DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Digital v Film again

Clive, what do you make of the many famous and accomplished photographers who did (and still do) shoot thousands upon thousands of photographs in the manner discussed above?

In addition, if you like to work in the manner you have described, and indeed are obsessed with minute detail and resolution, why aren't you using a view camera or at least a 6X9 MF camera? Your endless goings on about 35mm quality seem pointless if you like to shoot the way you have outlined above.
 
Marc,

They have the talent and access to locations and subjects that I lack.

I do however use a 3.2Mp digital, 35mm Contax classics (ii, iiia, D, F, etc)in mono mainly, G2, RTSiii, RB67, 6x9 Super Ikonta and 13 x 9cm field camera at present. I have also dabbled with Linhofs in 6 x 9 and 5 x 4 too. Each has its uses idiosynchracies and pleasures.

The 'endless goings on' about 35mm quality only relate directly in comparison to digital cameras as you well know. And I don't quite see what relevance the way I shoot has to 35mm. Are you trying to suggest that the great exponents of 35mm landscape photography such as John Shaw simply snap away without thought?
 
Clive I am not suggesting anything, just asking a couple of straight forward questions:
What do you make of all the highly respected photographers that do shoot a ton of photographs? Are they "Cod spewing a million eggs in hopes of a few making it?"

You answered the second question with your list of equipment.
 
>Clive, I have seen your work and it is very good. I also like to think I have some good shots. What is amazing, is that my friend, through the magic of digital and KNOWING what makes a good shot, has already built a portfolio stronger than mine and better then the shots I've seen from you. And, as a strong amateur, he has done this in 6 months. He just has that "edge" we don't seem to have! So ... he makes me work harder for some more intereresting images to shoot in the future.

And your "photos in a box" comment ... He has his images on his hard drive, he has them on a CD. He has hard copies (prints) of some of his work. I seem to be missing your point. You seriously think that negatives and /or slides have a longer shelf life then digital? He can print his work, he can post his work to the net, have hundreds of people view the work. What is the point you are again trying to make?

Respectfully,

Michael.
 
Well, there are certain reasons why a pro might be producing 10,000 images a year that are different from an amateur producing the same quantity. Testing and experimenting by taking photographs is a good thing for anyone, if you measure your results and go back out armed with the knowledge of what didn't work (or did work) last time and reapplying your efforts. Soon enough, you're shooting fewer and fewer shots in order to produce the keeper shots. I think every year I shoot measurably less, but I tend to have more images that I feel are worthy. If a person is shooting (what was the number?) 10,000 images as an amateur, I sure hope that after every set of 20 or so they are reviewing their results critically so they don't need to keep shooting that sort of volume. I can't lay my hands on the newsletter right now, but I remember in John Gerlach's newsletter from the early '90s or late '80's he explained that when he makes an exposure he wants to be sure that his exposure is dead on, because he might fire between 3 to 6 (or more) of the same scene with the same readings just to fill the needs of the stock agencies he supplies, as well as for his own stock. He doesn't bracket as a rule. If he did, he explains, he would need to take those 6 images and multiply them by 3 (at least) for bracketing. That's 18 shots, he'd have two scenes on every roll of film. (He's my hero for understanding exposure.) Anyway - so if someone like John Gerlach makes 10,000 images a year I can understand what is going on, he's selling at a high rate. It is expected of him and others of his ilk. I wanted to add this little story because I too was raising an eyebrow wondering how much the fellow shooting his digital is learning from his experiences. Just my opinion, of course. -Lynn
 
Marc,
Once again your views reflect the narrow professional standpoint whereas I hope that I reflect the amateurs who make up the majority of Contax Forum members. The difference in someone who makes their whole living out of photography against someone like myself who takes photographs for pleasure and maybe sells a few to offset some of the costs is considerable.

How many none pro's take more than 25 rolls of film a month every month? That is 11,000 images per year or $4,500 p.a. at current D&P rates. I would bet none.
 
Clive, while I totally appreciate your point of view concerning the differences between professional and amateur needs, (and think it is valid), your specific comment was about an amateur's approch using a Canon P&S G2., not about a pro's work. Therefore, your last post is meaningless to me.

So, my question still stands...which has gone unanswered. A question asked only to point out that shooting a lot of photographs is validated by many, many highly respected photographers...and with the use of digital capture it is a technique now more available to amateurs without busting the bank. Michael made a point connected to that technique which suggested it made a huge difference in the overall development of his friend's photography. Which I can believe, even sight unseen...because...

these new ways of making images are revolutionizing many people's approach to photography. Nothing in my fairly long stint at shooting has made as big a difference than has digital. The beauty of it is that if you embrace both, both reinforce each other. For an amateur, it can shorten the learning curve toward understanding more advanced techniques, and do it with little risk and almost no expense after the initial investment.

