If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Leftover thriftiness from you film days?
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
wrote in : In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because of the extra time and expense for developing. I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots" I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me to get out of the car again ;-) Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the restraint more based on quality than cost? I shoot far more images with digital, particularly experimental ones, than I took with film. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Leftover thriftiness from you film days?
In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because
of the extra time and expense for developing. I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots" I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me to get out of the car again ;-) Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the restraint more based on quality than cost? --------* : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Leftover thriftiness from you film days?
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, Juan Moore Beer wrote:
In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because of the extra time and expense for developing. I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots" I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me to get out of the car again ;-) Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the restraint more based on quality than cost? -------- : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com It has taken a while, but I shoot more now. I still find that I will 'work' a little to get a good composition - I tend to not 'waste' many shots though, certainly, some are better than others. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Leftover thriftiness from you film days?
Come on, everyone takes more photos with digital than they did with film.
Ansel Adams would too. Of course, the time factor still exists for post processing and so it is just as important to get it right in camera. "Juan Moore Beer" wrote in message ... In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because of the extra time and expense for developing. I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots" I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me to get out of the car again ;-) Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the restraint more based on quality than cost? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Leftover thriftiness from you film days?
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
wrote: : In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because : of the extra time and expense for developing. : : I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can : take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This : weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four : hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a : dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots" : I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me : to get out of the car again ;-) : : Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the : restraint more based on quality than cost? I expect to be flamed for saying this, because some in this group are such purists that they think one should eschew any photo which has not been planned in advance and perfectly composed. To show my contempt for that attitude, I'll answer before I even read the three or four responses you've already received. ;^) If you're not already a world-class photographer with the best equipment money can buy (and maybe even if you are), and if if you throw away fewer than 60% of the pictures you take, either you're being insufficiently aggressive in culling your images or you're not clicking the shutter enough. As your instinct tells you, one of the three principal advantages of digital photography is that you don't have to worry about the cost of an individual shot. (The other two are that you can see what you're doing as you go and that images can be improved or corrected easily.) If you don't exploit that advantage, you're handicapping yourself for no good reason. Especially when photographing children or groups of people, I find that if I run off a dozen shots of one scene, at most one or two of them will stand out as representing what I was trying to accomplish. If I took fewer shots, it's inevitable that I'd miss those best shots a significant percentage of the time. Note that you don't, of course, have to admit that you took (and threw away) all those extra shots. You can perfectly well sneer at the idea of taking extra shots and assert with a straight face that you never take pictures that aren't carefully planned and therefore worth keeping. Unless those to whom you feed that crap were at a photo shoot with you, how are they going to know? (Don't forget to renumber the images so that none are obviously missing.) OK, I've had my say. Let the argument begin! Bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Leftover thriftiness from you film days?
In article , Juan Moore Beer
wrote: Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the restraint more based on quality than cost? I may take a few more, but still use discretion based on the requirement for quality rather than quantity. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Leftover thriftiness from you film days?
In article , Robert Coe
wrote: I expect to be flamed for saying this, because some in this group are such purists that they think one should eschew any photo which has not been planned in advance and perfectly composed. To show my contempt for that attitude, I'll answer before I even read the three or four responses you've already received. ;^) If you're not already a world-class photographer with the best equipment money can buy (and maybe even if you are), and if if you throw away fewer than 60% of the pictures you take, either you're being insufficiently aggressive in culling your images or you're not clicking the shutter enough. As your instinct tells you, one of the three principal advantages of digital photography is that you don't have to worry about the cost of an individual shot. (The other two are that you can see what you're doing as you go and that images can be improved or corrected easily.) If you don't exploit that advantage, you're handicapping yourself for no good reason. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I continue to shoot with discretion just because there's no point to holding down the button and hoping there's something good in there. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Leftover thriftiness from you film days?
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:35:32 -0800, "Mr. Strat"
wrote: : In article , Robert Coe : wrote: : : I expect to be flamed for saying this, because some in this group are such : purists that they think one should eschew any photo which has not been planned : in advance and perfectly composed. To show my contempt for that attitude, I'll : answer before I even read the three or four responses you've already received. : ;^) : : If you're not already a world-class photographer with the best equipment money : can buy (and maybe even if you are), and if if you throw away fewer than 60% : of the pictures you take, either you're being insufficiently aggressive in : culling your images or you're not clicking the shutter enough. As your : instinct tells you, one of the three principal advantages of digital : photography is that you don't have to worry about the cost of an individual : shot. (The other two are that you can see what you're doing as you go and that : images can be improved or corrected easily.) If you don't exploit that : advantage, you're handicapping yourself for no good reason. : : Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. In fact I believe it means exactly that. I'm not surprised that you disagree, but that's what I think. : I continue to shoot with discretion just because there's no point to holding : down the button and hoping there's something good in there. The point is that there's apt to be something good in there often enough to make the exercise worthwhile. If, over time, there never is anything good in there, then maybe you're photographing the wrong subjects in the wrong light with the wrong equipment, or whatever, in which case you need to rethink your approach. But if you're getting good pictures but missing some that you really wanted, one of the ways to cope is to take more pictures. Note that I'm NOT saying that a lousy photographer can improve his results by taking more lousy pictures. I AM saying that few, if any, of us are good enough to recognize and capture the best shot every time while ignoring the rest. Bob |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Leftover thriftiness from you film days?
On Jan 21, 11:38*am, "Juan Moore Beer"
wrote: In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because of the extra time and expense for developing. I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. *This weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four hours to kill. *I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. *There were only a few "shots" I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me to get out of the car again ;-) Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the restraint more based on quality than cost? I take way more photos with digital, and now that I am I really wish I had taken a lot more photos with film, when I was shooting with film. For me photography is a way to capture what I see in my life and what my wife and I do over the years. What might seem like a simple photograph today can have great value in 20 years. As an example the only photos I have of co-working in the work place are from digital cameras, I just never though to do this when I was using film. When we have people over for dinner or we go to others for dinner I try and capture the event with my camera, I never did much of this with film. On vacations I try to not only get the scenery but also the places we stay at both in side and out and the restaurants that we ate at both inside and out. Sure these photos would be boring for others, but I take them for us. When shooting people, like friends and family, more shots definitely helps in getting good shots. I find the first few photos I take of people they tend to want stop look right at the camera and smile, you know bad photos, but if I keep taking photos they finally will ignore me and I get much nicer candid shots. Scott |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Leftover thriftiness from you film days?
"Juan Moore Beer" wrote in message ... In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because of the extra time and expense for developing. I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. This weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four hours to kill. I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. There were only a few "shots" I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me to get out of the car again ;-) Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the restraint more based on quality than cost? Absolutely. I follow the digital axiom: What I lack in talent, I make up for in volume. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 2 Days Left Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED Film Scanner Excellent | Bob M | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | December 10th 05 09:24 PM |
De jours en jours - Avril 2005 / Days after days - April 2005 | serge | Digital Photography | 0 | May 4th 05 05:16 PM |
De jours en jours - Mars 2005 / Days after days - March 2005 | serge | Digital Photography | 0 | April 5th 05 04:23 PM |
De jours en jours - Octobre 2004 / Days after days - October 2004 | Serge IZOARD | Photographing Nature | 0 | November 1st 04 10:08 PM |