Interview with photo specialist Nick Didlick

Nick Didlick is a professional photographer who not only shoots, but teaches the art as well. You could easily be persuaded to title Nick as a photojournalist, due to the tremendous work he’s done in that area all over the world since the late 70’s. He’s shot journalistic work for all sorts of publications, including the International Herald Tribune, The New York Times, The Times of London, The Sydney Morning Herald and Stern, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair and Rolling Stone Magazines. While these are certainly in that vein, Nick has expanded his interests to encompass more than that, and has most recently delved into the fields of editorial and commercial work.

He’s become one of my favorite people to listen to when it comes to photography, and so it was a great pleasure to be able to fire off a few questions to him and get some insight into his view of the world of modern photography, with its abundance of changes and permutations thanks to the digital revolution. Here is that interview.

What initially got you interested or excited in photography?

In high school I worked on a project with a very beautiful girl in a photo darkroom. It was the first time I had been exposed to the photographic process and I fell in love with photography from that moment. Don’t know what happened to that beautiful woman other than she became my favorite subject for a number of years.

What was your first camera?

A Konica T3 Auto-reflex followed shortly by a Nikon F.

You’ve shot both commercial and photojournalism work, as well as all kinds of other stuff. Do you consider yourself a “generalist”? Do you have a preferred genre of photography, or do you like the freedom of shooting in multiple forms?

I love photography. It is not only my profession but my passion and hobby. I don’t think a “generalist” is a good term for me as it makes me think of average or boring, I would prefer to be known as a “specialist in many subjects”. There are three aspects to photography today really when you think about it… form, light and technology. The bulk of my work outside of digital imaging consulting is photojournalism and commercial work but the work I love is the self driven stuff I do for clients and for me.

I guess, to answer the question, the camera has always been the key that has opened doors to opportunities, travel and meeting people and the photographic process has always been a set of problems that has made all this a very exciting career. If you press me for a favorite subject it would be really big fly-caught fish in a very remote wilderness setting.

What sort of equipment do you shoot with currently?

It’s all digital Nikon and some Canon digital. Equipment is really a set of tools and I think a good photographer should be able to use any camera to make a commercial picture and needs to understand and work with the characteristics of that set of tools. Too many photographers get hung up in the tools and forget the creative process photography really is.

You began your career as a photojournalist, beginning with a small weekly paper and eventually shooting for Reuters. During this time you covered a lot of ground, visiting locations and shooting at events all over the world. Did you have a favorite location to shoot in?

My favorite location would be one I have never been to before. Photographically it would be all about light and I think some of the best light I have is seen far North and far South, Iceland for instance has this different angle and quality of light that changes with the seasons. If I had to pick a location to shoot in it would probably be Cape Town or Tierra del Fuego, both of which I have never been to before.

Privacy and personal space is becoming an issue these days and a lot of photographers have run into legal problems when they shoot in public. Have you ever been stopped or found yourself in danger because you wanted to photograph something where you didn’t have permission or that sort of thing was frowned upon?

Generally no, these legal issues are normally caused by photographers who are looking for, or forcing a subject into an “exclusive” shot to then sell to a speciality magazine or newspaper, these people rarely work in a group unless they team up as if 50 photographers have the same picture they value of that picture is diminished. I have photographed many people where they thought they had legal rights over the pictures I have taken but they didn’t.

As far as being in danger, yes, I have been assaulted twice, shot at once and threatened many times at the scenes of disasters and public disturbances. When I talk to students about photojournalism I always tell them they must be always aware of their surroundings and be conscious of what is happening outside of their camera viewfinders and it doesn’t matter if they are covering a football game or a riot. Two reasons for this first is their own personal safety and the second is some great pictures happen behind the photographer.

How do you feel about the state of photography today? What is digital technology doing to the professional photography landscape?

Ahhhh now the hard questions. Digital Imaging is a blip in the history of photography. I don’t think it is much different that what we have experienced in the past. Think of the switch from large format photography to 35mm photography in the professional area, and then think of the point and shoot 126 format, 110 format and Polaroid cameras that consumers had in the 60’s and 70’s. The photographic landscape has always been changing and affecting what professionals do.

I feel the same way about professional photography today as I did when I started there is always much to learn and there are good photographers and average photographers. The real change is in the way consumers of photography look at the product we produce. Advertising and the manipulation of images has affected photojournalism, the web and television have affected the way people see and feel about images. Companies and personalities understand the power of images and have moved to control their images and the use of them.

So I think that photography and digital photography is the most exciting time for photographers to date, and for the profession its always been the same there are good and bad photographers.

What about software? Do you do much post processing in general?

This depends, the goal is and always has been to try and shoot a perfect image in the camera. Some assignments I do no post processing on, others require a lot of time in post processing. As a business model if a shoot takes an hour then I plan generally on 1 hour of post processing and I charge for this. If a client has more defined needs it can take up to 1 hour of shoot time and 4 hours of post processing. This post processing might not be Photoshop work but could be output specific things like web galleries, image sizing, etc.

You teach classes on photography now. What is the number one question or concern your students approach you with, and what is your response?

Q: What equipment or camera settings did you use to get that shot!
A: The equipment and settings are not the most important thing that went into that shot, it was the visualization in the mind of that shot that was the most important single thing. Don’t get hung up on the technical aspects of a picture first, see the picture in your mind and then set about thinking of the technical aspects you need to capture that image.

Did you have a teacher that really helped you understand something new or exciting about photography, or were you entirely self-taught?

I am completely self taught, which means I made just about every mistake possible. Being a professional means you never talk about these mistakes. I do many hours of reading and learning each month, and I have other photographers that made impressions on me, like Bert Stern, Duane Michaels and Dean Collins.

Weigh in on this loaded question, Nick. Film versus Digital?

This isn’t really a loaded question anymore. Film is really an emotional output source, as is black and white photography. Digital is the choice for many reasons when it comes to photography and output. When we got 6 megapixel digital cameras I could make better looking prints than from 35mm negatives and at 10mp I could get better looking prints than from 35mm Kodachrome images.

The Film v Digital question today is an emotional one. And those that are stuck on film are there either because they like the “look of the film process”, which is a valid reason. Or they don’t understand the digital hardware and software needed and they are unwilling to retool or more importantly learn the new processes needed to make this change in the history of photography.

For the last number of years I haven’t been thinking of film versus digital, I’ve been thinking “what is next”?