Interesting and stimulating conversation- thus far!

Although most of my professional career has been in the commercial aspects of photography, I did do a stint as a press photographer for a major daily newspaper. During my military serve in Viet Nam, I did fair amount of coverage of combat operations- it was part of my job. I worked with and met many photojournalists in my travels and I never encountered anyone who was interested in altering reality, putting too much of a "slant" on their coverage or wanting to create disingenuous images. They were just too preoccupied with getting the shots, oftentimes under difficult or even dangerous circumstances and meeting their deadlines. Sometimes they were also concerned with getting through their assignment unscathed- in one piece with their equipment intact. Even in a big city environment there are many "slow news days", however the editors call out the troops when there is public commotion, violent demonstrations, political unrest, terrorist attacks, dangerous police operations, fires, explosions, tragic traffic accidents and natural disasters. None of this is for the faint of heart.

Speaking of deadlines- nowadays, we can shoot and transmit our images, over the cell-phone network, directly to the editorial desk. In my days on the paper, we would rush back to the darkroom, process the film in diluted print developer (3 minutes), a quick dunk in the fixer and the wash tank- print the negative WET in a glass-less carrier, and run down the hall with a half-dyed print to the composing room with the picture editor running behind us. No time for post-processing! Well- there was no such thing.

Sometimes, the photographs would complain that the picture editors messed with the authenticity of their images by indiscriminate cropping of the image to fit the picture into a predetermined column space or purposely cropping out a pertinent and telling detail- bad boys!

OK folks- Sorry about my bad spelling and grammar. I have excuses- and yes, the dog did eat my homework! English is not my first language or alphabet- I am an immigrant. My grammar school education was in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York- I'm fortunate that I am not totally or functionally illiterate! My teachers said that I should become a doctor, because I spoke like doctors write. I did well at high school and actually have a University degree in photographic technology/chemistry. Thank goodness there were not many essay assignments- we were graded on our laboratory work and later on, when I went into the applied photography program, we were graded mainly on our photographic results. Oh- I do try to proof read my stuff- it's like the blind leading the blind! Thank goodness for spell-check!

@ the English professors- I am a teacher and instructor of photography as well as a full-time commercial photographer. I also occasionally advise and help folks here online. When I critique an image I will always offer remedial solutions to technical issues. I don't assume or imply that the makers are careless or negligent in their efforts. In the interest of peace and diplomacy, I do not offer unsolicited advice.

Just for the record, I do not spend all that much time on "PP" in that my original files are very clean and only require minor routine adjustments. Special effects are usually pre-planned and integrated into the general production approach. In commercial work, back in the day, I too dealt with transparency production. Our "slides" were 8x10 inches. Yes- we had to get it all on the original film in that art directors took a dim view of transparency retouching, known as "stripping" because it was extremely tedious and costly. Making radical adjustments during the color separation or lithographic processes was also expensive so the clients expected flawless "chromes".

Oh- thanks for the tip- now I know what (Show Tags) mean. When I write a post in my word processing app- the tags do not transfer on the Hog.

My very sophisticated and deep philosophy is "different strokes for different folks " and "live and let live"!

So... I try to avoid all those dangling participles, misused punctuation and the like but it is what it is! My most inspiring and knowledgeable professor in the art of photographic composition spoke English with the most unintelligible German accent that I have ever experienced. I used to audio-tape his lectures and listen to them many times to extract some of his finer points. His imagery was impeccable and his attitude toward his work and his students was pure LOVE!

