Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Leftover thriftiness from you film days?

Reply
Thread Tools

Leftover thriftiness from you film days?

 
 
Kinon O'Cann
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008

"Juan Moore Beer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:58:25 -0600, Allen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: I'm on your side, Bob. I always took many exposures, especially of
: individuals or groups of people. I have always tried to disguise just
: when I was going to shoot to avoid the stupid grins of the "Say cheese"
: school. It is is especially important to shoot bunches of exposures of
: children. My daughter, who is an artist, inherited this from me and
: consequently I have some wonderful, natural looking pictures of my
: grandchildren. A couple of years ago I decided to scan all my old slides
: and I was surprised at the number of close-to-identical shots I had.
: It's also an absolute necessity if you're trying to get pictures of
: flowers when there is the slightest wind, and also with insects, birds,
: and cats. A case in point: my son, who lives 2000 miles away, is a cat
: person, as are we. At one time we had six of the dear cr eatures and we
: decided we would send our son a picture of us with all of our cats. My
: son-in-law came over and shot 25 exposures; one of the actually
: contained parts of all six cats; the other 24 had at best 5 cats or
: parts of cats.

Your experience definitely strikes a chord with me. My daughter too is a
skilled photographer of children. She has taken countless excellent pictures
of her kids and attributes most of her success to banging away until she gets
what she wants. She says it's not unusual for her to take 300 to 400 pictures
in a half-hour photo shoot, and from the times I've watched her in action, I
believe it. I also take pictures of her kids, obviously, but the best of her
pictures are routinely better than the best of mine, even though I'm far
better equipped. (She uses only a P&S in auto mode and insists that a mother
of three kids under six can't take on the additional weight and complexity of
a DSLR.) So if I weren't already a believer in taking lots of pictures, her
experience would probably convince me.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008

"Allen" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de news:
479531a1$0$22663$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.
>>
>> 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

> I'm on your side, Bob. I always took many exposures, especially of
> individuals or groups of people. I have always tried to disguise just when
> I was going to shoot to avoid the stupid grins of the "Say cheese" school.
> It is is especially important to shoot bunches of exposures of children.
> My daughter, who is an artist, inherited this from me and consequently I
> have some wonderful, natural looking pictures of my grandchildren. A
> couple of years ago I decided to scan all my old slides and I was
> surprised at the number of close-to-identical shots I had. It's also an
> absolute necessity if you're trying to get pictures of flowers when there
> is the slightest wind, and also with insects, birds, and cats. A case in
> point: my son, who lives 2000 miles away, is a cat person, as are we. At
> one time we had six of the dear cr eatures and we decided we would send
> our son a picture of us with all of our cats. My son-in-law came over and
> shot 25 exposures; one of the actually contained parts of all six cats;
> the other 24 had at best 5 cats or parts of cats.
> Allen


Me too, in film days I would very often hesitate when it was obvious the
shot was going to be bad, nevertheless I still threw away many shots.
Experimenting was the worse because the cost of each shot was being
considered, this is why I liked B+W better, I could buy film in 100 foot
rolls and load my own film canisters (I sold off everything a couple of
years ago) and only print the ones I found good enough. Color printing was
just too expensive and involved for me.

I had a small ½ frame camera I liked a lot (still have it), small, fixed
focus and loaded with ASA400 in 36 exposure I could take 72+ pictures before
changing film. I had this camera almost constantly with me. Now with
digital, I don't mind snapping away and don't really care if I throw away
many shots, this is especially true in action sports photography where a
keeper may be one in 4.

Jean


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary Edstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
>restraint more based on quality than cost?


Before I got my first digital camera, my picture taking days were all
but over.

Digital changed all of that.

One thing that I was always disappointed about was that my father had so
few pictures of the back woods cabin that he grew up in in Michigan. He
only had 4 B&W pictures that showed the cabin around 1920, and all of
them were from the same side.

I was determined that that was not going to happen with my parent's
house that my mother lived in for over 40 years before she died. I have
over 1,500 pictures taken inside and out around the house. All rooms
from all corners, as well as close-ups of many objects in the house.

