Funny but true

[Mainecoonmaniac]

 

[mike c]

Pretty much nailed it.

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

Ha ha, mine are 2/4/0.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Nice. I love it.

 

[GRHazelton]

And how many good digital pictures are missed while the shooter is "chimping"? Too many people NEED the "leap of faith" enforced by film's delay in gratification.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Ha ha, mine are 2/4/0.

As for me, my heart is in analog photography. But I do shoot digital out of necessity. I tend to shoot analog camera the way I shoot film. There are a couple of reasons why. The first reason is out of engrained habits from decades of shooting film and the second reason is the post production involved shooting digital. I hate sitting hours in front of a computer culling the crappy images. Can you imaging sifting through 2000 pics for 6 good ones?

 

[dpurdy]

So if you shoot 120 film every other exposure is awesome. Whereas if you shoot 35mm film only 1 out of 6 exposures is awesome. I guess then if you shoot 4x5 or larger every exposure is awesome. What isn't awesome at all is sitting for hours in front of a computer adjusting curves and color balances.

 

[bdial]

 

[MartinCrabtree]

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

 

[removed account4]

weird ..
i did a family portrait session for some people down the road recently
it would have been CN but it was EP since it had to be pre-presse for
the seasonal festivities ... i set up my batterpack strobe with peanut slave and also used
a top mounted speed light. i triggered both flashes and made IDK 12 exposures
i just looked at the back for 2 seconds to make sure my exposures were OK
and they were, so i continued. i didn't take 2000 photographs just a dozen
and they were all OK and will be sending a 12 image proof sheet for the final pick.

if it was with CN or BW i would have used a flash meter, and guide numbers and
since i don't use polaroid anymore i would have had to put all my trust in my metering
and flash experience .. and i am sure i would have been ok if i bracketed a little bit, so
i would have had 12 exposures that were OK as well ... i don't use MF so i can't comment there.

also recently, i documented an old hospital building using EM as well, i didn't make 2000
exposures but maybe 70 of them in 2 days ... and i made didn't chimp but bracketed so
in a coupel of tricky situations i was covered and had less than 2x what i needed.
as many as i needed as many as i needed. afterwards, i edited, cropped burned/dodged as needed.

not too much time infront of a screen, probably way less time than i would have spent standing, in the
discoteque, and breathing in the smells of studio 54 ... just cropping burning and dodging as i would do anyways.


i'm perfectly happy no matter the media CN, EM, BW, CS, even though i know there is a lot of BS.

 

[benjiboy]

I see no evidence that all the new technology in the hardware has produced any leap forward in the quality of images that are produced in general and on the contrary smarter cameras tend to produce dumber photographers because they tend take away their need to know anything and their ability to need to think before making an exposure..
I.M.O. the biggest improvements in film photography since WW11 have been in the films, papers and chemistry.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I see no evidence that all the new technology in the hardware has produced any leap forward in the quality of images that are produced in general and on the contrary smarter cameras tend to produce dumber photographers because they tend take away their need to know anything and their ability to need to think before making an exposure..
I.M.O. the biggest improvements in film photography since WW11 have been in the films, papers and chemistry.

You're absolutely right. One of the biggest hurdles in getting an awesome image is seeing the photograph in the first place. One of the most memorable photo shows was the Magnum Photo's contact sheet show in Istanbul Turkey. The contact sheet shows how the photographer through throughout the roll of film. I think old analog photographers like me is we have this internal counter in our heads of the remaining shots in the camera and I try to make every shot count before reloading the camera. Existentially, a photographer has limited shots. Is he or she going to waste time in shooting thousands and chimping on a digital camera or make every shot count? Not to mention going into Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture sorting out the duds.

 

[guangong]

One thing not mentioned. Hitting the wrong button and causing all 2000 pictures to disappear. How many of us have done that? Another interesting phenomenon is observing people take a picture, proudly show it to friends and then hit "delete". I also use digital capture (it is not photography) for certain applications where useful. There are applications where digital has a place...my friend photographs birds in the wild. He would be living in poverty if he spent hours each day shooting film since his subjects seldom pause to pose.
This reminded me of old nature magazines I read as a kid when bird photographers used 4x5 graphlex reflex cameras. Amazing how they did it.

 

[benjiboy]

One thing not mentioned. Hitting the wrong button and causing all 2000 pictures to disappear. How many of us have done that? Another interesting phenomenon is observing people take a picture, proudly show it to friends and then hit "delete". I also use digital capture (it is not photography) for certain applications where useful. There are applications where digital has a place...my friend photographs birds in the wild. He would be living in poverty if he spent hours each day shooting film since his subjects seldom pause to pose.
This reminded me of old nature magazines I read as a kid when bird photographers used 4x5 graphlex reflex cameras. Amazing how they did it.

You're absolutely right. One of the biggest hurdles in getting an awesome image is seeing the photograph in the first place. One of the most memorable photo shows was the Magnum Photo's contact sheet show in Istanbul Turkey. The contact sheet shows how the photographer through throughout the roll of film. I think old analog photographers like me is we have this internal counter in our heads of the remaining shots in the camera and I try to make every shot count before reloading the camera. Existentially, a photographer has limited shots. Is he or she going to waste time in shooting thousands and chimping on a digital camera or make every shot count? Not to mention going into Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture sorting out the duds.

I can take as good pictures with the 1936 Zeiss Contax my dad gave me when I was a teenager more than sixty years ago that he had brought back from Germany after WW11 as I can with my top of the range Canon professional S.L.R.'s. because I understand the principals of exposure (and not to slavishly follow what the light meter tells me without some thought ) , lighting and composition
Seeing a meaningful image in content, lighting, timing and pictorial composition can't be replicated in Photoshop,or spray and prayed with a motor drive.
In the days when I started shooting exposure meters were something that very few professionals had, and even range finders weren't very common so learning how to judge distance was something that just about everyone had to learn, a skill very few photographers these days have that I still find very useful for street shooting, to be able to set the lens controls up before you put the camera up to your eye.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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

You're the kind that will make in ice cream cone last.

 

[cliveh]

The capture of a good image has very little to do with the amount of shots you take.

 

[etn]

What isn't awesome at all is sitting for hours in front of a computer adjusting curves and color balances.

... to try to make a void picture look awesome by increasong contrast, color saturation etc... It's a lost cause

Long live film!

Etienne

 

[Dali]

Don't see the purpose of this thread... Is it to bash D......? Not to question the validity of the original statement... backed up by reality of just a phantasm?

 

[removed account4]

hi dali

i think the point might be: if you are barely able to drive a vw bug, you will barely able to drive a porsche 911 ...
but i could be wrong...

 

[Truzi]

Don't see the purpose of this thread... Is it to bash D......? Not to question the validity of the original statement... backed up by reality of just a phantasm?

It would seem to be a joke. If it's bashing anything, it would probably be people who think more is better, regardless of technology.

 

[Dali]

It would seem to be a joke. If it's bashing anything, it would probably be people who think more is better, regardless of technology.

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

 

[benjiboy]

It's a joke pointing to the machine gun approach to picture taking in the hope of getting a good shot , the medium is immaterial.

 

[Dali]

It's a joke pointing to the machine gun approach to picture taking in the hope of getting a good shot , the medium is immaterial.

I see what you mean but it is more than that as some comments are clearly making reference to d..... Hence my original questions and my subsequent comment.

 

[Vaughn]

It is much easier to get a high percentage of 'keepers' per roll or SD card if you know exactly what you want and go for just that. But after almost 4 decades of making photographs I still 'waste' a lot of film trying to push things a little further, trying something a little different, or just thinking, "I wonder how this will turn out?"