Kindest regards, Ed

W. Eugene Smith was my photojournalism hero. Although I lived in New York during his time a Life Magazine and other NYC based publications, I never met him. One of my early mentors and teachers, however, was a photo-lab technician and equipment pool manager at Life Magazine and told me of many of his experiences with Smith. Smith was known for his undertaking of dark and dangerous assignments in war zones, covering marginalized and victimized people, investigative esposés of international environmental poulterers. One would assume that this kind of work was very straightforward in terms of production. Smith was a tortured souls with many addiction and health issues, a staunch humanist and a hard-nosed journalist but managed to alienate many of his editors with a self-defeating quest for artistic and technical perfection. He would shoot under “god-awful” lighting conditions and come up with “difficult” negatives. He would then spend literally DAYS in the darkroom, holding up production, near-missing deadlines and in the end, producing prints of masterpiece quality. The other technicians talked of his “resurrecting dead negatives” and creating salon quality photographs. The “stories” in the pictures were never manipulated or slanted- just the tones were re-constructed with endless dodging, burning, flashing, and bleaching out tiny areas with a 00 retouching brush or a Q-tip.

Was that Post Production- or what?

During my tour in Viet Nam, I did manage to run into famous photojournalist/war photographer David Douglas Duncan. I wished I could have spoken to him at length but the conditions were not conducive to a long conversation. He shot with Lica M-3s and did mention something about processing in D-76 (pushed) or Acufine with Tri-X at ISO (then ASA) 800. Local, in country processing oftentimes required tropical additives to the developer as ambient temperatures were high and developer temperatures were difficult to maintain. Mostly, the processing and printing was routinely done back Stateside. Color was shot on Ektachrome (pushed). Not all that much P.P.

Duncan did great work under dreadful circumstances!

Henri Cartier Bresson was the famous French photojournalist/street photographer/artist who liked to compose in the camera. He was the photographer who became known for shooting at the “decisive moment”. He insisted on composing strictly in the camera- no cropping. I knew a gentlemen in New York, who back in the 1960s, was printing much of Bresson's work for limited edition prints, and gallery and museum exhibits. No kidding this guy printed FULL NEGATIVE just about up to the sprocket holes. There was however, some routine burning and dodging.

Yosef Karsh- yet another one my my photographic idols. I always, as a young student, studied a thend tried to emulate his lighting for portraiture. Karsh's fame centered around his philosophy of authenticity and character in portraiture and his incredible portfolio and books of who's who of the world. Famous artists, actors, world leaders, politicians, royalty, sports figures, captains of industry, top executives, writers, TV personalities, the odd dictator, great military men and woman, scientists, doctors, educators and even a few great images of regular who could afford his fees were all among his clientele. As a kid, I never imagined that I would move to Ottawa, the Canadian city where Karsh had his studio in the elegant and majestic Chateau Laurier Hotel- a 10 minute drive form my own studio and home neighborhood!

Our local professional photographer's association would regularly invite Karsh to lecture at our conventions and meetings. He would always graciously attend and conduct a lecture or provide us with the keynote address on our award nights. He was an extremely personable gentleman and would share many of his experiences of photographing presidents, kings and popes but kept his techniques very close to he chest. He gave us lectures and speeches- NOT CLASSES! His lectures usually emphasized the need for authenticity and character in portraiture and the evils of “retouching” I certainly had a great deal of respect for the mans' work- in fact I was in awe of it, however, I always detected some subtle manipulation in his work. There are not that many real SECRETS in photography. There is always a book, an AV tutorial and just plain old research and a sharp eye that will reveal things that are oftentimes obvious but shrouded in awe, glitz and hype.

