Leftover thriftiness from you film days?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John Navas, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. John Navas

    Scott W Guest

    On Jan 21, 9:00 pm, "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


    I am using PTGui, it takes just a bit of time to learn to use it but
    it works very well and is fast.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 22, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. John Navas

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> 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.


    if you don't mind the distortion.

    what i created was a full quicktime vr panorama for every room, and
    when i have the time, i plan to link them all together so one can
    virtually travel throughout the entire house, room to room, zooming in
    on any part of the room, as desired.

    that simply is impossible with film.
     
    nospam, Jan 22, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. John Navas

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    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

    --
    Neil
    reverse ra and delete l
    Linux user 335851
     
    Neil Ellwood, Jan 22, 2008
    #23
  4. John Navas

    Guest

    On Jan 22, 9:35 am, "Mr. Strat" <> wrote:
    > 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.


    Who else but Randall Ainsworth...

    Randy, just out of interest, what technological advances/techniques
    *are* OK with you? Clearly motor-driven film cameras would be out..
    Right? If not, why not?

    And might I make the observation - just because you can shoot medium
    format, doesn't mean you should...

    Oh, but wait. You shot *medium format* because it was a
    *technological advance* that allowed you to *print large(r)
    pictures*. And that's acceptable behavior to Randy.

    But.. shooting *multiple exposures easily* because it is a
    *technological advance* that allows you to *capture moments you might
    otherwise miss* is NOT acceptable to "Mr Strat", because... umm...
    because...

    Do end that sentence for us Randall. And feel free to insert many
    alternatives in between those asterisks, and this time maybe have a
    think about them first, ok.


    Needless to say, Robert, I agree with you. And those who don't.. I
    suspect have never shot sports or children. Even someone who has shot
    weddings (allegedly) should know better. But perhaps being perfect
    means he never missed a shot... Every one of his group shots had all
    the folks smilingly nicely... (O:
     
    , Jan 22, 2008
    #24
  5. John Navas

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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
    >



    I certainly take more pictures than ever before. Cost is a significant
    aspect of taking pictures with film. I always had to budget some money
    for development, and printing, of pictures I took on vacation. Now, I
    snap as many as I like, and when I get home, I can save them all on the
    computer, send selected ones to relatives, and post most of them on
    Webshots. I rarely print any pictures, and then it is usually for
    relatives/friends without a computer.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 22, 2008
    #25
  6. John Navas

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Robert Coe wrote:
    > 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


    I certainly don't sneer at taking a lot of shots, but I do feel that
    anyone who discards 60% of his shots may be making a mistake. Sometimes
    that shot I thought wasn't really what I wanted is the only one that
    contained an image of 'Uncle John', who just up and died last week, and
    now I cherish that shot. Keeping that 60% of pictures doesn't cost you
    anything, so why throw them away? With Terabyte HDs going for under
    $300, there is little excuse to discard any image that is clear, and has
    an identifiable subject. I keep 99% of the images I take for the above
    reason.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 22, 2008
    #26
  7. John Navas

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Allen wrote:
    > 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


    Trying to photograph cats (or children) can be a really frustrating
    experience, rather like trying to count chickens. I think chickens are
    rather like a living manifestation of 'Brownian movement'.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 22, 2008
    #27
  8. John Navas

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    >
    > "Juan Moore Beer" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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.


    Or, in pool, if you can't shoot good, shoot hard. Something might fall
    in a hole. Grin.

    I take as many pictures as I feel I want to take, given that the cost of
    each one is effectively zero. I even keep some of the completely
    useless ones, such as the pavement in a parking lot, that was supposed
    to be a picture of a tumbleweed, which 'shutter lag' allowed to 'roll
    on' before the image was captured. I keep that one to remind me of the
    transient nature of all things, and the limitations of all manner of
    equipment.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 22, 2008
    #28
  9. John Navas

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    > On Jan 21, 4:11 pm, Gary Edstrom <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:38:09 -0800, "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?

    >> 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
    >

    A good pano stitching program is a great help for this type of shot.
    With a bit or practice, one can get really amazing shots without extra
    equipment to lug around.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 22, 2008
    #29
  10. John Navas

    Toby Guest

    "Juan Moore Beer" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > 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 more pix by a factor of at least ten. It is a bit like spam; the cost
    of getting rid of hundreds of duds is nowhere near the profit from one lucky
    shot that sells.

    I am often on news shoots with photojournalists and am amused that even when
    they are taking stills they use the motor drive and fire off sequences of
    four or five shots at a time...

    Toby
     
    Toby, Jan 22, 2008
    #30
  11. John Navas

    Toby Guest

    "Mr. Strat" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:210120082132251439%...
    > In article <>, Robert Coe
    > <> 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
     
    Toby, Jan 22, 2008
    #31
  12. John Navas

    Toby Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:58:25 -0600, Allen <> 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
     
    Toby, Jan 22, 2008
    #32
  13. John Navas

    ChrisM Guest

    In message 210120082132251439%,
    Mr. Strat <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

    > In article <>, Robert Coe
    > <> 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)
     
    ChrisM, Jan 22, 2008
    #33
  14. David J Taylor, Jan 22, 2008
    #34
  15. John Navas

    bugbear Guest

    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
     
    bugbear, Jan 22, 2008
    #35
  16. John Navas

    Gary Edstrom Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:50:21 -0800 (PST), Scott W <>
    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
     
    Gary Edstrom, Jan 22, 2008
    #36
  17. John Navas

    George Kerby Guest

    On 1/22/08 12:25 AM, in article ,
    "John Navas" <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:19:47 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    > in <210120082219470128%>:
    >
    >> In article <>, Gary Edstrom
    >> <> 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.
     
    George Kerby, Jan 22, 2008
    #37
  18. On Jan 21, 3:38 pm, "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


    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.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Jan 22, 2008
    #38
  19. John Navas

    Marvin Guest

    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.
     
    Marvin, Jan 22, 2008
    #39
  20. John Navas

    Anonymous Guest

    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 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.
     
    Anonymous, Jan 22, 2008
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ike Milligan

    WIn XP leftover fax seems to try dialing out

    Ike Milligan, May 13, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    608
    Ike Milligan
    May 13, 2004
  2. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    Serge IZOARD
    Nov 1, 2004
  3. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    341
    Serge IZOARD
    Dec 2, 2004
  4. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    333
    Serge IZOARD
    Jan 1, 2005
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    465
    Martin Gallagher
    Jun 21, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page