Gonna go back in time...

I'm a big fan of Hipstamatic. What a great way to achieve the retro, analog look in digital format. The more I came fascinated with Hipstamatic and Instagram, the more I became fascinated with analog photography.

I grew up and studied photography in the analog era, where you didn't know what you were going to end up with after pressing the shutter until the film was developed. Some shots you nailed it. Some shots you thought you nailed it and your negatives told you otherwise. Sometimes you thought your shots were going to suck and you ended up with happy accidents.

Hipstamatic harkens back to that era in some respects, but still gives you the immediate feedback and gratification of the digital era (after a 10 second wait if you have an iPhone...a few seconds if you have the iPad 2).

The more I became engrossed with the retro look, the more I learned about lomography. Lomography started as a commercial trademark for a line of cameras that took you back to the past and were very niche in their results, like quad-lens cameras, panorama cameras, and toy cameras. Lomography has grown to become to cover beyond these line of cameras, and includes discontinued Polaroid cameras and any camera that provides an unpredictable image because of the characteristics of the camera and its lens.

Lomography has also become a photography movement. It was born from a backlash against the advancements in digital photography where film is no longer part of the equation in image-making. Digital photography has made photography more predictable in its results. The entire image-making process is now faster because of the near-instantaneous feedback loop. Gone is not knowing if your exposure was accurate (unless you had a Polaroid back) or if your subject blinked.

The return of the variance in image-making has made one particular line of cameras very popular -- the Diana camera. Originally sold back in the 1960's as a cheap alternative to 120 format cameras, the Diana never sold well. It had a cheap plastic lens and a manual winding mechanism. It was known for the blurred, chromatically imperfect images that resulted from the cheap parts. It came in all black with a blue top and was often sold or given away as a novelty item.

These days, the Diana has made a resurgence in the form of an updated model, including a 35mm version. The Diana F+ allows for an external flash, a 35mm back, Polaroid back, and interchangeable lenses. It has become a pretty formidable system, all encased in the same plastic camera body as it had back in the 1960's.

Not only has the system been augmented, but the Diana F+ is available in different themes and styles. This allows for a more personalized camera that you would never be able to find in any other camera system, 35mm, medium format, or otherwise. Instead of the standard blue and black Diana, you can get special edition, all white, all black, or all "chrome" versions. There are special Dianas that are based on famous French designers (Colette), rock musicians (Meg White of the White Stripes and Tori Amos each have their own special edition Diana camera sets), and foreign cities (Hong Kong and Tokyo).

The Diana is definitely a quaint, and somewhat delicate camera. It being made of lightweight plastic, you feel like you have to handle it with kid gloves. Changing lenses was somewhat nerve-wracking since I feared breaking the plastic parts of the lens or the camera body.

The Diana F+ cameras are definitely of toy camera quality, but they are not priced like toys. The regular blue and black model Diana F+ will set you back $65. The Diana F+ "clones" consisting of the special edition Dianas can go as high as $180 for the MEG edition, though it comes with the additional accessory of a ring flash.

I have the "Tori" Diana F+ camera set that camer with a wide angle lens with a close-up lens attachment, and an external Diana flash. It also has a burnt orange top, with "Tori" printed on top of the viewfinder, and a facsimile of her autograph on the back left of the car.

I also have a Holga, which is another brand of 120 format toy cameras. It has a built-in hotshoe for a flash but does not have an interchangeable lens system. I've had the Holga for a few years but have yet to put a full roll of film through it yet. Because it doesn't have an interchangeable lens system, it's significantly less-expensive than the Diana F+. In all other respects, it's fairly similar to the Diana F+.

Also available is a set of lens adapters that allows you to mount your Diana lenses onto any Canon EOS SLR or DSLR, or Nikon SLR/DSLR camera body. That and the aforementioned Polaroid are going to be my next acquisitions.

The 6x8 Conundrum

I have always been a big fan of the 6x8 format. Ever since I saw the Fuji GX-680 and how it was so similar to the 8x10 aspect ratio, I had always coveted the camera. At the time, it was the only camera that shot the format natively. Unfortunately the camera was priced WAY out of my means (and still is for the latest version).

