How could it be worth anyone's while to make a stock shot that returns so little--especially when the stock agency takes a chunk out of that.
Oh Brian, you'd be amazed at how much 4x5 chrome film certain well-known calendar and stock photographers of former decades could burn on a single day. So yes, there were large format machine-gunners, and still are a few of them. But that was mostly back when a stock agency shot could fetch hundreds or even thousands of dollars for one-time publishing rights on a particular magazine cover etc. Now you'd be lucky to get 50 cents for a published digital stock shot (versus a budgeted ad).
Back in the day, National Geographic magazine's Washington DC Kodachrome developing line - yes, they had their very own processing machine - processed the highest volume of 35mm slide film of all the Kodachrome lines.
Most of the other Kodachrome lines developed a lot of movie film.
How could it be worth anyone's while to make a stock shot that returns so little--especially when the stock agency takes a chunk out of that.
Per usual, Michael Kenna got it all wrong.
1. He shot rocks and trees
2. "Getting The Exposure Correct" is the reason to shoot more frames.
A decent Topic/Subject is changing all the time.
What a bunch of off-the-wall and out-of-context statements.
Per usual? Cite examples, please.
1. So what? You have a problem with rocks and trees?
2. And how about experimenting with exposures (not bracketing) and angles as a reason to shoot more frames?
Again, why should a decent topic or subject change all the time? That is going off on a tangent, maybe even avoiding addressing the subject.
From what I know, Ruth Bernhard was mostly a studio photographer. That could have influenced her practice of just making a single exposure.While this should not affect anyone's personal approach to photography, digital or film, it may be of historical interest to know that Ruth Bernhard, a student of Edward Weston, a friend of Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunningham, and Wynn Bullock, and a great photographer in her own right, would take as much time as needed to compose her image and make exactly one exposure.
@Pieter12, obviously it's for @CMoore to defend his post, but I suspect you may have mis-understood it. Could be wrong, but I read it as very heavy sarcasm.What a bunch of off-the-wall and out-of-context statements.
Per usual? Cite examples, please.
1. So what? You have a problem with rocks and trees?
2. And how about experimenting with exposures (not bracketing) and angles as a reason to shoot more frames?
Again, why should a decent topic or subject change all the time? That is going off on a tangent, maybe even avoiding addressing the subject.
Have you ever met a stock shooter who made enough money to live on? I haven't. The folks I knew shot stock in between paying jobs in the hopes of adding a few pennies to their income.
I read on the internet...
"Bigfoot" is now considered a slur term (or, in the least, an impolite informal name) and his/her full and proper name should be used instead. I'd provide a valid citation for this fact but they all seem to be erroneous as they include terms like "mythical" or "legend", which we know they are not.
These people spent decades of working daily in their field to become good at what they do/did. Took many thousands of pictures. There is no escaping that you need to take lots of photos and spend even more time printing, then showing those pictures to make them stand out past the ordinary.
If you want to be an ordinary photographer then be frugal, if you want to be a better photographer then you need to spend time and money getting there.
Quite true. But the intent of the original post was not about learning nor the expense of materials and more about the fact that Mr. McKenna observed that he actually made fewer exposures with digital than with film to achieve his desired result. Given he does a lot of work that entails long exposures at night and he can judge whether the image is successful right away with digital, it is not applicable to everyone's work. But, not surprisingly it brought out the folks who proudly wear the badge of "I make only one exposure per image," kind of like those who wear the "I never crop" sash.
When counting "number of shots", are deleted shots counted or not? I seem to shoot the same number of shots in digital as I do in 35mm film but delete the unwanted digital images quickly and retain a lot less digital images than I do film because of that. To me, deleted digital images are "untaken" digital images.
I believe that the correct pronoun reference is "his/her/they" these days.
Thinking about the question a little further... (Still) photography is a process of rendering a period of time into a single image. Does it really matter whether the elimination of unwanted moments takes place in your head, or in the camera or in the darkroom? Is it less artistic to capture a lot of options and sift through them?
Quite true. But the intent of the original post was not about learning nor the expense of materials and more about the fact that Mr. McKenna observed that he actually made fewer exposures with digital than with film to achieve his desired result. Given he does a lot of work that entails long exposures at night and he can judge whether the image is successful right away with digital, it is not applicable to everyone's work. But, not surprisingly it brought out the folks who proudly wear the badge of "I make only one exposure per image," kind of like those who wear the "I never crop" sash.
While this should not affect anyone's personal approach to photography, digital or film, it may be of historical interest to know that Ruth Bernhard, a student of Edward Weston, a friend of Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunningham, and Wynn Bullock, and a great photographer in her own right, would take as much time as needed to compose her image and make exactly one exposure.
That seems fair. But the artist too then has the options to destroy, paint over or refuse to sell.I would compare it to an artist making sketches before deciding on a composition.
This is intriguing. I'm sure, as a teacher, you could see the value of instructing young photographers to try to expose once. It would implement a more conscious and sturdy approach. This is all I mean to get at when I say I prefer one exposure. It just trains the muscle in a whole new way.
From what I know, Ruth Bernhard was mostly a studio photographer. That could have influenced her practice of just making a single exposure.
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?