Raw histogram and why does it matter

Are auto races events?

One day in 1961, I was in a physics class at Stanford, and AA came in and started taking pictures of us. He'd been hired by Stanford to do that. My understanding is that he did a lot of commercial work before he made it big selling art.

Not that uncommon. Michael Kenna was a commercial photographer before he switched to landscapes.

I'm aware of who the real experts on theory are, and I'm not sure I've singled anyone out for a fight? But, as a suggestion to all the experts. Reprogram yourselves maybe? Learn to speak in simpler language and illustrate your posts with actual photographs. You know: 1. You shouldn't do this because 2 You'll get a better result like this.

In other words, I've read millions of words from very respected and clever folk. But it needs to make us better ARTISTS. I've not seen that to date ......

Manzanar, daily life, sports, leisure?

You wrote, "Photography is art, artists never obsess over raw files." Event photographers are not artists, per se.

Something about horses and water...

That's actually a lovely story Jim and an honour to meet the great man. But if he had 5 minutes to setup he wouldn't have been applying his zone system to your group shots. And that's always my point :)

In the spirit of your own words, then . . . How about examples of your work to illustrate what you are saying?

Hey, your Website says you have the chops. Looking forward to them . . .

Rich

A comment like this shouldn't make you feel prickly Jim. It's actually a fair comment. The science of photography is important. But it doesn't make an artist. Equally the science of paint is important, but it doesn't make a painter. Not sure where you get horses and water from, it's totally irrelevant.

I used the Zone System for years for 4x5 and 8x10 work, even some 6x6 work. Once you get it down, it doesn't take long per shot. Meter three or four things, or just look hard at the scene and meter one. With a glance you'll know if it needs N, or N-1, or N+1 development. If it needs something more extreme, it might take a little longer, but the exposure planning for a shot takes less than a minute, usually. It takes far longer to set up the camera and tripod, and to focus. And once you've got the basic exposure for a series, it's easy and quick to modify it if the light changes. If the light deosn't change, you can use that exposure over and over again.

Today's cameras are a lot faster, but we got pretty darned good results before run and gun became fashionable.

Erm that's possibly the most insulting thing I've read !!

Yes I agree, but we're still talking about "reasonably" controlled lighting, or at least a minute or two to adjust. That bears no reality to a working photographer like me who might emerge from a dark indoor room to a garden in bright sunshine in 5 seconds. We set our cameras up to get out of the way, not for us to get in the way of getting the shot. For my work, knowing the theory and then knowing how to ignore it is a virtue :)

Many artists have made better art by paying attention to the tech. I've listened to painters go on and on about brushes and paint. You are saying you can't learn anything from this. Fine. But that doesn't mean that others can't.

The expression is, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." We can lead you to information that you could use to improve your photography, but we can't make you learn it, or tell you how to apply it to your work.

At the beginning of this thread, we had a photographer who claimed to be nailing the exposure present information from RD that indicated that he wasn't. He should be able to learn something from that. I hope he has.

If this kind of discussion is something that you can't learn anything from, I suggest you stop reading it right now. But part of me thinks that would be a shame.

I would submit to you that there are many working photographers who have different assignments, goals, and ways of working. You're painting with a broad brush here.

My website is on my profile, nothing to hide and nothing to show off either. I wouldn't mention it, but you've pulled me up on it, so I have to reply. I cant seem to find your website though?

I will always ascribe to "know your tools". Control over one's medium is critical to making the rendition you intend, be it for art or doc...

Adams has a good "run and gun" story in the making of Moonrise over Hernandez. Saw the fading light, screeched to a halt, set up the gear and got one one exposure before the light was gone. I'm pretty sure that exposure was winged with the extensive heuristics he gathered in years of studying his medium.

And it was the wrong exposure. Later, AA and one of his assistants -- I forget which one -- intensified the foreground of the neg. By then they knew the value of the neg, so that must have been one scary moment.

And these days, unless the raw is wildly off, a few slider adjustments and local adjustments do the same thing.... which is why these endless debates get a bit tedious, or at least over amplified in their relevance to real world photography ;-)