having the need to look at your own work, that is because you were never a film photographer, I wager, where editors looked at all the chromes, (Slides for those who don't know), that is the way it was. 

But, guess what if you have worked with editors, you will know they don't care about the bad photos which we all take, they understand how hard it is to, come back with good photos from difficult major events. I work on the worldwide level, and some of the things I shoot I have 5 seconds to capture something, so if a few bad looking ones are sent out, it is understood by all editors. 

If you are going to work in a creative field, you have to learn not to let that kind of thing worry you. If you can't send the good with the bad in a transmission system, the type I desire, or to just send them all in E-mail or a Dropbox system to an agent or agency, I doubt you are a working professional, not every shot you take will be an award winner. One of the reasons we overshoot things. 

If you shoot a major event with people on every continent waiting with deadlines for the images, and want to look thru all your images, well, you can't, deadlines are everything, always have been, always will. If you have the time to dump some, fine that is OK as it saves the editors a little time. However, that is rare for me to have the time to do my own rough edit. 

I have met photographers who submit like a dozen images and dump the rest. Thing is they are not really professionals' anyway. Frankly, if you are a journalist, editors will pick the photos you hate the most, so never delete anything being submitted, if you must then do out of focus, exposure problems they would be ok, however, that slows down your transmission time. 

I had had the chance to work with some of the best editors in the magazine industry, in LA, New York, Paris and I pass this along to maybe keep others from thinking every professional's shutter release in anyway means each of the photos will be selected as good or useable has no idea how photos, good photos, go from viewfinder to a person seeing it in a magazine, book, internet or whatever medium of quality. 

Publishing is a collaborative art, you can't do it all if you want to be a professional and are afraid to have your work judged by editors, you will have all your work suffer, have a loss of creative thinking, over think things and have your work suffer as a result, and won't make the cut. It is very difficult. 

Once the the editors select your photo the photoshop artists will take over from there, and go over them, at least for editorial work, and only levels and color for journalism or hard news, as you have to be careful doing anything to news photos.

Hope this helps as we need more good professionals, who are well equipped, and know what they are doing with confidence who can get in there and bring us the world each day. Remember Walter Cronkite's words that 'Photographs can tell a better story than the written word.'

Good Luck,

RL


----------



## RedLED (May 6, 2017)

markr6 said:


> I'll admit, I hardly touch my DSLR and camera gear anymore. I do a lot with my iPhone 6S (and 5 when I had it). Of course, it's small, light, and always with me. So on backpacking trips I come home with hundreds of photos every time. Of course the quality isn't the same, but it's to a point where 9/10 shots are "good enough". I have 5 nice prints on my office wall and people always come in and rave about them. I tell them to pick the 1 that wasn't shot on my iPhone and no one can tell.
> 
> I like to open the .jpg from my iPhone in camera raw. It allows for some good control without overdoing it (I'm tired of the acid-tripping drunk HDR and filters look) or losing much quality.
> 
> ...



I do the same thing at my photo office, I have photos shot with a Cell. Phone and the latest Nikon, and it is hard to tell them apart from one another. We are in a state of constant transition and will be for the foreseeable future. I would sure miss using my DSLR system, just as I miss my medium format Hasselblad system. What an amazing system and the fun of using it under pressure, as it had so many steps you had to follow in the exact order, or that was it. NO photos for you!


----------



## bykfixer (May 6, 2017)

Good to read those tips Red. 
I did some photo work for my job on a couple of projects where the "editor" was a bull headed knucklehead who wouldn't know a good photo if it hit him on the head. So yeah the stuff he picked would usually cause me to shake my head in disgust. 

Speaking of shaking my head in disgust, yeah those acid trip HDR's... I'll be glad when that fad is over. But the wife used to subscribe to a famous outdoor photo mag and each month the cover photo was another ridiculous attempt at concoting a mountain scape using exagerated sunset colors that even in the most polluted cities are not possible. Luckily it was only 6 issues a year. 
But I have a friend who uses HDR for B&W photos of old buildings, rail roads and other subjects in a tasteful approach that mimics pencil sketch drawings. He does some brilliant work. 