Sure there are other rectangular formats but I was never a fan of the 645 format so my first rectangular medium format camera was a Pentax 6x7 which resembled a 35mm SLR on steroids than your average medium format camera that typically comes with a waist-level finder. The 6x7 was shot at eye-level like a 35mm SLR. Since it resembled a 35mm SLR, it wasn't as flexible as other modular medium format cameras - It didn't support multiple backs or backs that could be changed mid-roll.

My current medium format camera is the all-manual Mamiya RB67 Pro S which also shoots 6x7 format. It has a rotating back so that you can shoot horizontally and switch to vertical shooting without changing the orientation of the camera - you just have to rotate the back.

What I learned recently was that there is a 6x8 back for the RB67, and better yet it was a motor-driven back so getting it was like killing two birds with one stone. I would get my 6x8 format and I would get an automatic film-winding system. To advance the film and cock the shutter on the RB67 is a 2-step process and is more time-consuming if you're trying to shoot rapidly. Ideally I would like the Mamiya RZ67 which is an automated version of the RB67. The RB67 is all-mechanical and does not use a single battery. Anyway, I found the 6x8 back at KEH.com for a VERY reasonable price but quickly found out that the light baffle on my RB has a smaller opening than the image area of the 6x8 back. The same is said for the opening on the revolving adapter that the back goes on.

I called up MAC Group (Mamiya America Corporation) and ordered a 6x8 baffle for the RB and found out it's the same baffle that's on my current RB except it has a number 8 on it. It was a bit of a let down to discover that I already had the correct baffle but I'm confused as to why the baffle opening and the image area on the back are significantly dissimilar. So I'm kind of at a stand-still with my 6x8 efforts. I'm in the process of looking for a 6x8 rotating adapter (I believe the Pro SD adapter might accommodate me) and then shooting a test roll with the appropriate adapter and 6x8 back to see if there's any vignetting on the resulting images and we'll go from there.

I'm also looking into acquiring a used GX-680 because the RB now weighs a ton with the new prism finder, new back (that requires 4 x AA batteries) in addition to the already significant weight of the camera, so it's not really a portable camera.

Okay so I've offended some...

...but that doesn't mean that I'm not entitled to an opinion. That's the power of free speech. When I'm wrong about facts, I'll admit to it. When my opinion has changed based on new facts, I'll correct myself. So here goes...

So I was contacted by the photographer about my posting about their website and some comments and observations I made during a photo shoot. I'm going to try to make amends here and posting any corrections to facts on the original post as well.

1. The sitting fee for the photo session was actually $25, plus a travel fee of $50, plus some other payment that was made that no one has information on. So that being said, $25 is not a bad sitting fee. I say that because $15 at Sears Portrait Studio will get you photos, but those are cookie cutter photos, and not necessarily anything avant-garde nor extremely creative.



2. The photograph of the tree that I went on and on about was not her choice. Personally I would have mixed emotions about posting that photo, but given that the photographer's website is not secured by client, they really didn't have a choice but to post it.



3. The photographer would like a better camera (wouldn't we all like a better camera?).



4. I'll re-state that I'm a camera snob, but I'm also a camera aficionado, so that's where most of my opinion about cameras and how they themselves can project an image about a person comes from. I could write an entire thesis about it, but the photographer disagrees with me about this point, which they are more than entitled to. I'll also say that her argument about the camera not being indicative of the person behind it is true in practice - the photographer that I assisted for many years ago used a manual focus Nikon in addition to a medium format camera. But shooting a wedding with a manual focus camera was a little strange to me given that auto-focus SLRs are so pervasive. But he was a good photographer and he knew how to handle his gear and how to manage their limitations.

After my last post, the photographer was dismayed (understatement) that I took my complaints public without talking to her first. First off, my complaints were observations and my opinion based on my experience and my own bias. Take those for what you will. Secondly, I'm not a disgruntled client, but I do admit I should have taken my concerns to the photographer first. That's my mistake and I take responsibility for that. Be that as it may, I'm not the one who commissioned the photos so I don't know if I had the right to make contact nor speak for anyone else. My opinion was solely my opinion and not of anyone else's. There's the disclaimer.

In hindsight, my critique was heavy-handed in a very Simon Cowell way. I didn't need to tear someone down to get my point across, so for that I apologize to the photographer. They have started their own business, gotten some favorable reviews and happy clients from their work so the photographer should be proud of that. I'm not going to take that away from them. I will also say that she was very professional throughout. She took the initiative to make sure the family members were satisfied coming away from this.

