Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Agree with the above - depends on what I'm shooting. If I'm on vacation, I might take 1000 shots - per day. If just walking around the neighborhood - might take only 10.
Unfortunately - - I'm no arteeest. I take the shot because it interests me for some reason. To me - they're all unique captures of a moment in time - never to be repeated - hence I tend to keep them all {unless I've double clicked unintentionally}. That doesn't mean that I DON'T try for interesting compositions - but I rarely spend more than 15 seconds on composition and setup. On final review - possibly 5% as I look back through the day's megabytes have that "WOW" factor. Another 10% might fit into the "really good" category. But storage space is cheap - so I probably keep 95%.
-
What do I like about digital photography? So what's NOT to like (oh yeah - - that's part 2b). Being pretty much a thoroughbred Geek - the pure gadget factor is fascinating. You've got instant control of all the important parameters which can be tweaked in the moment to obtain the optimal shot. Then when the shooting is done - you can play for HOURS on your computer, transmorgrifying what you've captured to better match the way you remember it. I suppose this would be different if this were something I HAD to do - rather than a hobbyist pastime. As a rabid hobbyist - there is no consequence if I choose NOT to pick up the camera for a week rather than if it were something I HAD to do to put dinner on the table.
-
What don't I like? Just that I can't afford a 500mm prime lens. There is no cure for Gear Acquisition Syndrome, and although it may not CAUSE my death - it will greatly decrease the quality of the casket I can eventually afford.

leatherhelmets Loc: Center Conway, NH

"Gear Acquisition Sndrome" that's classic. Love it. Thanks Merlin

ggiaphotos Loc: Iowa

[quote=JeffT]
As for what do I like about digital, I think there are two related things. They are the ability to experiment at low cost along with the ability to go back to a photo and look at the EXIF data. In the film days one had to keep a notebook to write down the aperture, shutter speed and film speed (ASA at the time). If you were shooting B&W film you might also write down what color/type of filter you had on the camera as well. It's great not to have to write it all down any longer.

I agree Jeff- probably one of the handiest learning tools EXIF data. I can experiment with different settings and have the immediate satisfaction for what worked best. Waiting several days to see results of film, and the lab adjustments you were never really sure. I didnt have the dark room and was never able to see the joy/magic of the picture appear, I missed out.

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

Yes, film has been a good teacher, hasn't it? And I feel akin with many who cut their teeth in film, developed expertise and are PO'd at the crap that auto everything produces. THEY know the value of doing it right. It is welcoming to see that they are going back to the fundamentals of great work, many liking the manual approach and are getting tired of taking hundreds of pictures, having to weed out so much junk - it is time consuming. Wearying, ya?

You know what is interesting? When movies are being shot, they try to get their shot in a few takes as possible - rarely going over 7 times. 2-3 is their aim for the same camera postition. Julia Roberts does not like to rehearse, but gets the drift and the script and the character in her head and on the first take, she is naturally spontaneous and those are the good ones. Sometimes she has to do it a 2nd time. If not, the 7th take she will get it right.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could adopt that attitude? Get it right the first time - they can be the best. Film forces you to do that because of the cost and inconvenience. It can be hard to develop that mind-set with such freedom and easy to delete stuff. It takes great discipline to work on a DSLR the way you did in a film camera.

Those that started in film are the ones who probably make the best shots today.

And the other good news, is that Kodak is going to continue in film because of the demand still and scrap the digital line of products. Film still outperforms digital.

BTW, did you notice that those beautiful 6-10 pointed stars from the bright lights are far far prettier on film than digital? It has something to do with the random grain structure I am told. A sensor can't replicate that nearly as nice.

Cheers and goodnight,
Take 5

icanimagine Loc: Sacramento, Ca

I just filled up (2) 8 gb cards shooting Sandhill Cranes and canadian bonkers. One thing I like about photography today is that I can afford to do that. One thing I don't like is that I have to do that. I've been using my 7d for almost a year now. I paired it with a new 300mm f/4 IS lens. It's still a learning experience. Maybe 5% are what I consider printable. I love the continious high speed shooting capability of digital. The art of taking a picture (for me) has somewhat diminished. Hopefully, once I learn my gear the "art" will return.

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

My friend, I couldn't help but notice your comments. Try this (from experience). Pretend you are a National Geographic photographer. Get in the character and believe it with all of your heart. Tell those strangers around you that you are on assignment. And then pretend that you have film in your camera, 36 exposures and that is it! You're done. So you have no choice but to get the very best shots the first time.

I have done that (yup -told the onlookers I was from NGS and I wanted their pictures and they posed the way I directed them to) I could not believe what I shot, it was so damned good. I fooled them. They are probably looking at every magazine for the next year looking for their pictures!

But I also fooled myself. The quality was at that level. No kidding. And I only had 2 1/2 rolls of slide film too!

Try it!

Cheers,
Take 5

rts2568

To Take 5 Cinema
From rts2568

Good News or what? What have you heard about Kodak still doing film? If they are going to get their Kodachrome going again I'll be very happy. Digital stuff doesn't come near to it yet; colour is lousy, even on the best sensors I've tried (Nikon D3s & D4s).

Love to hear about some good news on that front. Hey, I could bring my old F2s & F3Ts out of retirement, now wouldn't that be fun!

rts2568

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

To rts2568 who puts his name in each message four times :-)

Kodachrome is done. There is zero way it is coming back. There is a huge thread over at apug about Kodachrome, it is quite different from regular E6 and among other things a Kodachrome line needs an industrial chemist to start it up and shut it down. Process has many chemicals that are nasty.

