Personal problem.
Jun 16, 2018 16:54:00 #
Filmmakers have a term "shooting ratio"! Not lighting ratio or aspect ratio but again SHOOTING ratio. It has to do with how many "takes" are done and/or "footage" is expended to arrive at the finished product. Of course in motion picture production there are many facets so the ratio has to do with the director, the director of photography, the editor and perhaps even the actors or cast in the production.
Some directors will habitually demand many takes while others are reputed to wrap up each take pretty expeditiously. I would imagine that some productions leave miles of film on the "cutting room floor" while others are more efficiently shot, and require less "waste" in order to arrive at a final edited version. In the end , however, budgetary issues aside, the quality,substance and integrity of the film is judged on the final results.
Over the centuries in cinematography, many changes in equipment, technology and processes have changed. There were the hand cranked Mitchell cameras, the motorized and spring driven 35mm cameras, massive Technicolor cameras with 3 reels of film moving through the gates, BIG Panavision and other formats with giant anamorphic lenses, 70mm, Cinemascope, Cinerama- which required multiple projectors, Imax and nowadays the DIGITAL AERIFLEX is the crown jewel of movie makers. Fact is, a good filmmaker can produce something respectable in 16mm or even super 8.
When medium format and 35mm film cameras began entering the commercial, wedding, portrait and news fields, the large format diehards insisted that photography is going to hell in a handbasket. Meanwhile, there was a well known architectural and art photographer in New York who was producing masterful images with a MINOX (16mm) subminiature system.
Of course digital images and film images my have a different look or feel or somehow the technology may encourage"laziness" in some photographers. Aside for the technology itself what else is so different in so far as technique and application. Optics have improved but the principles are still the same. Light and lighting has not changed- the angles of incidence and inverse square laws have not been altered. Refraction, reflection, diffraction, color temperature, diffusion are all in place and the sun still shines in the sky! Digital technology does not influence composition any more than a wet-plate camera would have.
There are photographers who are true artists AND fine technicians who produce consistently masterful results, oftentimes on demand. There are other photographers who experience beginners luck or take hundreds of images and may occasionally come up with something decent or even great based on the laws of chance and averages. There are hacks who just don't know what they are doing but are having fun anyway. It's a free country- at least for now!
Some directors will habitually demand many takes while others are reputed to wrap up each take pretty expeditiously. I would imagine that some productions leave miles of film on the "cutting room floor" while others are more efficiently shot, and require less "waste" in order to arrive at a final edited version. In the end , however, budgetary issues aside, the quality,substance and integrity of the film is judged on the final results.
Over the centuries in cinematography, many changes in equipment, technology and processes have changed. There were the hand cranked Mitchell cameras, the motorized and spring driven 35mm cameras, massive Technicolor cameras with 3 reels of film moving through the gates, BIG Panavision and other formats with giant anamorphic lenses, 70mm, Cinemascope, Cinerama- which required multiple projectors, Imax and nowadays the DIGITAL AERIFLEX is the crown jewel of movie makers. Fact is, a good filmmaker can produce something respectable in 16mm or even super 8.
When medium format and 35mm film cameras began entering the commercial, wedding, portrait and news fields, the large format diehards insisted that photography is going to hell in a handbasket. Meanwhile, there was a well known architectural and art photographer in New York who was producing masterful images with a MINOX (16mm) subminiature system.
Of course digital images and film images my have a different look or feel or somehow the technology may encourage"laziness" in some photographers. Aside for the technology itself what else is so different in so far as technique and application. Optics have improved but the principles are still the same. Light and lighting has not changed- the angles of incidence and inverse square laws have not been altered. Refraction, reflection, diffraction, color temperature, diffusion are all in place and the sun still shines in the sky! Digital technology does not influence composition any more than a wet-plate camera would have.
There are photographers who are true artists AND fine technicians who produce consistently masterful results, oftentimes on demand. There are other photographers who experience beginners luck or take hundreds of images and may occasionally come up with something decent or even great based on the laws of chance and averages. There are hacks who just don't know what they are doing but are having fun anyway. It's a free country- at least for now!