While I am not solidly in either c&, choosing film or digital for their respective strengths...I get a distinct impression you are a digital basher and either ignore any valid opinion in support of it, or attack it with an empirical black or white mentality. Which now helps me understand your personal comments as to my "contradictory" approach. For I do not see it in black or white terms, but in a much more fluid, inter-locked manner. It's all photography to me whatever the medium used to make the capture. And beauty is forthcoming from both.
 
(quoting Marc Williams: > So, my question still stands...which has gone unanswered. A question > asked only to point out that shooting a lot of photographs is > validated by many, many highly respected photographers...and with the > use of digital capture it is a technique now more available to > amateurs without busting the bank. (end quote)

Marc, although I realize again we are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum and our views will not mesh, I would like to say I don't feel this is a reasonable suggestion to make to a photographer who is just starting out, nor to any amateur. If you read my last post about the concept of shooting a whole lot of film (or memory cards) you might catch my point. If one is shooting a high volume as a means of "gee I wonder what will happen, I'll shoot this 3, 5, 10 different ways to see what happens", but does not document or make note of conditions or camera settings then it really is a waste of time, not just money. With this scatter method, shots that are worth having but are fleeting in time may be misjudged since the shooter is not developing a sense of what will actually produce the right image. I do not advocate shooting 10,000 images a year even if the cost is nil, UNLESS every 12, 24, or 36 shots are documented and then studied later to see what works. I remember doing this myself many years ago, without a data back, writing down conditions, location, time of day, they type of sky/sun, and then my readings from my meter, and how I was compensating for the shot. Then I would shoot two versions; one straight from my meter's reading, and one that I felt was right based on what I studied. Maybe a third if I wanted to see "what would happen." It helps one develop a sense of what a stop, or half stop, or even a third stop looks like as well. After getting those slides back, I would sit down with my notes and see what the results were. Which choices worked, which didn't. Which produced surprising results. Then when setting off to shoot next, I didn't need to go to these lengths to get the good shots. I could fill up my film (or in your case it would be memory card) with keepers more often than shots destined for the bin. This is why I don't believe your or Michael's statement about shooting 10,000 images as being good advice for the amateur as a general rule, unless they are extremely disciplined and learning from their notes, they will continue to HAVE TO shoot 10,000 images to get the keepers. It doesn't matter if you're shooting digital or film, I feel the same that the suggestion of anything else is just not sound in time, or money mangement. It is just common sense. -Lynn
 
Digital Hater – no. I would love to be able to use the benefits of the system. But, not at the expense of the lower image quality that it would currently entail. Read my posts again.

You question was not about Michael’s friend, but about commercial photographers. Read it again if you can’t remember. It was answered.

Pro’ .v. Amateur – You views are almost entirely based on your professional perspective and that includes shooting miles of film or Gigabytes of memory. Your list of cameras and equipment used this year alone reads like a B&H catalogue. The ones out here reading this forum in real life, the ones who have to save up for their cameras and entertain the kids on a weekend will not have the time, money or interest in shooting 10,000 images a year.

But if I did have the time and money to increase my throughput ten fold I still doubt if my output of good images would double.

As for contradictory anyone who has followed this forum from the start will have seen you change direction more times than a wind vane.
“The ND rocks!” “The ND sucks!”
“The ND’s image is great!” “The ND’s image is garbage!”
“I’ll never buy another Contax again.” “I’m looking for another Contax.”
“I can’t tell the difference between a print from a ND and one from a Rollei medium format.” “I can see the difference from a Contax 645 digital back and my medium format film camera.”
Are just a few that spring to mind. They are there along with many others in the files if you choose once again to disagree.
 
Alright already. Enough, please. Clive, you do make some interesting points, but I wish you'd not make claim= s suggesting you 'represent' in any way all of the [sic] "none pros." You hav= e a rather rigid perspective, that seems to be fixed and immovable. Marc, however, uses both film and digital and has experienced, as I have, that both have their virtues. And, I don't much care that you can point out a fe= w 'inconsistencies' in voice from a huge archive of postings. The guy has a perfect right to change his mind. Over the course of using certain equipment, I believe anyone is entitled to re-evaluate an expressed view, especially since the technology and relative processes are so new. Whatever= . Since Marc is not the official spokesperson of the industry or any manufacturer, he can have different opinions at different times. And, it's our responsibility as mature, rational readers of opinion, to interpret and/or decipher any piece of material that passes before our eyes. If you'r= e suggesting that simply because it is written (by a 'pro') then it should stand as gospel, then you're suggesting this to some very na=EFve people. And= , only arrogance would permit you to 'parent' the forum and make assessments as to who's posts should have 'x' amount of weight with 'y' readers.

So, please. This 'civilized bickering' has exhausted itself. Get on with discussing something else. Like MTF curves, or which lens will let me shoot like Avedon, or which is better - Zeiss/Leica, Mac/PC, etc. Some more usefu= l stuff, if you will.
 
Back
Top