And in the end, poor marketing led to poor sales, poor sales led to discontinuation and because nothing else used the process and only Kodak make the chems, it's gone for good. Sad but true

Edit: Kodak still make Tri-X and Portra. That's enough for me, especially when you see how gorgeous the new Portra is

rts2568

Thanks for that Take 5 Cinema
We can but dream. Perhaps its for the best for the environment anyway, all those nasty chems' you mention.

Appreciate that, even though it's ended in disappointment.

rts2568

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

I saw a news article / release that Kodak was going to continue in film. Buddy is right - K-25 is done, but print, movie, professional, negative, papers, E-6 I think are still going to be made.

I don't know the extent of what will be done, but they are gonzoing the digital hardware. Isn't that strange? Here these guys develop the digital sensor, own the patents on every sensor out there and it was that thing that just about killed them because it cut into their bread and butter of film.

I watch lots of seminars comparing movie cameras to film - they are fantastic. And each and every time, they will shoot film and make direct comparisons to the new gear. It was fun to watch how the DSLR Canons, Nikons and Panasonics and the new breed of uber expensive ($100k) Sony's, Red's and Arri movie gear compared to film. Now these were all taken on movie mode, not still mode, so results may vary for the DSLR's.

Guess who won in all counts?

I think they shot a Canon 5Dmk2 and compared it with film in still mode. Film was still better. By some margin too if you A/B'd it.

I guess in the end, does it matter? We can become pixel peepers and like the madness of audiofiles who want .0000000005% harmonic distortion, and 500,000 bit sampling, no one is going to hear or see the difference, so who gives a rat's ass? This can become an obsession that will kill creativity in the field.

You should see the movie trailer I made using in part, a 5DMk2 for the night shots of Steam locomotive at a full head of steam, a singer in a darkened hall, mountain bikers tearing through the autumn leaves. My pro Sony Z5 could not take the night shots, but the Canon 5D did. It will send goosebumps down your spine. NO it is not like the new breed of 2012 Movie cameras that can see in the dark with astounding resolution, but damn, you are riveted to your seat. See, story is king and the Canon did a wonderful job.

Have a boo and tell me. YouTube Search for: A day in the life of Salmon Arm.

Remember the Blair Witch project movie? They used el-cheapo cameras and the story got them headlines and $3M. It is the story that counts. It is king. Not always latitude, Mpx's, and techie stuff.

But film, K-25, 64 - damn it had a nice run.

Sigh,
Take 5

bubbaDon Loc: southern tier, New York

I probably keep 1/2 half of the ones I shoot, I love my dslr Canon Rebel,. I love my computer, wished I was as agile on it as my grand kids, Hate photoshop.

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

I have filing cabinets full of film and negatives. I have been shooting since I was 10 and that was 50 years ago. I do not miss film a bit. I find that very few of my photos are keepers but I am VERY picky. Most people, judging from what I see online, would keep way more than I do. I was the same with film though. I may keep one or two per hundred shots. That was the same with film too. If it is not at least National Geographic quality I don't even process them. I know my camera and the settings and I always shoot in manual mode and in raw format unless I am doing something where I can batch process like time lapse of the sky. Then I will shoot jpeg simply because I am to lazy to process 3000+ photos even with batch processing and, I don't have the memory for that many raw files anyway. I see my photos as an art. By the way about the painting remark, even Da Vinci did retakes (reused the same canvas he had already used.)

ggiaphotos Loc: Iowa

Such truth, such funny stuff! You made me chuckle Merlin, thanks :lol:

MtnMan Loc: ID

Thanks to all who have contributed great and somtimes amusing input on this thread. I usally don't read through a thread before posting but this one kept my interest.

I keep most of my digital photos mostly because I am too lazy about deleting them. That doesn't mean I'll ever do anything with them.

I know my digital photos, particularly in the last year, are many times superior to those I took on film. I was a casual film photographer. I had a pretty nice (for the time) SLR and occassionaly got some great pictures with it...but they were the exception. Once as a kid I tried a little developing but didn't go far with it. I just dropped my stuff off at the store to be developed into slides or printed. Most of the prints pretty much suck. We have a project to go back and scan this huge pile of slides one day...maybe this winter. I expect I'll only find about 10% of them worth keeping.

The thing I like most about digital is the rapid feedback, first on the camera itself and then in the computer. I have learned more in the last year than in the previous 60.

The thing I dislike is finding out how dumb I was about photography for all those years.

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

You know what, I was in the category, although I swear I had the intelligent part of the ADHD syndrome so I was really serious and learned the art.

My world changed when I took several courses from professional dudes and it changed everything. I went up a few notches overnight. Suddenly I KNEW how to take great stuff and it became a lot of fun. Never looked back.

If there is any way you can avail yourself to the expert mentoring, DO IT. It makes your pictures go from suck to Life magazine quality quality. The number of duds drops by 2/3. Each picture is well thought out and taken FAST. I often put myself in a mental space that I am on Assignment for the National Geographic Society, or Life Magazine or an assistant for Karsch. Ya, really. You would be amazed at how it instantly it makes your work of that caliber. And to make it even better, lie to the unsuspecting that you are doing it. I swear to you that you have NO CHOICE BUT TO PROVE by results that you are that photographer. And then it is one of the most wonderful of passions when you see the results.

And the keepers ratio goes well over 50-60%. No shit. And the number of takes, is measured in tens, not hundreds. Try it. And you get to fool everyone including yourself. The learning curve is insanely fast.

There is one downside though. It doesn't cure yourself of gear acquisition syndrome entirely. That syndrome comes because your current work looks like shit and the excuse made is that you need better and more gear. The upside is that you might be able to earn a bit of dough to go from a used beater casket to one that is on sale because the previous owner died. (or something like that)

Cheers,
Take 5