My dad was a real professional photographer. No shooting 50 rolls of film of the same subject and then searching out a few keepers. He never had to take more than two shots of a subject. 99.0 percent of the time he had two perfect shots. He processed all of the B&W stuff he shot,and retouched the negatives by hand. He sent all color work out the the professional labs for processing and printing. He said that "This is not a hobby. It is too expenxive and time consuming to do it in house. I do not have time to waste playing with the stuff" He would say. "Shooting more than two shots of any subject is a cop out, it reveals little or no talent. People who do that learn little and create by accident. Someone who shoots roll after roll varying angles poses, lighting, camera settings. Is relying for the accidental shot." To him they were hack amatures. I remember him teaching me how to compose, how to really look at the subject, behind it, in front of it. to examine shadows and dozens of other subtleties. He taught me patience and not to fire the shutter until everything was right. He said that anything less was a mere snapshot. "You can get lucky and get some terrific snapshots, but why rely on luck?. To make a long story short I never followed in his footsteps and persued photography as a profession. But it does not mean that his advice fell on deaf ears. So when I hear people gripe about their images being stolen. Heck you shoot digital and someone copies it. Those are the risks you take. You shoot on film, you have the negatives and no dispute. If you are a professional you already understand this. If you are a wannabe, well .... grow up. Do something about it, don't just gripe. My father never would, but then he was a pro and knew the price of the business. My Father, he photographed, wars, presidents, rock and roll stars, celebrities, weddings, bar mitzva's, and everyday people.

My Mom and Dad. The phot was a self portrait taken with a squeeze bulb shutter trip, by my father.

Thanks for introducing your father and his wonderful work. The portrait of your parents is classic and calls to mind a different era. I dont believe however, that a person who takes more than two shots is a cop-out at all. To make a statement like that would not be to understand that you or anyone else has no idea what is in that particular photographers mind at the moment they are hit with an inspiration. Perhaps they are looking for something, and plan on exhausting every opportunity to find it. There is also nothing wrong with shooting digital either. As far as wannabes are concerned, I believe saying "grow up", is a bit harsh, dont you? Because it is discouraging those who are seeking to learn, experiment and grow. Times change. People change, techniques change. Some dont also. Its a wide wide berth for anyone that is interested. This forum supports artists and photographers who come from any walk on the spectrum, from beginner amateur to the most highly skilled professional traditional photographer. I also choose to believe that "accidents" are some times no "accident" at all. Also, digital photographers do have proof their images belong to them. To say that those of us that shoot digital should expect to be stolen from is not a correct statement. On the gripe part, its a difference of opinion, and who's to say who's right and who's wrong? Your father sounds like a wonderful man and true craftsman, a person who learned his trade and proved it with great results time after time, in an era when a certain clean technical perfection was most important. He produced brilliant work I am sure. My husband was a professional photographer, and taught me many a lesson in photography, from traditional to digital, as we are both exploring that realm together, in the here and now. He has many brilliant ideas of his own, learned all the stock traditional ideas, and took celebrity photographs for quite a while. But he also encourages experimentation. I have fallen asleep many a night to him softly lecturing me on f/stops shutter speeds, films, dark room techiques, everything. I have seen a large body of his work, and have the eyes to know I am looking at something good, as well as several others in this forum. He is patient and kind, he taught me how to cure camera shake, he taught me about light, and magic. So with that said, I must add that to be so harsh in a post to others who are learning can be detrimental. Im no expert, no great photographer, but I am an experimenter. And I will continue to experiment till I exhaust my brain of all its infinite possibilities. My fabulous mistakes are mine, as well as any other perfectly planned shot. If I snap once or 2000 times, its in my mind and its eye and no one elses to know the exact reason why. With that said, I welcome you as forum moderator, and ask like I do of everyone here, to have respect for others instead of using what appears to be blind arrogance as a weapon against those who are already here. Thank you, Syyd