On my office walls (when I actually have one temporarily) are some favs I print with laser jet copiers on office paper, usually in black n white. A closeup of a guy grinding his skateboard truck on a half pipe coping, or an eagle looking at you with a face that says "wuthehell you lookin at buster" along with a severely blown out background of a rose macro or a neighbor catching a baseball all look pretty cool yet blend in the scenery, and I don't have to hear "you know how much ink that photo used?" from some penny pinching Engineer. 

At one point I was buying $2 wall clocks and replacing the cardboard face with photos like that. They were a huge hit as Christmas presents. 

This thread caused me to use my DSLR stuff lately. 

I think if Popular Photography were able to think outside the box and embrace current technology from the mind of the current crop of photo-graphic aspects and not stuck to the 1970's thinking they'd still be around. Albiet, a much smaller version than the hey-days of times when the internet was seen as a fad. 

It's a brave new world and Christopher Columbus needs to adapt to petroleum powered propulsion. Sails are great for a few purists but outboard motors are here to stay. So are cel phone cams. Too many companies that are "too big to fail" need to do just that in my view. Fail. The automobile ruined horse n buggy based businesses that couldn't (or wouldn't) adapt so this is nothing new. But hey... Rayovac and Eveready are still around. Ford is doing ok, Brinks is still around along with Wells Fargo... and Shutterbug magazine is doing just fine.


----------



## NoNotAgain (May 6, 2017)

RedLED said:


> Not again,
> 
> It sounds as you are just posting to photos sites, and not to an agency or wire service. And there is a major diffference in both of those things. It is DEADLINE.
> 
> ...



I use Dropbox and iCloud as storage locations. I don't have a dozen images posted on Flickr. 

No, I'm a long time film guy. F2Hs, F3hp, F4's and Mamiya 645 and RB67. 

I'm not on deadlines, at least not having someone hounding me for any image for a public event. 

I was a very adopter of the Nikon/Kodak DCS460 camera. I'd still rather shoot film, knowing that the exposures have to be right, unlike boost the ISO of digital RAW. 

Photography was something I wanted to do. Working in my industry, aerospace, getting clearance and review for 99% of what was shot, was the norm. Every roll of film was signed out and had to be pressed by them in house before classification review. Digital has unique security challenges in classified environments, which was why they stuck with film for so long. 

Today, other than subjects I find interesting, everything I shoot is documenting design, assembly/fabrication and sellable product. I've got no IT guy, director, or graphic artist. It's all me.


----------



## StarHalo (May 6, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> I think if Popular Photography were able to think outside the box and embrace current technology from the mind of the current crop of photo-graphic aspects and not stuck to the 1970's thinking they'd still be around. Albiet, a much smaller version than the hey-days of times when the internet was seen as a fad.
> 
> It's a brave new world and Christopher Columbus needs to adapt to petroleum powered propulsion. Sails are great for a few purists but outboard motors are here to stay. So are cel phone cams. Too many companies that are "too big to fail" need to do just that in my view. Fail.



Millennials don't do magazines. 

Big sales of compact cameras were what made the limited-production SLR cameras possible, now that those compact cameras are gone, you may very well get your wish for camera companies to go away..


----------



## bykfixer (May 6, 2017)

I don't wish they go under, not by any means. But figure if they don't adapt they'll fail and deservedly so. 
Time stands still for no one. And in todays here now gone in 8.9 days world of technology the changes Nikon, Canon, Pop Photo and others either adapt or die. 

Panasonic teaming up with Leica a while back was a great idea. Nikon, Canon, and Pentax could learn from that. Nikon for example with their lineup of looking glass items or prescription glasses is what I mean and Pentax could team up with folks who make drones or those upcoming smart helmets.