Sure, they are not all masterpieces! I wasn't trying to create
masterpieces! Neither was I trying to create anything to sell. I was
creating memories.

Sure, I may have gone overboard with the number of pictures of the
house, but nobody in the future should ever be disappointed that I
didn't take more.

And I intend to properly maintain my digital collection, moving them to
new higher density media as appropriate, so that they don't end up with
something obsolete that they can't read. I currently have about 35,000
digital and scanned images in my collection.

Gary
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
On Jan 21, 4:11*pm, Gary Edstrom <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
> >restraint more based on quality than cost?

>
> Before I got my first digital camera, my picture taking days were all
> but over.
>
> Digital changed all of that.
>
> One thing that I was always disappointed about was that my father had so
> few pictures of the back woods cabin that he grew up in in Michigan. *He
> only had 4 B&W pictures that showed the cabin around 1920, and all of
> them were from the same side.
>
> I was determined that that was not going to happen with my parent's
> house that my mother lived in for over 40 years before she died. *I have
> over 1,500 pictures taken inside and out around the house. *All rooms
> from all corners, as well as close-ups of many objects in the house.
>
> Sure, they are not all masterpieces! *I wasn't trying to create
> masterpieces! *Neither was I trying to create anything to sell. *I was
> creating memories.
>
> Sure, I may have gone overboard with the number of pictures of the
> house, but nobody in the future should ever be disappointed that I
> didn't take more.
>
> And I intend to properly maintain my digital collection, moving them to
> new higher density media as appropriate, so that they don't end up with
> something obsolete that they can't read. *I currently have about 35,000
> digital and scanned images in my collection.


I do the same thing. I have very few photos of the house I grew up in
and very few of the inside of my grandparents houses. So I take a lot
of photos of both our house and my parents, and friends for that
matter. I also would have liked some photos of the old beater cars my
parents use to own.

I like to do wide angle shots like this one.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/91972678/original
Sort of give a feel for the whole area at once.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
rwalker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008

"Juan Moore Beer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

snip

>
> Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
> restraint more based on quality than cost?
>
>


I absolutely take more photos when shooting digital instead of film.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Robert Coe
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.


Coming from the professional, medium format world, I have learned
discretion.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Gary Edstrom
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> One thing that I was always disappointed about was that my father had so
> few pictures of the back woods cabin that he grew up in in Michigan. He
> only had 4 B&W pictures that showed the cabin around 1920, and all of
> them were from the same side.
>
> I was determined that that was not going to happen with my parent's
> house that my mother lived in for over 40 years before she died. I have
> over 1,500 pictures taken inside and out around the house. All rooms
> from all corners, as well as close-ups of many objects in the house.


i did the same thing, but with 360 degree panoramas. there's simply no
way that would have happened with film.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:19:47 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in <210120082219470128%(E-Mail Removed)>:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Gary Edstrom
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> One thing that I was always disappointed about was that my father had so
>> few pictures of the back woods cabin that he grew up in in Michigan. He
>> only had 4 B&W pictures that showed the cabin around 1920, and all of
>> them were from the same side.
>>
>> I was determined that that was not going to happen with my parent's
>> house that my mother lived in for over 40 years before she died. I have
>> over 1,500 pictures taken inside and out around the house. All rooms
>> from all corners, as well as close-ups of many objects in the house.

>
>i did the same thing, but with 360 degree panoramas. there's simply no
>way that would have happened with film.


Fish eye lens.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 
Reply With Quote
 
jean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
I like to do wide angle shots like this one.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/91972678/original
Sort of give a feel for the whole area at once.

Nice images, what do you use to stitch?

Jean


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: leftover pyc files Andrea Crotti Python 21 11-04-2011 11:15 PM
leftover pyc files Andrea Crotti Python 0 11-02-2011 02:03 PM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
WIn XP leftover fax seems to try dialing out Ike Milligan Computer Support 2 05-13-2004 09:53 PM
popen, popen3, and leftover processes Hal Fulton Ruby 9 04-28-2004 07:51 AM



Advertisments