Well, actually ... I know that we're talking about photography, but I can relate it to other activities. Imagine a craftsperson - never mind what sort - a seasoned craftsperson, well-versed in their chosen medium and the techniques of working it. When engaged on a project, no matter how elaborate, even a groundbreaking one, I bet that you'll find that they cultivate an economy of means to arrive at the chosen end. And there's an elegance in that. A layperson or even a client of that craftsperson might not recognise this, but a fellow craftsperson certainly should have the insight that this is how it works.Not saying I'm right and spray-and-pray is wrong. Just what works for me.
Yes, we could always rescue it in the darkroom later.Loads of leeway with neg. film anyway.
Yes, the "Oh I like to get it right in camera" crowd do annoy me (a bit). From a film background "getting it right in camera" is a given and it didn't need to be stated.Well both formats are capable of the same results it’s the methodology that changes and some will prefer one and some the other. I’m glad my days in the dark room are long behind me but I don’t enjoy spending hours at a pc either.
For me the biggest focus shift that has to take place in digital is the idea to ‘get it right in camera’. Of course we should get it as right as we can and I’m not advocating sloppy camera work but in digital photography the second pc you use is just as important as the first pc you use. The first pc being the camera!!
The more photos you take the more crap photos you take but also the more good photos. If you don't then you're doing it wrong.
That's exactly what I do!Why not ditch your digital camera altogether and buy a high resolution GoPro or similar videocamera then? Just sit down at then end of the day and select the frames that worked!
Yes it’s viewing digital photography through the eyes of film and that’s very very limiting.Yes, the "Oh I like to get it right in camera" crowd do annoy me (a bit). From a film background "getting it right in camera" is a given and it didn't need to be stated.
Again don’t limit yourself by what new tech can offer, ok it might not be for you or me but many great images have been grabbed from video frames.Why not ditch your digital camera altogether and buy a high resolution GoPro or similar videocamera then? Just sit down at then end of the day and select the frames that worked!
Peter SchmeichelHow do you define a "keeper".
A subjective matter, but I'd definitely recommend a good A3-sized lightbox. If you haven't one, and want to make your own, the stuff to get is 40% transmission opal acrylic (aka Perspex). Bang a light source under it and though the illumination will be uneven you're good enough to go. For mono or colour neg the colour temp is irrelevant. For colour positives, your eyes will make the necessary adjustments. An 8x loupe is a handy counterpart.How do you define a "keeper".
I think he is. 3 is a more likely numberIf you're not exaggerating, Andy, then you should be ashamed!
Yes. It was less problematic with 35mm (especially if you used half-frame) but quite harsh if using 120 film and were limited to 12 or even 8 shots before the fun of reloading. I don't buy that it made for better pictures but it certainly meant that the better the viewfinder the more chance of getting a keeper if you were recording something involving rapid change.The medium forced you to take less and take more care (not a bad thing don't get me wrong) but it wasn't a free choice as such.
As a one time film guy I've come back to photography via digital.
In my film days I was relatively fussy with my shooting. Only 36 on a roll plus the expense of processing/printing focused the mind.
Digital seems to be a different methodology. Though we want to get it right in camera we know we have raw/LR/PS to fall back on and shooting is "free". A lot of guys/gals on youtube seem to shoot 500 shots a day, more in the hope of getting a keeper.
Have you made the transition and how have you handled it?
For those that used to use film before there was digital could it be that IF film had been as easy and as cheap to process as digital that you would have taken more?
That would depend a very great deal on who you're talking about. Take press photography which I know a bit about as my early life was in the newspaper industry.Pros where certainly shooting as much in the film days as they are shooting now in digital.
Pros where certainly shooting as much in the film days as they are shooting now in digital. Digital removed the cost barrier so amateurs could shoot as much as the pros (and thus get more keepers).
This contact sheet from Richard Kalvar shows it best, he's shot the best part of a roll to get one photo. If he had a digital camera I'd image he'd of shot the same number of photos.
https://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/contact-sheet-richard-kalvar-woman-window/
...
This job involved a Mamiya TLR and 1 roll of HP5. God help me if I'd come back without a usable shot!
The 'fun' of easily rattling off shots is soon lost after 3 hours in front of LR just pressing x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,p,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x
Why does it have to be one or the other?
...because I am a sad fat git who sits here in his underwear stuffing his face and pretending I'm cleverer than everyone else.Because by polarising, we can form tribes that provide a tighter-knit peer group who we hope will support us and our beliefs against those on the outside - who are WRONG.
In my film days I rarely could be arsed to take photos, partly due to the expense and mostly as I never had the control I'd like
As soon as I switched to digital my love of photography finally found its home, and I couldn't love it more in both the shooting and the PP
Dave
Because by polarising, we can form tribes that provide a tighter-knit peer group who we hope will support us and our beliefs against those on the outside - who are WRONG.
or perhaps embrace it. All I know is that in general the more images I bring back the lower the percentage I'm happy with. However: like all rules there are exceptions.I know its my problem. I need to get over it.
I'm a bit late to this party but -
For those that used to use film before there was digital could it be that IF film had been as easy and as cheap to process as digital that you would have taken more? The medium forced you to take less and take more care (not a bad thing don't get me wrong) but it wasn't a free choice as such.
Comparing film photography from 'back in the day' before digital was even a twinkle in your fathers eye to modern day digital photography isn't really a straight comparison, it's like comparing bananas with pineapples, they're both fruits but they're completely different.
The fully manual camera was a very demanding tool to use that took a great deal of time to learn to use properly. .
To anyone who understands the fundamental basics of photography (think box brownie), learning how to operate a film camera is a doddle.
The menus in menus with all the bells and whistles of digital can make the learning curve of some kit much more severe.
This however could also be said for a few of the later slr cameras such as the Nikon F70 with its “space age”, as it seemed back then, lcd readout.
By contrast if computers and similar devices are your “thing” then the chances are that a dslr will pose little ,if any difficulty.
.
Give me ANY film camera and I’ll figure it out almost immediately, hand me a digital and I feel totally confused.
Agree with you there! I lone the simplicity of my Rollei, and previously Leica and Nikon film when you just take off a lens cap, set exposure, focus and click! With new cameras there are so many choices with focus zones and the like.
the fundamental basics of photography (think box brownie)
That would depend a very great deal on who you're talking about. Take press photography which I know a bit about as my early life was in the newspaper industry.