Edit:
Boy I got hit broad side this evening with just how drastic the changes are. My wife and I shoot photos for a local school play group and I had taken about a 2 year break. Frankly just a couple of years ago out of the 200 or so audience members there were several point n shoots and a few DSLR's using tripods and monopods. 
Tonight I roled up in the joint with a D7000 clamped to a monopod draped over my shoulder. Nothing unusual I thought. The drama teacher approached my wife and said "oh good somebody is going to take pictures"... my first thought was yeah me and 22 other parents. Nope.

I had the only SLR in the place and zero point n shoots were being used. Heck no tablets either. WOW! I had picked a 55-300 lens figuring no big deal taking more pics of the wifes boy and a few of his friends and had only a pair of 4 gig cards in the slots. 

Instead of shooting a couple of dozen pix I needed to shoot hundreds tonight in order to get at least a couple of good ones for each cast members parents, whether they be stars or extras. Luckily I had recently been using the D7000 in some low light scenarios and had tweaked the iso to give me quick shutter speeds while still hiding noise pretty well on my 18" laptop screen. Thinking 8x10 prints I used that settings bank tonight and think it turned out pretty good. By dialing back the capture from 16 bit RAW to 12 bit fine jpegs (with saturation dialed back a smidge for slightly smaller file sizing)I was able to get about 350 picks from those cards and still have a wee bit of memory for the celebration after. 

I'll donate the photos to that teacher who probably didn't think before tonight that anything other than some crappy iphone pix would be available. Tonight was the third showing. After the show I was greeted like a conquering hero for "bringing a real camera" lol


----------



## RedLED (May 7, 2017)

Don't worry about the collapse of the camera companies, sports optics and a ton of industrial optical applications will ensure they will be around for a while. 

The camera divisions have a slight problem where I feel they have fallen behind in some areas, however, they could surprise us. I thought by now professional cameras would look drastically different from what we still see as the SLR/DSLR. 

We we will have to wait and see. One thing to consider is lenses are still an important key to all photography. They are what a photographer will use to decide how his image is to look as he sees it beforehand. The specific look, the telescopic compression, the overall composition, the contrast, sharpness regardless of pixels, and so on, even the color the lens puts out in a photo is important. This is knowledge of the medium. Also, knowing your equipment. 

The problem with the pointandshootcrowdofsocalledphonephotographers, is they have no sense of style, no artistic talent, no real ideas, except to show off themselves for other fools on social media to get a one second chuckle and the goof viewer will move on to the next dumb and meaningless selfie, goofy photo. 

They are all so self centered they have to produce something to post daily, and how it looks does not matter, it is all about their huge egos and posing themselves in front of anything. Let me ask you this: when was the last time you have heard the term 'Self Portrait?' You don't anymore, and selfie in my scope of the medium counts for zero. A self portrait took some thought, ideas and creativity which the phone shooters lack. I wager 90% never took a high school art class, and have no idea of how a photographer would shoot a portrait. You know, some of the poratrits and direction of a good portrait, even today we still use the standards set by the great master portarait painters form 500 years ago? Look up Rembrandt lighting, for one, all you have to do is look at how they used light. If you open a book, you learn this. 

I am am all for fun quick snapshots but, don't tell me this is all that is left, even even worse an art form. The pointandshootcrowdofsocalledphonephotographers should try for something better. And, this why the magazines who tried to teach the non readers something which involved good taste and discipline in the art have gone out of business. 

I only hope hope this is not what we are stuck with.


----------



## StarHalo (May 7, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> By dialing back the capture from 16 bit RAW to 12 bit fine jpegs


 
Heresy.



bykfixer said:


> After the show I was greeted like a conquering hero for "bringing a real camera" lol



.."and prints will be $20"..


----------



## KITROBASKIN (May 7, 2017)

RedLED said:


> ...except to show off themselves...
> 
> They are all so self centered...all about their huge egos and posing...