I am sure your father was a real good photographer and what I am about to say is not meant to belittle him in any way whatsoever. But... I was a pro photographer for many years and I have known personally and worked with many professional media photographers in London, Tokyo and Europe. I have to say that I have never known one of them to only take no more than two photographes of any subject 'ever'. Even in 'Still life' and advertising. Film stock varies so much that only the wise photographer would take polaroids and still bracket his/her exposures to make sure they got the right one. The top picture you have shown of your father is obviously depicting 'Child' photography. Whether this is advertising his trade or not I do not know...But, taking successful photographes of children almost always takes a lot more that two frames especially in a studio situation. I would be extremely interested to know who your father was and see some of his work. I have been a 'wannabe' many times in my life. If I had never have been, I would not ever have been a professional musician, a professional photographer or a professional digital artist! Colm Jackson

Quote from the message above: 'To make a long story short I never followed in his footsteps and persued photography as a profession. But it does not mean that his advice fell on deaf ears. So when I hear people gripe about their images being stolen. Heck you shoot digital and someone copies it. Those are the risks you take. You shoot on film, you have the negatives and no dispute. If you are a professional you already understand this. If you are a wannabe, well .... grow up.' I appreciate you sharing your personal and interesting story about your dad, a talented photographer. Yet I fail to see the connection between the wisdom he bestowed upon you and people disliking their work being pilfered. I also don't see the relevance of your view on the ratio of of film shot to number of keeper images.To my knowledge no one here stated that they shoot fifty rolls of film to get a decent shot. And anyway, we're here to share and experiment, not to set restrictions on how many pictures you're allowed to take of a given subject. Well, that's just my two pennies.

My father understood that if you take enough shots of a subject, varying shutter, Fstop, lighting, angle and pose. After 70 frames you will end up with a exceptional photograph. As a matter of fact it has become a acceptible method of teachinf photography. One of the first thing taught in photography class is shoot lots of film. Bracket your exposures vary the angle. Now there is the famous cliche that states if you put a million monkeys at typewriters you will eventually end up with the Declareation of independence. My father was never into high volume work. He created images not producing photo's The back to back shot of him and my mother was one image not a collection of experiments. He sat her down framed the shot. Then sat down and tripped the shutter. The resulting image at least I feel shows creativity and excellent visualization skills. How many photographers would do the one pweson seated and the other standing behind the chair smile at the camera shot. Put a seamless background behind the shot and at least I feel you have a frameable print to hang on the wall. My point was that you could happen upon that very same photo burning through 5 rolls of film and never know you caught it before you saw the results. To my father this was not professional photography. To him a true professional, someone who is paid to produce an image should be more than a button pusher. He started his career in the 1930's. In a foreign war torn country where film was very scarce. He did not have the luxury of shooting roll after roll of film. You had to produce results on the first or second image. If you could'nt well you were never used again. So he had to develop his skills, of seeing what the camera would see, the light the shadow and the physical attributes of his subject. I suppose if you had to learn and practise your craft in that fashion. You had developed a disdain for those who would burn through rolls of film to get the same result. Modern photography and requirements now let photogrphers readily follow the shoot till you drop technique. Professionl photographers rarely do a shoot with less than 50 rolls of film on hand. Today film and paper and processing is cheap. Back through the 30's through the 50's it was not that inexpensive, developing and printing a 8 X 10 color print was not cheap. Due to the war in many countries silver was a war commodity. So you must sometimes wonder if many of todays accomplished pros would be accomplished if they could not shoot hundred of shots a session. Here is the hypothetical situation. You have to photograph the front of a premier LAS Vegas hotel. This image will be enlarged to poster dimensions and used for promotional advertising. Now you need to create the perfect image and not shoot more than 4 frames. How many can confidently be relied to accomplish it. How many so called notable professionals would be terrified. I suppose it is how you learned your craft, and your confidence of being able to apply it. I guess my father was a "one shot one kill type of guy. Sure you can use a machine gun and move someone down, a lot easier to. The photo of my dad was a promotional picture. He did do kids, but it is the quintesential image of a professional photographer. {Watch the birdie) It leaves no doubt as to the profession of the individual in the picture. Otherwise it could be a photo of a guy holding a camera. He shot tons of film, no he did not document the Hungarian Revolution and WW2 with one shot. I never meant that. I mean that all he would need was on or two shots of any given subject to have a commercially useable shot. He was never a "hold it another then another" Type of photographer. Not that he could'nt, just that he did'nt have to. From time to tim I'll psot some of his works here. Although much of his professional stuff has been lost, over the years after he sold the business and retired. See my mom was has partner in the busines. She handled the books and the studio bookings. When she died in a automobile accident in 1969. Alot of my fathers passion left with her. His heart left the business. My father turning a large B&W blow up into a oil painting by hand coloring. This was one of my first forays into photography, I think I was 12 at the time.

