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?

 
 
Toby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008

"Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:210120082132251439%(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.


The professional photojournalist world was never so discrete, and they are
much less so now in the digital age.

Toby


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

"Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.


Most fashion shoots sound like firing ranges with machine guns. You only
need one good capture to pay for all the rentals and model fees, etc. Why be
timid with exposures that cost nothing but an insignificant amount of
electricity and shutter wear? One good shot often brings enough to buy a new
camera.

Toby


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ChrisM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
In message 210120082132251439%(E-Mail Removed),
Mr. Strat <(E-Mail Removed)> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> 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.


As a rank amateur, I would have thought it depends on the circumstances,
location and subject. If you are photographing a model in a studio then each
shot should be carefully composed before pressing the shutter, and there is
little need to 'waste' shots.
However, if you want to take a natural picture of your kids playing in the
park, or any other situation where you have little control over the
subject(s) then surely it is better to take more photos than you need and
then select those that contain what you were trying to capture from the
scene the best...(?)

Having said that, even in the first situation, shooting off a few 'candid'
shots between poses or trying to capture moments where the model is relaxing
might just give you a great picture you wouldn't otherwise have had! What's
the harm in trying.

I'm not saying here that quantity can ever be a substitute for quality, or
that a cr*p photographer can accomplish great results(except maybe by lucky
fluke) simply by taking hundreds of shots of the same scene, but within
reason, surely taking more photos than you need can only ever be a good
thing(?)


--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:00:43 -0500, jean wrote:
>
>> 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

>
> Hugin


Earlier, the free Autostitch:

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html

which I liked enough to buy the paid-for Autopano Pro:

http://www.autopano.net/

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
bugbear
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
Ali wrote:
> 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.


Sometimes I find digital is slower, although the fault
is mine...

I (fairly often) take a shot, check it, realise
I've made an "obvious" mistake, and take a second shot.

It would probably be quicker (overall) to proceed
a little slower, think a little more, and take
only "the second shot" (if you see what I mean)

My current bad habit is of course a direct
consequence of digital.

Fortunately, most of my subjects don't move much.

BugBear
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary Edstrom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:50:21 -0800 (PST), Scott W <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>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


I recently finished scanning every single transparency in both my
father's and my own slide collections: Over 7,000 of them. Among my
father's slides sides was this little gem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cadillac_1948.jpg

It was his 1948 Cadillac. The picture was taken in May 1952. He did
not keep the car for very long as he didn't like the way it drove. I
would only have been 3 years old at the time. I think I have some very
faint memories of the car. The slide took a little bit of restoration
work because the magenta layer had faded so badly.

The old neighborhood is long gone. All the houses you see were taken
back in 1966 for the 2 freeway that heads from Los Angeles up towards La
Canada. We lived in that home for about 17 years.

Gary
 
Reply With Quote
 
George Kerby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008



On 1/22/08 12:25 AM, in article http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed),
"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.

As ususal, you're "half-ass" there.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
On Jan 21, 3:38 pm, "Juan Moore Beer" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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


When I got really serious about film photography I would take a LOT of
shots, because the cameras had no AE or even lightmeters, so we
bracketed a lot. We home developed to reduce the cost of processing.
The film was cheap in those days.

When we got cameras with light meters, I did less bracketing. When we
got cameras that had really good AE that worked, I took even fewer.
And we gave up much of the home processing, moving to color film.

With digitals I DO find myself taking more shots, but for a different
reason. While I do still bracket a bit for exposures, I find more of
the repetition is different camera angles, different plane of best
focus (I still do not use AF much), and that sort of thing.

Also, I am more inclined to take a quick grab shot that I might have
foregone in the earlier era.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Marvin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
Juan Moore Beer wrote:
<snip>
> 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
>

I take MANY more photos with digital. The limits are time
and my interest, and in some situations not wanting to be a
pest to others.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2008
Mr. Strat wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Robert Coe
> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 it means just that. Your anal retentive days of setting up
every shot with that nagging "ohmygodmyprocessingbill" voice in the
back of your tiny little mind are history. Gone. Buhbye.

What photographers SHOULD be doing, and by photographers I'm talking
about everyone form your 9 year old daughter to NatGeo's first seat, is
gobbling up terabytes of storage with indiscriminate and unplanned
hormonal shooting. Then culling out chafe and processing the wheat.
That process will produce a better product in all but the most narrow
of circumstances, create generations of photographers who have learned
their craft the best way there is (making a LOT of mistakes), and
capture more and more of the micorhistory that you stodgy, fixated
dunderheads would have missed entirely.

You can argue about the technological "quality" of digital versus film
all day long and make valid points both ways. What you can't deny is
the economy of digital, nor its sheer scope when it comes to enabling
the photographer. If you're not using those tools to your advantage,
you're emotionally retarded.

 
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