One of our members asked us to post this:
=========================
"I don't use auto, I'm pointing out that the majority of school portrait pics I've seen look like they have (or could well have been taken with it).
Certainly, the school / graduation portrait stuff doesn't involve much skill - at least none of the stuff I've ever seen does.
And I don't shoot weddings (I don't have the eye for that kind of thing aside form anything else), most of my work is commission based (I specialise in macro stuff). I'm not saying that there's no skill involved in photography - I'm saying that there's very little skill involved in the typical school portrait any more. Any that was required in the film age has long since been frittered away by the auto metering, instant preview etc etc from todays kit. It seems to be little more than a sausage factory now.
Based on what I've seen, they're certainly not worth the money.
Actually, if I'm being honest I think a good chunk of the "skill" nowadays is in post.?
This was a great little camera that I owned and I think it was available from about 1986
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F801
As well as the features listed above it also had an automatic film loading ?failure? warning as well as motorized rewind of the film.
So this camera was
Auto focus
Auto exposure with (the still current) PS and A settings as well as manual.
Motorised frame advance and rewind.
Film is very forgiving. I mean really forgiving. You can overexpose film by 4 or even 5 stops and underexpose by 3 and still get a reasonable print from that negative. I used to include that exercise for students when I taught photography. It?s this ability for film to have 32 times more light than is correct and 8 times less light that made single use (disposable) cameras available.
Loaded with 400 ISO film a set aperture of about F8 and shutter speed of 1/125.
Whatever the lighting conditions the camera takes a picture at those settings. So once the film is developed and depending on the lighting there will be grossly over and under exposed pictures which are all compensated for when printing.
This is done automatically by the printing machine which has similar technology to the auto exposure systems in cameras.
However, the camera?s (and printer?s) auto exposure system is only accurate for about 70% of typical scenes, Those that have an equal amount of dark and light areas. Other than that they will both get it wrong, which is why in most cases an operator with some technical knowledge is required.
I would encourage anyone reading this thread to take a look at any family or holiday pictures you have from the 80?sor 90?s that were taken on a reasonable film SLRs and compare them with the prints you are getting now from your DSLR and I?d bet that they are at least as good as your digital prints and in most cases better.
Why? Because the auto exposure systems in cameras then and now is all but useless except for ?typical? scenes.
The standards of labs were better then as there was more operator input. But, more particularly as the auto exposure modes in modern cameras is useless and digital is far, far less forgiving than film. In fact a typical Jpeg file needs exposure correct to 1 to 2 stops over and 2 to 3 under. A badly exposed digital file yields a very bad print.
To address the comment
?I don't use auto, I'm pointing out that the majority of school portrait pics I've seen look like they have (or could well have been taken with it).?
For them to have been or look like they have been taken in auto would have meant that the photographer would have used a system flash gun mounted on the camera or even the camera?s pop up flash. If they were taken in that way, the lighting would be very harsh with a distinct shadow on the backdrop. We would all have seen the effect from photographs we have taken at night or in low light when the flash is used. If this is the standard of photography any of you are getting from your school photographer you have every right to complain.
If there is no shadow but clearly additional artificial (flash) lighting of some kind used then it is just impossible that that photograph is taken in auto. The camera?s auto exposure system does not integrate with the studio lights that most photographers use as the poster of this comment should know.The camera must be set up manually and some method, normally an infra red trigger or cable connected from the camera to the lights to fire them as the shutter is released.
It is true that modern system flashguns (flashguns made by the manufacturer of the camera) can be set up to auto expose and be used unconnected to the camera but again that is all but useless. However, I do use that system for certain types of work for its portability and convenience and only for its wireless capability and never in auto mode as it is too inaccurate and manually setting up the power of the flashguns gives more accurate and consistent exposures. However using system flashguns (but not in auto mode) I could see as a real benefit for macro work (for non photographers reading this, macro is essentially close up photography where typically the subject is rendered life size) where additional lighting can be placed off camera and triggered by the camera?s wireless system.
?- I'm saying that there's very little skill involved in the typical school portrait any more. Any that was required in the film age has long since been frittered away by the auto metering, instant preview etc etc?
This comment is quite simply wrong. In fact the opposite is true.
10 years ago a photographer would go into a school.
Hang up the mottled blue or brown back drop, or the ?library? scene with the books in the back ground.
Use an exposure meter to set the level of the two lights.
Put the camera on a tripod and pre focus the lens at the distance the subject would be for a head and shoulders portrait.
Set the shutter speed for flash sync and aperture to the value the light meter gave for the lights.
Load the camera with 35mm film. Check that there was no loading error.
Sit the child down ask them to smile and take the picture. If the child blinked take another but if not move on to the next child.
Take all the rolls of film to the specialist lab which would print them all (except duplicates) to the packs that the photographer had arranged.
Deliver the packs to the school and in a few weeks collect the money for the ones purchased and take back the ones returned, pay the school their commission, return the unsold packs to the lab for a partial refund.
Now the photographer, as well as shooting on the above backdrops, may have to shoot on white, (very tricky to get right as the countless bad examples on the web are testament) full length and head and shoulders, shooting against black (very tricky as well) possibly shooting as well at the time or additionally for school records integrated with data bases.
And additionally taking multiple poses of the subject.
When complete, downloading to very expensive high powered computers with ample memory and a reliable back up systems. Edit those pictures and adjust for optimum colour balance and density on a good quality monitor typically £1000+ that requires re-profiling every few weeks using expensive hardware and software to ensure consistent files to the labs requirements.
Organise the pictures so they can be automatically proofed in twos or threes depending on the photographers proofing arrangements, post or send by wire the photographs to the lab.
Send the multi pose proof sheets to the school. Deal with all the enquiries regarding mixing packs, removing spots and blemishes, lost proofs, never had proofs (child actually wasn?t at school that day), collect the orders, process them and send them to the lab for printing. Paying the lab considerably more than supermarket photofinishers whose prices I am sometimes quoted, for the guarantee of print longevity (I don?t want pictures coming back to me in three or four years time that are starting to bleach or stain due to poor processing) the consistently good quality of the prints and colour and density correctness they produce and the great systems they have in place for accurate order fulfillment.
Deliver pictures to school and pay school commission (anything between 20 and 30% ) and then deal with late orders and complaints about administration fees after the return deadline and with complaints about photographs not received which were not it generally turns out ever ordered.
Easier now? Absolutely not.
However, that is our lot as photographers and of course I don?t expect and neither am I looking for any sympathy. Just explaining that getting those finished photographs to you requires a number of different skills including photographic.
However, to sum up, if you are being offered poor quality photographs from the educational institution your child or children attend, tell them to change the photographer and employ a professional.
If you think the photographs are too expensive, tell the institution not to take a commission which will lower the price by up to 30%.