Shooting film like digital - or not.

[lxdude]

That's why they carried 2 or 3 cameras.

Which typically had different lenses on them.

 

[StoneNYC]

I used to shoot 35mm weddings back in the day, and never used to use more than four films on a job, because the cost of processing, proofing, enlargements by a local professional lab. and the album if I shot any more really ate into the profit I made, and I was confidant enough in my ability not to overshoot from a sense of insecurity which I believe many photographers do these days.

The clients expectations of what pictures and how many they want have changed.

Lets take table shots, many people want one normal and one "fun" table shot, at a wedding with 30 tables, that's 2 rolls of film, and really the nice picture should have a backup so we avoid uncle lary with his eyes closed or aunt Maude who wasn't paying attention because she's drunk and talks too much.

So then you have the 200 people dancing and having to make sure you get the kids dancing with each person, and then the bride and groom and mom and dad and the group pictures with just the cousins and just the girls and just the boys and just the parents, etc etc. no way to shoot a wedding and only use 4 rolls... Even if you only took one shot of each and no backups...

So think about that because that's what people expect now, EVERYTHING and every combination to be part of their album (to share on FB).


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[omaha]

What are we actually debating here? The ability to machine gun a bunch of stuff and sort it all out later? Machine gun when it's necessary because of something happening so quickly. But to do it as standard is just bad discipline in the first place. Plenty of shots should never be taken but people do it anyway "just in case!". That mentality is flawed and reduces discipline.

A few months ago, there was a joint press conference with Obama and Putin. They were just sitting on chairs on a stage, taking questions.

There were also a few photographers in the room, apparently each with a D4 or something similar, machine-gunning away. It was ridiculous. How many shots of two guys sitting essentially motionless in chairs do you need? It was really distracting and the constant din of shutters activating ruined the audio.

 

[blansky]

Which typically had different lenses on them.

Interchangeable lenses. Overshoot one camera. Swap lenses and keep going.

 

[blansky]

A few months ago, there was a joint press conference with Obama and Putin. They were just sitting on chairs on a stage, taking questions.

There were also a few photographers in the room, apparently each with a D4 or something similar, machine-gunning away. It was ridiculous. How many shots of two guys sitting essentially motionless in chairs do you need? It was really distracting and the constant din of shutters activating ruined the audio.

The reason they keep shooting is because they know they all have the same shot, and maybe they'll get lucky and someone will fall off a chair and they may get the embarrassing shot that's worth a fortune. They are no better than paparazzi.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I never thought you did think that PS are bad tools

I've never said they are bad tools, they are not that great for me. I don't have the time and skill to use them to full potential. On the other hand I can achieve what I'm after much easier with film. To me both are tools, I use them both in ways that works for me.

Sounds like you have good work habits with film. I used to teach Photoshop at a junior college and I'd see students take poorly shot images with the attitude "I can fix it in Photoshop" attitude. Some are also sloppy with cleaning their film before scanning and they think the cloning tool or the dust filter is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I hate sitting in in front of a computer for uncreative work like removing dust and correcting bad lighting.

 

[wiltw]

I don't understand what these digiheads find to shoot all these thousands of shots of, I don't have digital gear, but I lug my film equipment for miles to find a subject that's worth shooting, they must be photographing some real garbage.

I grew up on film. I've spent my time doing weddings on medium format. I had motor winders on Olympus SLR as well as for my Bronica ETRSi system, but never shot much more than 300 photos over the course of 8-10 hours. It blows me away to hear of one guy delivering 5000 digital preview images for a wedding (yes, two stepdaughters used this guy for their weddings, and he did the same for both!). I was in Paris not long ago, standing in line for a long time to enter the catacombs in Paris. Group of 20-somethings in line in front of me, one gal with a dSLR. She shot a number of candids of her friends, almost always in rapid bursts of 3-4 shots...made me wonder just how much difference she'd see in comparing shots taken 0.2 sec apart, maybe once in a while blink vs. no-blink, but likely an awkward facial expression while talking would be seen in all of them! sheesh...folks burning 25000 shots thru their dSLR in a single year, and they're not even doing photography as a daily job.

Back to the OP...one should instill discipline in shooting, use the same fundamental in shooting 4x5 as for shooting 135: Just because 135 costs 1/4 for film and 1/4 for consumed chemistry ought not justify wasting 4 bad shots vs. 1 bad shot on 4x5!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Even if a digital photographer doesn't shoot film, he must cull the out takes. The more a digital photographer shoots, the more they have to work to find the heros. When I do shoot digital for commercial assignments, the first pass is to find the good ones by rating them how good the photos are. I don't bother correcting out takes. More is is more.

 

[cliveh]

We are now at the stage when multiple shots are no longer necessary, as continuous filming is almost the norm.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I get slammed every time I talk digital here , 6 pages , is APUG turning a new leaf:munch:

 

[Dinesh]

I get slammed every time I talk digital here , 6 pages , is APUG turning a new leaf:munch:

Be quiet and go back to your cave!

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I don't know how to use Photoshop.And the Nikon software is limited. So I better get it good in the camera.

That'll be fixed in school this fall. I have to buy a new laptop and CS4,5 or 6 as well.

 

[JohnRichard]

I am so glad I have stirred a conversation here! I was at a conference these last two days, I took my Argus C3. I think I took a total of 3 shots. I didn't take any with my cell, which has a fantastic 13 million pixel auto-focus
dealibob in it. I don't know if any of those three shots will turn out, but they were not worth me bracketing or metering carefully. I'll not be upset if they don't turn out. I also can't say that I would have taken any more shots
had I brought the one digital camera I own. I prefer film for a number of reasons and am glad people are "coming back to film". In the past two years, I had set my digital camera up to only take manual mode, raw images and
have limited on purpose the number of images I can take by memory card size. I find with those limitations the digi-cam is much slower to shoot than the comparative 135, and I am personally OK with that.

Thanks for so far sharing fantastic stories and thoughts, keep it up!

 

[lxdude]

Interchangeable lenses. Overshoot one camera. Swap lenses and keep going.

If there's time to swap lenses. Often there's not. And what if you've already done that?

Better to budget shots as action is building in order to have the frames when they are needed. If there's time, change a roll before it's finished. If there's just enough time to swap lenses, do that. I'm talking about the short time frame of fast action, fast motor drives.

36 shots at 8 FPS take 4.5 seconds. It's really easy to end up high and dry at the crucial moment.

 

[StoneNYC]

I get slammed every time I talk digital here , 6 pages , is APUG turning a new leaf:munch:

I'll let you talk your digital ears off if you share some of that precious new55 with me