photowipe

photowipe

Lives in United States Boston, United States
Works as a photographer/educator
Has a website at http://www.armorfoto.com/
Joined on Jan 3, 2012

Comments

Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6
In reply to:

Piet Maartens: One aspect that is often overlooked is that Ansel Adams worked mostly with large format view cameras – I think up to 11 x 14 inches. This probably limited the amount of film he could take with him and the Zone System enabled him to get every exposure spot-on. Exposure bracketing would not only have been impractical, but also very expensive. Such limitations hardly apply to 35 mm photography and digital imaging. Whilst it is always good to have a sound understanding of the theory, the practical relevance of the Zone System nowadays seems to be limited. The only benefit I can see is that it trains the photographer’s eye and mind. Or am I missing something here?

the harder you work, the luckier you get.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2012 at 04:07 UTC
In reply to:

photowipe: It's simple. Everything about film involved guessing, even highly educated guesses like the Zone System provided. Anyone even considering applying the Zone System to digital should already know enough about the current tools that hardware and software provide (histograms, previews and highlight warnings) to know that guessing is no longer necessary. It's the same reason why you don't see very many photographers who fully understand digital using hand-held light meters any more- they only helped us guess what the exposure should be, but usually needed to be interpreted. Film is about guessing, digital is about knowing. The Zone System is a film technique.

You're welcome, writelight. I'll stick with photography, like I said, it's simple. Quantum mechanics is hard. The Zone System was plenty useful 80 years ago, and in many ways laid the groundwork for how we work digitally, but you have to admit that Ansel would have soiled his shorts to have a histogram and a highlight clipping mask on his view camera instead. Mr Mojo, I am rather ignorant in plenty of areas, but photography ain't of 'em. I'm modestly successful there, and am more than familiar with meters, Polaroids, bellows factors, Sinar's measured photography principles for offset reproduction, pulling and pushing Ektachrome, etc, all of which required educated guesses to one degree or another. Digital just flat out confirms exposure on the camera in real time, period, and tethered shooting in the studio takes that confirmation even further. Meters are old school, unless you work for Sekonic.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2012 at 04:04 UTC

It's simple. Everything about film involved guessing, even highly educated guesses like the Zone System provided. Anyone even considering applying the Zone System to digital should already know enough about the current tools that hardware and software provide (histograms, previews and highlight warnings) to know that guessing is no longer necessary. It's the same reason why you don't see very many photographers who fully understand digital using hand-held light meters any more- they only helped us guess what the exposure should be, but usually needed to be interpreted. Film is about guessing, digital is about knowing. The Zone System is a film technique.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 17:07 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
On App Review: CameraBag 2 article (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tape5: Well like Elton John said:

It's sad, so sad
It's a sad, sad situation
And it's getting more and more absurd....

You should cut and paste this into about 80% of most of the forum threads here! Great response!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2012 at 21:53 UTC
In reply to:

photowipe: Everybody here seems to be saying that this photographer works 4 months out of the year and earns $50K for her efforts. She actually works 20 days for that (plus whatever additional time she spends selling and servicing those 20 wedding clients). Whether she's charging too much or not will be determined by her market, and she obviously has found clients who will pay her fee. We do not charge based solely on our cost of doing business, but on the perceived value of what we provide, and anyone in business deserves to charge whatever their clients are willing to pay for what they do. $3K is about a low average in the US for basic wedding photo services. Has anyone else here looked at this photographer's website to determine if they would chose to hire her for their own wedding based on the quality of her work?

I did mention that there are additional hours spent in selling and servicing each client before and after the event. She just shouldn't be justifying her fee based on what her overhead is. I met a photographer about 10 years ago who was shooting for extremely high-end wedding clients- he told me he didn't answer the phone for less than $10K. I was a guest at a wedding he shot, and was pretty impressed to see him shooting the entire event with a 50 year old Kodak Retina Reflex and a Contax G2 rangefinder and dedicated flash unit (keeping each in his jacket pocket when he was shooting with the other). Good gear, but together worth less than $3000. His photographs were extraordinary. Justifying our fees by how much we spend on gear and rent and insurance sends the wrong message- people should understand that they hire a pro because of what we can deliver, every time, regardless of the circumstances. The cost of doing business is just that, and it's not the customer's problem- it's ours.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 18:41 UTC

Everybody here seems to be saying that this photographer works 4 months out of the year and earns $50K for her efforts. She actually works 20 days for that (plus whatever additional time she spends selling and servicing those 20 wedding clients). Whether she's charging too much or not will be determined by her market, and she obviously has found clients who will pay her fee. We do not charge based solely on our cost of doing business, but on the perceived value of what we provide, and anyone in business deserves to charge whatever their clients are willing to pay for what they do. $3K is about a low average in the US for basic wedding photo services. Has anyone else here looked at this photographer's website to determine if they would chose to hire her for their own wedding based on the quality of her work?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 12:41 UTC as 202nd comment | 3 replies
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6