reflecting on photography past

I was reading a columnist this morning who was reflecting on changes he's noticed over the past decade. It got me to thinking about how photography and photojournalism has changed since I started doing it professionally about 25 years ago. And, yes, I have photographer friends who are older than I and certainly their starting point of reference is different, but here goes.

It goes without saying that film was the norm. But the standard for newspapers was black and white Kodak Tri-X or Ilford HP5. At newspapers, most of us also carried color transparency film like Ektachrome or Fujichrome in addition to some Plus-X if we wanted some really fine grain.

One camera held black and white film; the other often contained color.

To process these films meant using any combination of machine or hand-processing method with a variety of chemicals. It would take anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes--after driving back to the lab/office--before we knew if we hand any "good" images. There was no such thing as a monitor on the back of the camera to check focus, color balance or exposure.

Changing ASA (now ISO) meant changing out an entire roll of film and/or developing a second batch of film in a different chemistry/time combination.

Shooting something at ASA 3200 meant really grainy black and white images often using bleach and a cotton swab while printing under a dim amber bulb just so you got detail in some portions of the image.

If we ran out of film, we were pretty much done for the moment. You couldn't erase an image to make more space. You either begged a roll from someone or found a drug store or grocery store for more film if you didn't have some rolling around the floor of your car.

You used to be able to drive up to booths and drop off film to someone and return a few hours or days later to get your photos.

Looking at your images with any kind of urgency often required a good light table and a nice loupe if you were in the print media industry. Nevermind using a slide projector two weeks later if you shot Kodachrome at National Geographic.

Most every photojournalist carried two camera bodies and a bag with four, five or more prime lenses and had to change lenses OFTEN to get a good variety of images. Zoom lenses were not considered professional lenses.

Oh...and there was no autofocus on ANY of those lenses.

Seventeen millimeters was an exotic lens.

We carried one or two flashes and often had to dial in the best possible setting using a vague guess of red, blue or yellow setting on that flash to accommodate the distance/ASA/situation variables.

Motor drives were add-on devices. They often shorted out in wet weather. I used Band Aids over the button of my Nikon MD-12 to keep rain out of it.

Nikon was the undisputed king for Photojournalists.

Thirty six was a magic number.

More camera buying tips

As promised, here are a few more random camera-buying tips.

Be sure to consider exactly what kind of photography you plan to do with this camera. Keep that in mind for things like choosing what kind of lens you need, what kind of zoom, video and other critical features that might be relevant to you.

I advise not to buy anything online that is the cheapest price unless you are getting that price from a known retailer. If you get a dirt cheap price from some unknown seller, you may be setting yourself up for a disaster. Don't let a $20 price difference push you toward a poor purchasing decision.

Some of those low prices can mean you're not getting a full warranty or any USA warranty. You may not get a full kit or you might be buying refurbished equipment. You may have a very difficult time returning an item or you might have to pay a restocking fee.

A good rule of thumb is to alway get the camera in your hands and physically look at the features and how the camera feels. I always encourage buying locally. Give your local camera store the business. They are super helpful and their prices can get to within a few dollars of online retailers. They often will toss in a camera lesson or two. And certainly you can always go back with the camera to ask questions.

Another good rule of thumb: don't buy anything that is packed in those plastic clam shells. Just don't.

Also, generally any kid camera sold in the toy aisle or toy store is just junk. Yes, you can spend $35 and get her a "camera". It will frustrate them and you. Trust me.

Enough for now. More to follow

Camera Buying Tips

I've written a lot of camera tips, but I've decided not to recycle old ones. I'm freshening them and making updates. Here's one that's a little late in coming but still valuable for this time of the year.

Buying a digital still camera is high on people's list this Christmas. Here are a few random things to consider. I'll add to this list soon. But also, do your own research by using independent reviewers like Consumer Reports or some other authority.

I've preached this before, but don't be fooled by big numbers and low price tags. Just because a camera features a lot of megapixels, bunches of zoom and loads of internal memory doesn't necessarily make it a great camera.

Avoid camera brands you're not familiar with. When in doubt, stick with traditional camera manufacturers. Sure, some off-brand cameras are great. But they are few and far between. I love Canon and Kodak for inexpensive point and shoots. Olympus and Nikon are great if you want to spend a little more on a point and shoot or middle-of-the-road camera. I'm no shill for any of these companies, I just know what I've seen and liked. I still carry around a 4 mp Fuji from six years ago that's an awesome little point and shoot.

Also, remember that upgrading to a new digital camera means you'll probably be making images that have larger file sizes. That means your computer might slow down while grinding on these new photos. You'll need more memory to store these images (via internal or external hard drives; more on this later) and you might need to add more RAM to your computer. You might even consider buying a newer machine if you're not happy with your computer's performance.

If you're upgrading cameras for someone, you might be careful what kind of memory device the new camera uses. If it's got a slot for some sort of memory card, you might consider buying a camera that uses the same type of card as the old camera. This keeps the camera's owner from having to buy new cards immediately. Again, if this new camera makes larger file sizes, the old cards won't hold as many photos as before and the cards will eventually need to be replaced with ones that hold more data.

Video is a big feature on many digital cameras. Be aware that on most digital SLRs, you CANNOT use the autofocus when shooting video.

Again, video takes up a lot of space on the computer--especially if you start shooting high definition video.

Oh, you'll need software for that video. Sure your new camera might come with some freebie software. It'll be OK, but your inner Orson Welles will compel you to go get a beefier software which might require some upgrade to your existing computer like the addition of a video or sound card, etc.

That's a lot for now. I'll add to this in a day or two.

Inexpensive vs. "cheap" cameras

A close friend recently decided to buy an inexpensive camera that would basic digital still photography and video. He wanted a digital camera so he could make notes on job sites and record some information for work purposes. David is an accomplished photographer but he's not a techie so he turned to me for advice when he started picking out cameras.

He was really wanting to keep the price low. The camera, after all, was only for documentary purposes and not for art or anything serious. He ended up buying a $39 Vivicam made by Vivitar. The features of the camera, taken at face value, were reasonably attractive: 14 megapixels; video; SD card memory; built-in flash; plus a carrying case and cute table-top tripod.

I have never bought an inexpensive camera like that and was curious--if not dubious--of how it could really perform.

Sadly, the camera was worse than I could have imagined.

The most glaring disappointment was that the video recorded no audio. Period. The lag time on the shutter was pathetic and the quality of the images was stunningly poor. The camera body was toy-like. The slot for the SD card was not even behind a protective cover. It simply slipped into a slot like the front of a computer or card reader.

I wish I had kept an image from our brief experiment. But we packed it back up and returned it to the store for a refund.

Lesson learned. Not all 14 megapixel chips perform alike. There are a lot of valuable algorithms, mechanical and electrical features that make a camera perform well. Don't be fooled by big numbers and small prices. My old, old Fuji 4 megapixel $150 point and shoot outperforms this clunker by far.