Need more storage space for trip!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Joseph Meehan, Jun 4, 2004.

  1. I was in Dayton Ohio yesterday and stopped at the Dayton Art Museum.
    The were having a Edward Watson exhibit I wanted to see.

    I have seen a number of reproductions of his work, but I wanted to see
    something more original and hopefully more in context of his art. I found
    it all there and formed a much higher appreciation for his work. I suggest
    it for anyone who gets a chance to see it, I believe it will be there for
    at least another six weeks.

    Ok I am sure you wonder what all this has to do with the topic line.
    Well believe it or not, he had the solution to the regular question we see
    about how to store the thousands of images someone is going to take on their

    While working to provide a set of photos to illustrate book and having
    very little time to do it, he amazed himself by exposing 18 negatives in one
    day! Another time he had a government contract and managed to expose a
    total of 800 negatives ....... In 8 months of travel.

    What does this suggest. Well like a good photograph it may mean
    different things to different people, but to me it means that he did not
    waste his film, time and talent making hundreds of second rate images in the
    hope that one might be good, rather he _crafted_ each image carefully,
    making a small number of good to great images rather than making a great
    number of poor to fair images.

    I suggest we all should learn to take the time to become good
    photographers rather than good editors, or worse keepers of many thousands
    of poor examples of the art only proving how poorly we can do

    I fear digital has increased the tendency to substitute volume for
    Joseph Meehan, Jun 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Joseph Meehan

    Bill Turner Guest


    I am told even the best photographers are sometimes surprised at some
    part of the image they have captured. Had they taken only a minimum
    number of photos they might well have missed it.

    Nothing wrong with learning to be good photographers, but I suggest we
    still take lots of images. The law of averages will sometimes reward
    Bill Turner, Jun 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. I fear that you are correct.
    Charles Schuler, Jun 4, 2004
  4. Joseph Meehan

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Professionals, even with film, go for volume *and* quality. Digital
    just lets the rest of us do the same.

    Phil Wheeler, Jun 4, 2004
  5. Joseph Meehan

    Bill Funk Guest

    This really depends on what you want.
    If you want "art" (and I see nothing wrong with that at all), then you
    may be right.

    However, not all photographers are trying to be artists.
    For example, a lot of the photography I do is documentary in nature;
    specifically, I take pics to show where I've been, and what I've seen
    there. Which means, also, what's there to be seen.
    Museums are wonderful places; not all museums are art museums, by a
    long shot. When I go to, for example, the Pima Air & Space Museum,
    shooting a dozen pics is just not going to happen; a few hundred is
    more like it. I'm not looking for a block-buster photo to sell to
    someone, I'm looking at photos that show what's there.
    There's no waste of film doing this. I don't need to print a single
    photo. I can burn all the CDs I want for a few bucks.

    While photography as art is fine, shooting a few hundred pics in a day
    doesn't cheapen photography, or lead to lousy shots, or anything like
    that, *if* those pics are what's wanted.
    Nor does shooting in volume like that preclude knowing how to make
    that special photograph when you want to.
    Bill Funk, Jun 5, 2004
  6. Joseph Meehan

    mcgyverjones Guest

    I have no doub that you are correct. It is fun to snap a pic, and without
    even a minor financial disincentive to hold back, there is a huge tendency
    to shoot anything and every thing "just-in-case". I dread being shown
    vacation photos even more now than I did a few years ago. Digital cameras
    (in the very amateur realm) are really more like camcorders than cameras in
    many cases.
    This is not to damn the technology though. I think it brings far more
    positives than negatives (pun sorta intended :)

    mcgyverjones, Jun 5, 2004
  7. Joseph Meehan

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: "Joseph Meehan"
    Ansel Adams said the exact same thing except instead of "digital" he said "35
    mm" :)
    Bill Hilton, Jun 5, 2004
  8. But what of all the things that he saw but didnt photograph, what off
    all the potential memorys of that time in the world that are now lost
    to the rest of us... how many of the "few" shots he took were
    contrived to his personal opinion and were posed.

    Let me put it this way....

    When I do a BDSM shoot, I let the players do what they do best and
    that is to perform a scene that they both (dom and sub, or top and
    bottom, or sadist and macoshist) enjoy... they know what gets them
    off, and I try to capture that... I cant say "hold on, put your arm
    up, put your knee down, put the flogger just there..." because then
    its posed, and even if its posed for selective shots such as a flogger
    decending on a bum.. it can take multiple shots before the blur,
    flogger, bum, are in just the right combination to make someone
    believe that they have just seen a single frame of a moving object
    impacting with a stationary one.

    The object and subject of the image can have a huge impact on the
    number of shots required, a photo of a shanty town with a couple of
    cowboys lent back on two legs of their chair can be done in one
    shot... 30 cowboys riding into town, or a heard of cattle being
    hearded by 5 cowboys (not a heard and 1 cowboy... hardly real) takes a
    damn site more to get the perfect shot, hence the reason most stills
    are of the previous not the latter.

    also add to that the relitave cost per shot, shooting "real life"
    wastes a huge amount (did you know that hitlers man goballs,
    spelling?, used to choose individual shots from cine film of his
    family to be printed in his family albums... we're talking maybe 1 in
    1000+ "shots"

    On a known environment, with a tipical "portrate" shoot I aim to get 1
    in 2 to 5 shots that are printable.

    In an unknown environment, but portrate.... I waste about 10 up front,
    then aim for the same amount.

    In say a bdsm scene, then we're talking 300-400 shots, 1 in 30 would
    have been "ok" when I started, but now I aim for, usually get, 1 in
    10 "keepers" then have to cut that down for prints/web if I have

    What I dont want to do is record the perfect suspension of the perfect
    model with the perfect ropes, nor do I want to capture porn with the
    kink of BDSM, but rather the connection and horrors and excitement and
    wow and oh shit, of the event... and give a few very good and artistic
    "snaps" of the events un-folding before me.

    I use the word "snaps" reservedly because it gives the impression of
    some guy with an on board flash snapping away for his mucky personal
    collection, but I aim to have good lighting with photos that the adult
    general public can view and be shocked or amazed, a depiction of how
    the real life flow of a bdsm scene is...

    True I work in an area that most would class as "porn," but if so I
    try to put as much effort into it as others would put into a classic
    landscape or portrate... I just work with a more fluid subject than a
    non moving person or landscape!
    Jonathan Wilson, Jun 5, 2004
  9. Joseph Meehan

    MadHatter Guest

    I suggest we all should learn to take the time to become good
    I do understand your point. However, much like Bill Funk mentioned,
    much of the shots that I take are documentary. When I'm on trails I
    like to take a lot of pictures of the surroundings. I know that the
    vast majority of these pictures aren't anything special and wouldn't
    be of interest to anyone else, but that's not why I'm shooting them.
    I won't have another chance to visit many of those places, and having
    a visual record of the places that I've been fortunate enough to visit
    is of great value to me.
    MadHatter, Jun 5, 2004
  10. Joseph Meehan

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I think you are seeing the glass as half empty. On my vacation I shot
    470 pictures. Had I been using a film camera, I would have shot more
    like 100. It is not that they would be better, only that I would have
    to consider the cost versus being able to record everything I wanted.
    Art is fine, but most of us aren't artists, or even 'craftsmen', we just
    want to record the moment, and the more of them we can record, the
    happier we are. Digital for me.
    Ron Hunter, Jun 6, 2004
  11. Joseph Meehan

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Yes, affordably.
    Ron Hunter, Jun 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.