The only photo I could find of his Studio.

My posts are not meant to belittle anyone or their talent. It was more a walk down memory lane, and the values passions that my father instilled in me. I remember in my later years when I came across photographs of the Beatles of when they first hit the US for the ED Sullivan show. I was amazed, You photographed the Beatles? My father replied, Yes I photographed lots of people. Since I was a child I only had first hand knowledge of him doing weddings and regular studio work. I only wish now that we still had so many of his famous assignments.

Pnevai, you're father was obviusly talented - these pictures and the fact that he managed to be very sucessful in a job which requires talent prove this. Before you posted these images, I was composing a reply, which I lost due to my wonderful(!) connection. However, you have stated a comment I was also to make, namely that your father's attitude to the way he worked was borne a great deal from cost. If he was self-taught then I appreciate that totally, as that is my position at the moment. If he had an instructor, teacher or whatever they also will have instilled that in him. However, as you noted, costs today are a lot less (once you've bought the equipment!) - indeed a digital camera promotes the 'take loads of shots, what does it matter' attitude. I do that - not flippantly, I take a maximum of 5 shots of an items, borne from a 'cost' in memory capacity on my camera - but I don't consider those shots to be a waste or mean I have no talent. While one shot may make a good picture in itself, another makes a good background in a completely different picture and responds differently to effects - after all, what is Photoshop if not an advancement of your father's painting above? Would he have the same attitude himself with today's resources? As regarding your early comment on digital photographers almost expecting to have work stolen, if this situation happened with just one 'perfect' picture you are in a one-to-one arguement. With five other shots of the same scene from slightly different angles, you have compelling evidence of ownership..... Finally, when it comes to talent, I have no-one to teach me, no peers except here, and learn purely through peoples attitudes to my pictures. I've never done anything except 'play about' until November when I got my digital camera, and have only been producing reasonable work for 6-8 weeks. I would like to complete this by telling you what I go on is the only real piece of advice I have ever been given; "The man in the street doesn't know what it takes to make a good picture. He doesn't know how much work or personal sacrifice went into, he just knows if he likes it or not. If he does, he says it's a good picture." Thank you for your time.

No one take offense, It is just that my father did this for a living, it paid our rent and put food on the table. When Photography is your love and work. When your family depends on your skills, I guess your outlook on the subject is different. My father tried to teach me to. Look at the subject, really see it. Look in front and behind, look at ether side. See everything you want in the shot and everything you do not. After you framed the subject, block it out of your minds eye. Study the shadows only. Do the hide or do they reveal? Are the dark and impenetrable. Think of how you can manipulate the shadows to your advantage. Then only then, once you have taken all of these things into account. Set your camera and take the shot. And in about 5 to 10 years it will do it without thinking. You wil be able to see something or someone stop and in one shot capture a picture that you can be proud of. You won't have to think "I hope it came out" If that is bad advice, then I guess I've been misinformed. P.S. This is me, I got the car for Christmas and My father took me out to try it. Thos days he rarely went any where without a camera. I was peddaling along when he turned and said stop. Now lean out like I do when I am parking the car. I did and the result is this photo.

Yup he shot in color as well. Me again.

Thanks for posting all your Dad's wonderful works, and for showing us yourself as a small child. I love the one under the subway.... I think what people were offended with was the wording and way you addressed your initial post. You'll find this forum very gentle in comparison with others. It is also a place where people are learning and growing constantly, and I think they found what you said a bit of a shut down, me included. As you went on through explaining, you got softer and more human in your approach, thats always the best bet. A lot of us are not into hard bashings, because we've always treated each other kindly. I found Colm's idea very interesting as opposed to your Dads, in that he mentions there are times when you work with a celebrity who doesn't like his profile, and will throw out a good picture because of ego, not bad photography. It kind of nulls the idea altogether, and its nice to see varying views. I hope you will continue to share with us, and remember we are a good bunch, who wish the same to others. Syyd