Funny but true

fdonadio · Sep 3, 2016

The moment I saw that image, I sent it to a fellow photographer (that shoots with a Nikon D-something). He laughed at it pretty as much as I did.

Cheers,
Flavio

Arctic amateur · Sep 3, 2016

This complaining about digital photography making photographers "lazy" is like a collodion photographer complaining that subsecond exposure times makes photographers lazy.

John51 · Sep 3, 2016

Not much point using my 6x6 and 6x4.5 cameras anymore, just the 6x9s.

benjiboy · Sep 3, 2016

Dali said:
It is certainly a joke but it is not innocent if it is posted in an analog forum.

No, it proves that some people are hard of understanding, and devoid of humour.

Ko.Fe. · Sep 3, 2016

Dali said:
Ko.Fe does not express opinion but gossip about a well-known photographer.

Rant is over. Without paying attention, this whole thread just proves my case... musty smell.

Dude, it is not first time I see you spreading digital gossip on A.P.U.G. You do smell like stinky troll here.

Jim Jones · Sep 3, 2016

I prefer digital for the hit-and-miss of some sports photography, but consider this: A runner might be moving over 20 feet/second. If I tried to catch him or her breaking the tape in a continuous four frame/second burst, I could miss by up to 2 feet. The shutter delay in my DSLR, even with preset exposure and focusing, requires anticipating the optimum moment. My Leica M4 could easily nail the peak of action with one shot. Also, it hasn't become obsolete in its 46 years. Different cameras are best for different situations and for different photographers. No photographer has all the equipment that is ideal for all occasions. Some have achieved fame with little more than one camera and one lens. To each his own.

cliveh · Sep 3, 2016

Jim Jones said:
I prefer digital for the hit-and-miss of some sports photography, but consider this: A runner might be moving over 20 feet/second. If I tried to catch him or her breaking the tape in a continuous four frame/second burst, I could miss by up to 2 feet. The shutter delay in my DSLR, even with preset exposure and focusing, requires anticipating the optimum moment. My Leica M4 could easily nail the peak of action with one shot. Also, it hasn't become obsolete in its 46 years. Different cameras are best for different situations and for different photographers. No photographer has all the equipment that is ideal for all occasions. Some have achieved fame with little more than one camera and one lens. To each his own.

How correct you are. What sort of camera designer makes a camera that whirrs and clicks several seconds after you have pressed the shutter? Obviously not a photographer who has any concept of a decisive moment.

Patrick Robert James · Sep 3, 2016

jnanian said:
i have very low self esteem and set the bar very low... so if anything is on the film, i think it is awesome

Ha!

I think one good shot per 8x10 in2 of film is pretty awesome. One a roll of 35, one a roll of 120 and 1 out of 4 4x5.

Machine gunners always annoy the hell out of me. I was at a portfolio review years ago talking to an agent and there was a photographer gunning away over my shoulder with his über digi trying to take a photo of the agent. After about 30 shots I turned around and said "how about just take one GOOD one bro?" to which the agent started laughing nearly uncontrollably. The digi guy moved on red as a beet. True story.

I have found in life that the less shots I take, the more attention I pay to getting the better shots and as a result, they are better. Funny how that works. Back when I shot a ton of weddings I think the most I ever shot for one wedding was around 1200 images. I have no idea how anyone can accumulate 10,000 in one wedding unless they do it just to sell the volume. Photography is full of insecure b.s. though.

Theo Sulphate · Sep 3, 2016

Patrick Robert James said:
... I have no idea how anyone can accumulate 10,000 in one wedding ...

With a nice 16mm Bolex running at a smooth 24fps, that's a cool ~7min movie.

Dali · Sep 5, 2016

Ko.Fe. said:
Dude, it is not first time I see you spreading digital gossip on A.P.U.G. You do smell like stinky troll here.

Dude, do I know you? I would be interested you read my "digital gossip on A.P.U.G...". As you look well informed (more than me apparently), go ahead, quote me.

