Leftover thriftiness from you film days?

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

  1. John Navas

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <4795c199$0$325$>, Toby
    <> wrote:

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


    Who ever said that photojournalists created quality images? Most of
    what I see these days is crap.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jan 22, 2008
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. John Navas

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article
    <>,
    <> wrote:

    > Who else but Randall Ainsworth...


    Just a sec...I wanna let the applause die down.

    > 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?


    I have a Hasselblad EL/M. Does that qualify as a motor-driven camera?

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


    I wish I could go back, but the days of film are over.

    > 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.


    I needed to make large prints and have retouching done on people's
    faces. Plus, 35mm just was too damned small.

    > 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...


    If one needs to shoot multiple exposures, be my guest. But I've
    witnessed too many people just holding down the button in hopes of
    getting something good instead of learning what makes a good image and
    training their eye.

    > 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:


    With wedding formals, I usually shot two of each setup just to make
    sure there weren't any blinks (although I could usually tell if someone
    blinked).

    Last summer, I was at a drag strip to watch my 76-year old uncle race.
    There were times when I took more than one image of a racer going down
    the track, but I pressed the button each time (like a semi-automatic
    rifle) rather than put the thing in burst mode.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jan 22, 2008
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. John Navas

    Anonymous 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


    First of all, I'm just an "enthusiastic amateur" even though I've sold a
    few shots along the way more or less by accident.

    My first film camera was a Korean Conflict era Argus, so that gives you
    an age reference. I shot film right up through the Canon EOS era,
    investing a considerable amount of money in processing along the way.

    My first digital was a Panasonic PDC-640 I believe. Thought it sucked,
    and by film standards it did. But it was cheap so I used it here and
    there as a toy. Made a great webcam back in the 386 days. ;)

    A couple years ago I bought a Canon Digital Elf. Forget the exact model,
    but it was up in the 4 megapixel range. Took really nice snapshots, and
    my film camera started gathering dust except for special occasions.

    This year I received a shiny new D80 for Christmas complete with the
    18-135 and 70-300VR, new tripod, mono-pod, backpack, couple extra
    batteries/cards etc.

    I'll probably never pick up my film camera again. I can shoot literally
    thousands of times more top quality pictures than I use to, and it costs
    essentially nothing. I can shoot every single day, all day long if I
    want, and it costs essentially nothing. And being a retired old cuss now
    that's something that's real valuable to me on a couple levels. It
    absorbs time, which I have an abundance of, and it doesn't stress my
    more or less fixed income even though I still work part time here and
    there in the residential construction trade. Which means these days I
    have more time and less money than a couple years ago. ;)

    So to actually answer your question, no, I am one of those old school
    folk who knows all about the economy of picking your shots but it
    certainly hasn't followed me into my full on digital days in any way I
    can see. I shoot mainly in P or A, typically make a few adjustments to
    the baseline, and then let continuous mode take over for a few frames.
     
    Anonymous, Jan 22, 2008
    #43
  4. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:38:27 +0000, bugbear
    <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in
    <>:

    >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.


    I usually leave my digital in a burst mode so I can rip off a sequence
    of shots. I often find the best shot to be one in the sequence that
    I couldn't have captured with single shutter press. Kids are a classic
    case in point, because they will often pose stiffly for a picture, and
    then relax into a much better photograph once they hear the shutter has
    been pressed, making my second shot the best image. That's also part of
    why I usually keep shutter sound turned on. ;)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #44
  5. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:19:58 -0600, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote in <>:

    >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'.


    Or like trying to herd cats. :)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #45
  6. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:17:52 -0600, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote in <>:

    >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.


    The issue for me is noise, making it hard to find good images in
    archives. While I do keep more of my family shots, I'm ruthless when
    culling my other photographs, sometimes discarding more than 90% of the
    images. I'll often experiment with shooting a given subject a dozen
    different ways, and all I want to keep is the one best image. I find
    that those unwilling to cull their photographs are often either unsure
    of image quality or too busy to bother.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #46
  7. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:26:36 -0600, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote in <>:

    >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.