So...several years past, Karsh kind semi-retired, donated his negatives to the National Archives of Canada, and moved himself his book publishing activities to Boston, Mass. in the U.S.A. He was well into his 90s and was becoming frail and wanted to be closer to his doctors as well. After the close of his studio, two of his former staff members called me at my studio looking for work. One was his main black and white lab technician and the other, believe it or not was his RETOUCHER! At the time, I did most of my own color and black and white printing and had one otter darkroom technician on staff as well. I also had a very talented and capable retoucher on staff and a part-time restoration artsit. I did not want to waste their time and bring them in only to just to “interrogate” them about Karsh and honestly told them that I was presently fully staffed but each of them insisted in coming in to see me anyway- just in case I changed my mind or needed additional seasonal help. At that point I was indeed tempted and I invited each of them in for a chat. So this is what my “investigation” revealed- some of which I already knew or suspected. The big revelation was that there was indeed a retoucher, and there she was in the flesh! There was definitely lots of pre- and post production manipulations. First of all, as was obvious, all the portraits were made on 8x10 large format cameras with razor sharp Kodak Ektar Lenses. Mostly ORTHOCHROMATIC black and white films were used- theses films were somewhat red-blind and render skin tones and textures in a far more dramatic, acute and somewhat exaggerated relief- and oftentimes in a more ruddy manner. Add to this kicker and feathered lighting at steep angles of incidence and you have a formula for some kick-butt killer low key portraiture. This was quite the opposite of the more mushy and diffused imagery that the average “bread and butter portrait studio” was offering. The film was developed in a 2 step PYRO developer which was quite unique in that it added a YELLOW stain the the shadow areas. This meant you could print down significantly to get bodacious detail in the highlights but the shadows were kinda automatically held back a bit- most single graded portrait papers are less sensitive to yellow- the color of the darkroom safe lights over the printing sink- BUILT IN DODGING! So... the prints had exemplary specular and diffuse highlights, plenty of middle tones and inky but very detailed shadows. The negative retouching was EXPERTLY AND BEAUTIFULLY done with dyes, not pencils, so it was not at all detectable. The head sizes on an 8x10 negative were much easier to retouch flawlessly than those on a 4x5 negative let alone roll-film medium format negatives. Believe it or not- some of the retouching was applied to emphasize the character lines in a faces rather then to subdue them. Karsh's favorite paper was Kodak Medalist G paper- A very silvery neutral tone material- sadly long gone.

Another interesting case of well- kinda unexpected or un-orthadox post production work!

Well now I know all of my idol's secrets but alas, I will never be another Karsh. First of all he was a master craftsman/artist of the highest order and his unique talent lied in being able to relate to all those big shots. I've done a few in my day but a prefer sitting on the floor, camera in hand an playing with kids and photographing regular folks- it's more in my comfort zone. One of my other teachers and mentors told me to get more with the celebrity scene. He used to say, it's not HOW you photograph but WHO you photograph. Too late!

Sorry for the LONG POST, gang- needed to get it off of my chest. Now I'll go back to the wedding department and write smaller posts.

Kindest regards, Ed

Copy that, SIR!

Allot- Distribute, Dole out, Apportion, Give out, so on and so forth. As opposed to “lot”- Batch, Great deal, large infinite amount, etc. Also- a tract of land.

Got it!

Aside from misuse and abuse of the English language, photography enthusiasts are champions of misnomers, errors in nomenclature and colloquial terminology that has little to do with reality, science or art. If I abstain from the Internet (photo-forums) for a month, upon my return, I will always find many new and exciting acronyms, buzzwords, jargon, slang and lingo that I need to decipher. Of course, advancements in technology are always accompanied by new terminology. Some of those U-Tube tutorials should have English subtitles! “I-so” instead of I.S.O. Is one of my favorites.

I seldom make reference to my military experience, in Viet Nam, especially the gory details, but everything is relative. In comparison to the physical discomfort and acute dermatitis (chaffing) brought about by being on a patrol in a tropical climate, for 12 days, without hygienic facilities, very little else IRRITATES me. Perhaps- too much starch in my shirt collars?

A philosophical approach to photography, I hope I can help you there- I have a few.

As an art, I have to admit that my motivation is somewhat self indulgent. I simply enjoy making images. I always wanted and draw and paint but found that I did not have the dexterity and talent for those fine arts. The camera became my tool of choice for visual self expression. I soon discovered that others enjoyed some of my images, especially those of themselves. Portraiture became my first serious interest and is still my “first love” as an art form and a business specialty.

