No, not necessarily shooting 35mm more casually, which I do tend to do, but since the view finder is smaller I just tend to expend less effort in detail. Especially because another photograph or two is not expensive.
It's interesting that some people seem to think that shooting 35mm means less seriousness or care somehow. I haven't found this to be true. In one photo walk some 35mm exposures happen rapidly for me, say in a couple of seconds or even zone focused from the hip, and other exposures are laborious and slow while I look for the best shot. The format has nothing to do with it.
Now, with digital, I see shooters who take a 3-frame series for EVERY shot taken...I was standing in line to get into the Paris catacombs, and saw this happening by a shooter standing next in line with friends! After all, 'digital shot is free'.
For something like that, HDR stacking / exposure bracketing makes sense. If you have the tool, it makes sense to use it.
No, not necessarily shooting 35mm more casually, which I do tend to do, but since the view finder is smaller I just tend to expend less effort in detail. Especially because another photograph or two is not expensive.
I'll have to agree with that, I think shooting MF is easier to compose, but a 35 RF is pretty much the way to go for more spontaneous shots. In the hands of someone like Lewis Baltz, 35mm can easily be mistaken for LF.It's interesting that some people seem to think that shooting 35mm means less seriousness or care somehow. I haven't found this to be true. In one photo walk some 35mm exposures happen rapidly for me, say in a couple of seconds or even zone focused from the hip, and other exposures are laborious and slow while I look for the best shot. The format has nothing to do with it.
His keeper rate was extremely low, but he could afford countless rolls of film, neve bother with processing, in a sense, he was the pioneer of digital photography. But I hope this thread did not mean to be about HCB.To mangle HCB's quote "I see a thing, I take a picture".
His keeper rate was extremely low, but he could afford countless rolls of film, neve bother with processing, in a sense, he was the pioneer of digital photography. But I hope this thread did not mean to be about HCB.
As for the thread itself, it's been stated already, there is no way for MF camera to keep pace with 35mm, for lack of ease of bringing it up to take a shot, to being much more conservative in choosing a shot. The latter partly due to fewer frames available, partly because of much more inviting (to careful composition) finder's view, and partly due to processing (but that is more in tune with "keeper rate" mentality and desire to make the most out of every frame.
That "keeper rate" is more and more built into our format's "mind set", the larger it gets the fewer throw-aways we work for.
Having said all that, there is a bunch of subjects 35mm will run circles around any MF.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?