That being said, my opinion on all other things in the post stand as they are. And those are just that - opinions. If you don't like them, you can rebutt and try to change my mind based on facts, but you can't take my opinions away from me either. You're free to make your own opinions known here as well...anything juvenile or irrational will be ignored.

So, that's it about that matter.

As for me, I'm still contemplating about what I want to do with photography. I enjoy it...it's what gives me joy, but to make it my job might make me enjoy it less...so that's what I'm grappling with now. Maybe I'm just chicken-sh!t. I did learn that my friend Michelle and her husband are planning a business shooting weddings as a business on the side. Good for them!

I hope everyone mentioned in this post continues to be successful, I don't wish anyone ill will...Can't we all just get along? Maybe we can when I'm having a better day.

Thinking about a second job...

Editor's Note: Parts of this post have been corrected based on comments from the photographer mentioned here. I've also added any supplementary opinions that have change based on those comments.

So someone in the family had booked a photographer to take some photos of the family (my wife and in-laws, nephews, nieces, etc.). We had to chip in for the $100 sitting fee which was no big deal. So we arrived in the atrium of the hotel where we were staying to meet the photographer.

UPDATE: The sitting fee was actually $25. There wa a travel fee of $50 (because the photographer drove a decent distance to get to the hotel), plus she was given another $25.

The photographer arrived. She was a younger woman, and she was carrying a small SLR case, basically enough to carry the SLR itself with plenty of padding and not much else. Off her shoulder was the strap to her camera, a Canon Rebel XTi, which is your garden-variety, entry-level, digital SLR, with a Canon Speedlite attached on the camera hotshoe. At that point I thought it was peculiar that a photographer that we were paying (in my book, if you make money being a photographer, whether it's part-time or full-time, you're considered a "professional"), had an entry-level camera.

I'm admittedly a bit of a camera snob. I judge people by the type of camera and brand of camera they use, especially people who are working photographers. I would think that someone we're paying $100 sitting fee would have a better camera. It would be the equivalent of getting your hair cut by someone using a pair of safety scissors. Mind you, a camera is just a tool and the photographer is the person using the tool to create a photograph. The photographer still determines lighting, composition, and the creation of the final product. So even if this person showed up with an old Canon AE-1, I would still hold my opinion in check until I could see how they worked. So that's what I did.

Ed. Note: I'm going to re-state that I AM A CAMERA SNOB. A photographer's equipment is not indicative of their skill. I would think in fact if they could produce great results with lesser equipment, they're probably a better photographer to be able to manage their limitations of lesser equipment. Be that as it may, I wouldn't hire a limousine driver if their fleet consisted of pick-up trucks. Note that I *did* say in the original post that "...even if this person showed up with an old Canon AE-1, I would still hold my opinion in check...".

So she began with a big group shot with all of us by a small tree in the atrium. Now, in my experience, posing by a small tree, or trees in general for that matter, have rarely led to the best results unless all the tree branches are covered by an abundance of leaves. The reason being, you have these branches that stick out, and in the resulting photograph you often have branches that appear to be sticking out of the people's heads. And in this photo, that's exactly what happened. My other concern was that even though there was a lot of natural light coming through the glass roof of the atrium, that typically results in shadows in the eyes. To counter that, you would use a flash to "fill in" those shadows (thus the type of lighting is called "fill flash") and create a nice catch light in the subject's eyes. Well, that didn't happen with our pictures because the photographer didn't use the flash she had mounted on her camera.

UPDATE: The shot of the tree that I spoke of above was not chosen by the photographer, it was suggested by the client.

Now, as someone who has shot a couple of weddings and assisted on many as a 2nd shooter, I have quite a bit of experience with photography. I'm not trying to brag, but that experience counts for something. I wasn't going to point out to this photographer that she use a fill flash or pose away from the tree, because we're PAYING this person to take our pictures. I would EXPECT them to know things about posing, lighting and composition. UPDATE: See update above about the tree photo. Also, if I were the photographer, I wouldn't take kindly to the subject telling me how to do my job, rightly or wrongly. I thought it was a courtesy that I let her do her job and we'd see how the results would come out.

