Make Chiangmai Mail | your Homepage | Bookmark

Chiangmai 's First English Language Newspaper

Pattaya Blatt | Pattaya Mail | Pattaya Mail TV

XII No.2 - Sunday January 27 - Saturday february 9, 2013

Around Town
Arts - Entertainment
Ask Emma
Book Review
Bridge in Paradise
Animal Welfare
Care for Dogs
Creature Features
Community Happenings
Doctor's Consultation
Eating Out & Recipes
Let’s go to the movies
Life in Chiang Mai
Mail Bag
Mail Opinion
Money Matters
Our Community
Quirky Pics
Travel & Tourism
The Wellness Column
Daily Horoscope
About Us
Advertising Rates
Current Movies in
Chiangmai's Cinemas
Back Issues
Find out your Romantic Horoscope Now - Click Here!
Update by Saichon Paewsoongnern

SNAP SHOTS by Harry Flashman


Digital and film - is the war now over?

When I began professional photography, I was a dyed-in-the-wool film buff, using 6x6 cm negatives and transparencies and 5x4 inch transparencies when I needed a larger format. Along with the best optical lenses available, I was always assured of pin-sharp images. There was nothing to beat it.
Then along came “digital” photography and the photographic world was split in two. The film and digital groups. One claiming “sharpness” and the other touting “instant” imaging.
I used to say that I would never go digital, because digital photographs were not as sharp as film photographs. All that changed in the past few years, and I took up digital photography.
I had done the conversion rather slowly, initially scanning my photos and storing the electronic form of the photo image in the computer, to be manipulated further if needed. This rather long-winded procedure meant that I was converting a negative into a positive print, then scanning into a digital image. Two steps, each capable of losing definition. Which it did.
I then began having my negatives turned into CDs, rather than printing the images and scanning them. This way I could import the images in digital form directly into my computer via ACDSee and then do the final crop, fix lop-sided horizons, etc., through Adobe Photoshop.
Undoubtedly there will be those folk who are very computer savvy who would say I should have used this or that software, but I am not a computer geek, I am purely a photographer who uses a computer. My editors need images at 300 dpi (stands for dots per inch, they tell me) and that is what I supply.
Of course, by still using my film cameras to capture the images, I was left in the situation whereby I did not know definitely that I had a usable image until the film was developed. I was also at the mercy of the boy who changed the photochemicals in the autoprocessor. Crispness in the final image could easily be compromised at that stage.
So I finally entered the digital era, choosing a camera with electronics from an electronics manufacturer and the lens from a lens manufacturer. This has, I believe, given me the best of both worlds. If you are going the electro-trickery route, use a manufacturer who knows and understands all the subtleties of LCDs and pixels and all of that stuff which I don’t really want to know, but why then get that manufacturer to make optical glass lenses? Surely a recognized lens manufacturer would be better?
Some of the examples of supposed digital superiority include:
Images are free. After you buy a digital camera, accessories and batteries, the pictures are free. The cost of digital looks high until you figure savings on film and processing.
Instant feedback. The LCD screen on a digital camera lets you check photos instantly. The ability to learn quickly from mistakes is a big advantage.
Exact duplicates of originals are possible. You can store exact copies of original digital images in multiple locations for safekeeping. With film you have only one set of original negatives, which you can store only at one location.
However, the editing process with digital is slow by comparison to looking at proof sheets, it becomes difficult to discard a ‘mediocre’ shot when you have invested so much time working on it just to view its potential. Many photographers end up keeping digital images that they would have thrown out had they been slides.
Shooting digital can mean much more time in front of the computer both in the field and at home. With film, you spend less time in front of the computer and more time shooting and the results tend to be stronger and more cohesive.
Just the physical aspect of shooting images is also different, and for me, film cameras are easier to use in the field. Digital still needs much fiddling around in its menu system. Granted, the five drop-down menus seems to cover everything a photographer might want, but I still find it fiddly, pushing buttons to go from one menu screen to another.
Both film and digital have their advantages, but the war isn’t over yet!

f8 and be there

Photojournalists can have a problem with morality and ethics. The following test shows just how much stress there can be for these photographers.
The situation: You are in London. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper and you are photographing in the middle of this epic disaster.
Suddenly, you see a man in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You suddenly realize who it is... it is a well known violent criminal on the run. You notice that the raging waters are about to take him under.
You have two options:
(1)You can save the life of this man - or -
(2) You can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death of one of the country’s most despised, evil and powerful men!
Now the question, and give an honest answer (nobody can see you)!
Would you select high contrast color film, or just go with the classic simplicity of black and white?
So now, to be sensible after that little chuckle, the job of a photojournalist is to get back to the editor with a usable photograph of some event, be that a fire, a debutante ball or the British Chamber of Commerce networking night.
The photojournalist’s creed of “f8 and be there,” may have come from Arthur H. Fellig, known as ‘Weegee’. Born in Poland in 1899, he came to America in 1909. He worked for a few studios and then got a job in the darkroom at Acme Newspapers. Life in the newspaper business is always exciting and frantic. Arthur H. Fellig reveled in that excitement. He had found his niche. He was only 21 years old but he decided he was going to be a freelance news photographer.
He soon became known as the first on the scene of any newsworthy happening, be that fire, murder, suicide or landslide. He was so uncannily aware of what was happening that people began to feel he had some kind of psychic powers of prediction. At that time, America was also in the middle of a Ouija Board fad and from this Fellig was to adopt his nickname “Weegee”.
Of course, Weegee was not psychic, but just used to sleep fully clothed, with a police radio on his pillow. In the boot of his car was his “office”, complete with typewriter to knock out the words, spare film and lots of flash bulbs. Weegee would arrive, record the shot, type the words and have everything on the editor’s desk within the hour. It was no wonder that Weegee was so popular with the news media of the day. (He would be even more popular today!)
By 1935, Life magazine was doing features on Weegee and his work. There was no doubt about the fact that he had the photographic “eye”, but for Weegee, the subject was the all important part of the photograph. And the subject he dealt with was done incredibly directly. Weegee was not one to be horrified by the sights before him, such as gangland killings. He took the shot that kept that horror for the eyes of the newspaper readers the next day. (Interestingly, that direct, confrontational photographic style is still used in the Thai language papers today - check any front pages for graphic images.) Another quote from this amazing man, “I like to get different shots and don’t like to make the same shots the other dopes do.” When asked what his formula was he replied, “I just laugh. I have no formula, I’m just myself, take me or leave me. I don’t put on an act. I don’t try to make a good or bad impression. I’m just Weegee.”
Weegee will be remembered for his record of the seamier side of New York life. This was put into book form, called the Naked City and was published in 1945. Unfortunately, the wide public recognition that came from this book ended the directly grotesque nature of his images and Weegee went to Hollywood where tinsel-town swallowed him up. He died in 1969.

HEADLINES [click on headline to view story]

Digital and film - is the war now over?

f8 and be there



Chiangmai Mail Publishing Co. Ltd.
189/22 Moo 5, T. Sansai Noi, A. Sansai, Chiang Mai 50210
Tel. 053 852 557, Fax. 053 014 195
Editor: 087 184 8508
E-mail: [email protected]
Administration: [email protected]
Website & Newsletter Advertising: [email protected]

Copyright © 2004 Chiangmai Mail. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.