Perhaps we could all benefit from taking a 'self portrait' once in a while, and refrain from making almost every thread we post in, about our selves and our glory days; boasting about knowing people in high places, and how many homes we have.

What else can be said about a promotional magazine for cameras and photographic accessories, going under?


----------



## bykfixer (May 7, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> Heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> .."and prints will be $20"..



Trust me, I didn't like doing the res reduction. 

The wife handles any money that gets exchanged. I don't print as a rule even though my setup is calibrated for the rare 'den wall' print. She buys the ink, so she gets to keep any money folks want to pay her for prints. I'm happy enough when some kid smiles upon see-ing him/herself on the computer screen. 


Kitro,
I like Red's stories. He lived it and was/is part of the big picture (pun intened? Not really)


----------



## Bdm82 (May 7, 2017)

RedLED said:


> Again,
> 
> An early prediction of mine in my notes from 1999, was that many historical photos will be lost for the very reasons you mention, and that includes news outlets. They will just disappear, while you had to throw away Negs. And that required some thinking. I have an archive in the multi-millions of both film negatives from the various formats of film As well as digital. I have in my archives, stored in a special facility that holds every photo and image I have taken from the 5th grade until a few minutes ago.
> 
> ...



The flip side of this is with the new software and algorithms combined with exif data, finding the pictures is easier. "Bridge in San Francisco with Susan" can be found quickly. And the software, facial recognotion, and the like will only get better. Finding a certain negative is not as fast, especially for most people. 

As a millenial, early end of it (I prefer the former gen y designation but I digress), I don't do a lot of selfies. I invest in decent point and shoot cameras that allow for a lot of manual adjustment. But 20 years ago, there were photography classes in school. Because to take good photos, you had to know what you were doing. 
With current technology, it is just not necessary. Cell phones and basic point and shoot cameras take "good enough" (as someone else said) pictures 9 of 10 times. And so much more conveniently so than lugging around a big camera and rolls of film. Around the world, exponentially more pictures are being taken each day. 
And no magazine is necessary to enable that. 

On the dslr front, there's actually a cultural backlash to some degree. 
I have several friends who bought dslr cameras and thought they were instantly great photographers, and started advertising photo shoots. Pictures are unsurprisingly unspectacular. This has happened many times over and not just where I'm at... so if I see a millenial with a dslr, I generally want to slap them. Unless they REALLY know what they're doing, have multiple lenses, and etc. 
I'll never get one, as I don't have the time to get that good - and the costs are too high when I get "good enough" pictures for less cost and weight.


----------



## RedLED (May 7, 2017)

Fixer, thanks.

Best,

RL


----------



## ssanasisredna (May 8, 2017)

StarHalo said:


> Millennials don't do magazines.
> 
> Big sales of compact cameras were what made the limited-production SLR cameras possible, now that those compact cameras are gone, you may very well get your wish for camera companies to go away..



You need area to gather light, and you need light for signal to noise ratio. Software can't replace or mimic that completely. For the foreseeable future, there will be more than enough interest and hence volume to maintain several DSLR companies. You may see some contraction, but I think you will have 3 solid DSLR companies. The rate of new models has already drastically reduced both due to reduced volumes and resources, but also because the technology is not improving nearly as fast as it was. We could see reduced feature sets in custom asics, being relegated to specialty I/O with most processing in a general purpose processor, but that is not a bad thing. I would also expect connectivity to become a given ... the DSLR being an extension of your phone essentially ... again not a bad thing.

The art of photography is still there ... it's better in fact. It is now more accessible than ever. The most basic inexpensive SLR can take amazing pictures. These are the good old days ... we just have to embrace that they are NOT the "old" days.


----------



## ssanasisredna (May 8, 2017)

Bdm82 said:


> I'll never get one, as I don't have the time to get that good - and the costs are too high when I get "good enough" pictures for less cost and weight.