After deciding to become a career professional, I soon became aware that versatility was a requirement for actually earning a living. In entering the commercial field, I realized that self edification had to give way to addressing the practical and psychological requirements of others- my clients. I had to learn to apply my art to not only very interesting and exotic subjects and very mundane subjects with the same enthusiasm. A morning shoot could be a lovely fashion model or an dynamic architectural study and the afternoon may bring an array of garbage bins for a hardware catalog. Oftentimes, the latter kind comprises the bulk of my work. Lately, I have been doing a good volume of food and beverage advertising photography. It's very precise, somewhat tedious, demanding, and requires a good deal of team work.

As I alluded to previously, I did a stint as a news photographer. This requires putting on a totally different “hat” (In the days of yore, New York City press photographers displayed their press cards in their had bands) and perhaps a significantly contrasting ethic. In traditional portraiture and commercial photography you are creating artistic interpretations and there is a great deal of illusion intrinsic in that kind of work. Ostensibly, photojournalism is straight stuff. This is not always the case. As a press photographer, you are working as part of a team or pool of other photographers, editors and managers all under the umbrella of the publisher or news agency. There are political leanings, internal politics, guide lines and many restrictions as to what is published and in what context it is published. The “Hollywood” image of the crusading and fearless investigative photojournalist is not a mainstream reality. There was a period and 1960s and 70s when freelance photojournalists were “looking for BOOM-BOOM”, that is, war zone assignments- they were “exciting” challenging and lucrative. These guys would get the sponsorship and transportation and just show up in a WAR- some of them would sustain serious injuries or get killed. Nowadays, most of theses brave souls are “impeded” with various combat units. They are certainly exposed to harm but have a slightly better level of protection. There are also many security and censorship issues as to what the can and can't see or shoot- many “filters”. There is still great and authentic photojournalism done by independent and dedicated men and woman in the areas of marginalized people, political oppression and environmental issues.

Even on domestic and relatively safe assignments, in today's high security environment, easy jobs have become complicated and restricted. At political events, VIP and presidential visits and rallies, parades and even most sports events, even credentialed photojournalists are no longer allowed roam around the venues in search of unique angles or viewpoints. Usually they are caged off in a “media area” with all the other photographers” and everyone gets, more or less, the same shots. Sadly, the “scoop” in most of print journalism is a thing of the past. Everything is on TV just about as soon as it happens. The Paparazzi- we hat is another world and another issue! More and more publications are using picture agencies, stock photos and other resources rather that assigning work to freelancers or maintaining staff photographers.

As far as learning about photography- well- learning is my passion. I am 73 years old and I still try to learn something new every day- well- once a week is good! My advice to folks who want to improve their photographic skills and knowledge base is to keep an open mind. Avoid hyperbole and overzealous opinions about equipment, tools, techniques and approaches. Always investigate alternative opinions and draw your own conclusions. Sometimes I will read a book, attend a lecture or even spend a few days at a workshop or seminar and find it slightly disappointing or redundant. Most of those times, I usually find SOMETHING new, an idea, a tip, a validation of somethings I already do but were not sure about or I lean how NOT to do somethings or how NOT to present a seminar. I once ended up cringing while attending a seminar-I have this strange habit of becoming embarrassed for other folks!

My grandmother had an expression that translated to “you can also learn form a fool”- I think she was right.

Thanks for your thoughts- they are appreciated.

Hi Gang!

I appreciate the encouraging comments and the various reactions to my and especially thank the folks who had the patience and fortitude the read into the second part. Sadly, the first part seemed to attract a number of disparaging comments mostly about the length of the post, the typos, a number of picayune remarks but very little about the substantive theme of the article.

I agree that just about anything do do with photography is debatable and there is nothing wrong with a good debate- it's healthy, stimulating and educational. I oftentimes find it disgusting how some of the members here seem to troll the site, pick fights and behave like snarky junior high school students. Some folks, just have no manners, diplomacy or common decency.

My first knee-jerk reaction to some of the comments was to answer them and defend myself. A more sober though followed, that is, to not dignify some of that nonsense with an answer. Perhaps a few general statements are in order. If any of the folks who made harsh criticisms bother to read this- they will know who I am addressing.