Jun 16, 2018 17:05:02 #
josquin1
Loc: Massachusetts
Funny how digital photography for me encourages me to get out there and photograph as it is so much more immediate while with film I was so much more frugal as it was so expensive. I still compose just as carefully though and am very careful with dynamic range. It's really so much fun also. I get the same highs I got shooting film. Just a different set of issues to be aware of.
Jun 16, 2018 17:35:25 #
Jun 16, 2018 19:07:38 #
josquin1 wrote:
Funny how digital photography for me encourages me to get out there and photograph as it is so much more immediate while with film I was so much more frugal as it was so expensive. I still compose just as carefully though and am very careful with dynamic range. It's really so much fun also. I get the same highs I got shooting film. Just a different set of issues to be aware of.
I know this is a long shot, but you aren't the same person who used to post on a well known public radio discussion board with that same handle, are you? I don't know many Josquins...
I posted as, imaginatively enough, "AndyH" which happens to be my actual first name and last initial.
AndyH
Jun 16, 2018 23:08:28 #
Jun 16, 2018 23:21:05 #
josquin1 wrote:
Sadly to say I am not.
I knew it was a long shot, but Josquin1 was a person I really liked, kind and intelligent. I hope the handle brings good karma to you!
Andy
Jun 16, 2018 23:24:07 #
josquin1
Loc: Massachusetts
Thanks. I don't know who Josquin 1 was but Josquin himself was a great renaissance composer who I love.
Jun 17, 2018 00:17:01 #
josquin1 wrote:
Thanks. I don't know who Josquin 1 was but Josquin himself was a great renaissance composer who I love.
That was Josquin1's answer as well. I've researched some of his work, and have Miserere (sp?) and a couple of others on my Renaissance playlists.
Good taste.
Andy
Jun 17, 2018 08:31:30 #
josquin1
Loc: Massachusetts
Some say that Miserere Mei Deus is the 1st 12 tone piece. An amazing composer.
Jun 17, 2018 09:24:34 #
josquin1 wrote:
Some say that Miserere Mei Deus is the 1st 12 tone piece. An amazing composer.
My musical ear is not sensitive enough to form an opinion on that, but I love the piece.
Andy
Jun 17, 2018 09:27:14 #
Jun 17, 2018 11:18:37 #
Just listened to his AvaMaria on Utube! Absolutely beautiful. Listen in if you want a peaceful experience. I love pre Baroque music!
Jun 17, 2018 11:24:13 #
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Just listened to his AvaMaria on Utube! Absolutely beautiful. Listen in if you want a peaceful experience. I love pre Baroque music!
Jun 17, 2018 11:55:26 #
Jun 18, 2018 18:01:43 #
Jerry G wrote:
I shot film years ago and recently renewed my inte... (show quote)
When I shot film I was much more careful because of the cost. When I learned how to develop film in the late '60s in college, I bought Tri-X 400 in 50 foot rolls and loaded my own canisters; I shot a lot more than when I was shooting color slides, especially at the sports car races. I would typically shoot about 7 rolls of 36 exposure per day at the races, and if I got one good photo per roll I was satisfied. At the time, it cost me about 50 cents per roll including the chemicals to develop the film. Then I would print the best negatives. Now, when I go to the sports car races I typically shoot about 3,000 per day. I do some "spray and pray" because I can. I usually end up with about 10-20% good and a few really good ones. I also take a lot of photos of our grandchildren because they are often moving a lot. My wife and I spent the summer of '73 (11 weeks) all over Europe and I shot about 500 color slides during the whole trip. I wish I had shot more, but we were self-supporting college students and that was what we could afford. I can't believe I didn't get any photos of the running of the bulls in Pamplona. We're leaving on a two week European cruise soon and I suspect I'll shoot about the same number per day this time. I don't think there is one "correct" way to take photos. Whatever makes you happy and gets the results you want, do it!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.