If you take pictures of "everything", then cell phones and point and shoot cameras probably do take "good enough" pictures 9 out of 10 times .... cause probably 8 out of 10 pictures are not memorable. Most (not all), of the memorable pictures I have taken were taken with a DSLR ... and yes my cell phone has a good camera and I own several point and shoots.

Becoming an artist takes time. Learning enough about your DSLR so that you can capture that "unique to you" image that you will cherish, takes very little time ... but the results as they say are priceless.


----------



## ssanasisredna (May 8, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> .... and had only a pair of 4 gig cards in the slots.



You can still buy 4 gig cards? ;-)


----------



## bykfixer (May 8, 2017)

I bought a bunch of raw steel cards when 8 gig was the biggest available by them. I bought 4 gig size incase the card fails I won't lose as many as if I filled the larger cards and they failed.
I used 2 gig cards until hoodman started making raw steel in 4 or 8 size... but back then 10mp was the norm.

I have 32 gig cards now but don't use larger than 4 for photgraphy.

Hey Red,
I thought of you while sorting and digital dark-room-ing through about 500 photos I shot at a school play in about an hour. I was asked on the fly as I entered the auditorium armed only with 1 lens a monopod and 2 small memory cards. The idea before that was to take a few pictures of my step son for a photo album. 

I had never seen the play so had no idea of where, when or how to take pix. It took about 10 shots to dial it in based on harsh contrasts of lights and darks with shadows in the darndest places at the darndest times. And of course no flash allowed. 

Oh, and everybody was dashing about in quick movements so shutter speed vs background noise was a tricky balance. I don't know that my current lenses would've done the trick with a film camera. 3.5 was the left end of aperature sizes on the kit lens I had. After the first 20 or so I was having fun and had kinda figured out the pace of the players and had a style of photos in mind. For printing 8" x 10" they turned out pretty good.

Now, knowing drama teachers are a different 'breed' of editor, as I sorted keepers from no keepers I tried to guess what the teacher may like. Figuring my favs would probably be met with yawns while ones I considered boring may be the ones she uses for her promos I showed my wife the entire "roll" of about 350 keepers. As expected the ones that made me think to myself "dam that's a goody" were quickly passed over by the bride who marveled at ones I had considered so-so. 

I felt like the old days of nature photography with only seconds to prepare had played a large role in a spur of the moment situation that was in large part very successful. My basic philosophy was to have a pretty good photo of every kid in the play for them to laugh at in 25 years. 

I really don't think a point n shoot or a cel-cam would've been able to handle the pace due to focus lag and zoom speed requirements. I've shot plenty of awards ceremonies successfully with point n shoot gear and/or a cel-cam using built in setting to keep the aperature wide open, but the need for focus to change rapidly was handled by the marvelous Nikon system that didn't care if it was a face or a chair. 

I really think the absence of publications like Pop Photo leaves a void for up n comers trying to learn the basics, so that even though no trophy is at stake, nor any money is lost they can enter a challenging situation and come out with a bunch of winners on their memory card due to some tips they read each month. 

Saturday night really opened my eyes to just how much things have changed since W was in the white house. Part of me thinks that leaves a huge no longer saturated market for those who are serious about photography, and want to use it to feed their family. Maybe change is a good thing.... at least for the novice photographer who wants to be the next Ansel...


----------



## StarHalo (May 9, 2017)

Observations from an air show: I shot one of the largest air shows in SoCal this weekend, a two-day only event where it rained the day before so it was pretty busy. As is traditionally my custom, I walk way down to the far end of the crowd area where it's nice and sparse, so I can stand right on the fence and pick my background as needed; of the ~40 other folks who joined me out there, maybe half were using their cell phones, and about 4 had SLRs. Walking the crowd, lots and lots of phone users, people very carefully holding out their phones and panning along with the aircraft, taking selfies with the war re-enactors, and every once in a while, I'd say 1 out of 20, would be someone with an SLR. Saw one Sony micro four-thirds, no other compact cameras for the entire event. 

