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 <>, Chris Malcolm
    <> wrote:

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


    The experience should be evident. I only mention it when asked "what
    give you the authority" type questions.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jan 23, 2008
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. John Navas

    Martin Brown Guest

    On Jan 21, 9:38 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 was more careful with colour but did my own B&W processing with bulk
    film refills.
    >
    > 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 definitely take more photographs using digital than I ever did with
    film, but there was a long changeover period where I took the best
    shots on slide because the digital could not compete on quality. I
    also found the shutter lag of the earlier digicams infuriating. Now
    that is not an issue, but for a long time I found myself using up all
    the remaining "film" on my digital media before transferring it to the
    PC.

    These days I only shoot onto slide for lecturers who want to give
    talks away from an LCD projector.

    You can afford to experiment more with compositions and difficult
    available light conditions with digital since film is not wasted. I
    almost never delete any image that I take unless I am about to run out
    of storage space and needs must. You can only see really gross errors
    on most LCD displays and some cosmetically bad looking images may
    contain the detail you wanted to capture.

    Panoramas are much easier with digital than with film prints and a
    scalpel (and a bit of a let down using slides).

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jan 23, 2008
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. John Navas

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Robert Coe wrote:
    > 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


    I think the difference is in what is being photographed. If one is
    trying to photograph a person (portrait), then keeping only 1 in 20
    shots would make sense. However, tossing 40% of your vacation shots
    means you either don't know how to compose your shots, and just shoot
    haphazardly, and discard the ones you don't like, or you don't like to
    see a lot of pictures. I rarely take pictures of people, posed. I like
    candids, and most of those I keep. I suppose if I were photographing a
    bowl of fruit, I might save only one or two good ones. Photography is
    such a varied pursuit it is difficult to understand how other people use
    it, and why what they do is right for them, but wouldn't work for me.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 23, 2008
    #63
  4. John Navas

    Ron Hunter Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > 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. :)
    >

    Yes, rather like 'nailing jelly to a tree'. Grin.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 23, 2008
    #64
  5. John Navas

    Toby Guest

    "Mr. Strat" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:220120080954511410%...
    > 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.


    This depends on your definition of quality.

    Toby
     
    Toby, Jan 23, 2008
    #65
  6. John Navas

    Toby Guest

    And, of course we must include wildlife photographers among those who love
    the image/cost ratio of digital.

    Toby

    "Mr. Strat" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:220120080954511410%...
    > 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.
     
    Toby, Jan 23, 2008
    #66
  7. John Navas

    nick hull Guest

    In article <>,
    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    > 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.


    I've seen many pictures that looked great thru the viewfinder but crap
    on film, the film sees different than the eye ;)

    Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
     
    nick hull, Jan 23, 2008
    #67
  8. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:41:30 -0600, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote in <>:

    >Robert Coe wrote:


    >> 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".) ;^)


    >I think the difference is in what is being photographed. If one is
    >trying to photograph a person (portrait), then keeping only 1 in 20
    >shots would make sense. However, tossing 40% of your vacation shots
    >means you either don't know how to compose your shots, and just shoot
    >haphazardly, and discard the ones you don't like, or you don't like to
    >see a lot of pictures.


    Depends on personal style. I take lots of vacation shots of a given
    subject with the intention of only keeping the best one, and take lots
    of experimental shots that I know are probably not going to work out.
    Labeling that as "haphazardly" or "don't know how to compose" is
    judgmental and a bit insulting. What matters is the result. Note how
    many trial images Ansel Adams would typically take before the one that
    got published and became famous. The best way to learn and to discover
    is to take *lots* of images.

    >I rarely take pictures of people, posed. I like
    >candids, and most of those I keep. I suppose if I were photographing a
    >bowl of fruit, I might save only one or two good ones. Photography is
    >such a varied pursuit it is difficult to understand how other people use
    >it, and why what they do is right for them, but wouldn't work for me.


    Apply that logic to the first part of what you wrote. ;)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 23, 2008
    #68
  9. John Navas

    Scott W Guest

    On Jan 23, 7:21 am, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:41:30 -0600, Ron Hunter <>
    > wrote in <>:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >Robert Coe wrote:
    > >> 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".)  ;^)

    > >I think the difference is in what is being photographed.  If one is
    > >trying to photograph a person (portrait), then keeping only 1 in 20
    > >shots would make sense.  However, tossing 40% of your vacation shots
    > >means you either don't know how to compose your shots, and just shoot
    > >haphazardly, and discard the ones you don't like, or you don't like to
    > >see a lot of pictures.

    >
    > Depends on personal style.  I take lots of vacation shots of a given
    > subject with the intention of only keeping the best one, and take lots
    > of experimental shots that I know are probably not going to work out.
    > Labeling that as "haphazardly" or "don't know how to compose" is
    > judgmental and a bit insulting.  What matters is the result.  Note how
    > many trial images Ansel Adams would typically take before the one that
    > got published and became famous.  The best way to learn and to discover
    > is to take *lots* of images.


    I think you missed the second part of what Ron said, "or you don't
    like to
    see a lot of pictures." Whereas Adams most likely took far more shots
    then he published I doubt he threw away many of them.

    Like you I take a lot of shots, but I don't throw away any of my raw
    files and will only trim out maybe 5%-10% of my jpeg images, that were
    converted from raw.

    There have been times that we have gone back to the same spot years
    later and I wanted to compare before and after shots, sometime it is
    the weaker looking before shot that is of more interest. For example
    a photo that is mostly an empty field that now has a shopping mall on
    it might be interesting now, but might not look worthwhile saving when
    first taken. It is so easy to just keep everything that for me at
    least it does not make sense to edit down my raw photo collection.

    Scott


    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jan 23, 2008
    #69
  10. John Navas

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:19:10 -0600, nick hull <> wrote:
    : In article <>,
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : > 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.
    :
    : I've seen many pictures that looked great thru the viewfinder but crap
    : on film, the film sees different than the eye ;)

    So does the digital sensor! ;^)
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 24, 2008
    #70
    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:
    586
    Ike Milligan
    May 13, 2004
  2. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    429
    Serge IZOARD
    Nov 1, 2004
  3. Serge IZOARD
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    322
    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