Ordinary photos of dull subjects do actually sell, but the
dramatic shots generally have an unusual element that makes them
stand out from the crowd. They are well-composed and they carry
no excess baggage.
One of the best photos I've seen was taken many years ago in
New York Central Station (1928) It's quite famous and you've
probably seen it. Sunlight streams in through the windows
dominating the scene, while people mill about the expansive
floor in a hustle-bustle atmosphere.
Photographers of yesteryear were past masters of judging the
best exposure for a dramatic shot, without the benefit of modern
gadgetry. I just wonder about that when I hear the death knell
being tolled on the use of film.
We're told that 60% of the income of Kodak UK came from digital
cameras last year, as Kodak announced big job cuts. Immediately,
the media produced a knee-jerk reaction that claimed film is
dead. True the public are totally won over by the short-term
gains of the digital camera, but what about the professionals?
Many studio photographers may well switch to fitting a digital
back on to their Mamiyas, but what about fieldwork? Big shots
with view cameras and 6*9's, not to mention the use of long
lenses for wildlife and sport, will still be dominated by film
rather than digital.
Digital cameras are great for the mass market, where shots are
generally taken with the subject a close range. Some of the
photos of flowers that I've seen for example, are quite
exceptional. In many cases, using film for these shots would
be beyond most average users because judging the best exposure
would be too difficult.
The public are happiest when they can they can just point and
shoot. The modern digital camera allows them to do this and
produce exceptional pictures of family events, so they're happy.
However, put these same cameras to a stiffer test and film wins
hands down. Even the latest, best and most expensive cameras
still fall short of the best that film can produce, especially
where the subject is at a fair distance e.g. most landscapes.
Coming back to old-time photographers, I just can't see anyone
producing, or rather reproducing the same quality shots of say,
Ansell Adams, using a digital camera instead of film. For
Ansell Adams, substitute Man Ray, or a host of other cult
photographers and you'll soon catch my drift.
Regarding photos that sell, the type of camera used is
irrelevant when the client looks at the final result. I'm sure
that Michelangelo never crossed swords with Leonardo about who
had the better brushes. It's the masterpiece that counts, not
the tools used to produce it.
And yet this epic battle between digital and film cameras is
important, because a lot of time and effort can be wasted,
trying to produce shots that sell with equipment that just
isn't up to the job.
Without being prescriptive or dogmatic, it seems to me that any
prospective Freelance photographer must weigh up the pros and
cons of digital versus film carefully. It is the nature of the
photograph being attempted that should decide the matter rather
than personal prejudice.
Another key factor is, of course, the preference of the client.
Where the customer is happy with small digital images then
convenience may suggest using digital. So, for someone who
shoots a range of photos it seems sensible to become conversant
with both. Digital and film cameras are totally different
beasts, especially with regard to exposure " rules of thumb".
After excellent composition, shots that sell need perfect
lighting - so the modern freelance photographer should use the
best tools, digital or film to achieve the perfect shot of his
chosen subject. That's the kernel of truth I've yanked out of
the splinters of this hoary old chestnut for you.
|