When I post here, I am not attempting to IMPRESS anyone, I prefer to express myself, stimulate conversation and exchange ideas. I never wish to foist my opinions on anyone and I am always open to opposing opinions, critiques and remain open to learning- learning is part of teaching.

Some of my writings are not directed to very advanced photographers but rather to newcomers to the craft, especially those who seem to have some serious misconceptions having been exposed to so many single-minded posts and literature that tend to disparage alternative opinions, methods and philosophies.

I certainly don't mind being critiqued on my photography, methodology, or my concepts nor to I take offense to being fact-checked. What I find disconcerting is on this PHOTOGRAPHY site, some folks took the time to critique my writing style, the length of my posts, my spelling and grammar and even question my motivation for wanting to share what I know.

One poster mentioned that PP stands for post-processing not post production. OK- all I know is that post-war means AFTER the war, postmortem means after death, postpartum means after birth and post operative means after the operation. So..if post processing means AFTER processing- does that make sense? I like to think that we produce the basic image first and then process it. OK again- I'll go with all kinds of photo slang and lingo- I mean technically, STROBE is not really electronic flash. There are all kinds of misnomers and and nomenclature glitches in many technical fields. As long as everyone knows what we are talking about things work out- we are not discussing neurosurgery or formulation for high explosives!

One gentleman called my article “crib notes” but asked why I did not delve further into the feud between Ansil Adams and William Mortensen - good point! As I alluded to, Adams was/is one of my idols and in my brief encounter with him at his workshop, I found him to be a lovely gentlemen, a down to earth guy and a photographer of the highest order. I never met Mortensen. What bothered me about their adversary history is that artists and craftsman of their stature should have NOT engaged in a war of derogation- it beats me. I found to to be beneath their dignity and their reputations. Personally speaking, I have been a successful professional photograph for over 50 years and have operated in several highly competitive markets. I have dealt with retail clients, ad agencies, art directors, gallery owners purchasing agents and many corporate and individual businesses. I have NEVER resorted to negative adverting, negative sales strategies or anything that insults or degrade the reputation of any valid competitor. I feel that those tactics simply “turn smart buyer off” and reflects poorly on the folks who do that. I just can't relate to such attitudes.

This goes directly to my disappointment with what kinds of nasty arguments arise here and on other photo forum sites. Rather than some of those those folks with opposing opinions, schools of though, and different points of view simply laying out their cases, as it were, debating in a “professional” manner, using decorum rather than nasty and offensive narratives .

What I wanted folks to take away from this post was that there are many approaches to photographic processing as well as a multitude of tools and techniques. Many of the current state-of-the-art digital systems are rooted in many older and traditional technologies. There are certain fields of photography that may demand images of the utmost authenticity and accuracy, some that are strictly traditional and others that are the antithesis of those disciplines- wildly creative and and unabashed art. Some folks just shoot for fun and family snapshots.

As far as ethics and journalism are concerned, I am not sure if, nowadays, those are not mutually exclusive terms. Some of the stuff I see on broadcast and in print journalism in outrageously biased and slanted. Yellow journalism in not dead! So-called tabloid journalism and the photography related to it has much to be desired in terms or ethical and totally honest content. Yes there are time-honored news outlets of the utmost integrity but this is up to their own editorial policies. There are new terms like “op-eds”, those are opinion based articles rather than straight news. Do photographers have the same latitude?

My lovely wife insists that my posting on this part of the HOG is an unmitigated waste of time. I am beginning to see her point. To finish off the day, I got a private message form on of the HOG admins advising me not to use upper case letters in the titles or the body of my posts. He implied that it would cause an epidemic of that habit in folks that wanted to call more attention to their posts. All I do is capitalize the odd world or phrase for emphasis since the site does not enable underscoring or italic fonts. It's been an interesting day! I asked the good administrator if he sends similar notices to folks who continuously make combative and rude posts.

It's been an interesting day.

Ed