Well, we moved on after the atrium shots to some other locations inside the hotel lobby. In there, you just HAD to use a flash so those photos came out better, lighting-wise. UPDATE: She did use a flash with the photos in the lobby.

Overall, the photos didn't look "professional". Now I'm not going to show you or directly link to that photographer's website because it's not my intention to completely embarrass or slam her. Now if you were to somehow find your way to the photographer's website (linked removed at the request of the photographer), you'll see what I mean. Even to the untrained eye, the photos don't look polished, especially for $100 $25 sitting fee. Especially when I can go to Sears Portrait Studio and pay for a $15 sitting fee. They're not bad photos at all. Some are pretty good photos, but they're not consistently great photos. I just don't feel we got $100 worth of photos.

UPDATE: I really shouldn't say that I don't feel we got $100 worth of photos. I don't speak for anyone else but me. My critique and my opinion are mine and only mine. I don't speak for the other people involved in this. If they feel that they got their money's worth, then that's fine. In reality, we only paid a portion of the total fee. The photographer made the point that we were not making her job easy with cell phone calls and kids running around, and that is an acceptable argument to make. I think given the somewhat uncontrollable (from a photographer's point of view) setting we were in, and how everyone was distracted with what-not, she made an admirable effort in getting everyone together. That I will say, unfortunately, that resulted in the photos (which have since been taken down). I say that is an acceptable argument, but I don't know if it's a valid argument because it's the photographer's job to control and mitigate the environment. I think everyone did the best that they could, but she needed an assistant present to help her out.

Now this is SOLELY my opinion. I'd like to think my limited experience as a professional photographer and as a full-time student studying the photographic arts gives some weight to those opinions. I'm not some lunatic bitching about something just to bitch about something. That's not even my style. If anything, I'd say my opinion is more of a critique than anything else, and I would say that some of the points about lighting and composition would come up if anyone with professional photographic experience reviewed those photos. Also, I have no bone to pick with this photographer. There's no grudge or ulterior motive. I'm giving my opinion just like anyone else is entitled to give.

UPDATE: I'm going to say this one more time...IT'S MY OPINION. Nobody else's. I don't speak for anyone else in the family, outside the family, or anyone in-between. Do not take my opinion as the barometer for how everyone else feels about the photos. If you are still seeing this as otherwise, that's no longer my problem.

So this has led to me to do some thinking. I KNOW I could do better, so why don't I? I FEEL that I could make a worthy try at producing photos of a higher quality. It's pretty much gotten me thinking that I could do portraiture as a side-business. These days, the only things I take pictures of are my daughter, but it's kept me in practice with everything I had learned in photography school and my time as a photographer's assistant to some degree.

I've even posted some of my old photos from over 10 years ago (back in the day when the only DSLRs were over $10,000) on Flickr.

Anyway, I've been thinking about it seriously and not-so-seriously. We'll see what happens.

LAST UPDATE: My opinions and observations of the actual event have changed given the points that the photographer made in her response to my posting. I did sympathize with the situation, but that's part and parcel of that type of job, especially when you're not working in a controlled environment. Beyond that, I should add in my observations that she was a very professional person to deal with.

I should apologize for not contacting her about my concerns rather than blogging about it. I mean, if you're dissatisfied with a service or product, you would try to have the service or product corrected, right? Well, I didn't give the photographer that opportunity so that is admittedly my fault. This photographer has had happy customers, produced good work, and is doing something she enjoys, and for that she should be commended.

Okay, now that we've taken care of that...my opinion on everything else still stands. One thing that is difficult in life, regardless of what you do, is hear criticism. I've studied visual arts and photography and have gone through enough critiques to get some value of them. While my opinion may have strayed beyond a professional critique, I felt I made some valid points. I know that doesn't get me a free cup of coffee anywhere, but I'm open and honest about it. I don't try to sugar-coat things because if all you hear are good reviews, that doesn't help you develop or improve as an artist. I hope the photographer got that much out of my rant (if she decides to read this). What I didn't do successfully (or at all) was point out the things she did well, such as interacting positively with everyone, getting the kids to cooperate, not getting frustrated about the setting, and being a complete professional...so it wasn't a "fair and balanced" critique.

That's all folks.