Now if you can't live your analog photo practice without belittling d... photography, I sincerely feel sorry for you.

removed account4 · Sep 5, 2016

Patrick Robert James said:
Ha

and even the terrible photographs 15 or 20 years later you can look at the negatives and somehow understand what you might ave been thinking

Patrick Robert James said:
I have no idea how anyone can accumulate 10,000 in one wedding unless they do it just to sell the volume. Photography is full of insecure b.s. though.

around here the hi-roller shooters have like 4 -5 2nd shooters who prowl the reception and expose like mad.
then there is the presentation of all the proofs in a glitzy multi media presentation for the happy couple.
but sometimes things can go south fast like this>>> http://weddingindustrylaw.com/wedding-photographer-lawsuit/

benjiboy · Sep 21, 2016

Ko.Fe. said:
I admit, I'm using all. And prefer 28 frames rolls of 135. It gives just enough frames for mistake, while still achieving "magic 6" under reasonable time frame. 36 frames lasts for too long sometimes and 12 on 120 lasts forever

Old pro's never used to shoot 36 because of the danger of pulling the film out of the cassette, it once happened to me half way through a wedding and it wasn't a pleasant experience.

benjiboy · Sep 21, 2016

Mainecoonmaniac said:
View attachment 162661

The thing about a lot of newbie digital shooters is they have 2,000 exposures on their memory card and they are all "awesome" because they haven't yet developed any critical faculty.

big-d · Sep 21, 2016

wiltw said:
It is truly sad that so many shooters of the d****** medium employ 'spray and pray' ..."If I set the camera at 6-8fps, and hold down the shutter button, I just might capture (a great facial expression/the athlete at the peak of action/nobody blinking)" Guys covering weddings and delivering 5000 shots is not unheard of! Cameras with 100000 shutter exposures having all of them depleted within 3 years.

Trying something new, trying to push things in extreme circumstances, those are valid attempts, not wasteful 6fps blasting 'because its free'.

At the same time, all too often folks shoot 135 exposures simply because, "a shot is almost free" compared to medium format or 4x5. I have gone out a number of times and not exposed a single piece of sheetfilm. Or perhaps shooting less than a half dozen shots on MedFormat. How many have done the same for 135?!

I don't know, but the existence of motor drives and bulk film backs proves that 'spray and pray' been around in the film days...

benjiboy · Sep 21, 2016

big-d said:
I don't know, but the existence of motor drives and bulk film backs proves that 'spray and pray' been around in the film days...
View attachment 163926

It was but mainly for sports and specialised scientific applications happy snappers didn't lug that lot around, anyway "spray and pray" doesn't refer necessarily to high speed photography but shooting twenty shots when two or three considered one would be sufficient

OptiKen · Sep 21, 2016

MartinCrabtree said:
So when will I get good enough to get 6 keepers in an outing regardless of method?

+1

MartinP · Sep 28, 2016

Arctic amateur said:
This complaining about digital photography making photographers "lazy" is like a collodion photographer complaining that subsecond exposure times makes photographers lazy.

Absolutely, it has been going down hill since dry-plates came in. These days anyone can just pick up a camera and go out the door with it. Mumble, mumble, mutter . . .

PS The sniper thing . . . longest is currently by a Brit in Afghanistan, 2475 meters, and it was using a .338 not the ancient and crude .50

Theo Sulphate · Sep 28, 2016

MartinP said:
... .338. ...

Hmmm... well, yeah, I suppose the Lapua is adequate for thin skinned varmints. Or an insect. Not for anything armored or serious. Kinetic energy at all distances favors Mr. Browning.

Sort of like 35mm vs. a nice 120-format negative.

MartinCrabtree · Sep 28, 2016

I do just find with the venerable .30-06.

wiltw · Oct 1, 2016

big-d said:
I don't know, but the existence of motor drives and bulk film backs proves that 'spray and pray' been around in the film days...
View attachment 163926

At only 250 shots per film magazine, spray and pray on the scale of the modern dSLR shooter only lasts about 50 seconds!
This outfit more likely set up for time lapse photography.

monkowa · Oct 3, 2016

Camera fight!! Also,

Whats the smallest camera you think you could hit with a bolt action rifle from a distance of a mile?

MartinP · Oct 3, 2016

monkowa said:
Camera fight!! Also,

Whats the smallest camera you think you could hit with a bolt action rifle from a distance of a mile?

I suspect there is no camera big enough for me to do that, although there was an aircraft hangar converted for a pinhole cyanotype(?) wasn't there?

MartinCrabtree · Oct 4, 2016

I can hit the earth from a mile...............

bsdunek · Oct 4, 2016

In between, there were 100-exposure backs. I saw people use these like a machine gun in the hope of getting a good shot. It's what's in your head, not what's in the camera.

monkowa · Oct 4, 2016

Funny but true

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency