I’ve been thinking a lot about photography these days, partly because I’ve been trying to revive my blog and I’m looking to fill it up with both words and my pictures, but mainly because I’ve been having this itch to reinvent myself — or in this case, to get back to my journalistic roots. And maybe it’s a coincidence, or maybe I naturally seek photographers out, but I have been finding myself in conversation with photographers these past weeks, and I am learning and growing a lot because of the interaction. It’s also been an affirming exercise as I realize that I am not so far behind as far as the craft is concerned. Even with the recent advances in photography, I can still call myself a photographer because the process is still basically the same: capturing light with the use of a camera.
The Nikon F2 -- built like a tank
Most people I know don’t know that when I started as a journalist in 1994 (with the Mindanao Times), I was not just a reporter/editor but a photographer as well. I was among the few — or was I the only one? — who brought not just a notepad but also a single lens reflex (SLR) camera to coverage. Back in those days I had a Nikon F2, a heavy, professional-level SLR that took great pictures and was built like a tank — perfect for running after persons and events when the last thing I could worry about was taking care that I don’t bump my equipment. That camera could really take punishment.
So imagine me in those pre-digital days conducting interviews, taking down notes, and waiting for the opportune time to lift my camera to my eye and take a few pictures. Unlike other Nikons of that time, the F2 — which was already two generations behind as far as the professional line was concerned — didn’t have autofocus and was fully manual, so I had to make sure of my focus and my exposure before taking each shot. I also had to make sure I had the right flash setting since TTL (through the lens) and dedicated flashes were unheard of when Nikon built the F2. All these considerations were important because I had to maximize my film not just because they were expensive but also because I had to make sure I still had frames remaining in case something explosive happened.
Negatives -- remember those?
And having taken pictures, I still had to rush to the photo lab to get the film developed and then — to save money — look at the negatives to pick out the pictures I wanted to print. Often I would do this in the lull between writing my own reports and editing those of other reporters, and it was a good thing that at least there were already one-hour labs at the time. Once the prints were out, I would rush back to the newsroom where I would continue working well into the night, writing, editing, captioning, laying out, and making coffee.
I can’t say I miss those pre-digital days, but I appreciate the fact that those technically difficult times taught me a lot about being resourceful and being skillful. I also learned not to be dependent on equipment or to lust after the newest ones because I knew that what I had — a camera two generations behind — was enough to get the work done. I had to make each shot count because there was no PhotoShop then (or at the most it was still in its infancy) to save badly exposed pictures. And being a Third World newspaper, the Times couldn’t afford to give me a bigger budget on film, which would have at least allowed me to take numerous pictures from which I could pick the best ones (Hint: that’s the secret of all professional photographers).
These days, of course, digital cameras do practically all the work for us. All of them offer some form of automation, and setting the dial to “A” (or its equivalent, depending on the brand and model) gives us good results most of the time. But from my conversations with old hands, many photographers who are old enough to have switched from film to digital still carry with them their old habits, and that is a good thing. Most of them still take care that they have the right exposure, and many of them go manual to make sure they get what they want. And as I have found myself, getting a picture right from “click” is the best way to get a memorable photo.
Babusanta pier, taken by yours truly with just a point-and-shoot digital camera. (Click on this and the other two images below to visit my Flickr site)
Diver boy
Geese at Kensington Park, MI, taken last year when I participated in a journalism exchange.
I am not, however, about to diss digital photography as being for amateurs. In fact, I happen to believe that digital technology is one of the best thing to have happened to photography. Aside from automation, digital technology has allowed for smaller and more discreet cameras that are getting cheaper and cheaper. The chief disadvantage of professional photographers is that the cameras and lenses they need — those that are feature-rich — are usually big; while these to allow them to take better pictures, the cameras also make them stick out in a crowd and ruin any chance of them getting “candid” shots. The smaller point-and-shoots are better at this, and I’ve seen many casual snapshooters take great shots with them. (Next: Photography for the Facebook generation)
Random Posts:
