Rules I made for myself.
Nov 12, 2019 13:30:16 #
Curmudgeon wrote:
Back in the Kodachrome days Frederick Kent Truslow... (show quote)
The sheer difference in marginal costs between film and digital makes any comparison pretty much irrelevant.
After a day of shooting, all I care about are the keepers. I couldn't care less how many shots it took to get them. Have you ever seen an amazing photo amd then dismissed it due to how many shots the photographer took that day?
Nov 12, 2019 13:31:55 #
There are no rules for good photographs, great photographs have just one: the photoshop work is exquisite.
Nov 12, 2019 14:31:05 #
Curmudgeon wrote:
Back in the Kodachrome days Frederick Kent Truslow... (show quote)
Unless he shot only static scenes I would be willing to bet that Truslow had motor drives on more then one of his cameras and didn't hesitate to use them when the opportunity arose, but, there were distinct limitations on that system as far as speed and capacity. I doubt that there is a professional today shooting action scenes who doesn't use burst shots, if his or her camera is capable of it as almost are. I also doubt that there is a pro from the days of film who wouldn't love to shoot those same action shots with the burst capabilities of today's cameras. Shooting a 2 or 3 second burst of a landscape is pretty dumb, IMO, but, a 2 or 3 second burst of a ball player or charging animal can make the difference between a good shot and a great one.
Nov 12, 2019 14:31:24 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
There are no rules for good photographs, great photographs have just one: the photoshop work is exquisite.
Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.
Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Nov 12, 2019 14:39:34 #
LFingar wrote:
Unless he shot only static scenes I would be willi... (show quote)
Fred shot wildlife. If all you say is true, how do you account for the difference between 1 in 100 with Kodachrome processing and 1 in 1,000 with digital post processing? Just asking.
Nov 12, 2019 14:55:31 #
Imagine your photography if you approached every image as if it were your last. Would you keep all the failures?
Nov 12, 2019 14:57:11 #
Nov 12, 2019 15:27:25 #
oregonfrank
Loc: Astoria, Oregon
CHG_CANON wrote:
Photography has no rules, it is not a sport. It is the result which counts, no matter how it is achieved. ~ Bill Brandt
Some photographers operate by self-imposed rules, which was the point I believe.
Nov 12, 2019 16:03:41 #
The difference between Success and Failure is simply the <Delete> key.
Nov 12, 2019 16:05:31 #
Nov 12, 2019 16:10:29 #
Nov 12, 2019 17:10:43 #
Nov 12, 2019 17:14:10 #
Curmudgeon wrote:
Fred shot wildlife. If all you say is true, how do you account for the difference between 1 in 100 with Kodachrome processing and 1 in 1,000 with digital post processing? Just asking.
Probably because of limitations in speed and the hassle of having to stop and change film photographers in the age of film shot far less and in turn Nat Geo and other publications had far less to chose from. A Canon 1DXII shoots something like 14 shots per second. A 3 second burst would be close to 45 frames. How many frames could a film camera with a motor drive shoot back in the day? How many frames would the photographer want to shoot knowing that he would have to stop and change cameras or film? Modern technology has removed that restriction and any professional photographer who doesn't take full advantage of what his or her equipment can do isn't too smart, IMO.
Nov 12, 2019 17:41:59 #
par4fore wrote:
GOD BLESS OUR VETS! br br 40 years of shooting, s... (show quote)
These are awesome rules, I will follow for sure.
Nov 12, 2019 17:44:24 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Photography has no rules, it is not a sport. It is the result which counts, no matter how it is achieved. ~ Bill Brandt
That's true.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.