    Sometimes those accidental shots can be quite interesting.
    But I only save them if they actually are interesting.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #47
  8. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:40:14 -0600, Neil Ellwood
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >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?


    >Hugin


    Another vote for hugin, although get the latest beta from for best
    results. My easy Windows installers for hugin betas are at
    <http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=7814de75d2a4340991b20cc0d07ba4d23ed6fdb5c6ab3d83>

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #48
  9. John Navas

    Allen Guest

    Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:35:32 -0800, "Mr. Strat" <>

    <snip>
    > :
    > : 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


    In regard to "Mr. Strat", I have some advice for him regard to shooting
    off his mouth: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

    "Mr. Strat", whose ID I must assume comes from his stratospheric opinion
    of himself, continually shows why he went into my killfile long ago.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Jan 22, 2008
    #49
  10. John Navas

    Allen Guest

    Robert Coe wrote:
    <snip>
    I must mention one personal experience with extra exposures. Thirty-five
    years ago my employer decided to issue ID cards with pictures. The firm
    they contracted with used Polaroid equipment, so they could see the
    results as they worked. They retook two photos: one was of the president
    of the company (as they say in the army, RHIP) and the other was mine. I
    had just returned from a bout with surgery that resulted in an infection
    and six weeks recuperating, and with a totally pallid skin color; in
    addition, I had my eyes closed; to top it off, their output on all
    pictures had a yellowish cast. The impression was that, if had been a
    full-body-length photo, people would have wondered why there wasn't a
    tag on my big toe. With film equipment and single exposures, they would
    have had to return just to reshoot two pictures. Sometimes, apparent
    thrift turns out to be the expensive way.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Jan 22, 2008
    #50
  11. John Navas

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Allen <>
    wrote:

    > In regard to "Mr. Strat", I have some advice for him regard to shooting
    > off his mouth: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.


    Sure, why would you take advice from someone who has 40+ years of
    photographic experience and almost two decades earning a living in
    photography?

    > "Mr. Strat", whose ID I must assume comes from his stratospheric opinion
    > of himself, continually shows why he went into my killfile long ago.


    Try Stratocaster. Google it...you might learn something.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jan 22, 2008
    #51
  12. John Navas

    nick hull Guest

    In article <>,
    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    > 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.


    I'll second that; 30 years ago I took a lot of underwater pictures (on
    film) and everyone marveled at how good they were. They were good
    because I threw 90% of them away and only kept the best ;)

    Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
     
    nick hull, Jan 22, 2008
    #52
  13. John Navas

    George Kerby Guest

    On 1/22/08 12:01 PM, in article 220120081001426062%,
    "Mr. Strat" <> wrote:

    > In article
    > <>,
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Who else but Randall Ainsworth...

    >
    > Just a sec...I wanna let the applause die down.
    >
    >> 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?

    >
    > I have a Hasselblad EL/M. Does that qualify as a motor-driven camera?
    >
    >> And might I make the observation - just because you can shoot medium
    >> format, doesn't mean you should...

    >
    > I wish I could go back, but the days of film are over.
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > I needed to make large prints and have retouching done on people's
    > faces. Plus, 35mm just was too damned small.
    >
    >> 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...

    >
    > If one needs to shoot multiple exposures, be my guest. But I've
    > witnessed too many people just holding down the button in hopes of
    > getting something good instead of learning what makes a good image and
    > training their eye.
    >
    >> 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:

    >
    > With wedding formals, I usually shot two of each setup just to make
    > sure there weren't any blinks (although I could usually tell if someone
    > blinked).
    >
    > Last summer, I was at a drag strip to watch my 76-year old uncle race.
    > There were times when I took more than one image of a racer going down
    > the track, but I pressed the button each time (like a semi-automatic
    > rifle) rather than put the thing in burst mode.

    Funny car or Rail?
     
