Photography. I like it. Taking pictures, recording images, creating art, I like it all. My old photography professor still swears by film. I gave up on film because of the cost. For some that is the place to be. It is perfect for them. I took awhile to come around to the digital persuasion. I wasn't convinced it would work well, nor was I convinced it could do what film did. But, in 2003, my parents bought us a Kodak digital camera. It was only 2 megapixels, but it showed me how versatile digital photography can be. But, with the ease of use offered by digital, there are other results. For instance, it is no longer a pass time of the elite who has thousands of dollars to blow. ANYONE can pick up a camera and create decent images.
Just recently, I gathered all the film that had been hanging around and collecting in baggies and took it in to be developed and printed. I had a bunch of black and white. I used to take a lot of black and white because (in a perfect world) I bought it bulk and could develop it at home and then get prints made (it would be cheaper). I never did. So I ended up with a small collection of film that never got developed. So, when the film was finally all developed and printed, I nearly dropped my jaw at the price! HOLY COW!! Almost $200 for 13 rolls of film. You gotta be kidding me! Now I remembered why I didn't like film!
When I bought my Nikon D-90 I spent months deciding on the right camera. I wanted one that I could grow into as a photographer. It has almost all the bells and whistles without the exorbitant price of the pro-models. I have had it for two and-a-half years now, and it is still going strong. I have two batteries for it and several lenses.
I did my research, and everyone said to take my photos in RAW (the format that the camera records the image in initially) and that JPGs just would not work well for a professional. I did not have a program that would work with RAW, but, keeping in mind that I intended to, I shot in RAW AND JPG. This effectively gave me two images for every shot. It took up about 2/3s more memory space than JUST jpgs. I shot like that until summer of 2012, when I switched to jpgs only, this was only supposed to be temporary. I got an updated version of my program that could work with RAW images. I tried to work with RAW and had very little success. I couldn't understand why it was so good. I DID notice a HUGE jump in speed. I was very happy being able to take 19 or 20 images before the buffer filled up. I kind of forgot to switch back to RAW.
The subject of RAW came up when I was talking to a photographer friend. I decided I needed to look into it a bit more. My situation has changed significantly since I first got my camera. This summer I obtained a copy of Photoshop. It can alter RAW. When I first got the program I fiddled with RAW half-heartedly and forgot about it. When I began looking for why RAW was a good thing to shoot in I found a few videos that describe very good reasons. One is in some details of images get lost in jpgs, and you CAN do a lot more altering than I thought you could. I've been playing with it. I am glad I only missed a few months of RAW shooting.
I began by going back to photos I'd taken when we went to China. I've found a few goodies in those files after leaving them sit for awhile. Now, two years on, I am still finding worthwhile images in them. I am glad I do not delete like some people do. Because I think I have a few that were golden that I did not recognize as such before. Live and learn, I suppose.
So, here is the initial image, as it was in the camera.
Digital gives so many advantages over film that it is difficult to believe more than just a few still use it. But film photographers die hard. You can still get a lot more detail out of film, but, in order to do that it must be shot the right way. Digital allows you to know if you shot it right the first time while you're still there, or if you need to keep going. If you want black and white photos you don't have to unload the roll you have and load a different roll of film. You can simply switch it to black and white in the camera or later when you're home at the computer. No late nights spending time in the dark room. You can sit and watch TV and edit photos. I like that.
What I don't like about other photographers is pretentiousness. Many of them seem pretentious and selling themselves as something other than what they are. Another thing is that they are often out for money. I don't know if it's because I do not have a business mind or I am too humble, but I can't imagine charging an arm and a leg for photos. I guess it's a lot more about what I enjoy. Perhaps that is a good thing. I can see trying to make money, but unless you are only doing photography, I just don't see it being profitable. Especially when any idiot with a computer and an iphone can make decent photos. Hell, there are kids in high school taking senior photos. They do it cheap, and at times they offer more creativity than some "professional" photographers.
I am reminded of my own wedding. The photographer we had used a beautiful medium format camera. He could have used it to great effect, however, he chose to hang back and create photos of people surrounded by large amounts of background. some make it difficult to see faces clearly. His photos, as I look at them now are blase and boring. I bet you if you gave three teenagers a couple point-and-shoots and a little training you'd have a lot better results. Still, you live and learn.
I don't like people who come off as full of themselves, and, yet, I don't come across humble very often, myself. That, however, is a persona I affect. It is a false me. It is a me having fun and sharing a joke with the world. Just like when I give my students my normal speech about what to call me. "You can call me Mr. Huffman, Mr. H, Mr. Awesome, or Oh Great One." Then I instruct them to only call me Oh, Great One in the hallways in front of other teachers and follow it up with some bowing and arm-waving. I explain, it's all part of my new PR program to drum up jobs. They laugh. Then they call me Mr. Awesome...which is considerably better than things they COULD call me. I sometimes wonder if the other adults in the schools see the humor or honestly think I think I am all that. I try not to come off too proud of myself.
So, should I sell myself? Make myself a brand name? People who have less equipment than I are making money with their cameras. People with less technical savvy and skill are using photography to supplement their income. Why not me? I guess, I should be more ambitious. You know, out there trying to drum up sales. But, I see so many wanna be photographers doing their thing, and I just don't want to be that way. I want my work to be recognized, but I guess I am just not invested enough in it to create a "look," trademark, or try acting like I am doing someone a favor by taking their photo. I want it to be fun. If life isn't fun, it isn't worth living. I think the same applies to photography: If it isn't fun, it isn't worth doing. Fortunately, fun is subjective.
Now, was there a point to this long tirade? I think it is that I like the versatility that digital gives me. It's cheap. and it's fun. And, like the ability to draw pictures, anyone can do it if they put their minds to it.