I reminded myself to keep the shot count conservative and still got 522 pics; in roll-of-24-exposures terms that's 22 rolls of film. It started raining in the last hour of the show, and thanks to Pentax's weather sealing and a good boonie hat, I stood out in the middle of it and continued shooting without issue. See the highlights here.


----------



## bykfixer (May 12, 2017)

If I hadn't been into Nikon lenses a couple grand I woulda gone with the Pentax system when I upgraded from the D80 halo. I was really intrigued by the pancake lenses. 
My dad used Pentax and my oldest brother when he was shooting weddings (both back in the 70's and 80's). 
I still have some of my dads gear including some pancake macro lenses he had. Somewhere in my house is his old automatic (forget the model#) with about a half roll of Fuji 800 film remaining. (Certainly no good now more than likely). I used to use it with a Canon Rebel G for fun and a Canon AE1 when it mattered. One day a coworker gave me a Hewlett Packard point n shoot with a view finder and from that day forward my film stuff got used less and less. 

I chuckled at the guy in your pic having a ginormous lens on that Canon hanging off his shoulder and what appears to be a celphone (cam) stuffed in his back pocket.


----------



## bykfixer (May 14, 2017)

Went to an arts n crafts show my wife participates in every year thinking of this thread. I had my D7000 with a 55-300 kits lens and nothing else. No extra cards, no steady stick and no spare battery. 

Taking photos of people's expressions as they bumped into aunt Ruth or some high school chum was fun. So was shooting the vast array of displays and ideas. I bumped to photographer friends who had the latest gadgetry and to my surprise one of my photographer heroes was snapping pix with an iPhone. WUT-THUH?!.... Now he had his normal cameras strapped over his shoulder but boy was I surprised. 
Not only that but he now has the HDR bug too. UGH!! When he saw me he shamefully slid his iPhone into his trouser pocket. I quipped "no need buddy I got you on film" which is a phrase we used years ago when we'd catch someone off guard. 

To my surprise few were doing selfies, lots of folks had digi-cams and a slew of Nikons. Photography was alive and well at the arts n crafts show.


----------



## bykfixer (Aug 31, 2017)

Now this may be a viable alternative to my big camera...
Replace it? Oh Heavens no. But it certainly will be useful at times. 

I bought a Moto Z for this little dude at some point. A Hassleblad phone cam? C'mooooon Santa Claus.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 31, 2017)

bykfixer said:


> Now this may be a viable alternative to my big camera...
> 
> I bought a Moto Z for this little dude at some point. A Hassleblad phone cam? C'mooooon Santa Claus.



It's a 1/2.3" sensor, which produces images that have the same detail and color as a current smartphone cam; the 10x zoom and xenon flash are pluses, but if you don't use those, you won't be able to tell which pictures came from this add-on or just the phone itself. The ~$400 for the phone plus ~$300 for the camera back would be enough to buy a used Sony RX100 series camera, which has a 20MP 1" sensor behind f/1.8 Zeiss glass.


----------



## martinaee (Sep 4, 2017)

alpg88 said:


> my friend is a "pro" photographer, he works in restaurants in Brooklyn, while he still has customers, their number drops all the time, back in the days people that had party at a restaurant, had photographer take their pics, than he would bring 8x10 printed pictures hour or so latter, now everyone has a smartphone, his services no longer needed as much, people take their own pics, and post it right away. however phones have not replaced wedding photographer, yet.



I don't think phones can ever replace a good wedding photographer (or other specific-type event or other photographer). The point of a wedding photographer is to document most parts of an event artistically while also setting up certain shots. Just having better and better cameras in smart-phones that still often aren't as good as many dedicated point-and-shoots from several years ago isn't going to get those results.

Maybe I'm just naive though as a photographer who would hate to see different types of photography as businesses devolve due to other technology.


----------