    George Kerby, Jan 23, 2008
    #53
  14. John Navas

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <C3BBEBEE.43427%>, George Kerby
    <> wrote:

    > > Last summer, I was at a drag strip to watch my 76-year old uncle race.
    > > There were times when I took more than one image of a racer going down
    > > the track, but I pressed the button each time (like a semi-automatic
    > > rifle) rather than put the thing in burst mode.

    > Funny car or Rail?


    There were all kinds there...even some semi trucks. But my uncle was in
    the slowest class...just a stock car...don't remember the class. He's
    lucky to hit 80 mph. But he raced back in the 50s, and they've just
    revived the drag strip.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jan 23, 2008
    #54
  15. Mr. Strat <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Allen <>
    > wrote:


    >> In regard to "Mr. Strat", I have some advice for him regard to shooting
    >> off his mouth: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.


    > Sure, why would you take advice from someone who has 40+ years of
    > photographic experience and almost two decades earning a living in
    > photography?


    If your photographic experience was evident in the quality of your
    posts you wouldn't have to keep telling people about it.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 23, 2008
    #55
  16. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On 23 Jan 2008 02:08:19 GMT, Chris Malcolm <> wrote
    in <>:

    >Mr. Strat <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, Allen <>
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>> In regard to "Mr. Strat", I have some advice for him regard to shooting
    >>> off his mouth: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

    >
    >> Sure, why would you take advice from someone who has 40+ years of
    >> photographic experience and almost two decades earning a living in
    >> photography?

    >
    >If your photographic experience was evident in the quality of your
    >posts you wouldn't have to keep telling people about it.


    Amen. That's almost always a sign of insecurity.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 23, 2008
    #56
  17. John Navas

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:17:52 -0600, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    : 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.

    Trust me when I tell you that I'm not good enough to justify doing as you
    suggest. I'm a packrat by nature, and if I throw away 60% of my shots, those
    shots deserved their fate. Those that aren't technically or compositionally
    deficient are duplicative of other shots that were marginally (or
    considerably) better.

    What may be getting lost in this discussion is that the only thing that
    matters is the result. If I shoot 20 pictures and save one, and you shoot
    three pictures and save one, each of us has one picture to show and/or enjoy.
    If your picture is at least as good as mine, you can ignore my suggestion to
    save more, If it isn't, you might want to consider taking more shots.

    (Note that when I say "you", I don't mean *you*, Ron, especially since you
    aren't really disputing my original premise. It's a generic "you".) ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 23, 2008
    #57
  18. John Navas

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:16:04 -0600, nick hull <> wrote:
    : In article <>,
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : > 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.
    :
    : I'll second that; 30 years ago I took a lot of underwater pictures (on
    : film) and everyone marveled at how good they were. They were good
    : because I threw 90% of them away and only kept the best ;)

    Which brings up another of my pet slogans. To most contributors to this
    newsgroup, I'm just restating the obvious, but I'll say it anyway: A good
    picture doesn't look better when displayed with other, poorer pictures. It
    looks better when displayed with other good pictures.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 23, 2008
    #58
  19. John Navas

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:22:15 GMT, Gary Edstrom <> wrote:
    : 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.

    I still think the '48 and '49 Cadillacs were some of the prettiest cars this
    side of a Duesenberg. To Hell with how they drove!

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 23, 2008
    #59
  20. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:18:35 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote in
    <>:

    >Which brings up another of my pet slogans. To most contributors to this
    >newsgroup, I'm just restating the obvious, but I'll say it anyway: A good
    >picture doesn't look better when displayed with other, poorer pictures. It
    >looks better when displayed with other good pictures.


    I'm not sure I agree with that. I tend to think a good picture looks
    good no matter what's around it, and might look even a bit better among
    not such good pictures.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 23, 2008
    #60
    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:
    585
    Ike Milligan
    May 13, 2004
  2. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    429
    Serge IZOARD
    Nov 1, 2004
  3. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    320
    Serge IZOARD
    Dec 2, 2004
  4. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    311
    Serge IZOARD
    Jan 1, 2005
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    420
    Martin Gallagher
    Jun 21, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page